What you've never seen them extensively rigging up a building or site for explosion effects? take a look at the making of, of say I think it was windtalkers where they rig up several miles of hillside with both wired and remote explosives, probably 10x more complicated than your average building demolition.
NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
What you've never seen them extensively rigging up a building or site for explosion effects? take a look at the making of, of say I think it was windtalkers where they rig up several miles of hillside with both wired and remote explosives, probably 10x more complicated than your average building demolition.
No it doesn't please provide evidence for such remarks. We have posted lots of videos and reports on why it doesn't match demolition.
they never rig up several miles of explosives. and making a few flamballs is not more complicated than demolitiong a building. Most special effects charges have very little explosives in them, and are mainly things like petrol cans with a small charge and set of by wire.
Because you'd have to make quite a few calculations based on the impact point so that the collapse appears to be consistant with that, you'd also need to know there was enough weight and structure above the impact point to make it realisitc that the building came down under that weight... and theres not just "key points" scattered around the building like you'd see in the movies.
I suggest you watch a few more making of, especially windtalkers and other john woo movies where they rely less on CGI than some movies.
Perl harbor was another one where even with the extensive CGI used they also rigged up tons of explosive effects.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Ok, I'll admit I havn't read this thread all the way though. Can someone summarise the motivation for a conspiracy?
Also, i will remove the theory of planes and demolitions because clearly it holds no water, however i do still believe that with the windows blowing out the way they did, and the fact both buildings fell teh same way, that demoltions of some sort where used.
so where's these hundreds of explosions? it's not even true explosions and they are using wires.
why do you believe that? it's liek talking to a brick wall. Have you read teh reports and understand why the buildings fell the way they did?
I beleive that because i also belive that jsut because one report states a building fell that way does not rule out the indiviudal people who look at that and see something wrong.
no, i am not qualified in anyway to say how the building should or shouldnt have fallen, and no, i cannot prove anything.
but the opinions and accounts of the people who dont have the money to make 10,000 page reports should not be ignored and there are people, who despite all teh official reports still claim that the building went down demoltion style.
i do not at present, have the time to root out and fine all these accounts, as you will no doubt ask me to do, but, once i have soem work out of the way i will gladly post back with links to some indendant videos and articles from people who have very valid arguments as to why this DOES look like demolition
no, i am not qualified in anyway to say how the building should or shouldnt have fallen, and no, i cannot prove anything.
but the opinions and accounts of the people who dont have the money to make 10,000 page reports should not be ignored and there are people, who despite all teh official reports still claim that the building went down demoltion style.
i do not at present, have the time to root out and fine all these accounts, as you will no doubt ask me to do, but, once i have soem work out of the way i will gladly post back with links to some indendant videos and articles from people who have very valid arguments as to why this DOES look like demolition
It's not one report many people/organisations have looked at the wtc structure and have found it collapsed the way you would expect.
Trouble is you can't believe it, because you haven't seen another building collapse that way, guess what it isn't like other buildings.
It's eh same stupid argument about the moon landing photos being faked, people are using past experience on something totally new. It does not match, but guess what the scenarios are nothing like each other
Who cares if they aren't even true explosions? that wasn't my point, some where wired but not all, but there are other movie sets where they are working around several buildings and using radio controlled detonators, the point is that rigging lots of explosives up for remote detonation isn't that unusual or overly difficult to do.
except when you have them hidden for months in a building, planes crashing in them, fires and most importantly precisely sequenced down to nano seconds. It is not the same as a film set.
Er, what? They'd need heaps of time to organise this; they'd need to know when the towers would be hit, where they'd be hit, how badly they'd be hit... the list just goes on and on.
Then they'd have the problem of trying to sneak in and rig up the explosives without anyone noticing. Good luck with that!
Sounds like a film set to me 
I doubt they seriously had it in there for months, tho they would have hired the floors for months, I would expect they'd wait for a window of opportunity between scheduled maintenance and security checks and the stuff wouldn't have been in there for more than days or weeks tops.
They didn't need precise timing, it only needed to be within a few seconds.
The planes taking the rigging out in the initial impact or fires spreading downwards would have been the biggest threat after the logistics of rigging in the first place, but its not impossible to work with.
I doubt they seriously had it in there for months, tho they would have hired the floors for months, I would expect they'd wait for a window of opportunity between scheduled maintenance and security checks and the stuff wouldn't have been in there for more than days or weeks tops.
They didn't need precise timing, it only needed to be within a few seconds.
The planes taking the rigging out in the initial impact or fires spreading downwards would have been the biggest threat after the logistics of rigging in the first place, but its not impossible to work with.
When the hell did i ever talk about the moon landings, your just taking it one step further by telling me im a moron.
i couldnt care less about the moon landings, faked or not faked.
I cant believe it because the building is designed to support its own weight, and even tho these reports are more than likely correct, i find it hard to beleive that on two occurences of the buildings collapsed the same way, in what looked so "unlike" controled demolitions, hundreds of eye witnesses, including firemen and other emergency rescue units, independant people on from all over world and even some top demo officials have said that
, if the buildings do not naturally fall like that, the detonations need to be extremely precise.And no it's nothing like a film set. A film set is very well ordered. They know where the blasts will be, where fires will be and exactly what is happening.
The WTC was built in the 1970s, for crying out loud!
What kind of lunatic believes that even while it was being built, the government planned to destroy it with a series of controlled explosions 30 years later? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever; it's completely mad.
Good grief man, just listen to yourself!
but it's not built to withstand a plane and then fires.
what do fireman know? and have these so called emo people looked at the blue prints and structural diagrams.
it looks odd as it hasn't happened before. but it's also a diffrent building design than anything else. Go read about it's structure then you might start talking some sense rather than just saying I cant belive, even though you have no clue and can't explain why they should have fell any differently to what happened.
Last edited: