Do 911 conspiracy buffs realize.....?

Question

....how long it takes to wire a building? Explosive experts say several months of full-time access for much smaller buildings than 110 stories. How long would it take to wire TWO 110'ers, working only in times and places when nobody could observe them? Much longer than the first 9 months of the Bush administration I would guess. So what would that mean if WTC were controlled implosions??

-
"Amy" - why don't you find me a link to a person who implodes buildings for a living that says it is possible that towers were a controlled demo?
-

-
"Lori" you're even misquoting the conspiracy wackos. I have read the claims that the building was powered down for a WEEKEND, not two months (Still not long enough to wire the building for a controlled implosion into the building footprint) You can read the story in a thousand places. All the conspiracy nut-jobs say the same thing - "A weekend", so blow off.
-

Answer 1

There are very few true 9-11 conspiracy buffs. Apparently you don't realize most of the so called buffs on this board are fakers. lol. So no, they don't know much about wiring or imploding a building, they are fictions themselves.

Answer 2

Conspiracy buffs often ignore simple truths like the one you point out. They have to because otherwise their off-beat ideas won't stand up for more than a second. That's the nature of the beast.

There will always be a fraction of a percent of the people who want to believe in something other than the Occam's Razor simple truth. It gives them power to think that they have secret information. It lets them believe whatever they want to believe.

The examples are all around us. The two likely most famous examples are the JFK assassination which has been conclusively shown using forensic science to have been one guy, acting alone and the whole BS with aliens at Roswell.

Unfortunately with today's PC culture, no one stands up and says 'This is the Truth'. We always have to make room for the others' viewpoints whether they are 100% wrong or not.

The WTC was brought down by the internal steel frame succumbing to the heat from the result of the planes smashing into them with full fuel tanks. Period.

Answer 3

I agree. The conspiracy idiots also don't realize how much explosives it would take to do the job ether. It's not like some shadowy government agent can just sneak in a few sticks of dynamite in his jacket to do the job. It would take tons of C4 spread out around entire floors. This would be noticed by even the most casual observer. You would have to believe that all 50,000 workers in each tower, including the 3,000 who died, were in on the conspiracy. I played rugby with someone who died that day, and I don't believe he was complicit in his own murder.
People buy into conspiracy theories so they can feel more intelligent then the people who blindly accept what the government is spoon feeding them. What they don't realize is that rejecting everything your told in just as stupid as accepting everything. Their thought process is reactionary, not analytical.
"One is not superior, because he see the world in an odious light."

Answer 4

Uh, Amy, WTC 7 was on fire. I saw the film footage saturday when the History Channel aired 9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction. Falling debris from the twin towers lit WTC 7 on fire and diesal fuel from generators inside helped fuel the fire. The building was on fire 8 hours before it finally collpased.

edit: Amy, here's a link for photos. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
If you want to see video, watch 9/11 Fact or Fiction on the History Channel.

Answer 5

The buildings were built using exoskeletons as opposed to endoskeletons. This means the support beams were strictly on the outside walls, and the floors were suspended between them. When the upper floors collapsed, it caused a domino effect and each floor that came down on another one pushed it down on another one and so forth all the way to the ground.

Anyone who does not give the planners of 9/11 credit for knowing this would happen are fooling themselves. The reason the planes hit at different levels on different buildings is because as they were being built, sometime during 1972, someone cried "oh, asbestos. You can't be using asbestos." So the planes hit at the exact levels where the asbestos stopped, so as to do the most damage.

If you don't believe this one, check out photos of the towers during their building stages and look very carefully at how much taller one is than the other. Then compare that to where the planes hit.

I think anybody who could have the utter gall and ignorance to accuse the U.S. Government of having anything to do with the planning of 9/11 is absolutely vile. You should be ashamed enough of yourselves to move out of the U.S. and never, ever come back.

Answer 6

Because this has never happened before, of course there will be some mysteries, though there have been good explanations for just about everything.

Conspiracists would rather believe some odd ball theory and raise even more questions, rather than accepting the likely scenario with less questions...lol! I guess that's just the way their brain functions.

Answer 7

Bush didn't do it. It was a lot easier to just do nothing and let it happen. He had a great incentive to do just that: war-time powers for a president elected by the Supreme Court, with and asterisk and a question mark besides his name. With 9/11, he could invade Iraq, "straighten out" the Middle East, and become the greatest leader in history. Well, that was the plan, anyway. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

With 52 hi-jacking warnings received by the CIA in the months before 9/11, Bush could have ordered the FAA to ground any airliner without a lock on the door of the pilot's cabin. As a temporary fix, any garage mechanic could get two hooks and a chain at Home Depot and do a "good enough" job in an hour.

Israel had these locks installed 20 years before 9/11 without a single hi-jack attempt. The locks were recommended by Bush's own chief terrorism expert, Richard Clarke, as well as Clinton's transition team. (Under Clinton, the Republican Congress had refused to pay for the locks.)

Bush cleared brush at the ranch all summer, waiting for the attack. From his inauguration in January until one week before 9/11, there were no cabinet meetings on terrorism. And when Bush called one, he didn't invite Richard Clarke!

When the attack came, Bush was stunned by its fury and could not function for seven "My Pet Goat" minutes. It took a couple of shots to revive him enough to read a speech.

Who needs conspiracy, when it's so easy to do nothing?

Moral: Never hire a drunken boy to do a man's job.

Answer 8

and in their limited mental capacity
they dont understand volumetric pressure
IE - when the upper floors started to collapse whisp's
of smoke and dust were seen popping out on the lower floor 's
thank to a little thing called interior volume pressure
and it being forced out the windows ..
not from tiny bombs planted by bush
I would sooner believe in bigfoot,
than the 911 conspiracy the bush derangment syndrome
runs very deep

Answer 9

And since a relatively small group of people are technically qualified and would have to be called in from around the country wouldn't there families have asked questions.

Wouldn't the approx. 5000 people that entered the towers notice all of the work being done.

The 911 conspiracy is the stupidest of them all.

Answer 10

Is that the best you can come up with? how do you explain why WTC7 came down then? it was not on fire, where is your link to say that Explosive experts said this? did you not know that the millatry have these experts too? but you know what really puzzles me is, how can concrete turn to dust in mid air without the use of Explosive please explain this to me smart azz, nice try how long it take for you to think this one up? that buliding was pulled down with Explosive's like it or not, all the evidance is there,


your the one stating the question without link's, show me links and i might have repect for you and for that plonker below me who says WTC7 was on fire you please show me link's that shows this building on fire i bet you can't find one? why cause there ain't one.

LOL so your trying to say that small fire mangaed to take down a large building? made of steel do you know anything about buring steel? you need to try again those pics have been edited and they have done a very bad job at making out that the building was on fire or smoke as those pics makes out somke at one side of the biulding but not the other really bad edit work not even the goverment claim that the whole building was on fire, tell me what about the building in spain that was engulfed in fire about the same size made of the same stuff but it still stood? how can this be?