I mean, I know I know these guys aren't demolition experts but all three said it looked like controlled demolition.
Wolf Blitzer saying the collapse of WTC 1 "almost looks like one of those planned implosions..."
Watch video -28 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNa2Bl3jRz0
Peter Jennings describing how if you want to bring down a building you have to get at the under infrastructure.
Watch video -50 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RufiCp2si0
CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the suspicious collapse of WTC 7 "where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o
2007-09-22 06:32:15 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I'm asking why they said it looked like controlled demolition, not your opinion if it is controlled demolition or not.
It's obviously controlled demolition you only have to compare it side by side with other controlled demolitions.
2007-09-22 07:15:53 · update #1
We relate things to how we see them and based on our experiences. Most people have seen video of a demolition - like a vegas casino, etc. Now how many of us have seen video of an airliner crashing into a major skyscraper and the collapse of the skyscraper... well... nobody.
Saying that something "looks" like something is not the same as saying that's what it is.
2007-09-22 08:02:11 · answer #1 · answered by wigginsray 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are there any examples buildings being struck by 747's? Any at all? Why would there need to be explosives in the building? Everyone saw the jets being flown into the buildings. That's not enough for you? Be aware that the motion of the jets came to a complete stop within a very short distance. This requires a great deal of friction creating a great deal of heat being released. This alone would melt steel. I am going to take a great leap of faith - you've always hated science didn't you? Maybe you are intelligent at something, but science and common sense are not your thing.
2016-05-21 00:13:02 · answer #2 · answered by tina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition. That was just how it looked - kind of slow and gradual. Of course in a sense it was a controlled demolition since Al Queda planned this for years and consulted with engineers exactly what it would take to bring down buildings of this size and the best way to do it.
I think Elvis was seen waving from the top of the tower too with James Dean!
2007-09-22 06:47:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I thought the Minneapolis bridge collapse looked like a suspicious collapse.
2007-09-22 06:36:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You forgot to quote that other technical expert and structural engineer, Rosie O'Donnell. What the lot of them know about this subject wouldn't fill a thimble.
2007-09-22 06:38:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, if Wolf Blitzer says it it must be true (eyes roll)...
2007-09-22 06:44:26 · answer #6 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of nuts in this world and they will say any thing.
2007-09-22 07:06:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know - maybe Rather has some documents to prove that they were?
2007-09-22 06:37:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it all demonstrates how appropriate your clown face avatar is.
2007-09-22 06:38:49 · answer #9 · answered by Adam S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
awe heck. Looky here yall. let me, osama bush laden tells ya sumptin.
IRAQ!
cha ching!
keep dem tax dollas a comin ad i' keep you repujicans a scared!
TERRORISM!
ching ching ching!
this is kinda fun. keep them dollas a fowing tuhrack!
ching ching!
2007-09-22 06:37:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋