View Single Post
Old 15th November 2007, 07:17 PM   #167
Downsitting Citizen
Gravy's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
No need to ask Gage - just ask somebody who actually listened to the debate. Gage explained that thermate was probably used in place of cutter charges on each steel beam to limit the noise.
Caller (CHF): I think the controlled demolition of the towers and building 7 can be largely disproven with one simple observation, and that is that demolition charges are deafeningly loud. if a demolition charge went off on 9/11, everyone within a mile radius, every camera, every video would have recorded it.

Gage: Well that's why they would have used thermite, which is a more silent, um, thermate, which is a special form of thermite with added sulfur, because obviously you wouldn't want a whole bunch of explosions to be heard, even though they were, it's not a perfect science. They have a hundred and eighteen witnesses just from those who were recorded in the oral histories.
That sounds like a plausible explanation? They didn't want the explosives to be heard, although they were heard, but the use of thermate allowed them to be heard by fewer people?

So, the thermate slowly melts the columns. But that's not enough. Why is that not enough? Why didn't they just use more silent thermate? Okay, they ran out. So they used explosives.

So they smuggled in tons of explosives and equipment (remember, Gage is claiming that "squibs" farther down on the tower were made by explosives), tore out walls to gain access to exterior and core columns on many floors, created special thermate holders to keep that substance in contact with the steel, created magic timers and protection containers to allow the thermate and explosives to withstand the impact of an airliner and subsequent enormous fires, cleaned up everything, repaired the damage they'd done, and they and their incredibly disruptive work remained completely undetected.

You've sold me so far.

Okay, what kind of semi-silent explosives were used, Deep, that are large enough to toss huge steel columns, as you and Gage say, but are otherwise undetectable by sight, sound, and seismometers, and that did not eject huge amounts of lighter debris for great distances at high velocities? And please explain how neither thermate nor explosives left any mark on any steel that was examined by investigators or is visible in photographs.

By the way, Gage's claim of 118 first responders hearing explosives is complete b.s.:

Traditional explosives were obviously still used, in some capacity, because 270 ton steel beams don't just "fall off" and fly through the air on their own.
So you think that when a quarter-mile high building collapses from the top, parts of its structure shouldn't fall away from the center?

Please explain!...................Please explain!...................Please explain!...................

Here's a video you need to watch. Pay particular attention to the inward buckling of the south tower's east wall as the collapse commences. Note that there are no explosions and no outward ejection of smoke and debris. Explain how this fits into your conspiracy theory.
Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Finally, be sure to read Ryan Mackey's paper (particularly pages 95-97), which puts these myths to rest for good:

No more excuses, Deep, and no more arguments from ignorance. Get informed or get lost. Now get to work.
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 15th November 2007 at 07:46 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top