http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5T6hz1XsVU

This is what happens when you use too little explosives to bring down a building.. The myst have used extreme amounts if they indeed CD WTC

Or improperly placed explosives. Or a less affective form of explosives.

They must have used extreme amounts if it was a CD at the WTC? Why is that? The official story doesn't need any to bring down the towers.

The official story needed two passengerjets with lots of fuel and an explosive crash compromising the structure over some floors substantially, and enough to cause inconceivable amounts of concrete, steel, glass etc... to start falling. There is no denying that the collapse starts EXACTLY where the planes hit

All I'm saying here is: Do you think that if the governement placed explosives in WTC 1 and 2 and 7, that they would take ANY unecessecary risks that the bulidings would NOT fall down? I think it's far more likely that If they stufed these bulidings with explosives that they'd use so much that there was NO CHANCE that the bulidings would be still standing after the "operation"

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:A8yHY...clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Can any of you experts tell me how many explosive devices were used? And of what strength they were? You seem to able to find the strangest facts on the internet, I bet you will have no trouble digging up this then... You have shown me correct angles of detonation, placement from elevatorshafts... To me it sounds like YOU GUYS did it, seeing you have alle the knowledge about bringing down two gigantic skyscrapers using little and effective explosives. After all, if you're not in, you're out, right??

Go on, run dogs... run, fetch facts!

Vraff-vraff!

Go f^ck yourself, weegie. Address what I have posted in response to your BS before bringing up more nonesense. Nothing you bring up is relevent to the facts of the matter. You are looking for ANYTHING that sounds even slightly plausible, all while ignoring what we actually know. I don't need to know how many explosives were used when I have world experts on record saying it wouldn't take as much as you and your flunkies would have us believe. So...once again, adress what is posted before changing the goalposts... <_<

wrong

collapse of WTC1 begin with the antenna, which is attached to core.
building telescoped about 10 floors before the actual floor structure collapsed.

You keep sending me to remote sites containing nothing but quotes out of context and so forth. I need to see FULL stories and facts... I know this is not necessary for you, but for me it is. I am actually quite interested in knowing the 9/11 truth, but so far have come nothing closer than learning that tha majority of truthers are immature knobs that base their believes on internet progaganda that can be posted by whomever, whenever... scary

You have failed to answer one single question in any of my posts, so I've stopped counting you as trustworthy many many posts ago. You are my little dog that I pet whenever I feel like it...
You not answering questions or pulling up facts, but still keep panicing and namecalling just makes me conclude that you hold nothing more than a room-temperature IQ. And try to draw into account that I am from norway when thinking temperature, and what we measure it in

Which quotes? Explain the context.

Then open your eyes and read what is posted.

You don't know sh^t, weegie...

No, you aren't.

What propaganda? Quote it. Be specific. Stop relying on buzzwords and strawmen and address what is posted.

I've answered what is relevent. Now its your turn to address what I have posted and you are skirting issues like a coward...

You don't know what the word trustworthy even means...You pick and choose what you want to believe is trustworthy....quite typical amongs "skeptics".

I ain't sh^ to you you f^cking weegie loser...

I posted facts. You have yet to address anything specific.

The name calling is apt, weegie. I bet my bottom dollar my IQ is double yours. :)

I know, weegie...Hence why I call you weegie, dumbsh^t.

I know plenty of weegies not nearly as brainless as you. They would probably tell you to speak for yourself, weegie. :)

Thats a goodie doggie-woggie
My little fluffy doggiewoggiewoo

Ask questions, demand answers... I understand, pup

You are such a tool.... :lol:

Whenever you decide to address specifics and not dance and skirt your way around having to actually debate anything on any meaningful level, let us know. Until then, suck it, weegie...

Is it really necessary to bring everything down to this level?

Interesting you quote Romero, using statements he made on 9/11.

So RoxAlbatross, any reason you insist on misrepresenting his views other than the usual "I repeat whatever I hear on conspiracy websites/I lie for troof/etc"?

What's more interesting though is that saying that a few carefully placed charges, right where the plane hit, would be enough implies that virtually the entire "WTC CD" story is a gigantic lie, since through conspiracy goggles every single aspect of the collapse was "obviously" a CD, because it fell to fast, or it fell the wrong way, and the dust was the wrong color, or there was too much dust, or it fell too straight, or the debris went the wrong direction, or there wasn't enough debris, or it was too hot, etc etc ad infinitum. Now all of that goes out the window and the theory is that a few charges right where the plane caused all that damage was enough? HOW CONVENIENT.

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Right where the planes hit? WTF are you talking about? You're resorting to putting words in my mouth now. How typical.

I'm quoting an expert before his "retraction", as I already stated...

Now? He said this on 9/11. I have been aware of and talking about this for years. You can quote some other yahoo but that his little to do with me or anyone else I know.

Go back to sleep.... :)

I don't know, ask the sh^tstains that come here and bring things to this level...

My point is that there are plenty of people who have questions, opinions, views, and observations who discuss the same in a civil manner with no need to resort to personal attacks.

Roxdog is just vile.

And he wonders why nobody calls into his podcast...

Your an idiot. :)

Yeah, I know plenty of them. Most of them don't go on forums and question people's intelligence and sanity in every post.

Roxdog never question peoples intelligence... NEVER EVER, he's a good man!

He tells us about "weegies" that are smarter than me, I'm absolutely sure he's referring to other truthers from way up north here where I live.

Whenever you are prepared to continue debating the issues I have questions about, or send me a scanned document prooving that you are eduacated in demolition, aviation, chemistry or likewise, I will be willing to stop pretending to be an asshole towards you...

As I stated in my first thread in this forum: I truly want to believe that this is true, but so far not a single piece of evidence presented has been of believable nature to me.

Or: "Bark-vraff-ooooo-raff" (shortened and translated to puppy-language for your convenience)

Not until they question mine. I'm very respectful to people who show me respect. You have failed to do that.

No, by "weegie" I mean Norwegians.

I don't have to have credentials in anything to have an educated opinion on something. I don't have to prove myself to you anymore than you have to prove yourself to me. But in any case, you have proven you are incapable of addressing anything specific.

You don't give a sh^t about the truth and you simply ignore any information of any significance. Why the f^ck would anyone WANT to believe any of this stuff. I cannot think of anything more retarded or absurd.... <_<

You have about as much wit as the dead raccoon I drove past on my way to work this morning...

1. About being specific... Please show me the thread where I have questioned your intelligence. Please do!

2. And what did you think I meant when i wrote "weegies"?

3. You're just telling me that you will believe anything someone tells you... Agian I have to point out to you than I am asking the questions, you are supposed to answer me. Other people here managed to put up answers, you didn't. Get over it.

4. You are such an expert about my person. Can you please tell me when I need to go to the toilet, because you know about me and my person better than me.. If you cannot see why I want to believe this, I suggest you take 10 minutes, log off the internet, turn off the lights and think hard. Why would a person want to belive this? Why?

5. I'm surpirsed you hav a drivers licence... I actually am. I was about to make a comment about me thinking you were no more than 11 or 12 years old. But I was wrong... You see, it's okay to admit when you are wrong, nobody hates you if you do.

Romero seems to think that the explosives were only used to start the collapse, judging by the language of the article. He doesn't seem to specify, but if you can show me an article where he does, that'd be cool.

I haven't' said anything like that at all, actually. Not even close. :)

I did answer you. The answers to your questions, whatever they are, are irrelevant because they fail to address the actual facts of the matter. Pulling hypotheticals out of your arse is a pretty disingenuous way to "ask questions"...Especially for someone who "wants to believe", whatever the f^ck that retarded statement is supposed to mean....

Never said I was an expert about anything....

Judging by how you deal with complexities, it doesn't surprise me that simple things surprise you. :)

Ok, I'll be straigh (again)
For me it seems highly unlikely that the government knows how to CD two gigantic towers using little but effective explosives. I mean, get a hold of those guys that did the job! Contractors can save HUGE amounts of money doing demolitions more time- and explosive efficiant, thus saving money.
The theory proclaims that never before in history has concrete/steel buildings collapsed due to fire. But the history also showes us that never before in history have buildings been CD from top to bottom with very few blasts. They once tried (review the youtubeclip in the beginning of this thread), but it seemed to fail. This is my statement.

Thank you

What a joke that is. You don't think its worth mentioning that he says he was misquoted and that he disagres with your theories?

Either they had to wire the entire tower, or collapse initiation was all that was needed. Which is it?

You didn't state anything about retraction, albatross boy. Why do you need to use a source who says he's being misquoted and disagrees with your theories? Because misquoting experts is the only way you can get experts on your side.

Look in the mirror genius.

Romero only states that "it could have been". He does not believe that any explosives were used in the collapses.

I meant before he got "hushed up." It seems that before he changed his mind, for whatever reason, he thought that it was possible that explosives triggered the collapse but did not facilitate it once it started. Also, since he makes no mention of government involvement, it sounds like he thought the ones who might have set off the explosives were not insiders.

it is highly unlikely "the government" knows about CD. i think most people who have studied this beyond the message boards do not conclude "the government did it". in my opinion it is more likely to be a network of individuals in government, military, intelligence services and the private sector. to simplify it all down to "government" is attempting a strawman. I suspect you are only here to ridicule and misdirect. someone who "wants to believe" as you put it would be asking more pertinent questions. I don't even know what your question is that everyone "is not answering".
the building demolition in the video clip is not a top-down demolition, please explain what you mean.
I think what you are saying is that the perpetrators would have used overkill with explosives to ensure the building collapsed. I agree i think they would have, and i think they did. so what was your point?

i apologise if i've missed something in this thread, i don't care to read through pages of insults. i apologise again if that sounds sanctimonious, but please guys- lighten up! it only detracts from the real issues doesn't it? if you want abuse - go to jref.

A building can be brought down anyway you want depending on the sequencing, positioning and strength of the explosives.

He claims he was mis-quoted, that he never claimed that it WAS explosives, only that it "could have been". The paper printed the retraction, which they would have no reason to do if he had just changed his mind.

He can claim whatever he wants. Until he explains the context and how the heck a reporter could get his words so twisted, his "retraction" is pathetically suspect and his quotes are only inapplicable if you are a moron....

He did....and then he didn't...without an explanation as to how he reached two opposing conclusions in 48 hours...and he is on the recieving end of millions in govt grants....hummmmmmm. :)

He did explain it:

That doesn't explain sh^t, Jake@ss....

The funny thing is....if it was the other way around you guys would be all over his nuts saying his "retraction" doesn't cut the butter. Hypocritical, brain-f^cked dimwits....

The article says "Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.". He got additional information and changed his mind. Is he not allowed to do so?

He's made 2 contradictory statements....how do we determine which one is correct?

Is this your idea of "very respectful"?

Let's stick to the issues, I'm not here to play name-calling games.

What additional info? From whom? How do his nonspecifics negate all his original VERY SPECIFIC assertions? Sure, he is allowed to change his mind, but he still has to square it with reality.

Well, one is accurate and specific, the other is not. Like I said, if it was the other way around you people would be tearing Romero to pieces...

When would you expect him to be in a better position to make a judgement - on the same day, or once he's had time to analyse it in greater detail? And that's leaving aside the issue that he says he was misquoted. Why don't you try squaring that with reality.

The more important question is this: how sad is it that your best expert totally disagrees with you and describes you as an albatross around his neck for misrepresenting his views?

When are you going to find an expert that actually agrees with you? Its been several years... still looking?

His first statement was not any more "specific" than his second one.
(Claiming there were explosives vs claiming there were not)
How could his second statement have been any more specific?

What additional information are you looking for?

How did you determine which statement was accurate and which one was not?

Speculation.

Romero can say whatever he wants, it doesn't mean it's true unless supported by fact.

I would suggest, if you're unclear on Romero's views, you contact him directly.

I have a feeling if God herself were to testify that 9/11 was not carried out by Usama and the 19, you'd still be asking for some specialized sort of expert.

If you were at all interested, you'd know by now there are hundreds of experts from many different fields who cannot accept the OCT, and state so, publicly.

Who would you accept as an "expert?"

How does someone "misquote" someone to the degree that this journalist "misquoted" Romero? His initial comments make sense. His "retraction" does not and makes him look stupid. Once again, if the tables were turns you guys would be calling Romero a kook and creating a circle jerk to discredit him....like you always do.

I think its sad hes such a coward, yes...Like you guys. Very sad.

Plenty do. You just ignore them or simply say they aren't qualififed because....well....because.

What about his retraction does not make sense?

Nice dodge albatross boy, but you are the one who goes around quoting someone as your favorite witness even though he totally disagrees with you.

Why is that? Tough times for the troofers, several years later and they still can't come up with decent experts? Ever thought of approaching an expert yourself instead of just repeating what conpiracy websites tell you to think?