Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?
Options
Comments
-
Nothing is "proven" to be wrong. Just because something sounds "sciencey" to you, is group validated by conspiracy theorists and/or confirms bias doesn't mean it's correct or "proven"
Uhh yes it does ... the animation you hold so dear and find factually correct doesn't allow for free fall acceleration ... which automatically means its incorrect and is useless as evidenceTry to keep in mind these are a bunch of conspiracy theorists who have a belief it's some sort of inside job and have worked backwards from there..
Even King Mob doesnt rule out its an inside jobTheir latest stunt has been to pay one sympathetic expert $300,000 to conduct a study, not to discover what really happened, but to try and prove that the building can't have fallen due to fire
And if he is able to prove the building could not have fallen due to fire ? ... does it matter? ... If he can prove this then NIST is the one that never tried to discover what really happened.
NIST got 20 million to discover what happened and the only thing they could come up with was a hypothesis and a probable collapse scenario ..Imagine what 300k can doYou believe that it's a controlled demolition because "of the way it looks". Like AE911 you try to rationalise that with "science" (debunked pseudo-science and tenuous links)
And you believe that because it had all the characteristics of a controlled demolition the logical conclusion would be it had to be office fires"Prove it to me" fallacy.
You do realize the animation was based on the conclusion of the report ... So if the animation doesn't make sense what does that doe to the validity of the reportYou are linking from conspiracy sites and conspiracy videos. If you can't tell the difference I don't know how to help you there
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
Posted here a couple of days ago ..... So this is a CT site, interesting
Ohh another conspiracy site I linked to
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twin-towers-forensic-investigation-revise-building-codes/0 -
-
-
-
Again, it superficially looks like a demolition.Then I suggest you get your eyes checked and do something for the memory loss
There are many things about it that are not consistant with a demolition.
And the idea of a secret demolition is inherently ridiculous and begs many questions you are unable to answer.
How should it look if it fell due to fire?
Why do you reject Dr Judy Wood's argument that it looks like it was destroyed with a space laser? Be specific thanks.0 -
Advertisement
-
And if he is able to prove the building could not have fallen due to fire ? ...
Prove to who? the real world or the conspiracy community
Because one of those is not the same as the otherNIST got 20 million to discover what happened and the only thing they could come up with was a hypothesis and a probable collapse scenario ..Imagine what 300k can do
It's a limited study backed by conspiracy theorists, in conjunction with conspiracy theorists. Maybe Hulsey is good, maybe he's another Judy Wood.
So far, based on his preliminary results, it's not looking great - but will give him the benefit of the doubt and let his final results do the talkingAnd you believe that because it had all the characteristics of a controlled demolition the logical conclusion would be it had to be office fires
The evidence supports fire (like Plasco)
There is no credible evidence for controlled demolition (or anything else)You do realize the animation was based on the conclusion of the report ... So if the animation doesn't make sense what does that doe to the validity of the report
If it doesn't make sense to you or the conspiracy community, literally nobody cares.https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
Posted here a couple of days ago ..... So this is a CT site, interesting
Yeah the AE911 guys got a magazine to accept one of their conspiracy reports
It's addressed here:
https://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/scientific-proof-911-inside-job/Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article
The editors did also add the following note:
This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.
They got one of their pieces into offguardian alsoOhh another conspiracy site I linked to
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twin-towers-forensic-investigation-revise-building-codes/
Good, that's a far better link. To highlight
" For instance, Nordenson himself is part of litigation suggesting the collapse of WTC 7 was not inevitable, but was due to design flaws in both the fire protection and some aspects of the structure."
and on the other side
"Sunder defended NIST's investigation, noting that the federal agency endeavored to make it as open and inclusive as possible, with numerous opportunities for the public and engineering community to review and provide input, such as public meetings, comment periods and advisory committee meetings that were open to the public. He also stood by its conclusions regarding WTC 7, saying "NIST has not seen any data or analyses from other researchers that would lead NIST to reevaluate its findings."
As to what happened with NIST's recommendations, "23 changes to the 2009 editions of the International Codes and another 17 changes to the 2012 editions, responsive to the recommendations, have been adopted," Sunder says. These building and safety codes from the International Code Council "are typically adopted by state and local authorities."
There seems to be differences in opinion there
Nordenson's views are debated here - with guest appearance by Tony S. There's been no clarification from him on this (when emailed) so perhaps he got it wrong, who knows
https://www.metabunk.org/does-the-exclusion-of-stiffness-from-nordensons-falling-girder-calculations-demonstrate-anything.t7185/page-8
No mention of controlled demolitions or conspiracy theories in the piece you linked
If a scientist or expert disagrees with a particular report, study or investigation.. it doesn't mean the findings of that report/study/investigation are wrong. And it definitely doesn't mean they endorse some sort of conspiracy theory. AE911 as a group don't understand this concept at all.
Any point asking you these questions below?
1. Do you believe WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition? (no fence sitting please it's getting ridiculous at this stage)
2. Who do you think blew up WTC 7, do you think Larry Silvertein was involved? the Saudis? George Bush?0 -
Prove to who? the real world or the conspiracy community
Because one of those is not the same as the other
Dont be obtuse ... If you know the research you know how the findings are gonna be presented.
Just to refresh your memory ..It will be available for peer review and anybody can challenge the outcome .... Good to see you needed to use selective quoting ... because anwsering the NIST part would be scary .It's a limited study backed by conspiracy theorists, in conjunction with conspiracy theorists. Maybe Hulsey is good, maybe he's another Judy Wood.
So far, based on his preliminary results, it's not looking great - but will give him the benefit of the doubt and let his final results do the talking
Maybe cut down a bit with the unhealthy obsessions in regards to conspiracy theorists ... By looking how much you seem to know about the study you must realize how silly your question above is ..right ?The evidence supports fire (like Plasco)
What evidence ? I keep asking you to provide the actual evidence supported by the animation that building 7 came down in a symmetrical fashion reaching free fall acceleration ... so far after weeks of back and forth you have not provided one single piece of solid evidence to support your hypothesis.
You dont need to link the whole NIST report ..I know my question to you is not in there ... You are still claiming it is ...... You can use the NIST animation to point out exactly where they showed how all the outer columns disappeared simultaneously to allow fore free fall acceleration, or even te relevant section in the report itself ...Bit rich is to accuse others of fence sitting with your arse glued solid to the same fenceThere is no credible evidence for controlled demolition (or anything else)
Because it was never properly investigated ... NIST ran the whole wtc7 investigation on the premise it must have been the firesIf it doesn't make sense to you or the conspiracy community, literally nobody cares.
Then why are you unable to come up with information/reports/evidence that supports your conclusion ?
You are even more gullible or in denial then many CT'erYeah the AE911 guys got a magazine to accept one of their conspiracy reports
Indeed ...Because their view makes sense ... they reviewed it before being allowed
I use the question raised by skeptikal science and apply this to wtc7
Is there Scientific Proof that the collapse of wtc7 was because of office fires?
Physics magazine adresses wtc7 ...where does skeptiks unite talk about it ?1. Do you believe WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition? (no fence sitting please it's getting ridiculous at this stage)
Just to clear this up ..Its you who is doing the fence sittingSo you’ve started a thread knowing well there is no alt theories with credibile evidence. Well done
I asked you over and over in the last couple of weeks to produce the same solid evidence you require for the alt theories, that validates the official version in regards to building 7
So far you did not provided any ..other then quick copy paste of the whole NIST report.
I think there was a form of controlled demolition yes ... Its highly suspect that 2 completely different scenarios in terms of where and how the planes hit can trigger 2 exactly the same collapse sequences.2. Who do you think blew up WTC 7, do you think Larry Silvertein was involved? the Saudis? George Bush?
He did say that they decided to pull it
King Mob tried to argue that they physically pulled it in another thread0 -
Again, it superficially looks like a demolition.
There are many things about it that are not consistant with a demolition.
What in the collapse sequence doesn't look like a controlled demolition ?
Or better ... what, by looking at the collapse sequence tells you it was due to office fires ?
If 9/11 was allowed to happen (which you dont rule out) ..what else could have been possible ?0 -
-
Lack of a rapid series of large noticeable explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building.What in the collapse sequence doesn't look like a controlled demolition ?
The fact the internal structure collapsed before the outer structure.
The existence of extensive fires that would damage or impair the demolition explosives.
The fact that it's silly to suggest that it was secretly rigged up.
And if we are to accept there was molten metal there, the molten metal.
It looks like what would happen if a part of it collapsed due to fire, which then put strain on the other parts of the building that then spread out and dragged the core of the building before finally collapsing the outer facade.
How should it look if it fell due to fires?
Do you think it would just keel over like a felled tree? Peel open like a banana?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No I didn't. You are lying. I have never claimed this at all.I am not looking this up but you did say that when challenged about what pulling meant
Pull it: It being the firefighting operation that was either in progress or being planned.So what did he mean with his pulling comment ?
That's the only thing that makes sense. It makes no sense that he's confessing to being part of the conspiracy.
What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life?
Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day?
Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about this?
Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him?
Why would he be confessing this at all on camera?
Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century?
Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession?
Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made?
Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud?0 -
Lack of a rapid series of large noticeable explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building.
The fact the internal structure collapsed before the outer structure.
The existence of extensive fires that would damage or impair the demolition explosives.
The fact that it's silly to suggest that it was secretly rigged up.
And if we are to accept there was molten metal there, the molten metal.
It looks like what would happen if a part of it collapsed due to fire, which then put strain on the other parts of the building that then spread out and dragged the core of the building before finally collapsing the outer facade.
How should it look if it fell due to fires?
Do you think it would just keel over like a felled tree? Peel open like a banana?
So you think a building can collapse in a symmetrical fashion with all its outer columns being removed simultaneously (otherwise free fall acceleration is impossible) due to office fires ?
I always saw you as a person who applies critical thinking ... But believing the above without a shred of solid evidence is hilarious
Both you and Dohnjoe are rambling on about those thruthers and crazy ct ers and yet you believe stories that define the laws of physics only because you cannot answer the "what else could it be" questionAll three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”0 -
-
Again, as has been explained to you, this description is not accurate.So you think a building can collapse in a symmetrical fashion with all its outer columns being removed simultaneously (otherwise free fall acceleration is impossible) due to office fires ?
That description is also problematic for your explanation of a controlled demolition.
As if you are claiming that "outer columns being removed simultaneously" then there would be very loud, very noticable explosions on all of those columns all at once and all right before the collapse. There is no such explosions reported, hence the controlled demolition explanation you believe in must be impossible.
How should the building have fallen if it failed due to fire?0 -
Again, no, I have never said that. You are lying.Try again ... that story has been debunked ... over and over
Explained in the same thread you said wtc7 must have been physically pulled
You are also avoiding questions that prove how silly your conspiracy is:
What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life?
Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day?
Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about this?
Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him?
Why would he be confessing this at all on camera?
Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century?
Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession?
Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made?
Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud?
If the best answer is that he was confessing, then explain these problems.
Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.0 -
Again, no, I have never said that. You are lying.
I stand corrected .. you referred to building 5 and 6 ... apologiesYou are also avoiding questions that prove how silly your conspiracy is:
What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life?
Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day?
Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about this?
Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him?
Why would he be confessing this at all on camera?
Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century?
Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession?
Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made?
Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud?
If the best answer is that he was confessing, then explain these problems.
Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html
Knock urself out0 -
Again, as has been explained to you, this description is not accurate.
That description is also problematic for your explanation of a controlled demolition.
As if you are claiming that "outer columns being removed simultaneously" then there would be very loud, very noticable explosions on all of those columns all at once and all right before the collapse. There is no such explosions reported, hence the controlled demolition explanation you believe in must be impossible.
How should the building have fallen if it failed due to fire?
Dont explain it ... prove it .. provide the evidence that supports fires resulted in all the outer columns being removed simultaneously resulting in a symmetrical free fall acceleration due to office fires
Its simple ... Link to the relevant evidence0 -
No weisses, use your own brain for this.Knock urself out
That site does not answer a single one of my questions.
We both know that this is just you deflecting from the fact you can't address these questions.
Try again:
What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life?
Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day?
Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about this?
Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him?
Why would he be confessing this at all on camera?
Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century?
Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession?
Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made?
Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud?0 -
No weisses, use your own brain for this.
That site does not answer a single one of my questions.
We both know that this is just you deflecting from the fact you can't address these questions.
Try again:
What did he mean when he said that he only decided to pull it after the loss of life?
Why did they only decide to demolish the building on that day?
Why would the loss of life influence his decision at this stage?
Why was he talking to a fire chief about this?
Why does he say that the fire chief actually made the decision, not him?
Why would he be confessing this at all on camera?
Why didn't the reporter interviewing him not realise that he was confessing to being part of the biggest crime of the century?
Why did the makers of the documentary put that confession into the documentary as if it wasn't a massive headlining confession?
Why didn't anyone in the government stop the footage being used or the documentary being made?
Why didn't the insurance companies with which Silverstien was locked in legal combat with not point to his confession to prove he'd committed massive insurance fraud?
Dont know to all of them
How do you explain all your questions when FEMA concludedAccording to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."0 -
Advertisement
-
Again, I can't prove that as it's an inaccurate description of what happened.Dont explain it ... prove it .. provide the evidence that supports fires resulted in all the outer columns being removed simultaneously resulting in a symmetrical free fall acceleration due to office fires
Its simple ... Link to the relevant evidence
I do not believe that all the outer columns were removed simultaneously.
I do not believe that it was symmetrical.
I do not believe that if fell under free fall in the way you think it fell under free fall. (You, like cheerful do not understand what free fall is or what the NIST meant when they mentioned it.)
Why would I prove something I don't believe is true.
And I have no inclination to walk you through it another time when again you have ignored questions you can't answer.That description is also problematic for your explanation of a controlled demolition.
As if you are claiming that "outer columns being removed simultaneously" then there would be very loud, very noticable explosions on all of those columns all at once and all right before the collapse. There is no such explosions reported, hence the controlled demolition explanation you believe in must be impossible.
How should the building have fallen if it failed due to fire?
If the building fell as you are claiming, why do you believe it was controlled demolition when there are no explosions?0 -
So why do you think that your explanation makes sense?Dont know to all of them
It can't make sense if all of those questions aren't answered.
Planned operation. Hence why "pull it" not "pull them out"How do you explain all your questions when FEMA concluded
Said that many times before.0 -
-
Again, I can't prove that as it's an inaccurate description of what happened.
I do not believe that all the outer columns were removed simultaneously.
I do not believe that it was symmetrical.
I do not believe that if fell under free fall in the way you think it fell under free fall. (You, like cheerful do not understand what free fall is or what the NIST meant when they mentioned it.)
Why would I prove something I don't believe is true.
And I have no inclination to walk you through it another time when again you have ignored questions you can't answer.
If the building fell as you are claiming, why do you believe it was controlled demolition when there are no explosions?
Ahh we are back to "your" opinion being more relevant then what evidence dictates
NIST did not mention it ... these 200 highly skilled engineers and scientists employed by NIST were pointed out to it by a physics teacher .... they refused it first by stating the belowfree-fall time would be an object that
has no structural components below it.” But in the case
of WTC 7, “there was structural resistance
that was provided.”
If the research done by nist was correct and of significant quality why refuse the free fall ? I mean they had 200 highly trained individuals working for them.0 -
Pulling something is a common phrase.Why pull something that was never there ?
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pull
You have again dodged questions you can't answer.
It makes no sense that he's confessing to anything here.
You suggesting that he was even though you've admitted you can't explain how it makes sense makes this part of the theory as silly as space lasers or Cheerful's giant mirror.
You know you can't make sense of it. You don't care.
And again I don't think you understand what free fall is or what the NIST meant when they mentioned it.
So I will ask you the same question. Cheerful ran away from.
How long in seconds would it take a ball to fall from the roof of WTC7.
Please show your math as I do not believe you understand it and need evidence otherwise.
I will not answer any more of your questions until you start answering mine honestly and directly.0 -
Lack of a rapid series of large noticeable explosions followed immediately by the collapse of the building.
The fact the internal structure collapsed before the outer structure.
The existence of extensive fires that would damage or impair the demolition explosives.
The fact that it's silly to suggest that it was secretly rigged up.
And if we are to accept there was molten metal there, the molten metal.
It looks like what would happen if a part of it collapsed due to fire, which then put strain on the other parts of the building that then spread out and dragged the core of the building before finally collapsing the outer facade.
How should it look if it fell due to fires?
Do you think it would just keel over like a felled tree? Peel open like a banana?
Remote wireless detonators were used before 9/11. Skeptics are living in the past claiming you need to wire every floor for demolition. The demolitions only need to take out core columns to bring the building down. And you may not have noticed only 4 to 6 floors out of 47 floors had fires during the day? Blowing up columns can be delayed or blown all at the same time. Blowing up a few columns will not bring the building down. You can do all at once or do it over a period of time.
Just one second before the Penthouse fell from the roof an echo reverberated out and this noise was picked up by reporter audio mic a few blocks away on 9/11. That can easily could be a number of small explosions going off timely fashion. From blocks away, that noise may sound like one big bang?
Also, NIST believes multiple floors are crashing down across the width of the building when the Penthouse fell in. Yet not a rubble, a tick or sound of that event was heard on video? So how come ask yourself why was that noise heard and the collapsing floors- no noise associated with this was?
You surely have noticed there were no large or even small dust plumes shattering windows until the full collapse began?
47 floors are collapsing down, then there will be substantial sliding occurring before the full building came down, surely? Furniture, computers, filing cabinets, you name it moving and crashing up against glass panels and windows breaking them, and smashing up against walls. The dust plumes will be blowing forward at an incredible velocity through windows on all floors. Yet what do we see but perfect rows of intact windows in the middle section and west section of the building? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
If it was controlled demolition then naturally the columns would buckle first then the whole building will come down and drop floor by floor to the bottom.
NIST released two computer sims one slower than the other. Faster collapse sim model had full intact floors in the middle section ( Freefall cannot occur) in this model. Skeptics seemly have not noticed that error?
On the NIST slower Model. When the Penthouse fell it took another 20+ seconds for the full building to collapse in their model. The Skeptics maybe have not noticed this? It took only 5 to 6 seconds in the actual video of the collapse ( i revealed this to you guys already!
The collapse in real time happened much faster compared to what their computer simulation data showed them when they ran it.. The progressive collapse and actual collapse calculations, don’t match. The kink in the roof was obviously caused by the internal columns buckling on the east side ( by controlled demolition) Then the penthouse and the rest of the building structure collapsing 5 seconds later! When you remove the structural resistance there nothing stopping the building from coming down at a faster rate in the final stages of the collapse.0 -
Cheerful Spring wrote: »Remote wireless detonators were used before 9/11. Skeptics are living in the past claiming you need to wire every floor for demolition. The demolitions only need to take out core columns to bring the building down. And you may not have noticed only 4 to 6 floors out of 47 floors had fires during the day? Blowing up columns can be delayed or blown all at the same time. Blowing up a few columns will not bring the building down. You can do all at once or do it over a period of time.
Just one second before the Penthouse fell from the roof an echo reverberated out and this noise was picked up by reporter audio mic a few blocks away on 9/11. That can easily could be a number of small explosions going off timely fashion. From blocks away, that noise may sound like one big bang?
Also, NIST believes multiple floors are crashing down across the width of the building when the Penthouse fell in. Yet not a rubble, a tick or sound of that event was heard on video? So how come ask yourself why was that noise heard and the collapsing floors- no noise associated with this was?
You surely have noticed there were no large or even small dust plumes shattering windows until the full collapse began?
47 floors are collapsing down, then there will be substantial sliding occurring before the full building came down, surely? Furniture, computers, filing cabinets, you name it moving and crashing up against glass panels and windows breaking them, and smashing up against walls. The dust plumes will be blowing forward at an incredible velocity through windows on all floors. Yet what do we see but perfect rows of intact windows in the middle section and west section of the building? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
If it was controlled demolition then naturally the columns would buckle first then the whole building will come down and drop floor by floor to the bottom.
NIST released two computer sims one slower than the other. Faster collapse sim model had full intact floors in the middle section ( Freefall cannot occur) in this model. Skeptics seemly have not noticed that error?
On the NIST slower Model. When the Penthouse fell it took another 20+ seconds for the full building to collapse in their model. The Skeptics maybe have not noticed this? It took only 5 to 6 seconds in the actual video of the collapse ( i revealed this to you guys already!
The collapse in real time happened much faster compared to what their computer simulation data showed them when they ran it.. The progressive collapse and actual collapse calculations, don’t match. The kink in the roof was obviously caused by the internal columns buckling on the east side ( by controlled demolition) Then the penthouse and the rest of the building structure collapsing 5 seconds later! When you remove the structural resistance there nothing stopping the building from coming down at a faster rate in the final stages of the collapse.
So why do professionals used wired detonators (det cord) if wireless works perfectly well?0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »So why do professionals used wired detonators (det cord) if wireless works perfectly well?
I just highlighting wireless non-electronic detonators existed pre 9/11. It makes sense they do it wirelessly on 9/11.
If they can hide the wiring from people inside the building then they did it that way.0 -
No need for electric wiring when you got this.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Cheerful Spring wrote: »I just highlighting wireless non-electronic detonators existed pre 9/11. It makes sense they do it wirelessly on 9/11.
If they can hide the wiring from people inside the building then they did it that way.
So.why don't professionals use this method instead of the more dangerous wired method?.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement