Saturday, January 2, 2010

Come on China, get with the program!


by Larry Simons
January 2, 2010

My god, is it really 2010? Happy New Year everyone! Thought I’d start the new year [and decade] off with a little satire [not really]. Seems the Chinese need to take lessons from the United States when it comes to building demolition.

watch the clip


A Chinese demolition company turns this 22-story residential building into the Leaning Tower of Liuzhou. Why didn’t the Chinese just send an airliner through the building in the background so the debris that emitted from it could strike their targeted building, causing fires and weakening the steel so it could come crashing down?

Come on China, do things the right way!

8 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

did you listen, Larry?

2 distinct explosions.

And it still failed to collapse.

That kinda leaves your 911 controlled demolition idea up in the air.

Maybe they used special silent explosives? Along with the invisible men who planted them......it's quite a stretch to believe.

Not surprisingly, you're always supremely reticent to go into how controlled demolition was possible achieved. Because you know it's very weak ground for your idea. That should tell you something......but.....it doesn't.

Real Truth Online said...

"That kinda leaves your 911 controlled demolition idea up in the air."

How? The China demolition was OBVIOUSLY done in the open, in plain site by a demolition company. They had to get people out of the area beforehand. Its possible that through conventional methods, something will go wrong--and of course, it did, as the video shows.

Building 7 on 9/11 was definately meant to come down by "whoever". It was not left to chance. Your theory that it came down due to fire and damage becomes invalid in light of the fact that other buildings CLOSER to the towers burned more intense and had WAY more structural damage, and yet they remained standing [ex: WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, Bankers Trust. etc..]. How many fucking times do I have to say this to you? 100?

The China mishap solidifies my views about Building 7--not the opposite. The China building apparently was not rigged so that the central column was blown out first, because its clear in the video that the center does not collapse at all. It just splits in half like someone is cutting it with a giant knife and the 2 sections just fall. Apparently, the explosives that Im assuming were rigged in the two halves didnt detonate----do you SEE anything detonating in either half as it falls? I dont.

WTC 7 fell straight down in 6 seconds, and you can CLEARLY see the central core collapse first in building 7.

So, PLEASE tell me how the China incident leaves my views "up in the air". It SOLIDIFIES them. I cant wait for the answer.

the_last_name_left said...

L: Building 7 on 9/11 was definately meant to come down by "whoever". It was not left to chance. Your theory that it came down due to fire and damage becomes invalid in light of the fact that other buildings CLOSER to the towers burned more intense and had WAY more structural damage, and yet they remained standing [ex: WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, Bankers Trust. etc..]. How many fucking times do I have to say this to you? 100?

How many times do I have to say this:

There is no reason why every building closer to WTC (than building 7) must collapse IF Building 7 does.

There is simply no reason to expect it - even if they were all identical in build.

PLEASE tell me how the China incident leaves my views "up in the air". It SOLIDIFIES them. I cant wait for the answer.

1 - Noise of explosives.
2 - Visual evidence of explosives
3 - It didn't work

How do you get it to work - on much bigger buildings - without audible and visible evidence of explosives? 3 times.

Larry said...

"There is no reason why every building closer to WTC (than building 7) must collapse IF Building 7 does."

You mean OUTSIDE of more intense fires and far greater damage? Youre right! Outside of those 2 things, theres no reason to expect it. BUT, heres ONE thing we CAN expect in light of WTC 7's collapse------AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHY IT COLLAPSED----which NEVER happened. There was not ONE mention of building 7 in the ENTIRE 9/11 commission report. Coincidence? If you believe that, you must have received one too many butt-fuckings.

If I built 5 sandcastles on the beach close to the water, and I built 1 sandcastle farther away from the water----would there be NO reason to wonder why the FARTHEST away sandcastle got completely destroyed by the waves, but the 5 I built close to water were only moderately damaged?

Youre saying there was NO sounds of explosions in WTC 7? Tell that to Barry Jennings who was INSIDE WTC 7 ON 9-11 at 9am and felt a huge explosion take place in the builing BEFORE THE TOWERS COLLAPSED.

Anonymous said...

larry, when will this jackass answer the wooden stove question? last dick fraud name left is a queenie.

the_last_name_left said...

You mean OUTSIDE of more intense fires and far greater damage? Youre right! Outside of those 2 things, theres no reason to expect it.

They weren't built like WTC7, and neither did they suffer the same damage. Sure, you can argue the damage was worse.....the fires were worse, whatever. But that's still no reason to assume if WTC7 collapsed, the others MUST. No logic at all says that must be so. That's your mistake.

And no investigation? APart from NIST's one........?

Larry said...

"They weren't built like WTC7, and neither did they suffer the same damage."

Youre RIGHT! WTC 7 was a STATE OF THE ART buildng and built much BETTER than WTC 3,4,5,6 and Bankers Trust!! Youre RIGHT! They didnt suffer the SAME damage. WTC 3,4,5,6 and Bankers Trust suffered FAR GREATER damage than WTC 7! What arent you getting here??

Ill say this again, since you didnt read it:

"If I built 5 sandcastles on the beach close to the water, and I built 1 sandcastle farther away from the water----would there be NO reason to wonder why the FARTHEST away sandcastle got completely destroyed by the waves, but the 5 I built close to water were only moderately damaged?"

You call NIST an "investigation"?? Did you even READ the NIST report? Apparently NOT! My god, you dont even read my ARTICLES, let alone lengthy shit like the NIST report!

Larry said...

I was IGNORED----naturally. LOL