rare 9/11 footage, how was this unseen for so long?

[thebrink]

Let him explain how his posting translates to what happened on that day. Get you popcorn ready Getbiggers!!!

Let Ozmo dig his own tomb.

What scares me is his absolute certainty and claim of knowing what happened 100 percent without a doubt LOL pure righteousness.

Maybe he can explain that picture if the perfect 45 degree melted angle cut on the main columns. Looks like a thermite cut designed to make to top half of the verticle column slide or slip off the bottom half of itself hense creating a perfect structural collapse of the building.

But no, just another crazy coincidence lmao

[M4tad0r]

South Tower Smoking Guns by David Chandler

After finding the projectile that turns a sharp corner while trailing white smoke I looked for it in other videos and found it in several. The clearest is from a camera with a very similar perspective to the first, but in this video the trail can be followed to the bottom of the collapse. Here I explore the significance of this find.

[M4tad0r]

Erik Lawyer - Firefighter

Mr. Lawyer presents investigative directives from the National Fire Protection Standards Manual that were never followed by NIST or FEMA for the fires they claim caused all 3 WTC Buildings to collapse.

[lilhawk1]

What scares me is his absolute certainty and claim of knowing what happened 100 percent without a doubt LOL pure righteousness.

Maybe he can explain that picture if the perfect 45 degree melted angle cut on the main columns. Looks like a thermite cut designed to make to top half of the verticle column slide or slip off the bottom half of itself hense creating a perfect structural collapse of the building.

But no, just another crazy coincidence lmao

For the official story to be true there would have to be dozens upon dozens of coincidences that day.  It's bizarre really.  Thermite was most definitely used, it was found in the dust particles everywhere.  It was responsible for the pools of molten steel firefighters saw at ground zero, responsible for the pyroclastic flow seen as the buildings were imploded, responsible for the charred cars, buses, etc in the area from the extreme heat it produced.  You know what magically survived the heat though??? Mohammad Attas passport.  Really?? The steel was quickly removed and sent off to China to destroy the evidence. Those buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from jets such as on 9/11.  IF there was a structural failure, then they were designed so only a section of the building would fall.  There were unprecedented "power downs" for weeks leading up to 9/11, bomb sniffing dogs were no longer allowed in the towers, but all these things are just a coincidence according to the shills.  No... It adds up to a big fuckin conspiracy, a "New Pearl Harbor" that Bush, Cheney, and co.  needed as a pretext for war in the Middle East.  Bin Laden outright denied any involvement in the attacks.  Iraq had nothing to do with it either.  Here we are today still fighting because of the bullshit story fed to us on 9/11. 

[chaos]

For the official story to be true there would have to be dozens upon dozens of coincidences that day. 

Same with the conspiracies.

[Simple Simon]

For the official story to be true there would have to be dozens upon dozens of coincidences that day.  It's bizarre really.  Thermite was most definitely used, it was found in the dust particles everywhere.  It was responsible for the pools of molten steel firefighters saw at ground zero, responsible for the pyroclastic flow seen as the buildings were imploded, responsible for the charred cars, buses, etc in the area from the extreme heat it produced.  You know what magically survived the heat though??? Mohammad Attas passport.  Really?? The steel was quickly removed and sent off to China to destroy the evidence. Those buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from jets such as on 9/11.  IF there was a structural failure, then they were designed so only a section of the building would fall.  There were unprecedented "power downs" for weeks leading up to 9/11, bomb sniffing dogs were no longer allowed in the towers, but all these things are just a coincidence according to the shills.  No... It adds up to a big fuckin conspiracy, a "New Pearl Harbor" that Bush, Cheney, and co.  needed as a pretext for war in the Middle East.  Bin Laden outright denied any involvement in the attacks.  Iraq had nothing to do with it either.  Here we are today still fighting because of the bullshit story fed to us on 9/11. 

all speculation on your part, you have no evidence for or against any of the shit you just wrote.

and as for this

Here we are today still fighting because of the bullshit story fed to us on 9/11

When has the USA needed an excuse to go around sticking its nose in other countries business?

[Colossus_1986]

Same with the conspiracies.

No the conspiracy theories of 9/11 are far more credible and logical because they have a much stronger backing of Physics, and science.

All 4 planes were "recorded" as having speeds over 500mph at the point of impact. (in the official statements)
This is impossible because those planes (as most commercial airliners have a VMO of around 350-400 (and that's at 30,000 ft) at ground level those planes would rip apart from the denser air.

Next, two 110 story skyscrapers pulverized themselves because of 12-15 floors collapsing? At freefall? Causing fires over 2000 deg Fahrenheit in the rubble for 3 MONTHS?
Finding moletn steel at the ground zero (and building 7)? So we were told (and confirmed by official reports) that the fires from the planes were not hot enough to melt steel, just needed to be hot enough to weaken them, and then 3 months later you have infernos raging under the rubble despite a lack of a real oxygen source, and these fires are burning hotter than the jet fuel would have ever allowed.

Building 7 collapsed into it's own frame and the official reasoning from NIST is the "office fires" causing the failure of ONE support column. The consequential damage made the building collapse evenly
at freefall speeds...

The flight the hit the Pentagon, flight 77 did a 270 degree corkscrew turn from 8000 feet to 2000 feet maintaining a speed of 300 knots (according to the black box data), when it lined up with the Pentagon it reached a speed of 450 knots with the nose tilted down slightly.. (Every Piloit who was told this story has said it is impossible) Not to mention the Alleged highjacker was known to be a terrible pilot who wasn't even allowed to fly solo in a single engine Cessna.

Flight 93 - Cell phone calls were apparently placed during the flight being at 20,000 feet. I guess cellular phone technology was better 15 years ago, as this is an IMPOSSIBILITY even TODAY.

Flight -93 - No debris, no bodies, no bones etc. Coroners have yet to find a single drop of blood at the scene.
"There was no plane," Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003 - I guess the mayor is a crackpot too.

[OzmO]

What's your point ? Do you really think those massive core columns disintegrated from a tiny collision into the curtain wall from a tiny plane while the structure is massive in comparison.  And twice at that with both damn near around the same time. But that's just another coincidence right lol.

No, my point is that your argument about how the WTCs were constructed were completely wrong and it took you about 24 reminders by me before you could even respond to it until now.

Can we now agree that you were 100% wrong about what you thought any engineer would say?

No i don't think massive columns disintegrated. 

[M4tad0r]

What's up with these euro trolls? I don't get it.

Are they mad because their countries are been run down by muslims while we topple governments in the middle east? If so you guys are mad at the wrong people for all the wrong reasons.

Are they mad because they don't have the balls to be free thinkers like Americans do? So they think and act as their goverment tells them to do.

They should watch videos of George Carling, probably our greates comedian we have had so far, they may learn a thing or two.

The Best Of George Carlin Exposing The American Government

Trolls chip in: Ozmo, Ropo, Chaos, Be There.

[M4tad0r]

No, my point is that your argument about how the WTCs were constructed were completely wrong and it took you about 24 reminders by me before you could even respond to it until now.

Can we now agree that you were 100% wrong about what you thought any engineer would say?

Ozmo "The Cheese American" full of rubbish,

"The legend on his own mind"

Government dick rider's logic 101: Coincidence!!! 

Who's been debunking CT's for 9 years with: "Again you are wrong"........

That's what you have been doing this whole time Ozmo, getting exposed!!!

Man up & shut da fuck up!!!

All you been doing is getting:

[OzmO]

Ozmo "The Cheese American" full of rubbish,

"The legend on his own mind"

Government dick rider's logic 101: Coincidence!!! 

Who's been debunking CT's for 9 years with: "Again you are wrong"........

That's what you have been doing this whole time Ozmo, getting exposed!!!

Man up & shut da fuck up!!!

All you been doing is getting:

These are things YOU claimed and they have been shown to be WRONG:

Fact:  Bush wasn't talking about WTC's being pre-wired with explosives
Fact:  it wasn't 19 goat shephards
Fact:  There are discussions and studies art colleges of why the WTCs failed on 9/11


this is not going away   

[M4tad0r]

These are things YOU claimed and they have been shown to be WRONG:

Fact:  Bush wasn't talking about WTC's being pre-wired with explosives
Fact:  it wasn't 19 goat shephards
Fact:  There are discussions and studies art colleges of why the WTCs failed on 9/11


this is not going away   

Okay Ozmo, you got me. Good luck with the trolling....

[OzmO]

No the conspiracy theories of 9/11 are far more credible and logical because they have a much stronger backing of Physics, and science.

All 4 planes were "recorded" as having speeds over 500mph at the point of impact. (in the official statements)
This is impossible because those planes (as most commercial airliners have a VMO of around 350-400 (and that's at 30,000 ft) at ground level those planes would rip apart from the denser air.

Are you saying the speed is uncorrect or that because some say that's improbable for those planes to fly that fast that there were no planes at all?

Next, two 110 story skyscrapers pulverized themselves because of 12-15 floors collapsing?

That's not why they collapsed, that's not what the official reports says or follow up independent reports say.

At freefall?

Free fall being what?  

Causing fires over 2000 deg Fahrenheit in the rubble for 3 MONTHS?  Finding moletn steel at the ground zero (and building 7)?

Hot steel continues to burn when exposed to air.  

So we were told (and confirmed by official reports) that the fires from the planes were not hot enough to melt steel, just needed to be hot enough to weaken them, and then 3 months later you have infernos raging under the rubble despite a lack of a real oxygen source, and these fires are burning hotter than the jet fuel would have ever allowed.

The pile of rubble wasn't sealed from air.

Building 7 collapsed into it's own frame and the official reasoning from NIST is the "office fires" causing the failure of ONE support column. The consequential damage made the building collapse evenly
at freefall speeds...

It didn't collapse evenly.  

The flight the hit the Pentagon, flight 77 did a 270 degree corkscrew turn from 8000 feet to 2000 feet maintaining a speed of 300 knots (according to the black box data), when it lined up with the Pentagon it reached a speed of 450 knots with the nose tilted down slightly.. (Every Piloit who was told this story has said it is impossible) Not to mention the Alleged highjacker was known to be a terrible pilot who wasn't even allowed to fly solo in a single engine Cessna.

Considered very difficult and even improbable but not impossible.  And the pilot didn't hit the pentagon very well.  It would have been far better to hit at about 50ft higher.

Flight 93 - Cell phone calls were apparently placed during the flight being at 20,000 feet. I guess cellular phone technology was better 15 years ago, as this is an IMPOSSIBILITY even TODAY.

So the people on the plane who called were coerced and or under the illusion they were flying and then taken to a sirte and killed disposed and then fake wreckage created?

Flight -93 - No debris, no bodies, no bones etc. Coroners have yet to find a single drop of blood at the scene. "There was no plane," Ernie Stull, mayor of Shanksville, told German television in March 2003 - I guess the mayor is a crackpot too.

That's basically what happens many times (depending on conditions) when a plane crashes on the ground at high speed.  It pretty much disintegrates.  

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __

Just to understand you, what you listed here seems to suggest you don't think any of the 4 planes involved in 9/11 were really planes?

[OzmO]

Okay Ozmo, you got me. Good luck with the trolling....

These are things YOU claimed and they have been shown to be WRONG:

Fact:  Bush wasn't talking about WTC's being pre-wired with explosives
Fact:  it wasn't 19 goat shephards
Fact:  There are discussions and studies art colleges of why the WTCs failed on 9/11


this is not going away   

[M4tad0r]

Are you saying the speed is uncorrect or that because some say that's improbable for those planes to fly that fast that there were no planes at all?

That's not why they collapsed, that's not what the official reports says or follow up independent reports say.

Free fall being what?  


Hot steel continues to burn when exposed to air.  

The pile of rubble wasn't sealed from air.

It didn't collapse evenly.  

Considered very difficult and even improbable but not impossible.  And the pilot didn't hit the pentagon very well.  It would have been far better to hit at about 50ft higher.

So the people on the plane who called were coerced and or under the illusion they were flying and then taken to a sirte and killed disposed and then fake wreckage created?
That's basically what happens many times (depending on conditions) when a plane crashes on the ground at high speed.  It pretty much disintegrates.  

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __

Just to understand you, what you listed here seems to suggest you don't think any of the 4 planes involved in 9/11 were really planes?

[OzmO]

These are things YOU claimed and they have been shown to be WRONG:

Fact:  Bush wasn't talking about WTC's being pre-wired with explosives
Fact:  it wasn't 19 goat shephards
Fact:  There are discussions and studies art colleges of why the WTCs failed on 9/11


this is not going away   

[Colossus_1986]

Are you saying the speed is uncorrect or that because some say that's improbable for those planes to fly that fast that there were no planes at all?

The speed is incorrect and impossible as by the standards of what that plane was built for, when you're 200mph above the speed that the plane was designed to fly at, and at sea level...something is wrong
when you surpass the VMO of the aircraft, panels and wings rip off, there have been instances where planes were slightly above the VMO and the damage was astounding

That's not why they collapsed, that's not what the official reports says or follow up independent reports say.

Free fall being what?  
Having no resistance from objects below. The Towers and WTC 1 -2 all had freefall speeds in their descent.


Hot steel continues to burn when exposed to air.  
Burning from what? Jet fuel which is know to not be able to, and office fires? How did hot steel burn in the first place?! There was only supposed to be a weakening of steel not melting.

The pile of rubble wasn't sealed from air.
The rubble was mostly powder and dust from the collapse. It would have had even less oxygen exposure than when fires were burning in the towers with windows and all...
The debris was very dense and crowded, not the best environment to keep a fire burning.Mind you, you'd have to address what is strong enough to melt steel in there in the first place.

It didn't collapse evenly.  
Wrong lol


Considered very difficult and even improbable but not impossible.  And the pilot didn't hit the pentagon very well.  It would have been far better to hit at about 50ft higher.
Not impossible, but on a day of many 1st occurances, such as building collapsing from fire, we're to believe a terrible pilot who couldn't fly a cessna pulled off moves
that defied a) the structural limitations of the aircraft, b) the capabilities of dozens of expert pilots c) people tried to simulate his flight sequence in a simulator and were never able to replicate

So the people on the plane who called were coerced and or under the illusion they were flying and then taken to a sirte and killed disposed and then fake wreckage created?
That's basically what happens many times (depending on conditions) when a plane crashes on the ground at high speed.  It pretty much disintegrates.  

Please enlighten me on these planes that disintegrated, and MANY TIMES this happened

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __

Just to understand you, what you listed here seems to suggest you don't think any of the 4 planes involved in 9/11 were really planes?

No planes at pentagon and Shanksville.

WTC 1 and 2 certainly had planes fly into them (if they were drones is another debate) but regardless they were planes.

[OzmO]

The speed is incorrect and impossible as by the standards of what that plane was built for, when you're 200mph above the speed that the plane was designed to fly at, and at sea level...something is wrong
when you surpass the VMO of the aircraft, panels and wings rip off, there have been instances where planes were slightly above the VMO and the damage was astounding

Having no resistance from objects below. The Towers and WTC 1 -2 all had freefall speeds in their descent.

Burning from what? Jet fuel which is know to not be able to, and office fires? How did hot steel burn in the first place?! There was only supposed to be a weakening of steel not melting.

The rubble was mostly powder and dust from the collapse. It would have had even less oxygen exposure than when fires were burning in the towers with windows and all...
The debris was very dense and crowded, not the best environment to keep a fire burning.Mind you, you'd have to address what is strong enough to melt steel in there in the first place.

Wrong lol

Not impossible, but on a day of many 1st occurances, such as building collapsing from fire, we're to believe a terrible pilot who couldn't fly a cessna pulled off moves
that defied a) the structural limitations of the aircraft, b) the capabilities of dozens of expert pilots c) people tried to simulate his flight sequence in a simulator and were never able to replicate

Please enlighten me on these planes that disintegrated, and MANY TIMES this happened

No planes at pentagon and Shanksville.

WTC 1 and 2 certainly had planes fly into them (if they were drones is another debate) but regardless they were planes.

I appreciate your direct responses to mine.  i also appreciate the absence of ad-hom in your responses and i will try and refrain from it.

There are a lot of aspects here and each could easily warrant their own thread.  So i will start with some easy ones.

Planes disintegrating on impact:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Iranian_Air_Force_C-130_crash





http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10346431/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iranian-military-plane-hits-building-killing/#.VzNf54QrKUk

Where is the c-130?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/world/europe/23plane.html?_r=0



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/don-t-believe-russian-airline-s-new-excuse-for-crash.html

Of course there are also many pics of crashes of planes where some or much of the plane is intact.

What remains after a crash is dependent on speed, mass, fuel, angle, etc.

To prove or argue flight 93 wasn't a plane you would have to also have to evidence backing up an explanation of these things:

What happened to the passengers of flight 93?
How were they coaxed into calling their friends and family during the hijacking and reporting what was going on while it was happening?
How were they able to dispose of a the plane?
How were they able to coordinate the transpoder with secondary radar tracking on the ground?
How were they able to hide the plane from primary radar when they flew it somewhere else?
How did they commandeer the plane in the first place?
If they did it remotely how did they install the remote devices (if it was even possible in 2001) with out incredibly detailed maintenance personal, procedures, safety protocols, and  records being altered or compromised?
How did they prep the crash site to have some debris?

I probably could think of more questions.

But what evidence exists outside of the perceived absence of wreckage on a grainy photograph that points to the questions i asked above?

Burning from what? Jet fuel which is know to not be able to, and office fires? How did hot steel burn in the first place?! There was only supposed to be a weakening of steel not melting.

As steel heats it will reach a point that it will continue to burn until it melts.

this is a simple version using steel wool

http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Science-Burn-Steel-Wool/

There also many other metals present in the building that could have attributed to melting and heating parts of the rubble pile to a higher temp, heating the iron/steal enough to create the reaction of steal heating up enough to continue burn to a higher temp. Not to mention those instances of a molten metal might not have been steel.

In order to prevent any burning it has to be sealed 100% from air.  Not even close with the rubble pile.

And again here are some questions you have to ask to explain pre-wired and have evidence to support them:

How did they get explosives in the building with out anyone knowing?
Why would they need to with planes hitting it?
How did they access the steel beems with out anyone knowing?

What evidence is there of this?

(also could ask more questions)

[OzmO]

And just for the record.

I do support another investigation into 9/11.  As do some 50% of the people do in polls.

but i am pretty sure the vast majority of them don't believe the WTC's where pre-wired or a missile hit the pentagon.

they suspect, as i do, some people needed to lose their jobs or go to jail because of their failures leading to or on 9/11

[Simple Simon]

After watching a documentary on the Hillsborough incident where 96 Liverpool fans died it appeared they whole thing started when the Chief police officer in charge on the day ordered a gate to be opened into the ground.
When the head of the Football Association turned up to ask what had caused the incident the chief of police said the fans broke the gate and forced their way in.
The entire cover up into the deaths started based on that one lie, all he had to do was admit his mistake and the families of the people that died would have not have to have waited 27 years for justice.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility the incident on 9/11 was a lie based to cover up the failings of an incompetent President.

[M4tad0r]

Flight 93:  scheduled early-morning nonstop flight from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, California, a  5 hour flight, that on that day  had a total 44 people aboard including the four hijackers.

According to Ozmo: Coincidence!!!

Boeing 757,  can carry 200 to 295 passengers for a maximum of 3,150 to 4,100 nautical miles (5,830 to 7,590 km)

Picture after crash:





The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html

[Ropo]

Demolition, not explosions. And tell me if you don't see the similar sign of smoke when  the Twin towers came down, would more than gladly point it out for you.

You are still a retarded inbreed from Finland. Keep trolling imbecile!!!

Ropo the retarded inbreed that just keeps given.

Forever:

Controlled demolitions made by what exactly? Until you come up with the answer to this simple question, you are just another ape throwing crap around. All your means of the controlled demolition are just crap form the childish imagination, without even the slightest possibility to work in the real world, so pretty fucking please, please explain how the demolition would be possible? I dare you, show me the evidence?

[OzmO]

Flight 93:  scheduled early-morning nonstop flight from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco, California, a  5 hour flight, that on that day  had a total 44 people aboard including the four hijackers.

According to Ozmo: Coincidence!!!

Boeing 757,  can carry 200 to 295 passengers for a maximum of 3,150 to 4,100 nautical miles (5,830 to 7,590 km)

Picture after crash:





The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:

The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight93site.html

These are things YOU claimed and they have been shown to be WRONG:

Fact:  Bush wasn't talking about WTC's being pre-wired with explosives
Fact:  it wasn't 19 goat shephards
Fact:  There are discussions and studies art colleges of why the WTCs failed on 9/11


this is not going away     

[M4tad0r]

I appreciate your direct responses to mine.  i also appreciate the absence of ad-hom in your responses and i will try and refrain from it.

There are a lot of aspects here and each could easily warrant their own thread.  So i will start with some easy ones.

Planes disintegrating on impact:



http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10346431/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iranian-military-plane-hits-building-killing/#.VzNf54QrKUk

Where is the c-130?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/world/europe/23plane.html?_r=0



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/don-t-believe-russian-airline-s-new-excuse-for-crash.html

Of course there are also many pics of crashes of planes where some or much of the plane is intact.

What remains after a crash is dependent on speed, mass, fuel, angle, etc.

To prove or argue flight 93 wasn't a plane you would have to also have to evidence backing up an explanation of these things:

What happened to the passengers of flight 93?
How were they coaxed into calling their friends and family during the hijacking and reporting what was going on while it was happening?
How were they able to dispose of a the plane?
How were they able to coordinate the transpoder with secondary radar tracking on the ground?
How were they able to hide the plane from primary radar when they flew it somewhere else?
How did they commandeer the plane in the first place?
If they did it remotely how did they install the remote devices (if it was even possible in 2001) with out incredibly detailed maintenance personal, procedures, safety protocols, and  records being altered or compromised?
How did they prep the crash site to have some debris?

I probably could think of more questions.

But what evidence exists outside of the perceived absence of wreckage on a grainy photograph that points to the questions i asked above?

As steel heats it will reach a point that it will continue to burn until it melts.

this is a simple version using steel wool

http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Science-Burn-Steel-Wool/

There also many other metals present in the building that could have attributed to melting and heating parts of the rubble pile to a higher temp, heating the iron/steal enough to create the reaction of steal heating up enough to continue burn to a higher temp. Not to mention those instances of a molten metal might not have been steel.

In order to prevent any burning it has to be sealed 100% from air.  Not even close with the rubble pile.

And again here are some questions you have to ask to explain pre-wired and have evidence to support them:

How did they get explosives in the building with out anyone knowing? Maintenance, well documented. Do your research.
Why would they need to with planes hitting it?                                How could they fabricated the conspiracy to begin with. But according to you, Coincidence.
How did they access the steel beems with out anyone knowing?        Again, maintenance crew working there all the time, Zionist in charged of security. RESEARCH.

What evidence is there of this?                                                    After following this thread, it becomes extremely obvious you're nothing but a goverment dick rider shill.  

(also could ask more questions)

First article:

"Witnesses said the C-130 hit the top of the building"  Does that picture looks to you of the top of the building?

Secons article:



What do we see? Engines.

Third article:

Pro goverment website, maybe infiltrated by CIA.

article from website:

.J. O’Rourke: I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton, the Devil We Know

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/11/p-j-o-rourke-i-m-endorsing-hillary-clinton-the-devil-we-know.html

About the plane:

[M4tad0r]

Controlled demolitions made by what exactly? Until you come up with the answer to this simple question, you are just another ape throwing crap around. All your means of the controlled demolition are just crap form the childish imagination, without even the slightest possibility to work in the real world, so pretty fucking please, please explain how the demolition would be possible? I dare you, show me the evidence?