SCDs - Secret Controlled Demolitions

[GT/CS]

LCF has a new hero pushing what I believe to be a new CD theory for WTC1 & WTC2. Mods, If this has already been posted please pull it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745&st=0&#entry14674183

Conclusions

If one concedes that the Twin Towers were demolished, than it's safe to say that it wasn't a Controlled Demolition (CD) in the common manner. It was a Secret Controlled Demolition (SCD). A SCD requires a cover legend to make it not look like a demolition. This legend is that the impact damage of the planes and the subsequent fires brought down the towers.

This legend made it necessary to bring down the building from the top (impact zone) to the bottom - unlike most other, non-secret, Controlled Demolitions. To carry out this SCD successfully, it was also necessary that the fires could not have been exstinguished. Exstinguished fires would have destroyed the cover for the Secret Controlled Demolition. The explosions in the basement levels and on floor 22 secured the cover for the whole operation. And therefore were a necessary part of the SCD.

And this answers two questions raised in relation to the basement explosions. First, it's often asked, if the basement explosions were result of devices, why should they detonate them an hour before the actual demolition? The basement and 22nd floor explosions were not part of a Controlled Demolition (if, then it would inideed make little sense), but part of a Secret Controlled Demolition.

 

[ConspiRaider]

We've been all through this. The "debate" is comfortably resting in the Abandon All Hope forum.

 

[GT/CS]

Probably a good place for it.

Haven't been over here for awhile. The bigfoot nonsense is a lot more entertaining!!!

Thanks

 

[Slayhamlet]

Wait, so what is the point of the "Secret Controlled Demolition" if it doesn't initiate collapse?

 

[R.Mackey]

Those of you who are familiar with Dr. Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage" will recognize its tracks in the argument described in the OP.

That isn't an argument. It's a bunch of excuses why they don't have any evidence. They are deliberately creating an untestable hypothesis.

On the bright side, the person who created that illogical argument did so because he or she has already understood that any direct argument -- one based on evidence -- is impossible. While I doubt they realize it, the argument above is equivalent to an admission of defeat.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Wait, so what is the point of the "Secret Controlled Demolition" if it doesn't initiate collapse?

Oh, I see now. They risked their whole plot being blown wide open by detonating basement bombs and a bomb on floor 22 just to avoid the risk of the firefighters witnessing the bombs planted near the impact floors which were the actual initiators of the top-down CD. Way to make the plot even more complicated, twoofers! Now they had to have bombs planted in two more locations without being noticed by anyone.

 

[bofors]

First, it's often asked, if the basement explosions were result of devices, why should they detonate them an hour before the actual demolition?

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD, this is not a particularly relevent question.

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.

If you waited until the actual demolition started, more people and cameras could have, in the perpetrators view, diverted focus for the initiation at the top.

Otherwise, I think that demolitions usually are a two stage process, and this could have just been the result of normal proceedure.

 

[CHF]

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.

What?

How does blowing up the garage in any was assist the charges at the top?

Seriously man - what on earth are you talking about?

 

[Slayhamlet]

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD, this is not a particularly relevent question.

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.

If you waited until the actual demolition started, more people and cameras could have, in the perpetrators view, diverted focus for the initiation at the top.

Otherwise, I think that demolitions usually are a two stage process, and this could have just been the result of normal proceedure.

Wow! That makes even less sense than the explanation of the kook you quoted. Bravo! You truly are inept.

BTW, in case you forgot, there's zero evidence of a controlled demolition, let alone of any bombs having been planted at the WTC complex in the months leading up to 9/11.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, the answer to the OP is simple. Putting the first letters in CAPS makes it look formal, as though the poster hadn't just pulled it out of his butt.

What has more troofiness, secret "controlled demolition" or "Secret Controlled Demolition"? Why, the latter, of course. And then you can use the initials, SCD.

You can do that with any words, and you, too, can be Troofy. Late Afternoon Controlled Demolition or LACD (which, from now on is how they brought down WTC7, 'kay?), Mid-Morning Controlled Demolition MMCD (the towers, naturally), Air Force Shanksville Shootdown AFSS... etc.... It just gives things a nice official-looking glow.

(Who is it in another thread who's now differing between a "controlled demolition" and his latest coinage, a "criminal demolition"?)

The great thing about the SCD is that we now can see that the planes weren't the false flag at all. The planes were the semi-false flag, and then the bombs going off at all the wrong times to fit their basic vanilla CD theory were the real false flags.

They really are getting desperate.

 

[Bell]

(Who is it in another thread who's now differing between a "controlled demolition" and his latest coinage, a "criminal demolition"?)

TerryUK:

So you will appreciate then, that all the arguments above, which claim MONTHS of preparation are necessary for CD, are BS!
The preparation etc mentioned would only apply to conventional CD, where damage to surrounding buildings must be avoided.

This of course would not apply to a criminal demolition...

 

[DGM]

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD, this is not a particularly relevent question.

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.
If you waited until the actual demolition started, more people and cameras could have, in the perpetrators view, diverted focus for the initiation at the top.

Otherwise, I think that demolitions usually are a two stage process, and this could have just been the result of normal proceedure.

So should I take it that this part of the plan was a failure?

 

[GT/CS]

I'd like to clarify that the "Conclusion" is from the post at LCF and not my conclusion. I did an awful job cutting and pasting from LCF to the OP and it looks like everyting after the link are my words.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.

No, he speculates that the alleged basement bombs were detonated in order to cut off the water supply to the upper floors, so that the firefighters couldn't put out the raging inferno and ruin everything.

The whole fantasy some of you hold on to about the alleged bombs being used to weaken the lower supports is stupid and laughable.

 

[bonavada]

Those of you who are familiar with Dr. Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage" will recognize its tracks in the argument described in the OP

where is sagan when you need him <sigh>

i'm also familiar with the "tower of turtles" concept. this is just another big turtle trying to prop up an usupportable argument.

BV

 

[bynmdsue]

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD, this is not a particularly relevent question.

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.

If you waited until the actual demolition started, more people and cameras could have, in the perpetrators view, diverted focus for the initiation at the top.

Otherwise, I think that demolitions usually are a two stage process, and this could have just been the result of normal proceedure.

Damn,You couldn't even read THIS paper?Why must you waste everyone's time?

 

[Dave_46]

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD, this is not a particularly relevent question.

<snip>

Please present this "overwhelming evidence of CD".

Thank you

Dave

 

[ConspiRaider]

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD, this is not a particularly relevent question.

But I think the basic idea was to blow out the garage, weaken the foundation or do whatever other ground prep. work needed to be done, roughly when the planes struck the towers.

If you waited until the actual demolition started, more people and cameras could have, in the perpetrators view, diverted focus for the initiation at the top.

Otherwise, I think that demolitions usually are a two stage process, and this could have just been the result of normal proceedure.

See now this is where you and I differ. In technique, not in principle.

I agree this was a 2-stage dealerino but look at the risk involved! Look at all the shills here who - incredibly - actually QUESTION that it was controlled demolition!

Poysonally I'd have gone for the more stable 3-stage approach. I'd have started with a taxicab back in midtown Manhattan, gets a dead battery at an intersection on West 44th. Oh great. Driver gets out (he's in on it), he gets a jump from another cabbie (the vehicle, not the poyson). And like you know how when you get a jump you're not sposta connect the red cable to the black terminal? Or the friggin' battery will blow up? Well that's what woulda happened!!!1! BOTH taxicabs "accidentally" blow up, big panic, helicopters, tanks, National Guard, Giuliani in limo, the whole friggin' ISLAND of Manhattan is in an uproar! It's hard enough to get a cab and now they lose TWO of 'em?!?

So while that is going on of course THEN you blow the WTC garages and later the targeted floors and invade Iraq.

 

[Corsair 115]

In face of the overwhelming evidence of CD...

Except for the fact that no video camera within blocks and blocks of the WTC recorded the very loud and distinctive sounds of demolition charges going off. Except for the fact that no persons within blocks and blocks of the WTC report hearing the very loud and distinctive sounds of demolition charges going off.

No sounds = no demolition charges.

 

[SDC]

One point: miragemem, in his response, refers to "German-to-English typos." Are NK-44 (and Chopoz?) German, then? It would explain some of the awkward phrasing.

Perhaps the most chilling point is in the responses, when NK-44 says, concerning Giuliani, "I will go in this stuff in 'SCD Part II - WTC 7 and the Emergency Situation,' coming within the next weeks. It certainly won't draw a comfortable picture of Rudy and his Gang." Think of Ah-nold in Terminator: "I'll be back."