I will challenge the CCTers.

[LoZoccolo]

SHOW ME footage of any conventional controlled demolition of a 110-story building where the rubble falls as far away from the building as it did for the World Trade Center.

There is no other explanation for the powerful "side blasts" of this controlled demolition, other than that which explains that a more powerful explosive was used: it was done with a potato. Stop giving money to commercial conspiracy theorists, who you don't know are giving the money they make back to BushCo for more psyops.

[pauldp]

1. Well Building 7 certainly is a HOT Potato.

And 7's rubble fell pretty darn close to home.

...but I'm sure Penn & Teller explained it in their
little 911 Truther hit piece.... Oh wait that's right
THEY DIDN'T EVEN INCLUDE Building 7 in their
hit piece. Wow. Now there's some Debunking...
:rofl:

[MervinFerd]

3. A HOT explosive potato. What other explanation is possible?

Think about how hard it would be to move lots of explosives into a burning building that might collapse. But -POTATOES!- Potatoes would probably already be in the building. There -must- have been a cafeteria or two.

Technicians just grab a bag of spuds, insert "Spud Detonators" (Spudinators), plant them on critical beams and KABOOM. Collapsing building!

And, not only did Penn and Teller ignore this possibility; the NIST report didn't consider it either!

BAD NIST!

[Big Pappa]

2. potato and no science or logical thought.

Then you have the trifecta.

[MervinFerd]

4. What could be more logical than a HOT POTATO? NT

[Big Pappa]

5. A loaded baked potato

:toast:

[MervinFerd]

6. I think it is undetermined whether they were pre-baked.

More research is needed.

A thoroughly baked potato is pretty squishy. You'd have a hard time transporting it and fastening it in place.

Besides, I'm not sure that baking an explosive potato would not set it off. Or reduce the force of the explosive.

You wouldn't put nitroglycerin in your oven.

[Big Pappa]

7. No they

must be prepared on a armored Weber grill.