911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[SAYIT]

again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?

Covering your eyes and ears does not allow you to move beyond the silliness of your particular CT. 9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence:
"The jetliners that impacted the North and South Towers became almost entirely embedded within them. No large parts visibly bounced off, and only a few parts emerged from the other side..."
"...The pattern of damage to the towers' exterior walls indicates that in both cases, the fuselage, engines, and wing roots punched through, and the wing tips were shredded by the grating of meter-spaced columns. Subsequent damage to the jets was determined by their different impact trajectories.
What do you suppose happened to the remains of the planes which slammed into the WTC at a few hundred MPHs?

 

[Freewill]

again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?

Sigh, you have been shown a picture of degris at the Pentagon. You were shown 9/11 truthers arguing about where debris landed from flight 93. Both of those should answer your question.

As for flight 11 this is all the physical evidence you need. They all were here on 9/10 and gone 9/11.

Captain John Ogonowski, First Officer Thomas McGuinness, and flight attendants Barbara Arestegui, Jeffrey Collman, Sara Low, Karen Martin, Kathleen Nicosia, Betty Ong, Jean Roger, Dianne Snyder, and Amy Sweeney.[3]
All 92 people on board were killed,[4] including David Angell (the creator and executive producer of the television sitcom Frasier), his wife Lynn Angell, and actress Berry Berenson, the widow of Anthony Perkins.[5] [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

That is all the time that should be wasted on this subject.

 

[Freewill]

again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?

Covering your eyes and ears does not allow you to move beyond the silliness of your particular CT. 9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence:
"The jetliners that impacted the North and South Towers became almost entirely embedded within them. No large parts visibly bounced off, and only a few parts emerged from the other side..."
"...The pattern of damage to the towers' exterior walls indicates that in both cases, the fuselage, engines, and wing roots punched through, and the wing tips were shredded by the grating of meter-spaced columns. Subsequent damage to the jets was determined by their different impact trajectories.
What do you suppose happened to the remains of the planes which slammed into the WTC at a few hundred MPHs?

F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over.

 

[SAYIT]

again I ask, where is the physical evidence that there ever was any commercial airliner crashed at any of the 4 locations on 9/11/2001 ?

Covering your eyes and ears does not allow you to move beyond the silliness of your particular CT. 9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence:
"The jetliners that impacted the North and South Towers became almost entirely embedded within them. No large parts visibly bounced off, and only a few parts emerged from the other side..."
"...The pattern of damage to the towers' exterior walls indicates that in both cases, the fuselage, engines, and wing roots punched through, and the wing tips were shredded by the grating of meter-spaced columns. Subsequent damage to the jets was determined by their different impact trajectories.
What do you suppose happened to the remains of the planes which slammed into the WTC at a few hundred MPHs?

F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over.

In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires.

 

[n0spam4me]

As for flight 11 this is all the physical evidence you need. They all were here on 9/10 and gone 9/11.
.....................................................
That is all the time that should be wasted on this subject.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank U ever so much, do you actually believe that simply having an alleged record of "FLT11" being real and then not found after 9/11/2001,
is solid evidence that the aircraft was hijacked and crashed into WTC1?
where is the physical evidence of any of the alleged airliners? FLT11 & FLT175 had flight data recorders on-board, but these recorders were never found, so the action of the pulverization of the WTC tower(s) had been so complete as to completely destroy both flight data recorders?
This whole official story is dependent on a number of miracles....
The physical evidence of the airliners is pivotal to knowing about this crime. Its very much like prosecuting a murder, and having no murder weapon to present in evidence. where is it?

 

[n0spam4me]

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully. please do give it some thought.

 

[SAYIT]

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully. please do give it some thought.

Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?

 

[Gary Anderson]

now this is hilarious!

not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.

gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.

Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.

Read above.

Sorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.

So here's the thing: 14 years after 9/11 and there has been no proof of a controlled demo (plenty before you have pretended) or of any conspiracy (other than that of the 19 Muslim nutjobs).
Those who paid BILLIONS in insurance claims sure could use your help as they would love to recoup those payouts. Lemme know how you make out.

Of course there is proof that all three buildings were controlled demos. You can stay blind if you want to. And as far as the insurance payments, they were made by Travelers, which was taken over a and protected by Citibank.

You should read this if you are serious about the truth, which I doubt you are: Larry Silverstein WTC 7 and the 9 11 Demolition

 

[Gary Anderson]

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully. please do give it some thought.

Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?

The planes, if they existed, were likely military planes. And nothing was found at the Pennsylvania site and as Rumsfeld said, the Pentagon was hit by a missile. No wings, nothing were found.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?"

Please do enlighten me, present the evidence that I have allegedly ignored.

 

[Skylar]

"In order to carry hundreds of people and their luggage, not to mention tons of fuel, modern airliners are purposely made of very light materials which are not intended to withstand impacts or fuel fires."

.......................................................................................................................

"F=mA Imagine in this situation the acceration (decceration) is really, really fast. Thus the force place on the building was enormous. It is amazing it didn't topple over."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please do have a good look at the alleged video evidence of "FLT175",
do look very carefully. please do give it some thought.

Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?

The planes, if they existed, were likely military planes. And nothing was found at the Pennsylvania site and as Rumsfeld said, the Pentagon was hit by a missile. No wings, nothing were found.

Wow. That's layers of hogwash. Lets start with the 'if they existed' claim. First, why would you deny the existence of the planes? There were literally thousands of eye witnesses, video for a dozen angles and overwhelming physical evidence.

Second, 'military planes'? The debris found matches passenger jets, down to the type of engines, the types of wheel wells and the Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage. Additionally, lots and lots of passenger bodies were found. For flight 77 for example, all the bodies were identified and all were found inside the Pentagon at the site of the crash. The black boxes of commercial flights were found for flight 93 and flight 77.

All contradicting the 'military plane' narrative rather starkly.

As for a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, that's simply not what the evidence shows. Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon in the dead of night or in the middle of the wilderness. It flew low over I-395 in broad daylight in the middle of a traffic jam. And the eye witness accounts of a plane are overwhelming.

And finally, your claim that nothing was ever found of flight 93 is utter nonsense. The overwhelming majority of the plane was recovered, along with the black boxes and bodies of passengers.

Where are you getting your information?

 

[Skylar]

"Once again you cover your eyes and eyes lest the truth seep in. I repeat:
9/11Research.com, a website dedicated to 9/11 CTs, describes what happened to the planes. Note that they make no effort to deny their existence. They have access to the same evidence that you do. Why do they not deny the existence of 4 hijacked planes on 9/11? Could it be they recognize the silliness of doing so and you don't?"

Please do enlighten me, present the evidence that I have allegedly ignored.

Well first, you've refused to even look at the evidence presented at the website. So anything presented there you starkly ignore.

Second, I've already presented you pictures of the debris from the planes. And you utterly ignored that....so far refusing to acknowledge it even existed.

Lets start with those two, and then work our way through the deliberate, calculated ignorance that is your perspective.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"

and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES. ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?

Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.

 

[Skylar]

"Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"

and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES. ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?

Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"

and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES. ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?

Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

Big problem here, where is this "overwhelming" evidence?
the fact is that the world was shown a series of snap-shots of the various alleged crash sites and told this was sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that hijacked airliners were used as weapons.
HOWEVER, where is the accounting for how much of any given airliner was recovered and identified? contrast the aircraft bits recovery with Pan Am 103 ..... The alleged hijacked airliners were not accounted for.

 

[Skylar]

"Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"

and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES. ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?

Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

Big problem here, where is this "overwhelming" evidence?

Its already been presented to you. The half dozen massive holes in your 'bomb theory' that render it virtually impossible. The pictures of debris of planes admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings that explicitly contradict your narrative that there were no 'hijacked planes'. The eye witness accounts of the pile of debris indicating a mound as high as 15 stories, when you insist it was all reduced to 'street level'. We've provided you with links to the photos, the testimony, the evidence.

You ignore it all, pretending none of it exists. Every picture, every eye witness account, every piece of evidence that contradicts you. Without exception.

And of course, you neither question your own 'bomb theory', nor can resolve any of the theory killing holes in it that render it ludicrously improbable. You simply ignore the enormous inconsistencies and again pretend they don't exist.

But why would we ignore what you do? Why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do?

There is no reason. And that's why you fail.

 

[n0spam4me]

"We've provided you with links to the photos, the testimony, the evidence."

Really, I'm interested and sorry if I missed the link the first time 'round
please bear with me and show me the pix of the 15 story high rubble at ground zero.

 

[Skylar]

"We've provided you with links to the photos, the testimony, the evidence."

Really, I'm interested and sorry if I missed the link the first time 'round
please bear with me and show me the pix of the 15 story high rubble at ground zero.

I've provided you with eye witness testimony of Fred Marsilla.....who climbed the very debris field you insist never existed. Bear with me....but why would you ignore Mr. Marsilla's eye witness account when you have absolutely nothing to back your story that the towers collapsed to 'street level'?

There are also links to photos of the debris from the planes. You ignored them.

There's also a half dozen holes in the bomb theory that demonstrate its a virtual impossibility. You ignored them.

I've also cited the ASCE report on the damage to the Pentagon, affirming the damage to the building was consistent with an airliner collision, even providing the location of the bodies of the passengers from flight 77 within the Pentagon. You ignore it.

All for no particular reason.

 

[n0spam4me]

Let the random lurker to this forum use on-line search and see what turns up, does the evidence support hijacked airliners used as weapons, .... or possibly something else? do give it some though ....
have a nice day

: )

 

[Skylar]

Let the random lurker to this forum use on-line search and see what turns up, does the evidence support hijacked airliners used as weapons, .... or possibly something else? do give it some though ....
have a nice day

: )

Let the random lurker in this thread note that you're unable to back any of your conspiracy with actual evidence. Nor can you resolve any of the theory killing holes in the bomb theory that render it a virtual impossibility....but have instead ignored every inconsistency. And ignored every picture, every piece of evidence, every piece of testimony that contradicts you.

Where I've provided eye witness testimony or photographic evidence to support my claims, that any lurker can look up and verify. The 'random lurker' standard isn't your friend, Spam. As the evidence supports my claims and utterly destroy yours.

Smiling....have a nice day!