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

[Faun]

Don't need termite or that. Jet A Fuel burns hot enough to melt steel girders, how about we just get back to Islamic extremist again? Same people that are beheading people in the name of some imaginary fantasy?

great fantasys you have that they are hot enough to melt steel girders.

No surprise that's the latest babble from you considering that you also have fantasy that JFK got us into Vietnam and esculated the Vietnam war.

Who says the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel? They didn't have to be anywhere near that hot because all they had to was weaken the steel enough to start the collapse. Jet fuel could easily do that, eliminating a tremendous amount of angst-filled misinformation. See how much simpler things are when you start from a factual basis?

problem with that fantasy was they were not anywhere hot enough to weaken them,they weren't even hot enough to melt a marshmellow let along weaken steel not to mention the laws of physics were violated in their collapse. that's pure fantasy that the fires cause it and wekaend them.

Do you realize how stupid your post sounds? Read it carefully. You just tried to make the case that a jet fuel fire can't melt a marshmallow. That's seriously screwed up, and you just lost the credibility you so desperately need right now.

you idiot,dont know what SARCASM is,also you prove what an idiot you are because the collapse violated the laws of physics that all junior high school students learn at that age,and you cant get around bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup no matter how desperately you try.

The Twin Towers were never designed to withstand a direct hit from a 767. It's not a surprise they came down.

 

[hadit]

http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA
as for cappy's analysis of the audio between 40 and 50secs on this clip what he and everyone else are hearing is the sound of rushing air and breaking glass, and steel .
plush a million other things crashing into each other before hitting the ground.
if there had been explosives used as they are in actual CD'S the sound would have been like a string of firecrackers going off ,only louder.
besides cappy like most people is unable to tell the difference between a tire blowout and backfire.
imo, he like all the other twoofers wants to believe explosives were used in spite of the fact there is no evidence of any kind for their use.

Exactly. When Pan Am flight 103 was bombed, they were able to identify the bomb by minute fragments left behind in the rubble. The sheer amount of explosives needed to bring down the buildings in this case would have left behind evidence of their existence, yet NO ONE has brought forth ANY such evidence. None.

 

[Capstone]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

 

[Capstone]

That's not what I asked. I asked you what role you think they played in your conspiracy.

And the answer to that question is implicit in the post I quoted. MacQueen's analysis shows that most of the accounts of apparent foreknowledge of Building 7's "collapse" were not indicative of rationales based on direct observation. The vast majority of those firefighters "believed the building was going to collpase because they were told that it was going to collapse". The analysis further provides a test case which explains how and why none of the FDNY's Fire Chiefs and/or anyone in the rank and file were necessarily 'in the know'. To spell it out for you a bit more clearly, I don't believe anyone in the FDNY on 9/11/01 was necessarily in on the conspiracy.

 

[Faun]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof.

There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated.

But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down.

But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

 

[daws101]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

your last statement is meaningless minutia.

 

[daws101]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof.

There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated.

But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down.

But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

even worse it's a clip from

Naudet brothers 9/11 Documentary - 1st plane hits North Tower

which debunks all twoofer bullshit all by itself...

 

[Faun]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof.

There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated.

But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down.

But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

even worse it's a clip from

Naudet brothers 9/11 Documentary - 1st plane hits North Tower

which debunks all twoofer bullshit all by itself...

My favorite part of that dumbfuck's post was submitting a video clip as evidence for what he claims could have been an explosion; when in fact, the only identifiable sound in it comes from a voice off-camera saying, "I told you that sucker was gonna go." The idiot posts a video indicating some of the people watching it burn felt it was damaged badly enough to collapse.

Twoofers are insane.

 

[Capstone]

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. ...

I don't take the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" lightly, so when I say the observable symmetry and charted freefall of the "collapse" constitute "proof positive" that the official explanation is a farce, you can rest assured that the claim is based on irrefutable facts. There's no question that the symmetrical 105 ft. drop at gravitational acceleration required an unnatural uniformity of damage that cannot be plausibly explained by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse. That's just the reality of the situation, and not even 3 years of denial from your fellow debwunkers have succeeded in altering that reality.

...There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. ...

Audible evidence of explosives aside, the compilation video is rock-solid visual evidence of the unnatural symmetry from which we can infer controlled demolition. As such, it's a component of the proof I mentioned above, which again, is that the official explanation is a crock of shit. You can go on until you're blue in the face about the editing, or the noises, or any number of irrelevant things, but the symmetry that's visible from several different angles will still be standing there when you finally stop to take a breath. That's the relevant issue here, not your obfuscatory bullshit.

...Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated. ...

See, now that little nugget of excrement should tell everyone all they need to know about your approach to this topic, Faun. It's that sort of nonsense that makes it so easy for me to avoid descending into your adolescent pit of name-calling. Your posts do such a magnificent job of speaking for themselves.

"It was as if they had detonated [Yeah.], as if they planned to take down the building -- boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

In case there's any doubt as to the meaning of "detonated", The Oxford English Dictionary should lay it to rest:

Definition of detonate in English:

VERB
Explode or cause to explode: ...

As if it shouldn't go without saying, since it seemed to that firefighter "as if they had detonated" the building, he must have perceived the "booms" very much as he described them.

...But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. ...

And the follow-up further exemplifies the stupidity behind the implied denial that at least two of the firefighters in the video I posted were clearly talking about demolition-style explosives (via synomyms), by way of appealing to that ridiculous denial as a means to denounce "Twoofers" in general. Compelling, ain't it.

...On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down. ...

The implication being: they couldn't have been controlled demolitions?

I suppose you might be onto something there, if it weren't common knowledge that buildings can be rigged to implode in virtually any number of ways.

...But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

Yeah, who knows, maybe even some of the irrational people will have come to grips with their delusional mindsets by then. Hope springs eternal!

 

[SAYIT]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Wow. Has it really been 3 years of reading the silliness that you author? Your claim that you have "from the very beginning," referred to the noises as "possible explosions" does not square with your adamant claims that the buildings were felled by some combination of thermite and standard CD charges which, unless you are referring to some sort of heretofore unknown silent technology, would have made loud, sequential EXPLOSIONS. That also would of course would have required those charges to survive the chaotic fires which engulfed those buildings but if one is going to believe and promote silly 9/11 CT lunacy, one might as well go all in. Any chance I can entice you to try to move your feet fast enough to wiggle out of your latest mess?

 

[SAYIT]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof.

There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated.

But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down.

But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

And your final sentence neatly sums up the problem all 9/11 "Truthers" share ... rationality.

Excerpted from Confessions of an Ex-Truther:
There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts

 

[daws101]

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. ...

I don't take the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" lightly, so when I say the observable symmetry and charted freefall of the "collapse" constitute "proof positive" that the official explanation is a farce, you can rest assured that the claim is based on irrefutable facts. There's no question that the symmetrical 105 ft. drop at gravitational acceleration required an unnatural uniformity of damage that cannot be plausibly explained by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse. That's just the reality of the situation, and not even 3 years of denial from your fellow debwunkers have succeeded in altering that reality.

...There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. ...

Audible evidence of explosives aside, the compilation video is rock-solid visual evidence of the unnatural symmetry from which we can infer controlled demolition. As such, it's a component of the proof I mentioned above, which again, is that the official explanation is a crock of shit. You can go on until you're blue in the face about the editing, or the noises, or any number of irrelevant things, but the symmetry that's visible from several different angles will still be standing there when you finally stop to take a breath. That's the relevant issue here, not your obfuscatory bullshit.

...Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated. ...

See, now that little nugget of excrement should tell everyone all they need to know about your approach to this topic, Faun. It's that sort of nonsense that makes it so easy for me to avoid descending into your adolescent pit of name-calling. Your posts do such a magnificent job of speaking for themselves.

"It was as if they had detonated [Yeah.], as if they planned to take down the building -- boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

In case there's any doubt as to the meaning of "detonated", The Oxford English Dictionary should lay it to rest:

Definition of detonate in English:

VERB
Explode or cause to explode: ...

As if it shouldn't go without saying, since it seemed to that firefighter "as if they had detonated" the building, he must have perceived the "booms" very much as he described them.

...But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. ...

And the follow-up further exemplifies the stupidity behind the implied denial that at least two of the firefighters in the video I posted were clearly talking about demolition-style explosives (via synomyms), by way of appealing to that ridiculous denial as a means to denounce "Twoofers" in general. Compelling, ain't it.

...On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down. ...

The implication being: they couldn't have been controlled demolitions?

I suppose you might be onto something there, if it weren't common knowledge that buildings can be rigged to implode in virtually any number of ways.

...But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

Yeah, who knows, maybe even some of the irrational people will have come to grips with their delusional mindsets by then. Hope springs eternal!

another mountainous steaming pile of non answers!

 

[hadit]

The clip you cited is edited. End of story. Meaning the sound you point to can be anything from the interior collapsing to the exterior collapsing. ...

That might be the dumbest 3-sentence paragraph I've ever laid eyes on, and I've been arguing with the likes of Sayit and Daws since 2012, so that's saying something! By all means though, please elaborate as to how such an obvious non sequitur (that the video's editing ends up "meaning" what you claim it does) could be rationalized.

I've already admitted that people from opposing camps would interpret those noises differently. That's why I referred to them from the very beginning as "possible explosions".

Oh, and one more time for good measure, my goal in posting that compilation video was to demonstrate the symmetry of the "collapse" from various angles, not to provide audible evidence of explosives. I only mentioned the "possible explosions" in response to your irrelevant objection, because, unlike you, I tend to isolate and reply in reference to all of my opponent's points (even those that are completely irrelevant in relation to my argument).

...Still, there were no explosives used. Explosives are incredibly loud and very visible. That never happened. ...

Let's see, should I believe you (a self-deluded NEOCT conspiracy theorist)...or the scores of eyewitness testimonies of people who were there (including 118 accounts from the FDNY's oral histories)?

Remember these guys:


After all, if explosives were used on the Twins, as much of the anecdotal evidence clearly indicates, there's little reason to doubt they were used on Building 7, as well, especially considering the visually identical pools of molten metal that were found beneath the rubble of all three debris piles.

...And your idiocy of a patent is beyond stupid. A patent in no way proves the product existed nor does it even prove the patent would work even had it been built, which there is zero evidence beyond your hallucinations that it did.

These aren't just any patents we're talking about; they're military patents going back to the 1970's, some with specifications drawn from testing. While they don't "prove" such devices existed prior to 9/11/01, they do constitute a body of evidence to that effect.

Still nothing to say about the necessary implications of the combined symmetry and charted speed of Building 7's collapse?

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof.

There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated.

But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. On top of which the Twin Towers did not come down in the same fashion as is commonly seen in a controlled demolition; which is from the bottom up. The Twin Towers fell from the top down.

But keep it up ... maybe in another 3 years you'll find some evidence to give a rational person pause.

And your final sentence neatly sums up the problem all 9/11 "Truthers" share ... rationality.

Excerpted from Confessions of an Ex-Truther:
There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach.

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts

And therein lies the Achilles heel of the conspiracy movement. When a conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more layers of people have to be in on it, kept silent, lie about it, etc just to maintain credibility, it's time to call shenanigans.

 

[SAYIT]

And therein lies the Achilles heel of the conspiracy movement. When a conspiracy keeps getting bigger and bigger, more and more layers of people have to be in on it, kept silent, lie about it, etc just to maintain credibility, it's time to call shenanigans.

Just try to get them to focus on who rigged those buildings, how they did it without being noticed, and how the rigging survived the impacts and chaotic fires. You get crickets. At some point rationality becomes part of any honest, normal person's thinking. Not so with "Truthers." They are immune.

 

[n0spam4me]

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I'm sorry to see that some people believe that.
However there are facts, such as the manner of the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 + the facts about the alleged airliner crashes.

Also, if you saw a pix allegedly taken of a bunny rabbit in the forest, however you can clearly see that its NOT a bunny at all, you do not have to specifically identify what it really is, another type of animal or? to get it that its not a bunny.
what the TRUTH movement has as a total certainty is that the official story about how WTC1,2 & 7 collapsed allegedly because of fire & damage from aircraft crashes, is totally bogus. Speculation as to how many people would have to be involved ( etc.... ) does nothing to negate the facts here.

 

[daws101]

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I'm sorry to see that some people believe that.
However there are facts, such as the manner of the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 + the facts about the alleged airliner crashes.

Also, if you saw a pix allegedly taken of a bunny rabbit in the forest, however you can clearly see that its NOT a bunny at all, you do not have to specifically identify what it really is, another type of animal or? to get it that its not a bunny.
what the TRUTH movement has as a total certainty is that the official story about how WTC1,2 & 7 collapsed allegedly because of fire & damage from aircraft crashes, is totally bogus. Speculation as to how many people would have to be involved ( etc.... ) does nothing to negate the facts here.

but you have no facts! none ,zero, zilch.....why the need to carry on with this inane bullshit?

 

[SAYIT]

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I'm sorry to see that some people believe that.
However there are facts, such as the manner of the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 + the facts about the alleged airliner crashes.

Also, if you saw a pix allegedly taken of a bunny rabbit in the forest, however you can clearly see that its NOT a bunny at all, you do not have to specifically identify what it really is, another type of animal or? to get it that its not a bunny.
what the TRUTH movement has as a total certainty is that the official story about how WTC1,2 & 7 collapsed allegedly because of fire & damage from aircraft crashes, is totally bogus. Speculation as to how many people would have to be involved ( etc.... ) does nothing to negate the facts here.

You're a coward and a fraud, Spamy, and that unattributed quote at the top of your post is that of the co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany who, after years of wallowing in "Truther" BS resigned his position and abandoned the Movement with a disdain reserved for those who know they have been duped by unscrupulous people.

 

[n0spam4me]

I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation. However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation. However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.

Au contraire. What you see here are Americans who can see through your BS and that of the unscrupulous people who made their living by selling DVDs and T-shirts to not-too-brights like ... you. I understand how difficult it must be to come to grips with the fact that you've wasted years of your life and perhaps your sense of self worth playing Spammyscience on the Internet but the sooner you admit you've been duped the sooner you can get started on your next "mission."

 

[Faun]

You're too funny. You admit that even after about 3 years, you've yet to prove your delusions, yet you cling to them despite having zero proof. ...

I don't take the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" lightly, so when I say the observable symmetry and charted freefall of the "collapse" constitute "proof positive" that the official explanation is a farce, you can rest assured that the claim is based on irrefutable facts. There's no question that the symmetrical 105 ft. drop at gravitational acceleration required an unnatural uniformity of damage that cannot be plausibly explained by the forces at work in a fire-induced progressive collapse. That's just the reality of the situation, and not even 3 years of denial from your fellow debwunkers have succeeded in altering that reality.

You can rest assured I do not rest assured when a person who truly impresses me as batshit insane claims something they can't prove (and have failed to prove after years of trying) is based on "irrefutable facts."

...There is no proof explosives were used to bring down buildings 1, 2 or 7. There is no proof thermite was used. You rely on edited clips as evidence of possible explosions when there were none. ...

Audible evidence of explosives aside, the compilation video is rock-solid visual evidence of the unnatural symmetry from which we can infer controlled demolition. As such, it's a component of the proof I mentioned above, which again, is that the official explanation is a crock of shit. You can go on until you're blue in the face about the editing, or the noises, or any number of irrelevant things, but the symmetry that's visible from several different angles will still be standing there when you finally stop to take a breath. That's the relevant issue here, not your obfuscatory bullshit.

Of course .... ignore the fact that no evidence of explosives exists and you can infer anything, doesn't make it reality. Hell, you can infer G-d smote the building.

But let's examine your bizarre claim ... hopefully, I get this right ... if I'm not mistaken, your claim is that some group of people wired buildings 1 & 2 from top to bottom, and building 7 at least from the bottom, with a blend of explosives and thermite in order to bring the three buildings down with the intent and purpose of completely concealing the fact that they demolished the buildings. That's quite a monumental task and would go without saying, require a monumental effort and planning. Never been done before and would have to fool everyone. So they fly planes into the Twin Towers as a diversion and explanation. Again, pristine and immaculate planning required. After flying 2 large jets into buildings 1 & 2, they would presumably have ignited the fires in building seven as part of their plan but somehow know the fire department would abandon putting out those fires. But here's the key ..... they go to such Herculean effort to hide the explosives and thermite so no one would know it was a controlled demolition ... according to you, they simulate hijacking 4 commercial jets so no one will know it was a controlled demolition ... they even fly jets into the Twin Towers so no one would know it was a controlled demolition ... they go to all that planning and execution so no one will know it was a controlled demolition ....... but after all that ........ they intentionally bring all three buildings straight down so they resemble a controlled demolition.

See why sane people think you Twoofers are nuts?