Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The obvious problem with your reasoning...is that your facts don't line up. For example, your bomb theory of WTC 7:Actually we have facts, that line up, and we are not the conspirators.
1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building.
Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.
what 'bombs' are dogs trained to snif out?
Do thermetic cutters classify as 'bombs'?
thermetic cutters completely disintegrate into molten metal.
and you need very little thermetic material contrary to and despite the tards who call themselves experts claim.
the official story is simpler,
matches the evidence more closely
And I've looked into most of the classics.
The 'bomb' theory.
The 'thermite' theory.
The 'thermate' theory.
The 'nano-thermite' theory.
The 'orbiting directed energy weapons platform' theory.
The 'holographic plane' theory.
Its contradicted by overwhelming evidence.
Occam's Razor, Pen.
And when I've challenged you to a factual discussion, you refuse.
No the fire dept, the people who wired the building. or should I say buildings. Oh yes they are also criminals to the fire men that got killed and the ones now suffering from asbestos. So you have no idea what or who was renting WTC 7, who the renters were?
Larry Silverstein told the FDNY to 'pull it'. So who other than the FDNY could you be accusing of following his 'order' if 'pull it' meant to explosively demolish the building?
Now if 'pull it' meant to pull their fire fighting effort, as Silverstein says, then it makes perfect sense that he'd be talking to the FDNY. As they use 'pull' to refer to ending their fire fighting effort again and again:
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
FDNY Richard BANACISKI
So either Silverstein was referring to the fire fighting effort when telling the FDNY what he wanted them to do. Or you're accusing the FDNY of demolishing WTC 7 themselves, lying about it, and acting as accessories to the murder of 343 of their own.
As there were only two parties to that conversation: Silverstein and the FDNY.
Pick which.
The obvious problem with your reasoning...is that your facts don't line up. For example, your bomb theory of WTC 7:Actually we have facts, that line up, and we are not the conspirators.
1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building.
thats bullshit there was a large explosion, sounded like it was underground though and that is not relevant in the first place since [B]thermetic cutters DO NOT EXPLODE[/B].
another debunker FAIL
Lots of testimonies of explosions. Possibly explosives and nano thermite.
No the fire dept, the people who wired the building. or should I say buildings. Oh yes they are also criminals to the fire men that got killed and the ones now suffering from asbestos. So you have no idea what or who was renting WTC 7, who the renters were?
Larry Silverstein told the FDNY to 'pull it'. So who other than the FDNY could you be accusing of following his 'order' if 'pull it' meant to explosively demolish the building?
Now if 'pull it' meant to pull their fire fighting effort, as Silverstein says, then it makes perfect sense that he'd be talking to the FDNY. As they use 'pull' to refer to ending their fire fighting effort again and again:
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt
FDNY Richard BANACISKI
So either Silverstein was referring to the fire fighting effort when telling the FDNY what he wanted them to do. Or you're accusing the FDNY of demolishing WTC 7 themselves, lying about it, and acting as accessories to the murder of 343 of their own.
As there were only two parties to that conversation: Silverstein and the FDNY.
Pick which.
Who said he said pull it to the NY fireman. Larry made big money. Larry every morning went to the towers restaurant and just lucky for Larry his wife made him go to a dr. appoint that morning and lucky for his kids who both worked there were running late.
Coincidence, hardly. 9-11 was picked because every time we hear 9-11 we will think about it. Jewish joke.
Now what company brought you bomb sniffing doggies in???? Name company in charge of security at WTC buildings at time of 9-11.
[
Before we start on whether or not a 'thermetic cutter' would have been detectable by bomb sniffing dogs, lets define what a 'thermetic cutters' actually is.
Show us a picture of a 'thermetic cutter'. Not a drawing. Since you claim its a real thing with real properties it will be remarkably easy for you to do so. If its just made up, it will likely be harder for you to do.
How large is a 'thermetic cutter'? How much does it weight? How is it ignited? What is it made of? How long does it take to work? What would it look like while operating? How many have been used to demolish buildings?
You say that there would be nothing left of a 'thermetic cutters' once used....how do you know?
And of course, how does the 'thermetic cutters' match with your animated gif from photobucket? Per you the anonymous and unverified 'forensic analysis' says that the 'sequences of explosives' happened quite quickly. Within fractions of a second.
Does a 'thermetic cutter' explode? If so, does it explode that quickly? If not, then it doesn't match your last explanation. So which is it?
And of course, why were none of the girders cut? I mean, per your theory thousands upon thousands of girders would have had to have been cut using this method. So...where are the cut girders? There were no reports of such on the WTC plaza until the salvage crews began cutting the girders themselves. Before that, nothing.
And what 'theretic matieral' are you referring to? Are you referring to thermate? Thermite? Nano-thermite? Gunpowder?
Are you expecting us to accept you as an expert on the use of ' thermetic cutters', ' thermetic materials', their use, composition and effects?
The obvious problem with your reasoning...is that your facts don't line up. For example, your bomb theory of WTC 7:Actually we have facts, that line up, and we are not the conspirators.
1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building.
thats bullshit there was a large explosion, sounded like it was underground though and that is not relevant in the first place since thermetic cutters DO NOT EXPLODE.
another debunker FAIL
"well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7."
KokomoJojo
08/07/14 06:17 PM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...a-did-9-11-overwhelming-facts-prove-it-7.html
No child, there are zero reports of explosives seconds before WTC7 fell.
Lots of testimonies of explosions. Possibly explosives and nano thermite.
No child, there are zero reports of explosives seconds before WTC7 fell.
What are you showing us? Girders? From where? When were the pics taken? The picture itself proves nothing....
The obvious problem with your reasoning...is that your facts don't line up. For example, your bomb theory of WTC 7:
1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building.
thats bullshit there was a large explosion, sounded like it was underground though and that is not relevant in the first place since thermetic cutters DO NOT EXPLODE.
another debunker FAIL
No it doesn't. Here's a video of the collapse.
The collapse initiates so quietly that it didn't even interrupt the conversation of the people near the camera. The FDNY reports nothing of the kind, no massive 'explosions' before the collapse. But instead, a collapse due to fire and structural damage.
That's the kind of thing they'd notice. But.....nothing.
Worse, your 'animated gif'.....that's of the top of the building where you say a 'kool sequence of explosions' occured. Exactly the opposite of 'underground'. So why no sound? Here's actual controlled demolition:
Which is ludicrously loud. But your 'explosives' made no sound at all. Not explosions, no explosives. You claim that explosions are irrelevant because 'thermetic cutters', whatever they are don't explode. Okay....then what 'kool demolition sequence' were you referring to here?
"well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7."
KokomoJojo
08/07/14 06:17 PM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...a-did-9-11-overwhelming-facts-prove-it-7.html
You just changed your entire conspiracy, first claiming it was a demolition sequence near the top of the building....now claiming its 'thermetic cutters' that don't explode.....now apparently underground.
Which is it?
Lots of testimonies of explosions. Possibly explosives and nano thermite.
No child, there are zero reports of explosives seconds before WTC7 fell.
So all the testimonies on you tube are false, I see. The planes that the tower enveloped downed the buildings , right. No planes hit #7, now these dumb Muslims what were they thinking. They sure could fly hey.
Being a female of small built, I could of taken one of those box cutting Muslims myself I bet. A good kick in the nut and that would of been it. Or unless a box cutter is going for the carotid , I doubt it'd slow some down that much. What was wrong with the men on those flights? What whimps.
are you fucking kidding me?
you are in a demolition debate and you do not know about thermetic cutters? I mean you dont even fucking know they 1930's technolgy exists and its the 21st century?
Anyone who is interested in answering your question about how easily it would have been found by bomb sniffing dogs. Or the bomb squads. If each is the size of a small car, that would make it *much* easier to find that if it were say, the size of a paper back book. What's in it will immediately impact a bomb sniffing dog's ability to find it. So its contents are immediately relevant.who gives a shit? stop trolling.
they can cut a column in milliseconds.
I said no, they do not work if they explode.
shit loads more where that came from, clearly you came to a gunfight with a toothpick![/B]
The obvious problem with your reasoning...is that your facts don't line up. For example, your bomb theory of WTC 7:
1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building.
thats bullshit there was a large explosion, sounded like it was underground though and that is not relevant in the first place since thermetic cutters DO NOT EXPLODE.
another debunker FAIL
No it doesn't. Here's a video of the collapse.
The collapse initiates so quietly that it didn't even interrupt the conversation of the people near the camera. The FDNY reports nothing of the kind, no massive 'explosions' before the collapse. But instead, a collapse due to fire and structural damage.
That's the kind of thing they'd notice. But.....nothing.
Worse, your 'animated gif'.....that's of the top of the building where you say a 'kool sequence of explosions' occured. Exactly the opposite of 'underground'. So why no sound? Here's actual controlled demolition:
Which is ludicrously loud. But your 'explosives' made no sound at all. Not explosions, no explosives. You claim that explosions are irrelevant because 'thermetic cutters', whatever they are don't explode. Okay....then what 'kool demolition sequence' were you referring to here?
You just changed your entire conspiracy, first claiming it was a demolition sequence near the top of the building....now claiming its 'thermetic cutters' that don't explode.....now apparently underground."well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7."
KokomoJojo
08/07/14 06:17 PM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...a-did-9-11-overwhelming-facts-prove-it-7.html
Which is it?
thats bullshit there was a large explosion, sounded like it was underground though and that is not relevant in the first place since thermetic cutters DO NOT EXPLODE.
another debunker FAIL
No it doesn't. Here's a video of the collapse.
The collapse initiates so quietly that it didn't even interrupt the conversation of the people near the camera. The FDNY reports nothing of the kind, no massive 'explosions' before the collapse. But instead, a collapse due to fire and structural damage.
That's the kind of thing they'd notice. But.....nothing.
Worse, your 'animated gif'.....that's of the top of the building where you say a 'kool sequence of explosions' occured. Exactly the opposite of 'underground'. So why no sound? Here's actual controlled demolition:
Which is ludicrously loud. But your 'explosives' made no sound at all. Not explosions, no explosives. You claim that explosions are irrelevant because 'thermetic cutters', whatever they are don't explode. Okay....then what 'kool demolition sequence' were you referring to here?
"well thrn lets start with the kool demolition sequence we can see through the windows when forensic analysis is applied to wtc7."
KokomoJojo
08/07/14 06:17 PM
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...a-did-9-11-overwhelming-facts-prove-it-7.html
You just changed your entire conspiracy, first claiming it was a demolition sequence near the top of the building....now claiming its 'thermetic cutters' that don't explode.....now apparently underground.
Which is it?
Yep that was wtc 7 , answer my question who was in charge of security of those building on 9-11????
No it doesn't. Here's a video of the collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-WcB7fmlUyA
The collapse initiates so quietly that it didn't even interrupt the conversation of the people near the camera. The FDNY reports nothing of the kind, no massive 'explosions' before the collapse. But instead, a collapse due to fire and structural damage.
That's the kind of thing they'd notice. But.....nothing.
Worse, your 'animated gif'.....that's of the top of the building where you say a 'kool sequence of explosions' occured. Exactly the opposite of 'underground'. So why no sound? Here's actual controlled demolition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eem7d58gjno
Which is ludicrously loud. But your 'explosives' made no sound at all. Not explosions, no explosives. You claim that explosions are irrelevant because 'thermetic cutters', whatever they are don't explode. Okay....then what 'kool demolition sequence' were you referring to here?
You just changed your entire conspiracy, first claiming it was a demolition sequence near the top of the building....now claiming its 'thermetic cutters' that don't explode.....now apparently underground.
Which is it?
Yep that was wtc 7 , answer my question who was in charge of security of those building on 9-11????
So we've eliminated explosive demolition as the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. Excellent. I don't expect to ever hear you make any claims regarding it ever again. If you do, I'll redirect you to this thread and your claim that it wasn't explosives.
But you still have a problem: you just totally changed your story. You cited 'kool demolition sequence' at the top of the building. And now your arguing for mythic 'thermetic cutters' underground.
Which is it? And of course, you still need to factually establish the existence of these 'thermetic cutters', and define their properites verifiably. Otherwise, they are just another Deux Ex Machina.
As for who was doing security for WTC 7, if you have an argument to make, make it. Though I'll save you some time: it wasn't Securacom/Stratesec.
Show us your evidence. But if all you have is you citing yourself, you've got nothing.
