WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash. They were designed to withstand that kind of heat and impact. Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition.

You know the architect of the buidings personally? pretty impressive connection there. Before 9/11 I'm sure he would have said "you bet, i designed the building to withstand a airline crashing into it."

Face it- 3,000 people lost their lives for two reasons- money and power. The owner of the building wanted the money, and the government wanted the power.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. Remember the cold war? Well, we blew up a dummy ship out in the Caribbean, to make it look like Cuban allies of Russia were trying to wage war on us.
We were aware in advance of the pearl harbor mess- and we even got a fax the day before..

Hell, the whole friggin world knew that 9/11 was going to happen- we had over two dozen tips from reliable enough sources, LONG before the fact, and YET, GeeDubleya still ordered that bomb sniffing dogs be removed from the WTC, and got it so that the FAA would no longer allow pilots to have guns in their cockpits..

The pilots were decorated military men, also..

Understanding these facts, along with the thousands of pieces of visual imagery evidence- how can one NOT see that a conspiracy exists?? LOL!!!

The common theme among you and all the other truthers seems to be your prediliction towards conspiracy theories in general. Just as I explained to eots, you people aren't going to know the the truth becuase you don't know yourself.

you explained nothing..you gave your shit ass opinion...so your bullshit theory's would include those official story CTrs like yourself...or can you prove your theory ?

 

[Bern80]

The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash. They were designed to withstand that kind of heat and impact. Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition.

You know the architect of the buidings personally? pretty impressive connection there. Before 9/11 I'm sure he would have said "you bet, i designed the building to withstand a airline crashing into it."

Face it- 3,000 people lost their lives for two reasons- money and power. The owner of the building wanted the money, and the government wanted the power.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. Remember the cold war? Well, we blew up a dummy ship out in the Caribbean, to make it look like Cuban allies of Russia were trying to wage war on us.
We were aware in advance of the pearl harbor mess- and we even got a fax the day before..

Hell, the whole friggin world knew that 9/11 was going to happen- we had over two dozen tips from reliable enough sources, LONG before the fact, and YET, GeeDubleya still ordered that bomb sniffing dogs be removed from the WTC, and got it so that the FAA would no longer allow pilots to have guns in their cockpits..

The pilots were decorated military men, also..

Understanding these facts, along with the thousands of pieces of visual imagery evidence- how can one NOT see that a conspiracy exists?? LOL!!!

The common theme among you and all the other truthers seems to be your prediliction towards conspiracy theories in general. Just as I explained to eots, you people aren't going to know the the truth becuase you don't know yourself.

you explained nothing..you gave your shit ass opinion...so your bullshit theory's would include those official story CTrs like yourself...or can you prove your theory ?

My point is you can't prove yours. Because again you have zero explanation for the many other variables that MUST HAVE TO BE TRUE for the controlled demolition theory to remain plausible.

Further in dealing with the likes of yourself and other truthers I find actual evidence to be irrelevant. Or more accurately I find that you conveniently find pieces of evidence irrelevant. This is why I find the term 'tuthers' so ironic. It is a lie. Truthers are not looking for the truth. They are trying to prove that 9/11 was an event orchestrated by the U.S. government. That is far, far, far different than a group wanting to find the truth. Your goal is to arrive at a singular outcome, where the real truth could have many potential outcomes. Outcomes you have shown you aren't willing to even entertain. You and the truthers simply lack the introspection to see that the people that comprise the group, their mentality, is going to have a major effect on what they find.

A group that says it is after the truth must be completely unbiased and objective. Truthers CLEALY are not. I don't think I would be wrong in stating that the bulk of you viewed the governemnt in black helicopter light well before the events of 9/11. Whether that perception of the real world and our government is accurate is irrelevant. If you want to take up the mantle of finding the truth of THIS event, than you have to admit that in the pursuit of truth such a perception needs to get checked at the door because any good researcher will tell you your biases WILL effect the findings of your research.

You say your for the truth then prove it. I have asked you on multiple occassions to show us the evidence that MUST be in place for your theory to remain plausible. Clearly on the main towers the top of the buildings above where the planes hit, start to come down first. If this was a controlled demolition and it wasn't the planes weakening the structure that brought the buildings down than it was the charges or whatever placed above where the planes hit that did it. So how exactley did 'they' get the plane to hit in just the right spot on the building to maintain the cover up of the controlled demolition?

I remind you the above is the tip of the iceberg of the things the truthers need to show happened, but remains crucial to the controlled demolition theory.

 

[eots]

truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I am obviously not the only guy on this planet knowing for A FACT that WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition.

No, you arent the only one, there are plenty of other insane people like you who dont understand what a fact is.

Heres is an absolute fact that any sane person could not refute...

"You do NOT know for a fact that WTC-7 was taken down using controlled demolition."

The evidence does not lie, "Godboy".. Those towers did not simply fall down on top of themselves as a result of a plane crash. They were designed to withstand that kind of heat and impact. Steel buildings just do not fall onto their own footprint in such an exact way, except in cases of planned strategic demolition.

Face it- 3,000 people lost their lives for two reasons- money and power. The owner of the building wanted the money, and the government wanted the power.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, either. Remember the cold war? Well, we blew up a dummy ship out in the Caribbean, to make it look like Cuban allies of Russia were trying to wage war on us.
We were aware in advance of the pearl harbor mess- and we even got a fax the day before..

Hell, the whole friggin world knew that 9/11 was going to happen- we had over two dozen tips from reliable enough sources, LONG before the fact, and YET, GeeDubleya still ordered that bomb sniffing dogs be removed from the WTC, and got it so that the FAA would no longer allow pilots to have guns in their cockpits..

The pilots were decorated military men, also..

Understanding these facts, along with the thousands of pieces of visual imagery evidence- how can one NOT see that a conspiracy exists?? LOL!!!

of course you DO know dis in fo agents Gam and Bern will try to come up with something to try and convince you your wrong dont you?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You know the architect of the buidings personally? pretty impressive connection there. Before 9/11 I'm sure he would have said "you bet, i designed the building to withstand a airline crashing into it."




The common theme among you and all the other truthers seems to be your prediliction towards conspiracy theories in general. Just as I explained to eots, you people aren't going to know the the truth becuase you don't know yourself.

you explained nothing..you gave your shit ass opinion...so your bullshit theory's would include those official story CTrs like yourself...or can you prove your theory ?

My point is you can't prove yours. Because again you have zero explanation for the many other variables that MUST HAVE TO BE TRUE for the controlled demolition theory to remain plausible.

Further in dealing with the likes of yourself and other truthers I find actual evidence to be irrelevant. Or more accurately I find that you conveniently find pieces of evidence irrelevant. This is why I find the term 'tuthers' so ironic. It is a lie. Truthers are not looking for the truth. They are trying to prove that 9/11 was an event orchestrated by the U.S. government. That is far, far, far different than a group wanting to find the truth. Your goal is to arrive at a singular outcome, where the real truth could have many potential outcomes. Outcomes you have shown you aren't willing to even entertain. You and the truthers simply lack the introspection to see that the people that comprise the group, their mentality, is going to have a major effect on what they find.

A group that says it is after the truth must be completely unbiased and objective. Truthers CLEALY are not. I don't think I would be wrong in stating that the bulk of you viewed the governemnt in black helicopter light well before the events of 9/11. Whether that perception of the real world and our government is accurate is irrelevant. If you want to take up the mantle of finding the truth of THIS event, than you have to admit that in the pursuit of truth such a perception needs to get checked at the door because any good researcher will tell you your biases WILL effect the findings of your research.

You say your for the truth then prove it. I have asked you on multiple occassions to show us the evidence that MUST be in place for your theory to remain plausible. Clearly on the main towers the top of the buildings above where the planes hit, start to come down first. If this was a controlled demolition and it wasn't the planes weakening the structure that brought the buildings down than it was the charges or whatever placed above where the planes hit that did it. So how exactley did 'they' get the plane to hit in just the right spot on the building to maintain the cover up of the controlled demolition?

I remind you the above is the tip of the iceberg of the things the truthers need to show happened, but remains crucial to the controlled demolition theory.

actual evidence to be irrelevent? translation- overwhelming evidence that explosives brought down these towers means NOTHING to me.I only see what I WANT to see so that means nothing to me. Us coincidence theorists who support the official government conspiracy THEORY that planes and office fires brought down the towers, are biased and not objective.

 

[candycorn]

truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power

How's that "we don't need to prove anything" tactic working for you...seeing as how we are coming up on 2,950 days since the attacks and you're still the laughing stock you've always have been?

 

[Bern80]

you explained nothing..you gave your shit ass opinion...so your bullshit theory's would include those official story CTrs like yourself...or can you prove your theory ?

My point is you can't prove yours. Because again you have zero explanation for the many other variables that MUST HAVE TO BE TRUE for the controlled demolition theory to remain plausible.

Further in dealing with the likes of yourself and other truthers I find actual evidence to be irrelevant. Or more accurately I find that you conveniently find pieces of evidence irrelevant. This is why I find the term 'tuthers' so ironic. It is a lie. Truthers are not looking for the truth. They are trying to prove that 9/11 was an event orchestrated by the U.S. government. That is far, far, far different than a group wanting to find the truth. Your goal is to arrive at a singular outcome, where the real truth could have many potential outcomes. Outcomes you have shown you aren't willing to even entertain. You and the truthers simply lack the introspection to see that the people that comprise the group, their mentality, is going to have a major effect on what they find.

A group that says it is after the truth must be completely unbiased and objective. Truthers CLEALY are not. I don't think I would be wrong in stating that the bulk of you viewed the governemnt in black helicopter light well before the events of 9/11. Whether that perception of the real world and our government is accurate is irrelevant. If you want to take up the mantle of finding the truth of THIS event, than you have to admit that in the pursuit of truth such a perception needs to get checked at the door because any good researcher will tell you your biases WILL effect the findings of your research.

You say your for the truth then prove it. I have asked you on multiple occassions to show us the evidence that MUST be in place for your theory to remain plausible. Clearly on the main towers the top of the buildings above where the planes hit, start to come down first. If this was a controlled demolition and it wasn't the planes weakening the structure that brought the buildings down than it was the charges or whatever placed above where the planes hit that did it. So how exactley did 'they' get the plane to hit in just the right spot on the building to maintain the cover up of the controlled demolition?

I remind you the above is the tip of the iceberg of the things the truthers need to show happened, but remains crucial to the controlled demolition theory.

actual evidence to be irrelevent? translation- overwhelming evidence that explosives brought down these towers means NOTHING to me.I only see what I WANT to see so that means nothing to me. Us coincidence theorists who support the official government conspiracy THEORY that planes and office fires brought down the towers, are biased and not objective.

Right, overwhelming evidence. Except for the complete lack of explosive material found anywhere. I explained in my last paragraph how, if a controlled demolition took place, the sequence would have had to happen and yet again you both refuse to offer even a semi plausible explanation as to how, I REPEAT, the things that HAD to have happened, did happen. You have minimal evidence for the most bassest of theories and ZERO explanation for how it was carried. Your're missing:

-Evidence of when/how the buildings were rigged.
-How the government orchestrated the planes crashing into the building.
-why Al quaida claimed credit if they didnt do it.
-again, EVIDENCE of any explosive material was used (you have been reduced to claiming SUPER thermite, which there is no physical evidence for. a substance even truthers admit they can't get there hands on, don't know how hot it burn, or how it would have to have been applied, and oh only the bad government has access to it)

This whole controlled demolition thing was surmised for one reason and one reason only a bunch of morons predisposed to conspiracies in the first place whatched some video and went 'gee golly that kinda looks like how a building in a controlled demolition falls'. THAT'S IT.

 

[eots]

truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power

How's that "we don't need to prove anything" tactic working for you...seeing as how we are coming up on 2,950 days since the attacks and you're still the laughing stock you've always have been?

your big block red letters prove nothing except maybe some sociopathic tendencies
either does your flat earther appeal to the herd mentality...what everybody thinks line

the facts remain 9/11 commision members call the investigation a cover- up..hog-wash
criminal..treasonous and investigators at NIST talk of a government out to deter fact finding and withholding documentation and resources all agree on the need for an independent investigation with subpoena power

 

[Liability]

truthers did need to prove anything but the complete failure of the NIST and the 9/11 commission who's role was only to confirm the bush /cheney story not investigate and that has been proven with a reasonable certainty..the details of the truth will be found in an independent investigation with subpoena power

How's that "we don't need to prove anything" tactic working for you...seeing as how we are coming up on 2,950 days since the attacks and you're still the laughing stock you've always have been?

your big block red letters prove nothing except maybe some sociopathic tendencies
either does your flat earther appeal to the herd mentality...what everybody thinks line

the facts remain 9/11 commision members call the investigation a cover- up..hog-wash
criminal..treasonous and investigators at NIST talk of a government out to deter fact finding and withholding documentation and resources all agree on the need for an independent investigation with subpoena power

Putting your bombastic bullshit to the side for a moment, despite your proclivity to try, the actual state of affairs remains that YOU have the burden. You can try to shift that burden all day long everyday from now to the end of our lives, but the burden of persuasion remains yours.

Try to step up and avoid begging the question and bootstrapping.

Just answer the questions. Here are a few for starters (even though they have been asked of you in many ways all of which you have resolutely ducked):

At a freaking minimum, how many people -- alleged conspirators -- HAD to have been involved to do the vile deeds you claim took place as a result of the conspiracy?

How on Earth did they plant the explosives at all, much less without leaving any visible evidence of their handiwork?

You keep insisting that the commissioners allege that the Commission report is a coverup, but you fail to prove it. Do so.

Which Commissioners? When? Cite? Linkie?

If YOU want the investigation re-opened, you are the one with the burden of persuasion. Step up. Don't tell us again all the questions that YOU pretend exist and need to be answered. Enough with your bootstrapping already. Provide the world with SOMETHING valid to warrant the costs of a new investigation. (Again, pointing to what you consider flaws in the old investigation will not suffice. No bootsrapping allowed.)

Show us something to establish a reasonable probability that CONSPIRATORS planted demolition type explosives in the buildings to coincide with the terrorist attacks.

You never have; and without your usual bootstrapping you never will. You are beyond implausible. You are already into the realm of fantasy.

 

[eots]

Bern80;
My point is you can't prove yours. Because again you have zero explanation for the many other variables that MUST HAVE TO BE TRUE for the controlled demolition theory to remain plausible

.


thats nothing more than opinion and an examination of the bush /chenney story requires one improbable evnt after the otherin sequence in my opinion..but what is not opinion is there has been no satisfactory or conclusive investigation of 9/11

Further in dealing with the likes of yourself and other truthers I find actual evidence to be irrelevant. Or more accurately I find that you conveniently find pieces of evidence irrelevant. This is why I find the term 'tuthers' so ironic. It is a lie. Truthers are not looking for the truth. .

these are the basic complaints of the 9/11 commission and NIST investigators about their reports

Your goal is to arrive at a singular outcome, where the real truth could have many potential outcomes. Outcomes you have shown you aren't willing to even entertain. You and the truthers simply lack the introspection to see that the people that comprise the group, their mentality, is going to have a major effect on what they find.

NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done



.

 

[Bern80]

thats nothing more than opinion and an examination of the bush /chenney story requires one improbable evnt after the otherin sequence in my opinion..but what is not opinion is there has been no satisfactory or conclusive investigation of 9/11

Opinion?! Now your're just being a chicken shit. You believe in a conspiracy but apparently don't understand what the words means. For people to CONSPIRE a cover up, many different things must be orchestrated to achieve what you believed happen. What is more improbable, that what looked like happened, did, or that a bunch of people no one saw rigged a building and were able to get 2 airliners full of people to crash into them to cover up a demolition? Get your fucking head into reality for once in your paranoid life.

All of you truthers stop being a bunch of pussies and start actually looking for the truth. For you to be right you need evidence of the following.

How, when and who rigged the buildings. Here's another thing. You claim to have a lot of physical evidence, but where is your human evidence of anything? Physical evidence can be covered up easier than keeping someone from talking and yet not a soul has come forth to say the saw anything suspicious or has confessed to be involved.

Why would Al Quaida claim credit for something they didnt' do?

The FACT remains eots you can claim there are problems with how the investigation was done until the cows come home, but the two above things are the as yet irreconcilbable issues with your theory.

 

[DiveCon]

thats nothing more than opinion and an examination of the bush /chenney story requires one improbable evnt after the otherin sequence in my opinion..but what is not opinion is there has been no satisfactory or conclusive investigation of 9/11

Opinion?! Now your're just being a chicken shit. You believe in a conspiracy but apparently don't understand what the words means. For people to CONSPIRE a cover up, many different things must be orchestrated to achieve what you believed happen. What is more improbable, that what looked like happened, did, or that a bunch of people no one saw rigged a building and were able to get 2 airliners full of people to crash into them to cover up a demolition? Get your fucking head into reality for once in your paranoid life.

oh come on, they know you are one of us disinfo agents
wear it like a badge of honor

 

[Gamolon]

NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done

For which buildings?

 

[eots]

NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done

For which buildings?

it was requested for wtc 7..although I'm sure if those findings were conclusive the investigation would have been extended

 

[Setarcos]

The necessary conditions for the OP's assertions have yet to be demonstrated.

The assertion fails.

 

[Bern80]

NIST press releases stated the request and intention to test hypothetical blast and controlled demolition theory's...this was never done

For which buildings?

it was requested for wtc 7..although I'm sure if those findings were conclusive the investigation would have been extended

Problem is eots, those blast scenarios probably would not satisfy you. Look at the things a blast scenario would have to show. It wouldn't be enough to see how the buildings fell. the scenario would have to show include a scenario as to how it got rigged with no one noticing. And not just any explosive would count. They would have to come up with your vaunted SUPER thermite, a substance we aren't sure even exists, because no evidence of any conventional means of demolition have been found.

One has to consider what you want out of such an investigation. I don't believe you could answer the following question honestly anyway, but give it a shot. What if, after every investigation you would like to see done, it is still concluded that two planes caused enough structural damage to collapse the trade centers and that's what really happened. Can you honestly tell me you're the type of guy that would drop his 'truth' crusade and be satisified with any thing that doesn't conclude it was a controlled demolition?

P.S. You still have not answered the questions required for CD to be plausible.

 

[eots]

Bern80;

Problem is eots, those blast scenarios probably would not satisfy you

.

the problum is you make baseless assumptions

Look at the things a blast scenario would have to show. It wouldn't be enough to see how the buildings fell. the scenario would have to show include a scenario as to how it got rigged with no one noticing. And not just any explosive would count. They would have to come up with your vaunted SUPER thermite, a substance we aren't sure even exists, because no evidence of any conventional means of demolition have been found.

that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used

One has to consider what you want out of such an investigation. I don't believe you could answer the following question honestly anyway, but give it a shot. What if, after every investigation you would like to see done, it is still concluded that two planes caused enough structural damage to collapse the trade centers and that's what really happened. Can you honestly tell me you're the type of guy that would drop his 'truth' crusade and be satisified with any thing that doesn't conclude it was a controlled demolition?

if it was done under the terms of the 9/11 family steering committee and to their satisfaction ..yes

 

[Bern80]

that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used

Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers. Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional.

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to.

 

[Setarcos]

The assertion is backed by zero evidence

the OP's assertion fails

 

[candycorn]

that's not true ..science would only have to prove that explosives were used

Plenty of science has been expended already. There is no evidence any type of explosive device was used to bring down the towers. Even if it did it had to get there somehow. Someone had to put it there and A LOT of it to do the job, yet NO ONE has reported any such activity and NO ONE has confessed. You think there are these people that are keeping their mouths shut if not for a subpoena thrown in their face? Get real.

Again your notion that this was an inside job done by controlled demolition is based on very flimsy circumstantial evidence. You are somehow surprised that 100% of the people working on this don't agree on the exact same story of what happened. WELL STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES. That isn't surprising in the least. The second thing it is based on, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the towers collapsinig look like what happens when a controlled demolition goes off. THAT'S IT. That is the basis of your belief. That fueled by your fucked up imagination. Which is interesting in itself considering there isn't much in the way other examples as to how sky scrapers collapse when it isn't intentional.

I don't get why someone who claims to be looking for the whole truth would claim to be satisified simply knowing that explosives were used. that leaves so many questions unanswered. Hell that wouldn't even be evidence that our government did it. For someone who wants the truth it is truly baffling the things you seem to not want answers to.

Hey...they committed mass murder and all sure but hey, contempt of court...that rap scares the shit out of them!!!

I'm always curious about why none of these thousands and thousands of guys involved in this conspiracy have not tried to chisel Mr Big (every good caper has a Mr. Big) for more green. Otherwise they'd sing to feds.

I'm sure Mr. Big loved that.

All ten thousand perps...all with airtight alibis. No deathbed confessions, no drunk calls, no turning over someone else for a lighter sentence for a subsequent crime (DWI, DUID, etc..). This is the most clean cut bunch of mass murderers in the history of crime.