Barry can't retreat from an explosion from an explosive, he would be dead.
Jennings would be dead if he was next to explosives. Are you fantasy explosives blast free; just smoke bombs, heat bombs? Silent bombs.
13 years and no evidence for CD.
Continuation: 'What about building 7?'
- Thread starter jaydeehess
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc7
Barry can't retreat from an explosion from an explosive, he would be dead.
Jennings would be dead if he was next to explosives. Are you fantasy explosives blast free; just smoke bombs, heat bombs? Silent bombs.
13 years and no evidence for CD.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
There you and your fellow NIST defenders go again! If Sunder said free all can't happen in a natural collapse, he is wrong. No one has proved that. Why don't you go to the thread I created on the subject and show how freefall can only occur in a CD? No one I have seen has been able to prove that. Will you be the first, or are you going to continue behind the words of others? Is it because I don't post under my own name? If you can show how freefall can only be from a CD, it wouldn't matter to me that YOU are anonymous. In any case, Chris knows my real identity, so you can knock off using anonymity to make some kind of point with him.
Go ahead, give it your best shot. What could you be afraid of?
NoahFence
Banned
They're embarrassing.
What a load of BS. Did you make this up, or copy it from 911 truth lies and fantasy web sites?
Free-fall is not evidence of CD. The FBI does crime, not NIST. Thus you need to take your fake evidence and failed free-fall CD BS to the FBI.
Good job showing your ignorance of engineering models. Do you get some of the ad money from the woo web side, debunking the debunkers? How can you publish the anti-intellectual claptrap you post there?
The interior of WTC 7 started to collapse 16 seconds before the single point tracked for your free-fall BS claim started to fall. Thus the collapse due to fire destroyed the interior; too bad you can't do engineering and fire science to break away from the lies of 911 truth; which you repeat as if you had evidence. You have to ignore reality to have a fantasy of CD, and an inside job. Who did your inside job? Got some name for your fantasy bad guys?
Do you have any engineering to back up your claims? No
What you have if BS born out of paranoia and nonsense dumbed down to what 911 truth followers thing is "truth".
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-40-reasons-official-911-story-is.html
Your fantasy CD junk comes form a failed movement, and from your web site you post lies at; like this claptrap.
WTC 7 is one of the failed reasons you support due to ignorance of engineering, and it all topic required to make rational conclusions on 911.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-40-reasons-official-911-story-is.html
WTC 7, just one of many BS reasons you fell for - what fooled you?
Free-fall is not evidence of CD; claiming free-fall is evidence of CD is BS.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Belz...
Fiend God
So yeah, blame it on an incompetent employee or on industrial espionage slash sabotage. No need to go through all this nonsense. Only in the CTer's mind does a demo job make sense.
And notice that Tony didn't even try to answer.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
There was no looking for evidence of arson in the collapsed WTC 7 building and I don't see how they would ever find evidence that the fires were intentionally set in that situation.
In fact there was no investigation at all initially, Rudy Giuliani's minions just started getting rid of the steel. This also implies they knew why/how it came down.
Therefore you have no evidence of arson.
What would you have done ?
It makes me wonder why you have come to the conclusion of arson when there is no evidence and never will be. Coming to the arson conclusion because there is no evidence is pathetic, wouldn't you agree?
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Then why do we have all the photos of the steel the most unusual pieces, taken in the investigation by the NYPD, and fire department?
There was the proper investigation by the proper people just no evidence of explosives,
of anything but the planes impacts.
Fairytales do not require investigation, your not qualified to determine if further investigation was warranted or not Tony, your not trained to detect explosives.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The logic shows it had to be arson.
if one thinks like a detective that is the only possible conclusion for how the fires in WTC 7 were started.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Only in your mind, and you have never investigated a fire.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
What the 911 shills here should be telling their bosses
The argument here that WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition is pure bogus nonsense.
The fact that the exterior of the building comes down in a symmetric free fall can't possibly have been caused by anything but controlled demolition by the simultaneous removal of all 24 core columns over a number of stories low in the building.
The fact that the NIST model does not replicate the free fall or actual building condition during the failure and has severe exterior deformation, which is not observed in the actual collapse, along with it being discovered that those who authored the report needed to omit pertinent structural features to even make it superficially plausible, negates the NIST WTC 7 report as a viable explanation.
If WTC 7 had some form of demolition devices in it they had to be pre-positioned before Sept. 11, 2001. This means it was a planned event.
The horizontal propagation of the failure in WTC 1 (the North Tower) occurs in less than a second across the entire 98th floor which is virtually impossible to have happen naturally, and the fall of the upper section shows no sign of deceleration during its fall, meaning it could not be a naturally produced vertical propagation and that some form of demolition devices were removing the structural integrity below the falling mass above.
Finally, the results of 911 were the use of the U.S. military to remove governments involved in oil and gas production and pipelines that were not friendly to certain U.S. fossil fuel corporations.
Most sane and rational people have acknowledged that we have a carbon dioxide overabundance problem in the earth's atmosphere that is being caused by excessive consumption of fossil fuels, that this excessive carbon dioxide is preventing heat from being radiated back to space in the right proportion and causing a global temperature rise and climate change. They also recognize that the only way to curb it is to go to cleaner energy technologies and electric cars in massive ways to get to break even. We don't need to eliminate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but only keep it to where the trees and vegetation can keep it in the proper balance.
It is clear that 911 was done for oil corporation purposes and the sad part on top of that is that they were trying to get the public to deny climate change. Ultimately, climate change will lead to massive problems for everyone if it is not addressed.
Most realize that the wealthy perpetrators of 911 will never be indicted or even publicly exposed. However, they do have a moral obligation to humanity in general, which includes their own children and grandchildren. They have the money to make a difference and can move us forward. They can induce the use of clean energy and natural gas to get the carbon dioxide levels down below break even and most would not mind them making a profit doing it. The Rockefeller family recently moved its trust fund investments into renewable clean energies.
We can make all of the electric we could ever use with wind, solar, tidal turbines, parabolic solar reflectors, and even natural gas (which is much more abundant than petroleum and much cleaner) and this can power electric cars. With about 50% electric cars and clean energy powering them we will probably get below break even with carbon dioxide. However, the investment money for the clean energy and electric car infrastructure needs to come from those with it and that is the oil companies. They need to become "energy companies", as they were at least hinting at a few years ago, and help move us back from the abyss.
This is what the 911 shills here should be telling their bosses instead of trying to incessantly spin away from and cover up the obvious controlled demolitions of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11,2001. We know there won't be any indictments or trials so just do the right thing overall. Even David Ray Griffin mentioned a truth and reconciliation commission with immunity like what was done in South Africa. Even if that doesn't happen, hopefully the oil barons will do the right thing. We will be watching.
The argument here that WTC 7 was anything but a controlled demolition is pure bogus nonsense.
The fact that the exterior of the building comes down in a symmetric free fall can't possibly have been caused by anything but controlled demolition by the simultaneous removal of all 24 core columns over a number of stories low in the building.
The fact that the NIST model does not replicate the free fall or actual building condition during the failure and has severe exterior deformation, which is not observed in the actual collapse, along with it being discovered that those who authored the report needed to omit pertinent structural features to even make it superficially plausible, negates the NIST WTC 7 report as a viable explanation.
If WTC 7 had some form of demolition devices in it they had to be pre-positioned before Sept. 11, 2001. This means it was a planned event.
The horizontal propagation of the failure in WTC 1 (the North Tower) occurs in less than a second across the entire 98th floor which is virtually impossible to have happen naturally, and the fall of the upper section shows no sign of deceleration during its fall, meaning it could not be a naturally produced vertical propagation and that some form of demolition devices were removing the structural integrity below the falling mass above.
Finally, the results of 911 were the use of the U.S. military to remove governments involved in oil and gas production and pipelines that were not friendly to certain U.S. fossil fuel corporations.
Most sane and rational people have acknowledged that we have a carbon dioxide overabundance problem in the earth's atmosphere that is being caused by excessive consumption of fossil fuels, that this excessive carbon dioxide is preventing heat from being radiated back to space in the right proportion and causing a global temperature rise and climate change. They also recognize that the only way to curb it is to go to cleaner energy technologies and electric cars in massive ways to get to break even. We don't need to eliminate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but only keep it to where the trees and vegetation can keep it in the proper balance.
It is clear that 911 was done for oil corporation purposes and the sad part on top of that is that they were trying to get the public to deny climate change. Ultimately, climate change will lead to massive problems for everyone if it is not addressed.
Most realize that the wealthy perpetrators of 911 will never be indicted or even publicly exposed. However, they do have a moral obligation to humanity in general, which includes their own children and grandchildren. They have the money to make a difference and can move us forward. They can induce the use of clean energy and natural gas to get the carbon dioxide levels down below break even and most would not mind them making a profit doing it. The Rockefeller family recently moved its trust fund investments into renewable clean energies.
We can make all of the electric we could ever use with wind, solar, tidal turbines, parabolic solar reflectors, and even natural gas (which is much more abundant than petroleum and much cleaner) and this can power electric cars. With about 50% electric cars and clean energy powering them we will probably get below break even with carbon dioxide. However, the investment money for the clean energy and electric car infrastructure needs to come from those with it and that is the oil companies. They need to become "energy companies", as they were at least hinting at a few years ago, and help move us back from the abyss.
This is what the 911 shills here should be telling their bosses instead of trying to incessantly spin away from and cover up the obvious controlled demolitions of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11,2001. We know there won't be any indictments or trials so just do the right thing overall. Even David Ray Griffin mentioned a truth and reconciliation commission with immunity like what was done in South Africa. Even if that doesn't happen, hopefully the oil barons will do the right thing. We will be watching.
Last edited:
Really Tony,
If I think like a detective I should assume because there is no evidence that suggests you were one of the asonists that you must have been one of them ?
It's logical to think you are one of them because you keep suggesting arson.
How does that sound to you ?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
There is evidence in the situation and timing of the fall of WTC 1 and the fires in WTC 7 to suggest the fires in WTC 7 were a result of arson and not the fall of WTC 1.
To suggest I was involved is preposterous. I was at work at BAE Systems in Lansdale, PA at the time and can prove that.
Come on Tony, you need a better cover story than that. In fact the more I think about it your cover story is more than enough evidence for me to be convinced you were one of the asononists that you claim exist.
Wake up Tony and think about it
Maybe you were a planner? Or one of those who set the demolition charges in one of the buildings well in advance?
You certainly appear to know a great deal that has escaped some excellent professional minds. Logic suggests you were involved in some capacity [/szamboti mode]
Meanwhile you deny the possibility of hot debris crossing from WTC1 to WTC7, yet claim precisely the opposite to explain the car fires. That's not "logic", that's making up crap on a whim.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
Come on Tony, you need a better cover story than that. In fact the more I think about it your cover story is more than enough evidence for me to be convinced you were one of the asononists that you claim exist.
Wake up Tony and think about it
Your comments here are inane and if you aren't a shill you certainly act like one. If you are one you should be telling your bosses what I said in post #894 instead of arguing nonsensically.
Last edited:
Tony, you are living in a fantasy land, this is a 911 conspiracy forum, who do you think my boss is (Chris Mohr)
Get a grip of yourself.
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
The cars had plastic parts on their exterior, which was flammable and would ignite easily, WTC 7 did not. Did you forget that part of my point?
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,976
I don't think Chris Mohr is your boss. I would think he is a colleague of yours, because he is spouting nonsense about the collapses also, and he should be telling his bosses what I said in post #894 also.
Last edited: