Post your evidence that WTC was destroyed by demolition

[The Grave]

The idiot explanations means that all the building regs. are a waste of time because your saying a little fire can topple a skyscraper.

 

[Ragnarok]

Excuse the slight hijack, but can anyone tell me if there is any truth to stories I've come across indicating lots of activity in the tunnels and underground spaces beneath WTC7? I'm sure I read that a truck loaded with gold bullion was left abandoned down there!

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

This thread is to post every single known piece of evidence to date that supports the "controlled demolition" hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Go.

What's the difference if the demolition is controlled or not? What do you even mean by controlled? In your version were the plane crashes not intentional? For instance was the Oklahoma City bombing controlled?

 

[VespaGuy]

What's the difference if the demolition is controlled or not? What do you even mean by controlled? In your version were the plane crashes not intentional? For instance was the Oklahoma City bombing controlled?

It always has to be spoon fed to truthers, doesn't it.

A controlled demolition is one in which a building is intentionally and systematically torn down, usually by using preplanted explosives in such a way as to minimize the collapse zone and control the fall. Controlled demolitions require knowledge of the building's structure, wiring, cutting structural members, etc

Placing a single bomb within a building, or crashing planes into a bulding are not "controlled demolitions" for obvious reasons, even if they result in a full or partial collapse.

But you already know all of this, don't you...?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

It always has to be spoon fed to truthers, doesn't it.

You should have used a question mark there buddy. You're off to a stellar beginning. Good Job!

A controlled demolition is one in which a building is intentionally and systematically torn down, usually by using preplanted explosives in such a way as to minimize the collapse zone and control the fall. Controlled demolitions require knowledge of the building's structure, wiring, cutting structural members, etc

Yet it is your asinine assertion that all of these buildings fell without absolutely no explosives involved whatsoever. Correct?

Placing a single bomb within a building, or crashing planes into a building are not "controlled demolitions" for obvious reasons, even if they result in a full or partial collapse.

And? Come on you can do it. Well... maybe not. Don't hurt yourself now.

But you already know all of this, don't you...?

Oh I know plenty. Are you learning anything yet? How to get owned? Pwned? Ass kicked?

 

[VespaGuy]

You should have used a question mark there, buddy. You're off to a stellar beginning. Good Job!

Grammar attacks already? Trolls use that tactic when they're backed against a wall. Are you admitting defeat already?

(Your attack would carry a bit more weight if you actually used the correct punctuation in your own post.)

Yet it is your asinine assertion that all of these buildings fell without absolutely no explosives involved whatsoever. Correct?

No explosive residue. No wiring found. No detonation like a controlled demolition.

Yes. Evidence points to ZERO planted explosives in any of the buildings. Feel free to show evidence of explosives like those used in a controlled demolition.

And? Come on you can do it. Well... maybe not. Don't hurt yourself now.

Oh I know plenty. Are you learning anything yet? How to get owned? Pwned? Ass kicked?

My apologies. I hoped you were an adult. I see I'm mistaken.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Grammar attacks already? Trolls use that tactic when they're backed against a wall. Are you admitting defeat already?

No. To be exact it was bad grammar used in a lame attempt to attack the intelligence of another. Irony..? Oh never mind.

No explosive residue. No wiring found. No detonation like a controlled demolition.

There was no anything left. Does that mean there was never any fully intact one acre sized concrete floors in the WTC?

Yes. Evidence points to ZERO planted explosives in any of the buildings. Feel free to show evidence of explosives like those used in a controlled demolition.

Feel free to put all conspiracies about 9/11 to rest any day now. Oh... but then what the hell would you do with yourself?

My apologies. I hoped you were an adult. I see I'm mistaken.

Don't apologize. You can't help it. Some people are just born special.

 

[Stellafane]

...Feel free to put all conspiracies about 9/11 to rest any day now. Oh... but then what the hell would you do with yourself?

Personally, I'd go off and look for a similarly deluded group of lost souls to save -- or, failing that, minimize the damage they cause.

 

[VespaGuy]

No. To be exact it was bad grammar used in a lame attempt to attack the intelligence of another.

My misused period, or your forgotten comma?

Irony..? Oh never mind.

OK. Very well.

There was no anything left.

Are you lying, or just being difficult? Remember that huge pile? There was concrete, steel, rebar, paper, and lots of remnants from the thousands of offices that existed.

But no explosive residue or wiring.

Does that mean there was never any fully intact one acre sized concrete floors in the WTC?

We found lots and lots of concrete. No wiring or explosives though.

Feel free to put all conspiracies about 9/11 to rest any day now. Oh... but then what the hell would you do with yourself?

So you don't have any evidence of explosives. Dodge noted.

Don't apologize. You can't help it. Some people are just born special.

Yup. Now about the evidence of explosives...

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Personally, I'd go off and look for a similarly deluded group of lost souls to save -- or, failing that, minimize the damage they cause.

Why would you continue with something you have had absolutely no success with?

 

[VespaGuy]

Why would you continue with something you have had absolutely no success with?

ANy evidence that WTC was destroyed by demolition, HI?

 

[Stellafane]

Why would you continue with something you have had absolutely no success with?

I wouldn't -- if in fact I never had any success (which of course, you haven't the slightest idea whether I have or not, then again getting your facts straight before shooting off your mouth has never been a particularly well-developed talent among Truthers). Granted, deluded souls are a pretty tough lot to reach, they're often so brimming with utterly misplaced self-confidence that they make smug statements about people they don't even know, whose background they are utterly clueless about. I guess that's the nature of the beast, since who but the totally deluded still believe 9/11 was an inside job? But you see, I've written quite a bit about 9/11 conspiracies, and I've been rewarded with a number of success stories. Of course, some people are so self-deluded that there's simply no reaching them, but selfless altruist that I am, I keep trying. Like I said, even if they're too far gone to re-connect with reality, I can still show the world how foolish their ideas are.

 

[pomeroo]

You should have used a question mark there buddy. You're off to a stellar beginning. Good Job!

If you want us to start correcting your grammar and syntax, the result will not be pretty.

Yet it is your asinine assertion that all of these buildings fell without absolutely no explosives involved whatsoever. Correct?

It is the assertion of every demolition expert in the nation that no explosives were used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. The evidence for explosives is nonexistent: no seismic data showing secondary explosions, no physical evidence (bits of wiring or detonator caps), no chemical signatures. There are those who would find irony in your misuse of the word "asinine."

And? Come on you can do it. Well... maybe not. Don't hurt yourself now.



Oh I know plenty. Are you learning anything yet? How to get owned? Pwned? Ass kicked?

Another mindless conspiracy liar bites the dust. Yes, the liars "own" the rationalists. They just get everything wrong.

 

[1337m4n]

What's the difference if the demolition is controlled or not? What do you even mean by controlled?

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong guy, PDoh. You see, it was not debunkers who originally used the term "controlled demolition" to describe the WTC collapse. Rather, it was Truthers. Google WTC Controlled Demolition and what will you find? Hordes of Truther sites.

So if you sincerely want an answer to this question you will have to ask your buddies at LCF or Abovetopsecret or wherever it is that you hang out nowadays. However, I do not believe you sincerely want an answer to this question. Rather, I believe you are trying to poke holes in the semantics of the OP because you don't want to admit that you have no evidence whatsoever of explosives in the WTC.

 

[1337m4n]

The idiot explanations means that all the building regs. are a waste of time because your saying a little fire can topple a skyscraper.

Please tell me you're being facetious. Tell me you're being facetious, because I have to say this is the most wrong that can possibly be packed into a single sentence. The wrong-to-word ratio is about as high as it can get.

 

[LashL]

Bunny cages and patio stones

 

[MIKILLINI]

Why would you continue with something you have had absolutely no success with?

Seriously, this is a question you ought to consider for yourself. How much success have you gained from making the CD arguement?

You seem absolutely convinced there was a prepared demolition executed upon the WTC towers.

If you have discovered evidence that proves a controlled demolition, please notify the authorities immediately, it is extremely important for them to receive this evidence ASAP.
If you haven't reported your evidence to the authorities, virtually all of us would be willing to do it without question.
So do you have verifiable, tangible evidence for your claim of controlled demolition?

 

[pomeroo]

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong guy, PDoh. You see, it was not debunkers who originally used the term "controlled demolition" to describe the WTC collapse. Rather, it was Truthers. Google WTC Controlled Demolition and what will you find? Hordes of Truther sites.

So if you sincerely want an answer to this question you will have to ask your buddies at LCF or Abovetopsecret or wherever it is that you hang out nowadays. However, I do not believe you sincerely want an answer to this question. Rather, I believe you are trying to poke holes in the semantics of the OP because you don't want to admit that you have no evidence whatsoever of explosives in the WTC.

Just for the record, I haven't identified the new dunce as P-dope. The aggressive ignorance is more characteristic of Zensmack/LastChild/roundhead, but time will tell.

 

[DarkMagician]

Why would you continue with something you have had absolutely no success with?

You could cut the irony with a knife.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You could cut the irony with a knife.

They always say irony strikes at the best of times