Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

In order to even suspect arson you need to show that the obvious cause of the fires are to be of suspect. Planes, collapses and fires. Kind of hard to over-look. Why should we suspect arson?

I know you hate these kind of questions but. until you can answer them, no one will pay attention (like now)
 
Last edited:
Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that it looked, sounded and acted nothing like a controlled demo. Not even a 'classic' controlled demo. Shall I count the ways?
 
Christopher7 said:
Those two statement are mutually exclusive.

That is a possibility but it does not rule out arson.

It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Did you see any evidence of dovetail joints in the building?
 
It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Can we PLEASE move on from Arson? It was arson. It was assumed to be arson. It was proved to be arson. IT WAS ARSON. They even know who started it - Mohamed Atta. He was vaporized before he could stand trial, though.
 
Christopher7 said:
NIST 1-9 Page 300
[FONT=&quot]"They did not observe any fires at this time on the 8th floor or 9th floor"

This was about 1:15 to 1:30 p.m.
The fire on floor 8 first appeared on the north face at about 3:40 p.m.
The fire on floor 9 first appeared on the north face shortly before 4:00 p.m.

If you refuse to consider arson then you are in denial.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Somebody went into a burning building to start fires?

Where do they get such men?
 
tsig said:
Somebody went into a burning building to start fires?

Where do they get such men?
Click to expand...

Somebody went into a burning building to start fires and plant explosives. Daredevils I tell ya...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Somebody went into a burning building to start fires and plant explosives. Daredevils I tell ya...
Click to expand...

I don't know of one person who is trained to work with explosives that would even come within 100 yards of a burning building while handling explosives much less go into one carrying enough to bring one down.

There are old explosives handlers and there are bold explosive handlers but there are no old, bold explosive handlers (or something like that). These people will literally freak out if someone is smoking within 100 feet of a stack of relatively harmless fireworks yet C7 and others like him think that they will willingly go into a burning building to plant explosives. It boggles the mind.
 
Did they order the explosives over the phone? If so, at what company? And how fast did they get the explosives into Manhattan (which, at that time, was completely sealed off)?

The explosives couldn't have been laying around at the Trade site, since the culprits could not know in advance that WTC7 was to be hit and damaged by WTC1.
 
Unless, of course, they somehow aimed the collapse of WTC 1 in such a manner as to start a fire without disrupting any of their hush-a-boom explosives.
 
000063 said:
Unless, of course, they somehow aimed the collapse of WTC 1 in such a manner as to start a fire without disrupting any of their hush-a-boom explosives.
Click to expand...

Oh right! I forgot. They had rockets attached to the aluminum panels.
 
Christopher7 said:
Most people recognize that WTC 7 imploded in the classic manner of a CD. Only fanatic government loyalists deny it was a CD. There is indisputable evidence that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier.

There is indisputable proof that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.




This is a subject shift to bury the FACT that NIST lied when they said there was no water to fight the fires in WTC 7.
Click to expand...

You mean it fell into and outside of it's footprint, throwing beams hundreds of feet while disintegrating them into dust followed by the steel becoming a molten lake while it was also shipped to China?

I prefer modern CD to classical.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Those two statement are mutually exclusive.

That is a possibility but it does not rule out arson.

It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

How about spontaneous building combustion?
 
Christopher7 said:
Those two statement are mutually exclusive.

That is a possibility but it does not rule out arson.

It could have been arson and your refusal to accept that is proof that your claim of expertise is meaningless. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Please tell me some of the signs of arson. Feel free to make a list.

Also, make sure you cite relevant, factual, evidence.

I'll wait.......(LeftySargent, this aught to be good. Get your popcorn out....)
 
Bell said:
Oh right! I forgot. They had rockets attached to the aluminum panels.
Click to expand...
No rockets necessary. Just the ability to control a building demolition with precision not seen before or since, then to make the physical evidence such as detonators, casing, wiring, etc. vanish from any photo or video of the massive debris pile that was pored over by thousands for millions of man-hours.

Nothing big.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
You ability to get it wrong is virtually unlimited.

Because it is not known how those fires started 4 or 5 hours after the debris hit WTC 7, I said that arson must be considered. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

The probability of troofers tap dancing around inconvenient facts that destroy their cynical delusions and fantasies is what is virtually unlimited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom