10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher 7 wrote
"Sometimes this guy feels like a nut, sometimes he doesn't
Don't bother getting into a pissing match with him"

yeah i was thinking pissed rhymes with Nist

"It's impossible to prove a negative."
Unless you are one LOL
like lil BeachNot heah

"There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?
I bet you a hunner it didn't collapse straight down into its footprint did it? couldn't have been confused with a CD i'll bet.
 
respublicus said:
Come on you must know this stuff.
WTC 7 is the classic implosion demolition, first the nick in the center, walls falling inward.

The Twin Towers were a special case. Possibly because of their great height, it was needed to explode away a lot of the mass?
Anyway, I couldn't find any examples of classic demolition of buildings that tall.
Also of course the explosion sequence started from the top down. Whether for technical reasons or to go with the IHOP theory/scam. (Prof. Eager works for MIT you know, big defence contractor.)

Have any of you Lyers (anti twoofers, right?) seen 9/11 mysteries on google video?

that's the best proof i can think of for CD.

Pwoof to you, of course.
Click to expand...

So, to clarify, the government blew up the Twin Towers in a totally unique fashion, but then got lazy and decided to blow up WTC in a 'classic implosion demolition' style? Why? Why wouldn't they try to cover it up? Why would they blow it up in such a way that it so obvious? Why would they blow it up in such a way that it, supposedly, looks clearly like a CD?

These are all serious questions by the way.
 
Christopher7 said:
Republicus:
Sometimes this guy feels like a nut, sometimes he doesn't

Don't bother getting into a pissing match with him



It's impossible to prove a negative.

On the other hand, no one has porven that WTC 7 did fall due to fire.

WTC 7 displays all the charistics of a CD.

You cannot rule out the possibility that it was a CD.

There is one case of a partial collapse but it occured over a period of time.
Click to expand...

Yes I require facts so just pissing, you would loose that contest too.

Yes you can. IF you could prove there were no fires in WTC7, then you would prove fires did not bring down WTC7. I am not sure but it works for me. Prove the fires could not weaken steel or you cd took place and you can prove me wrong. I agree you can use facts to prove me wrong bring them on! Simple. We will let you use facts to prove me wrong. I do not care if you have problems with the logic since you use no logic to come up with your ideas why quibble over proving me wrong. Bring on the facts. Please.

I still say you can not prove that fires did not bring down WTC7. If you could prove there were no fires you could shut me down. If you could prove there were explosives planted to bring down WTC7 your could prove me wrong. Simple stuff, try some facts CTer.

You lack the facts to prove anything. I have fires and damage to the WTC7 making the fact that WTC7 fell due to fires; true. I just use the simple facts. Fire, steel, building falls. If you could show me a concrete core or concrete on all the steel to protect it like the Madrid building you could prove me wrong. But WTC7 was like the steel portions of the Madrid building that failed and fell in the first hours of the fire in Madrid.

If you had proof of explosives in WTC7 then you would have proof of CD and prove me wrong. So many ways to prove me wrong about fire, where are your facts.

But there was a fire and the fire did not cook off explosives that were never place in WTC7. You have no proof of CD. You can not even prove there was not a large hole in WTC7. You failed to read the update that said we have to wait for the update on WTC7.

Plus your poor cd theory would be foiled by the fire cooking off your explosives. How did the bad guys keep the explosives from cooking off all day long?

You have to have silent explosives that are fireproof and wires and detonators devices that are fireproof. Your cd theory quickly fails the rational research test. Yes I have ruled out CD because there were no explosives used, nor would they have survived the fire as long as the building did stand. No cd sound either.

Show us the silent fireproof explosives. If you had some facts now is a great time to use them. Got facts? (are you a Jones thermite guy?)
 
Christopher7 said:
That's not debunking, it's just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually it's more of a rebunking.

The clueless brainwashing victim writes:

"And #4, presumably these “squibs” are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling?"

No, Mr Magoo. That is your false asshumption.
The material is being massively ejected higher up from the big explosions.
Squibs are from placed charges that sever supporting columns. They are characteristic of implosion demolitions.

That's why "the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling" - it's the timing to bring the building down at free-fall speed. Voila.

I bought a copy of Demolition, illustrated book by the Loizeaux company on Amazon a while back. It has a lot of pix of demolitions and squibs. You know Loizeaux. Controlled Demolition Inc. That's their name. The outfit hired to clean up after the OKC and the WTC 9/11.... You can check out their website.
 
About the squibs:

compaz.jpg


Whoops!
 
Christopher7 said:
C7
"There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Respublicus
Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details
Click to expand...

Yes the steel only portions fell in exploding fashion in less than three hours.

WTC7 burned for many more and thus was a strong building. We must build them better; too bad there was 20,000 gallons of fuel in WTC7, not any at the Madrid building.

Look at all that bent like butter steel! I love it when CTers debunk themselves.

Got some more facts to counter your shallow theories of CD?
 
Coritani said:
About the squibs:

compaz.jpg


Whoops!
Click to expand...

Those look like squibs if you use a low res video and the pixels are all messing up the view.

I think the broken windows CTer use a squibs are broken windows. Darn the squibs are debunked. Next.

Who make up the CT junk? Why do they use the same junk over and over again? Those CTers could use better leaders and lots of new material.
 
Christopher7 said:
C7
"There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Respublicus
Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details
Click to expand...

Thanks. I quote

"The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial."

then there is a timeline showing the partial collapse took almost 3 hours.
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds,

Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.

Chris, i'm getting the picture, the guys we are bantering with have an embarrassing little problem. They don't seem to be very smart. To put it charitably.

I really got a lot of better things to do than argue with these clueless cretins. Is there some way I can get in touch with you off this list? I got something better to share with you.

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90. If there were nobody below average, there wouldn't be anybody above it either, right? Ooops, sorry, i might have confused you there too. Not trying to make it complicated, honest.
Just don't worry about it. Der Fuehrer will take care of everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom