• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

of WTC7 and things being pulled

Since it has been established that there was no monetary gain in demolishing WTC7, what exactly is the motive again for claiming it was demolished intentionally?

Why exactly has no insurance company challenged anything?
 
And, no, KT: no demolition firm has ever taken on quite that huge a task. It would take months to get it right.
 
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

And >>>they<<< made
that decision to pull

and we watched the building collapse.
Click to expand...

Come on! Who is "THEY" in this context?
 
Hint:

It does mean that Silverstein had NOTHING to do with >>>any<<< decision regarding WTC7 after the attacks on 9/11.

Next issue, please.
 
Killtown said:
JREFers, read this question VERY CAREFULLY:

Has there every been a building as tall as the WTC 7, as close as it was to neighboring building that has been demo'd by explosives?
Click to expand...

Nope.

The tallest steel-frame building is the J.Hudson building. Took over 5000 charges and 7 months of prep work. WTC7 is 1.47 times that size. The Two Towers, 3.1 times.

And I'm still waiting for that answer if you are calling Chief Daniel Nigro, the man who gave the order to set up a collapse zone, a liar.
 
Oliver said:
Come on! Who is "THEY" in this context?
Click to expand...

I know.. I KNOW !!!!

DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris. Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
Click to expand...

:D
 
Killtown said:
1) So what kind of demo is it called when a demo company rigs a building for an implosion and they miscalculated and it accidentally damages a nieghboring building? I mean do you really think the perps cared if the scrapped a building?

2) He wasn't?

3) the surrounding structures, that's why they imploded it just like FEMA says it collapsed like.
Click to expand...
1) i dont know, find one and ask what they called it mr investigator

2) no, he wasnt, he did not say pulled [the building] in reference to demolished [the building] he said pulled away, indicating the direction they were making ti fall

3)well in the little blurb i linked "pulling away" would refer to non-implosion type demolitions

since WTC damaged surrounding structures it was cleaerly not an implosion, and clearly not pulled away from the structures it damaged
 
Oliver said:
Come on! Who is "THEY" in this context?
Click to expand...

DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?

Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris. Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
Click to expand...
And 5 hours would of been ample time to do this don't forget ......http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2021363&postcount=128 ;)
 
Last edited:
rearnakedchoke said:
i am impressed my mr killtown, i dont trust him, but i do respect his work..
Click to expand...
What innocent victims of 9/11 will you be making allegations against?

Do you think Photoshopped feces on the graves of murder victims is "Funny!"?

And if you added a distance in feet to miles per hour, would you get a result in feet?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
im impressed by his ability to twist anyones words to suit his purposes

thats not really a good thing though
Click to expand...

both sides use rhetoric and carefull wordings....every single witness reprt that doesnt jive with the official story gets twisted and rejected....

i saw a white jet.... no you didnt

i heard boom boom boom boom boom boom, then 3 loud explosions then the tower fell,.......... well hes not a demolision expert

started poppin out floor by floor........ firemen are not demolision experts

its all side stepping and word manipulations..
 
rearnakedchoke said:
both sides use rhetoric and carefull wordings....every single witness reprt that doesnt jive with the official story gets twisted and rejected....

i saw a white jet.... no you didnt

i heard boom boom boom boom boom boom, then 3 loud explosions then the tower fell,.......... well hes not a demolision expert

started poppin out floor by floor........ firemen are not demolision experts

its all side stepping and word manipulations..
Click to expand...

Actual examples?

But when I see a CT post a quote, it is always just the part of the quote they want you to see, while I normally see the debunkers putting the entire interview or quote in, without manipulating anything.
 
rearnakedchoke said:
its all side stepping and word manipulations..
Click to expand...
Wrong. Your side must lie to support it's absurd claims. Ours only needs to show the evidence.

There's no side stepping about these things. The man you respect although he's too much of a coward to reveal his own name, really did them.
 
rearnakedchoke said:
both sides use rhetoric and carefull wordings....every single witness reprt that doesnt jive with the official story gets twisted and rejected....

i saw a white jet.... no you didnt

i heard boom boom boom boom boom boom, then 3 loud explosions then the tower fell,.......... well hes not a demolision expert

started poppin out floor by floor........ firemen are not demolision experts

its all side stepping and word manipulations..
Click to expand...
the only "white jet" witness i disagree with is susan mcelwain in shanksville because her staements are contradictory to every other witness and all other evidence

and ive never denied anyone hearign explosions at the WTC, i think it would be odd if there werent explosions in a fire that size

not sure what you mean by the last statement there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom