Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
you fucking blind or stoopid or both? Thermate cutter charges do not explode, they make a ffffft sound precisely like an acetyoxy torch because they are torches NOT explosives! Try to pull your head out of your ass.Woo. The irony!has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!
you fucking blind or stoopid or both? Thermate cutter charges do not explode, they make a ffffft sound precisely like an acetyoxy torch because they are torches NOT explosives! Try to pull your head out of your ass.Woo. The irony!has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!
you fucked up and gobbled the hugger story hook line and sinker and now you pay the price by looking the fool.
has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!
Check out Carrie Feinstein's eyewitness account in this video starting at 0:54 ... if there were no planes that day flying into buildings, explain how she saw two?"Delta colors painted on pieces of the fuselage"
and the alleged hijacked airliners were AMERICAN AIRLINES and UNITED AIRLINES. ....... REALLY PEOPLE ..... ?
Problem here is that showing pix of a few bits of metal does NOT constitute accounting for the aircraft.
the evidence shows she saw no plane impact world trade center.
when a plane hits a solid object there is a huge ball of flames approx 3 microseconds after the tanks are severed
you fucking blind or stoopid or both? Thermate cutter charges do not explode, they make a ffffft sound precisely like an acetyoxy torch because they are torches NOT explosives! Try to pull your head out of your ass.Woo. The irony!has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!
you fucked up and gobbled the hugger story hook line and sinker and now you pay the price by looking the fool.
you fucking blind or stoopid or both? Thermate cutter charges do not explode, they make a ffffft sound precisely like an acetyoxy torch because they are torches NOT explosives! Try to pull your head out of your ass.Woo. The irony!has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!
you fucked up and gobbled the hugger story hook line and sinker and now you pay the price by looking the fool.
But there was no evidence of cut beams. Chalk that one up and try again, Princess.
Bottom line is ... you're batshit insane.
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.
you fucking blind or stoopid or both? Thermate cutter charges do not explode, they make a ffffft sound precisely like an acetyoxy torch because they are torches NOT explosives! Try to pull your head out of your ass.Woo. The irony!has anybody seen "sound evidence for demolition"
look it up ...... The NIST is peddling snake oil!
you fucked up and gobbled the hugger story hook line and sinker and now you pay the price by looking the fool.
So where were the thermal cutters? Scale up the video you showed us to somethign big enough to cut a girder, it would be a cylinda 12 feet long 3 to 4 feet across, weighting about a ton and sticking sideways of of each girder. And your theory requires thousands of them.
Show us one. IF there were thousands and thousands used, roughly the length of a midsized car, then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us mounds and mounds of these thermal cutters in the debris. I mean, hell.....they'd be everywhere.
Yet there were none. Huh...its almost like you were talking completely out of your ass.
And if these thermal cutters would leave thousand and thousands of cut girders. We saw twisted girders. We saw bent girders. We saw smashed girders. But none of the cut girders you insist would be there by the thousands. Imagine that. More deal breakers that utterly destroy the 'thermal cutter' theory. Clearly, you need to ignore harder.
And of course, the building was on fire. With fire on virtuall every floor. Yet your system of 'thermal cutters' worked with perfect precision while in flames. None of their wires melted, none of the transmitters or timers melted. What magic material were these made out of? Adamantium?
And of course, how were these giant canisters installed? I mean, they're kinda hard to miss. No one is going to fail to notice something nearly 3 times the height of a water heater sticking horizontally off of main building girders by the thousands. And the Port Authority bomb squad certainly wouldn't have missed it when they inspected the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs. Was a cloaking device involved?
And clearly they weren't installed all the way to the roof (as you claim) while the buiding was on fire. As people are as flammable as the apparatus of your mighty morphin' thermal cutters. Its kinda hard to install thousands of 'ton each' thermal cutters when you're screaming on the ground trying to put yourself out. And of course, you couldn't be seen despite reporters, fire fighters and cops milling nearby. So......fireproof ninjas was it?
Each of these enormous inconsistencies in your theory render it a virtual impossibility. All of them render your theory silly. Try again. This time with less ninjas and invisibility cloaks.
The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.
Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane. It's really pretty worthless to bother with science in this forum though, these guys don't seem interested in solutions or getting to the bottom of anything, it seems to be more about agitation, distraction and fabrication.
Though the possible composition and placement of the explosives can be endlessly debated, but the fact that they were indeed composed and placed cannot....
....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support....
....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....
....means an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right)...
The building was brought down by explosives.
wow! four masterbatorial posts in a row from koko ,must have been a slow night for trolling boy scoutsSorry, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Cheney had both motive and knowledge and I can prove it. And, WTC7 was identical to implosions. And, squibs were observed in all three buildings.now this is hilarious!
not even the debunker trolls want to stick their neck out on this one.
gotta love it when truthers present an unimpeachable case.
Relax, chuckles. Your conspiracy was already proven impossible 6 times over.
Read above.
yeh and the experts agree it was a demolition but debunkers are willfully ignorant tards pushing their propaganda.
hey ya ever see a thermate cutter?
takes one inch of steel and poof its fucking gone!
Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane.
Or "chaotic fires" started by thousands of gallons of a powerful accelerant (like jet fuel) which weakened that which supported the building. 13 years later NO EVIDENCE OF EXPOSIVES or of preparation for an explosive demo have been found which should lead any rational "truther" - no matter how invested in his CT - to understand those buildings were not brought down by explosives. Even the desperately silly NoSpAm doesn't cling to your silliness but rather has more than enough silliness of his own ... like mighty morphin' thermal cutters & fireproof ninjas with invisibility cloaks all of which, like your non-existent explosives, could not have survived those "chaotic fires."
Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane. It's really pretty worthless to bother with science in this forum though, these guys don't seem interested in solutions or getting to the bottom of anything, it seems to be more about agitation, distraction and fabrication.
Though the possible composition and placement of the explosives can be endlessly debated, but the fact that they were indeed composed and placed cannot....
....means an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....
Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane.
Or "chaotic fires" started by thousands of gallons of a powerful accelerant (like jet fuel) which weakened that which supported the building. 13 years later NO EVIDENCE OF EXPOSIVES or of preparation for an explosive demo have been found which should lead any rational "truther" - no matter how invested in his CT - to understand those buildings were not brought down by explosives. Even the desperately silly NoSpAm doesn't cling to your silliness but rather has more than enough silliness of his own ... like mighty morphin' thermal cutters & fireproof ninjas with invisibility cloaks all of which, like your non-existent explosives, could not have survived those "chaotic fires."
See what I mean? All talk, no useful empirically verifiable information. I made it clear I was talking about WTC7. It wasn't hit by a plane, there were no "chaotic fires" from any "powerful accelerant".... agitation, distraction and fabrication.
What a dope.
Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane.
Or "chaotic fires" started by thousands of gallons of a powerful accelerant (like jet fuel) which weakened that which supported the building. 13 years later NO EVIDENCE OF EXPOSIVES or of preparation for an explosive demo have been found which should lead any rational "truther" - no matter how invested in his CT - to understand those buildings were not brought down by explosives. Even the desperately silly NoSpAm doesn't cling to your silliness but rather has more than enough silliness of his own ... like mighty morphin' thermal cutters & fireproof ninjas with invisibility cloaks all of which, like your non-existent explosives, could not have survived those "chaotic fires."
See what I mean? All talk, no useful empirically verifiable information. I made it clear I was talking about WTC7. It wasn't hit by a plane, there were no "chaotic fires" from any "powerful accelerant".... agitation, distraction and fabrication.
What a dope.
"WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved. The inside of the building were the cutter charges had been set, was still cool.
Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.
The alleged airliner strikes to WTC1 & 2 had to have been either missiles or something else, but NOT commercial airliners, it simply doesn't work, the idea that two hits from commercial airliners would produce gashes in the sides of WTC1 & 2 ( oh but we all saw it happen.... ) REALLY PEOPLE, were is the hard evidence? there isn't any!
Somebody produce PROOF that there was any airliner at ground zero.......(?)
This looks like a missile to you, does it?"WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved. The inside of the building were the cutter charges had been set, was still cool.
Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.
The alleged airliner strikes to WTC1 & 2 had to have been either missiles or something else, but NOT commercial airliners, it simply doesn't work, the idea that two hits from commercial airliners would produce gashes in the sides of WTC1 & 2 ( oh but we all saw it happen.... ) REALLY PEOPLE, were is the hard evidence? there isn't any!
Somebody produce PROOF that there was any airliner at ground zero.......(?)
"WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."
do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved...
