Unanswered, you can go no further

[Skylar]

"I don't have to, it happened on 9-11. We saw it."

The real question is: did what you saw, happen with or without help from some other source of energy?

The real question is....can you back up your narrative with any evidence. Remembering of course that you just making up declarative statements based on absolutely nothing isn't evidence. But an excuse for it.

You claim there were bombs. But we've already eliminated the bomb theory as an even remotely plausible explanation as it has too many conspiracy killing holes in it. If you were genuinely interested in what happened, why ignore the inconsistencies within your own theory?

It doesn't look like you want to know what actually happened. You seem much more interested in clinging to your conspiracy, even when its an awful, awful explanation of events.

No thank you.

 

[PredFan]

"I don't have to, it happened on 9-11. We saw it."

The real question is: did what you saw, happen with or without help from some other source of energy?

Without. Unless you have proof otherwise.

 

[Skylar]

"I don't have to, it happened on 9-11. We saw it."

The real question is: did what you saw, happen with or without help from some other source of energy?

Without. Unless you have proof otherwise.

Exactly. Spam has yet to factually establish that more 'power' was even needed. Let alone that it was added. He simply assumes both, backed by his imagination.

Alas, imagination isn't evidence. And as the crippling holes in Spam's claims demonstrate, the scenario he imagines is a pretty awful explanation. It just doesn't hold up. Which might explain why there's no evidence to back it.

 

[n0spam4me]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

 

[Skylar]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

Part of the problem is that you don't know what a duck looks like, as you have no idea what you're talking about. The FDNY however, who were actually there predicted the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and structural damage hours before it came down.

They measured its buckling, its bulging, its leaning with a transit they had on the building. The FDNY determined saw uncontrolled fires burning on almost every floor, pulled their people back and evacuated the area waiting for the WTC 7 to collapse from the fire.

And it did exactly as the FDNY predicted it would.

Now why would any rational person ignore the FDNY and instead believe you?

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

Wrong again.

The collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence. Actual controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

The WTC 7 was on fire. No system of explosives operates while on fire. Detonators would have detonated, wires would have melted, any timers, receivers or control boards would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

There were no bombs ever found before, during or after the collapse. Not one charge, not one inch of blasting wire, not one transmitter, nothing. Despite your theory requiring thousands upon thousands of them. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

The Port Authority Bomb squad went through the WTC plaza searching for bombs only a week before the collapse of the towers....with bomb sniffing dogs. They found no bombs or apparatus of explosives. WTC security had been working 12 hour shifts searching for bombs up until the collapse of the towers due to phoned in threats against the buildings. They found no bombs or apparatus of explosives. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

There were no seismic signatures of explosive demolition. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza. Eliminating bombs as the cause of the collapse.

Worse, the collapse didn't match the pattern of controlled demolition.

1) The building was on fire. Making controlled demolition impossible.
2) The FDNY had measured the bulging, buckling and leaning of the building as it slowly failed. Utterly dissimilar to controlled demolition.
3) The Penthouse at the top of the building began falling into the WTC 7 19 seconds before the facade fell. In near total silence. Again, utterly dissimilar to controlled demolition.

All of the above, you already know. You simply ignore it and pretend none of it exists. Alas, you can't make us ignore it. Which is why your conspiracy fails.

cognitive dissonance? or?

When you address, resolve or even acknowledge the existence of the conspiracy killing holes crippling your theory, you can talk to us about 'cognitive dissonance'. Until then, you remain in denial, refusing to question your own beliefs or even think too hard about them.[/QUOTE]

 

[daws101]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

that would be you and it's the oldest twooferism in the book .
and it's incorrect..
it's obvious you and all other twoofers suffer from cognitive bias:
Definition of Cognitive Bias
A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one's preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information. Psychologists study cognitive biases as they relate to memory, reasoning, and decision-making. Many kinds of cognitive biases exist. For example, a confirmation bias is the tendency to seek only information that matches what one already believes. Memory biases influence what and how easily one remembers. For example, people are more likely to recall events they find humorous and better remember information they produce themselves. People are also more likely to regard as accurate memories associated with significant events or emotions (such as the memory of what one was doing when a catastrophe occurred).

 

[daws101]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

unless it's a goose!

 

[n0spam4me]

So people look at the destruction of WTC7
and think about it, it falls in a very uniform manner with the North and West walls keeping shape as it descends and the fact that anybody still does not get it, is a wonder to me

 

[Skylar]

So people look at the destruction of WTC7
and think about it, it falls in a very uniform manner with the North and West walls keeping shape as it descends and the fact that anybody still does not get it, is a wonder to me

First, your time line is off. 19 seconds before the facade of the WTC 7 collapsed, the Penthouse on the top of the building began collapsing. 6 seconds before the collapse, the penthouse fell into the middle of the WTC 7. Not 'off of'. But INTO. Demonstrating undeniably and undebatably that the WTC 7's internal structure was already collapsing long before the facade fell. Putting your time line off by nearly an order of magnitude.

Second, the collapse initiated on the 13th floor. 33 floors beneath the penthouse. And 15 floors beneath the 18 or so stories that we saw collapsing. When the 13th floor collapsed, all floors above it would fall. You insist this is impossible. Play a game of jenga one day and knock out all piece from the middle of the stack. If the pieces in the upper half don't continue to float in the air, your theory is disproven.

Third, bombs were virtually impossible.

1) The building was on fire on virtually every floor. And any system of explosives would have been on fire as well. Melting or detonating them haphazardly before they could have brought down the WTC.
2) The collapse of the WTC 7 initiated in near perfect silence where actual controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. There are no such thing as 'silent explosives'.
3) There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.
4) The WTC plaza had been swept for bombs only a week before the collapse by the Port Authority bomb squad.
5) And no girders were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

Any one of these issues renders the bomb theory virtually impossible. Together, it just looks silly.

Fourth, the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC due to fire and structural damage hours before it came down. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning. They were witness to the massive structural damage the building had sustained when chucks of the collapsing WTC 1 had torn massive holes in WTC 7. They listened to the building groan as the fires grew out of control until nearly every floor was on fire.

The FDNY abandoned their fire fighting effort, pulled their people back and waited for the building to collapse due to fire and structural damage. And they nailed it, with the building coming down within about an hour of their prediction.

And you already know all of this. You just really hope we don't. And how do you deal with these obvious and conspiracy killing contradictions of your little theory? You ignore it entirely, pretending it never happened.

But why would a rational person ignore what you do?

 

[n0spam4me]

"3) There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."

exactly who tested, and where is it documented that these tests took place & came up negative?

 

[Skylar]

"3) There was no residue of explosives found in dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."

exactly who tested, and where is it documented that these tests took place & came up negative?

I've already told you, repeatedly. If you're going to ignore what you asked for, what would possibly motivate me to provide it again. Look at any of the half dozen times I've given you the name of the tester, the testing organization and the date the tests were made public.

And if you want documentation, you're going to need to provide documentation for your theory. So far you have none.

 

[n0spam4me]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

unless it's a goose!

Geese Honk, not quack ...... Thank U very much!

 

[Skylar]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

unless it's a goose!

Geese Honk, not quack ...... Thank U very much!

Can you show me any controlled demolition of a sky scraper that was on fire? Or one that initiated in silence? Or one that left zero physical evidence of the use of explosives? Or one where tens of thousands of charges were set in secrecy?

Of course not. WTC 7 was nothing like controlled demolition. As it was virtually impossible for bombs to have been used on the WTC. No bombs, no conspiracy.

Where the FDNY anticipated the collapse of WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. But you know better....because you watched a youtube video a decade after the fact?

Um, no.

 

[n0spam4me]

do you really expect to have asymmetrical damage & fire, cause what was seen on 9/11/2001 and for WTC1, 2 & 7 all three came straight down, that would clearly indicate that every connection within the building had failed right on time, as if on a schedule so as to produce the result as observed.

 

[daws101]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

unless it's a goose!

Geese Honk, not quack ...... Thank U very much!

right!

 

[daws101]

do you really expect to have asymmetrical damage & fire, cause what was seen on 9/11/2001 and for WTC1, 2 & 7 all three came straight down, that would clearly indicate that every connection within the building had failed right on time, as if on a schedule so as to produce the result as observed.

define asymmetry..?
2. false it means that the damage from the fires and the wtc collapse weakened the structural connections to the point of failure there is no right on time...

 

[n0spam4me]

do you really expect to have asymmetrical damage & fire, cause what was seen on 9/11/2001 and for WTC1, 2 & 7 all three came straight down, that would clearly indicate that every connection within the building had failed right on time, as if on a schedule so as to produce the result as observed.

define asymmetry..?
2. false it means that the damage from the fires and the wtc collapse weakened the structural connections to the point of failure there is no right on time...

wow, do I gotta draw you a picture? "asymmetry" that is the fires/damage weakening of structure would by the very nature of the event be different say on the West side of the tower as compared to the East side of the tower, or by any standard of measure you want to devise. Therefore, the level roof line descent of the North tower for the first 4 seconds of its "collapse" clearly indicates that this was an engineered event NOT the result of chaotic damage ( etc... )

 

[n0spam4me]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

unless it's a goose!

Geese Honk, not quack ...... Thank U very much!

Can you show me any controlled demolition of a sky scraper that was on fire? Or one that initiated in silence? Or one that left zero physical evidence of the use of explosives? Or one where tens of thousands of charges were set in secrecy?

Of course not. WTC 7 was nothing like controlled demolition. As it was virtually impossible for bombs to have been used on the WTC. No bombs, no conspiracy.

Where the FDNY anticipated the collapse of WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. But you know better....because you watched a youtube video a decade after the fact?

Um, no.

Here is the way it is, the fact that WTC7 "collapsed" as it did, clearly indicates that it was an engineered event, therefore in order to have the engineered event and the show of fire to give the excuse that fire caused the "collapse" the same sort of theatrical devices that have been in use for decades at amusement parks, to give the appearance of a building on fire, but in reality its all show.
The Planet Earth was treated to a made for TV drama on 9/11/2001.
Get a grip, we have been lied to!

 

[daws101]

do you really expect to have asymmetrical damage & fire, cause what was seen on 9/11/2001 and for WTC1, 2 & 7 all three came straight down, that would clearly indicate that every connection within the building had failed right on time, as if on a schedule so as to produce the result as observed.

define asymmetry..?
2. false it means that the damage from the fires and the wtc collapse weakened the structural connections to the point of failure there is no right on time...

wow, do I gotta draw you a picture? "asymmetry" that is the fires/damage weakening of structure would by the very nature of the event be different say on the West side of the tower as compared to the East side of the tower, or by any standard of measure you want to devise. Therefore, the level roof line descent of the North tower for the first 4 seconds of its "collapse" clearly indicates that this was an engineered event NOT the result of chaotic damage ( etc... )

that's not an answer...
you are using words you don't know the meaning of .
you are essentially mimicking debunked twoofer dogma..

Definition of asymmetry (n)
Bing Dictionary

• a·sym·me·try
• [ ay símmətree ]
• https://www.bing.com/th?id=AX7Y0tx%2bpr8Iakg100x100&pid=Dictionary

1. being asymmetric: the condition of being asymmetric in arrangement
2. unreciprocal relation between two things: a relation between two things in which the first has a relation to the second, but the second cannot have the same relation to the first.

 

[daws101]

Part of the issue here is the fact that in the case of WTC7
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has web-feet like a duck
DAMN IT its a DUCK,

WTC7 exhibits the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition
and people are stuck on saying that it could not possibly be.......

cognitive dissonance? or?

unless it's a goose!

Geese Honk, not quack ...... Thank U very much!

Can you show me any controlled demolition of a sky scraper that was on fire? Or one that initiated in silence? Or one that left zero physical evidence of the use of explosives? Or one where tens of thousands of charges were set in secrecy?

Of course not. WTC 7 was nothing like controlled demolition. As it was virtually impossible for bombs to have been used on the WTC. No bombs, no conspiracy.

Where the FDNY anticipated the collapse of WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. But you know better....because you watched a youtube video a decade after the fact?

Um, no.

Here is the way it is, the fact that WTC7 "collapsed" as it did, clearly indicates that it was an engineered event, therefore in order to have the engineered event and the show of fire to give the excuse that fire caused the "collapse" the same sort of theatrical devices that have been in use for decades at amusement parks, to give the appearance of a building on fire, but in reality its all show.
The Planet Earth was treated to a made for TV drama on 9/11/2001.
Get a grip, we have been lied to!

before you make an even more gigantic ass of yourself.
you should know that I'm a fx designer and what you're yammering about on the scale you suggest is impossible.