WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[DiveCon]

lying again
not to worry, i've come to expect that from troofer morons

 

[eots]

responses of no substance
come to expect that from divecon...

 

[DiveCon]

responses of no substance
come to expect that from divecon...

LOL
very funny guy

 

[Liability]

Look I will say this one last time, everyone on the planet know's 9/11 was an inside job, even the south American indians who live in the rain forests and don't have TV know that. Thats not the problem, the problem is , is who did it, and what are you going to do about it?

Look, I will say this again. NOBODY on Earth "knows" any such thing.

Only mutants with no functioning brains or vestige of common sense can even begin to "think" such stupid crap.

The problem is: troofers are beyond stupid.

it is clearly not the case...a fact you simply cant deal with...you just go into denial and cant face the fact that many top level ex military and government researchers with distinguished and honored service believe * * * *[/url]

That last word was believe. To "believe" is not the same as to "know."

I am not disputing that some folks believe it.

They might believe you make sense, too.

They'd be wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

responses of no substance
come to expect that from divecon...

i'm still waiting for something other than your usual copy & paste crap

 

[Liability]

I'm still waiting for one of these idiot Troofers to answer just one of the many obvious questions regarding their illogical belief that the buildings got taken down via controlled demolition.

In fact, I have recently asked one of those questions to be greeted only by stoney silence.

So, I'll ask again.

For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions. The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.

The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"

 

[Liability]

* * * *
For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions. The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.

The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"

Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question. Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?

 

[eots]

* * * *
For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions. The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.

The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"

Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question. Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?

the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide resonable answers...this fact is with out question

 

[DiveCon]

* * * *
For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions. The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.

The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"

Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question. Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?

the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide resonable answers...this fact is with out question

ok, where is the evidence of the demolition?
where are the miles and miles of demo wire that would have been needed?
the rescue crews and the cleanup crews would have seen it
or are all of the first responders in on it as well?

 

[Liability]

* * * *
For the 9/11 Troofer nonsense to be true, there HAD to have been a conspiracy of pretty massive proportions. The conspirators had to have SOME of the co-conspirators set the demo charges and wire the buildings.

The first question, therefore, is "pursuant to this conspiracy theory of the troofers, WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?"

Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question. Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?

the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide resonable answers...this fact is with out question

Nope.

One doesn't get a criminal investigation for the mere asking. One must have a rational theory that a crime has even been committed, first.

To present a rational theory worthy of the name that any crime was committed (other than the enemy's acts of war, which is another matter entirely) you would have to be able to articulate:

HOW it could even possibly be that anybody got into WTC Tower 1, WTC Tower 2 and/or WTC7 to WIRE the building for a controlled demolition in addition to planting those alleged explosives when the buildings were occupied and in use during the time period of early September 2001 -- all without getting so much as noticed?

{Not to even begin to worry about one of the first most obvious corollary questions: how did they manage to do that with foreknowledge that the explosives would come in handy when the al qaeda scum happened to have planned the crashing of civilian jetliners into WTC Tower 1 and WTC Tower 2?}

 

[Liability]

Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question. Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?

the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide resonable answers...this fact is with out question

ok, where is the evidence of the demolition?
where are the miles and miles of demo wire that would have been needed?
the rescue crews and the cleanup crews would have seen it
or are all of the first responders in on it as well?

I don't believe all the people who got slaughtered would have blithely walked into the twin towers that day having noticed that bombs had been planted and that there were those miles and miles of detonator cord.

I mean, this question for all of us:

raise your hand if YOU would walk into a building that appeared to have been wired with explosives without -- spitballing a bit here -- oh, I dunno, maybe SAYING something about the suspicious detonator cord?

Yet, nobody did that.

How long would it TAKE to do all that wiring?

WHERE exactly would the explosives have had to have been planted in order to properly account for the implosion we saw as the buildings collapsed? That wouldn't take a bit of destruction to surrounding walls to GET the explosives there? Yet nobody saw any of THAT, either? Or, having seen it, nobody bothered to report that minor suspicious problem, either, but they nevertheless DID blithely all report to their offices?

Could it have been done not weeks and weeks ahead of 9/11/2001? But just the night before? How many people would be required to accomplish that?

Oh man. The questions keep on coming and there's not ONE stinking rational answer to ANY of them that doesn't require a MASSIVE suspension of reason.

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=Liability;1511741]

the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide reasonable answers...this fact is with out question

ok, where is the evidence of the demolition?
where are the miles and miles of demo wire that would have been needed?
the rescue crews and the cleanup crews would have seen it
or are all of the first responders in on it as well?

there would have been wire of ever color and description in a building of that size for its power and technology's..don't be stupid...and the clean up crew that destroyed the evidence was controlled demolition inc ...by the way

the testimony of explosions and molten metal from first responders was excluded from the 9/11 report along with any mention of building 7

I don't believe all the people who got slaughtered would have blithely walked into the twin towers that day having noticed that bombs had been planted and that there were those miles and miles of detonator cord.

I mean, this question for all of us:

raise your hand if YOU would walk into a building that appeared to have been wired with explosives without -- spitballing a bit here -- oh, I dunno, maybe SAYING something about the suspicious detonator cord?

Yet, nobody did that.

this is all based on assumptions it was conventional explosives and visable ..people are ingenues and i believe that with access to military technology that setting explosives in stealth is achievable

How long would it TAKE to do all that wiring?

WHERE exactly would the explosives have had to have been planted in order to properly account for the implosion we saw as the buildings collapsed? That wouldn't take a bit of destruction to surrounding walls to GET the explosives there? Yet nobody saw any of THAT, either? Or, having seen it, nobody bothered to report that minor suspicious problem, either, but they nevertheless DID blithely all report to their offices?

Could it have been done not weeks and weeks ahead of 9/11/2001? But just the night before? How many people would be required to accomplish that?

Oh man. The questions keep on coming and there's not ONE stinking rational answer to ANY of them that doesn't require a MASSIVE suspension of reason.

[/QUOTE]

the official story requires suspension of reason...the rational answer is 6 out of 10 ..911 commission members call the investigation a sham and support a new independent investigation with subpoena powers...

 

[Toro]

Quoted and edited just to bump it for a higher visibility for our Troofer friends.

They were around in force today.

Suddenly, the big-mouths seem a bit reticient to open their yaps.

Can the troofers answer that first question?

Sure, there can be more, but let's just start with the FIRST question. Maybe they need it clearly repeated?

WHEN exactly did the demo-expert subset of co-conspirators set the charges and wire the buildings?

the details of the operation are not known with certainty..there are only indications and theory..to ever have the answers to why they did this ..instead of that...etc ..a real and independent criminal investigation with subpoena powers and wittiness protection would need to be established...it is the commission that has failed the burden of proof and to provide resonable answers...this fact is with out question

Nope.

One doesn't get a criminal investigation for the mere asking. One must have a rational theory that a crime has even been committed, first.

To present a rational theory worthy of the name that any crime was committed (other than the enemy's acts of war, which is another matter entirely) you would have to be able to articulate:

HOW it could even possibly be that anybody got into WTC Tower 1, WTC Tower 2 and/or WTC7 to WIRE the building for a controlled demolition in addition to planting those alleged explosives when the buildings were occupied and in use during the time period of early September 2001 -- all without getting so much as noticed?

{Not to even begin to worry about one of the first most obvious corollary questions: how did they manage to do that with foreknowledge that the explosives would come in handy when the al qaeda scum happened to have planned the crashing of civilian jetliners into WTC Tower 1 and WTC Tower 2?}

That's a good question which, of course, has gone unanswered by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

For a point of reference, let's take a look at what it took to blow up the largest building ever demolished. Well, of course, that is the largest building before 9/11.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

Controlled Demolition, Inc. | Buildings

And yet nobody saw anyone planting anything in a building five-times as large as the Hudson Store in Detroit.

 

[DiveCon]

the official story requires suspension of reason...the rational answer is 6 out of 10 ..911 commission members call the investigation a sham and support a new independent investigation with subpoena powers...

the question to ask on that is, what exactly are they calling for an investigation of

i have a feeling it has much more to do with the fact that things were covered up in the 9/11 commission, i don't doubt that
but that's NOT saying it was a controlled demolition and the government did it

but they sure did play political CYA

 

[Liability]

* * * *
this is all based on assumptions it was conventional explosives and visable ..people are ingenues and i believe that with access to military technology that setting explosives in stealth is achievable

That's precious. Some people may be ingenious, but you are the one making the claim that the buildings went down for reasons other than the terrorist attacks and their after-effects. Thus, YOU have assumed a burden of persuasion (even if it bugs you) to make out SOME case for your really inflammatory and presently unsupported libelous claims. Accordingly, your "belief" in some unindentified possible super-secret military type explosives that would not require wiring to set-off in a controlled implosion demolition is not QUITE on par with anything even remotely akin to meeting that burden you have assumed.

How long would it TAKE to do all that wiring?

WHERE exactly would the explosives have had to have been planted in order to properly account for the implosion we saw as the buildings collapsed? That wouldn't take a bit of destruction to surrounding walls to GET the explosives there? Yet nobody saw any of THAT, either? Or, having seen it, nobody bothered to report that minor suspicious problem, either, but they nevertheless DID blithely all report to their offices?

Could it have been done not weeks and weeks ahead of 9/11/2001? But just the night before? How many people would be required to accomplish that?

Oh man. The questions keep on coming and there's not ONE stinking rational answer to ANY of them that doesn't require a MASSIVE suspension of reason.

the official story requires suspension of reason...the rational answer is 6 out of 10 ..911 commission members call the investigation a sham and support a new independent investigation with subpoena powers...

Pure dodge. I didn't ask you what anybody else supposedly "believes." I don't much care, either. What you just said is actually just the fallacy of an appeal to "authority."

What I put to you is a pretty obvious (and really only preliminary) set of questions to JUSTIFY any "investigation" with or without subpoena powers.

 

[eots]

yet the buildings all three fell at near free fall speed

yet first responders report molten metal and explosions

yet NORAD failed

yet the flight recorders where not found but the terrorist passport was

yet both the NIST and the commission say the government was not forthcoming with information

yet all other footage of the pentagon strike are still classified...

yet there were prior warnings

yet hundreds of witnesses have been excluded
from the report

 

[Liability]

yet the buildings all three fell at near free fall speed

yet first responders report molten metal and explosions

yet NORAD failed

yet the flight recorders where not found but the terrorist passport was

yet both the NIST and the commission say the government was not forthcoming with information

yet all other footage of the pentagon strike are still classified...

yet there were prior warnings

yet hundreds of witnesses have been excluded
from the report

yet nothing you just reiterated answers the actual questions which you clearly feel the need to duck.

 

[eots]

* * * *
this is all based on assumptions it was conventional explosives and visable ..people are ingenues and i believe that with access to military technology that setting explosives in stealth is achievable

That's precious. Some people may be ingenious, but you are the one making the claim that the buildings went down for reasons other than the terrorist attacks and their after-effects. Thus, YOU have assumed a burden of persuasion (even if it bugs you) to make out SOME case for your really inflammatory and presently unsupported libelous claims. Accordingly, your "belief" in some unindentified possible super-secret military type explosives that would not require wiring to set-off in a controlled implosion demolition is not QUITE on par with anything even remotely akin to meeting that burden you have assumed.

you and NIST are asking me to accept the flawed report and the bush/Cheney story
even when the ex director of NIST calls the findings questionable..inconclusive and calls for an independent investigation

Pure dodge. I didn't ask you what anybody else supposedly "believes." I don't much care, either. What you just said is actually just the fallacy of an appeal to "authority."

What I put to you is a pretty obvious (and really only preliminary) set of questions to JUSTIFY any "investigation" with or without subpoena powers.

the Crime itself ..the omissions and admitted failure of the commission and NIST is all the justification required

 

[Liability]

* * * *
this is all based on assumptions it was conventional explosives and visable ..people are ingenues and i believe that with access to military technology that setting explosives in stealth is achievable

you and NIST are asking me to accept the flawed report and the bush/Cheney story
even when the ex director of NIST calls the findings questionable..inconclusive and calls for an independent investigation

Pure dodge. I didn't ask you what anybody else supposedly "believes." I don't much care, either. What you just said is actually just the fallacy of an appeal to "authority."

What I put to you is a pretty obvious (and really only preliminary) set of questions to JUSTIFY any "investigation" with or without subpoena powers.

the Crime itself ..the omissions and admitted failure of the commission and NIST is all the justification required

(A) You urgently need a course in using the incredibly simple QUOTE function.

(B) No. I don't care if you accept "the" report or not. Have a blast. Don't accept it. THAT will show ME! Ya. But, your reluctance to accept a report you deem flawed is NOT a valid ground for any new "investigation," much less one that might entail a "subpoena" power. You presume too much. We get back to my earlier point. You DO NOT GET it for the mere asking. The BURDEN remains entirely on YOU to establish that so much as a CRIME has been committed. Your speculation fails to qualify.

(C) You refer to "the crime." But -- at least in logic -- you are not permitted to assume your desired conclusion as your premise. There has been no demonstration of any crime. There is clear evidence of horrible acts of war by enemy aliens. But that's not the same thing.

(D) Your "theory" still defies logic and you remain totally and glaringly unable to answer the simplest of obvious questions which your "theory" instantly causes to be asked. Since you cannot identify ANY military super top secret new explosive which can account for a building's implosion without the need for wiring of detonator cord and all that it entails, that whacky sci-fi speculation in support of your still unsupported and illogical theory does not suffice to support your theory on even the most basic of preliminary levels.

 

[eots]

you and NIST are asking me to accept the flawed report and the bush/Cheney story
even when the ex director of NIST calls the findings questionable..inconclusive and calls for an independent investigation

the Crime itself ..the omissions and admitted failure of the commission and NIST is all the justification required

(A) You urgently need a course in using the incredibly simple QUOTE function.

(B) No. I don't care if you accept "the" report or not. Have a blast. Don't accept it. THAT will show ME! Ya. But, your reluctance to accept a report you deem flawed is NOT a valid ground for any new "investigation," much less one that might entail a "subpoena" power. You presume too much. We get back to my earlier point. You DO NOT GET it for the mere asking. The BURDEN remains entirely on YOU to establish that so much as a CRIME has been committed. Your speculation fails to qualify.

its not my reluctance alone but that of the majority of commission members and ex-director of NIST..it is illogical to give credibility to a report if the participants find it not to be credible

(C) You refer to "the crime." But -- at least in logic -- you are not permitted to assume your desired conclusion as your premise. There has been no demonstration of any crime. There is clear evidence of horrible acts of war by enemy aliens. But that's not the same thing.

it was clearly a crime..hijacking and murder are crimes and warrant a criminal investigation

(D) Your "theory" still defies logic and you remain totally and glaringly unable to answer the simplest of obvious questions which your "theory" instantly causes to be asked.

this statement is true of NIST and the commission..who have a far greater burden and responsibility than I

Since you cannot identify ANY military super top secret new explosive which can account for a building's implosion without the need for wiring of detonator cord and all that it entails, that whacky sci-fi speculation in support of your still unsupported and illogical theory does not suffice to support your theory on even the most basic of preliminary levels.

and nothing in the report explains molten metal and free fall collapse