911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[n0spam4me]

"photographic evidence to support my claims"

Please, were is it? When I asked, I was told that I would have to provide the evidence for my claims first ..... so its a stand off .... so be it,
I repeat, for the faction that would take great delight in being able to say
"I told you so... " there appears to be very little supporting evidence to back up claims and this is for the mainstream media supported side, You see, the Mainstream media was the first to assert that 19 suicidal hijackers took control of airliners ( etc.... ) and so far, the PROOF has been very much lacking.

 

[SAYIT]

"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.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

So as usual, the conversation boils down not to differences of opinion but rather the unflagging resistance of CTs to deal with facts and realty and the question, as always, is what motivates them? Why do they cling so desperately to their silliness?

 

[Skylar]

"photographic evidence to support my claims"

Please, were is it? When I asked, I was told that I would have to provide the evidence for my claims first ..... so its a stand off .... so be it,
I repeat, for the faction that would take great delight in being able to say
"I told you so... " there appears to be very little supporting evidence to back up claims and this is for the mainstream media supported side, You see, the Mainstream media was the first to assert that 19 suicidal hijackers took control of airliners ( etc.... ) and so far, the PROOF has been very much lacking.

I've already provided you with the links to an entire gallery of photographs of debris of the hijacked planes. You ignored them entirely, now denying the photos even exist. Just as you ignored every photograph ever taken that shows debris, from any source. And any eye witness testimony, from any source. And the black boxes. And the ASCE report.

And of course, have absolutely nothing to back any part of your conspiracy. You simply say it must be so.

As for them being 'proof', they met the standards of the criminal courts, being documented into evidence during the trial of a suspected co-conspirator of 911`.

Its good enough to be used as evidence by the criminal courts......but you're gonna ignore it all? That's unreasonable. Your entire argument has devolved into excuses for ignoring any evidence that contradicts you.....for no particular reason.

Try again.

 

[n0spam4me]

Would people PLEASE simply look at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
and ask the question, why, if this is an allegedly gravity powered event, is the wave of destruction ACCELERATING as it descends?

 

[SAYIT]

Let the random lurker to this forum use on-line search and see what turns up, does the evidence support hijacked airliners used as weapons, .... or possibly something else? do give it some though ....
have a nice day

: )

Let the random lurker in this thread note that you're unable to back any of your conspiracy with actual evidence. Nor can you resolve any of the theory killing holes in the bomb theory that render it a virtual impossibility....but have instead ignored every inconsistency. And ignored every picture, every piece of evidence, every piece of testimony that contradicts you.

Where I've provided eye witness testimony or photographic evidence to support my claims, that any lurker can look up and verify. The 'random lurker' standard isn't your friend, Spam. As the evidence supports my claims and utterly destroy yours.

Smiling....have a nice day!

The "random lurker" thing was just NoSpAm's surrender flag. He must visit other forum's where his sort of "thinking" is common.

 

[Skylar]

"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.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

So as usual, the conversation boils down not to differences of opinion but rather the unflagging resistance of CTs to deal with facts and realty and the question, as always, is what motivates them? Why do they cling so desperately to their silliness?

The conversation boils down to you having absolutely nothing to back your conspiracy narrative. While I have eye witness testimony and photographs that affirm my claims and contradict yours.

Unless you can explain why you are ignoring Fred Marsilla, an eye witness who climbed the very debris field that you insist never existed? And ignoring every picture of the debris from the crash sites. And ignoring the ASCE report on flight 77's collision with the Pentagon. And ignoring the legion of theory killing holes in your bomb conspiracy. And ignoring both black boxes recovered from the flight 93 and flight 77 crash sites respectively. ANd ignoring the affirmative matches of the bodies of the passengers of flight 93 and flight 77 from their respective crash sites. And ignoring the eye witness accounts contradicting you.

But you can't. Remember, we can still see every piece of evidence you pretend doesn't exist.

 

[n0spam4me]

BTW: did anybody actually look at the "FLT175" record?
the videos are quite interesting when you start actually examining what was alleged to have happened.

any comments .... anybody?

also, Please do look closely at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
WTC7 spends 2.25 sec in free fall acceleration and WTC1, 2
spends a good bit of the descent at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.
how is that done without something to help it along?

 

[Skylar]

Would people PLEASE simply look at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
and ask the question, why, if this is an allegedly gravity powered event, is the wave of destruction ACCELERATING as it descends?

I have. Your claims simply don't hold up. You don't have the evidence to back your conspiracy, you can't explain any of the conspiracy killing holes in your 'theory', and your claims are contradicted by overwhelming evidence. Eye witness testimony that you ignore, photographic evidence you won't look at, evidence you pretend doesn't exist.

Just because the evidence destroys your conspiracy doesn't mean that we have to ignore the evidence. Quite the opposite.

And have you've never heard of the acceleration of gravity? Well, I guess this another 'teaching moment'.

Acceleration of Gravity

Study up.

 

[Skylar]

BTW: did anybody actually look at the "FLT175" record?
the videos are quite interesting when you start actually examining what was alleged to have happened.

any comments .... anybody?

Wow....more allusions and insinuations. But no actual evidence. How did I know that was coming. If you believe that 'FLT175' affirms your conspiracies, by all means present your evidence.

But innuendo isn't an argument. Its an excuse for one.

also, Please do look closely at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7
WTC7 spends 2.25 sec in free fall acceleration and WTC1, 2
spends a good bit of the descent at 64% of the acceleration of gravity.
how is that done without something to help it along?

Again, your timing on the WTC 7 collapse is just off. The penthouse at the top of the WTC 7 began collapsing into the WTC 7 about 19 seconds before the facade fell. Not 'off of' the WTC 7. INTO the WTC 7. Demonstrating undeniably and unambiguously that the structure was already collapsing before the facade came down.

Putting your '2.5 seconds of free fall' claim off by about an order of magnitude. Worse, you know all of this. You just really hope we don't.

As for WTC 1 and 2......you 'say' that its collapse required a lot of help. But you can't actually back that up with anything. You're offering us your personal opinion as fact. And it isn't. Worse, we've already blown your bomb theory completely apart with overlapping, overwhelming and conspiracy killing holes in your claims Demonstrating that your narrative is a virtual impossibility.

You ignore the holes, ignore the crippling inconsistencies in your claims, and pretend none of them exist.

But why would any one genuinely interested in what actually happened ignore what you do? There is no reason.

 

[n0spam4me]

Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling. and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down. Building structures are designed to stand and for fire to have so severely compromised the structure that the buildings fell in the manner and in the short time that it took them to fall.
The NIST got it WRONG on many counts with this whole thing and I'm surprised that there as yet isn't a lawsuit against NIST for the FRAUD that they published at taxpayer expense.

 

[n0spam4me]

"The "random lurker" thing was just NoSpAm's surrender flag. He must visit other forum's where his sort of "thinking" is common."

Question: has anybody here actually looked at the video of the alleged "FLT175" crashing into the South Tower, pick one of the views that actually shows the south wall so as to get the full effect.
if you have seen it, any discussion on this subject?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Sorry, 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.

So here's the thing: 14 years after 9/11 and there has been no proof of a controlled demo (plenty before you have pretended) or of any conspiracy (other than that of the 19 Muslim nutjobs).
Those who paid BILLIONS in insurance claims sure could use your help as they would love to recoup those payouts. Lemme know how you make out.

Of course there is proof that all three buildings were controlled demos. You can stay blind if you want to. And as far as the insurance payments, they were made by Travelers, which was taken over a and protected by Citibank.

You should read this if you are serious about the truth, which I doubt you are: Larry Silverstein WTC 7 and the 9 11 Demolition

This is the problem with CTs. You cling desperately to incomplete or outright bogus info and reject or are ignorant of real facts. The first trial pitted Silverstein's firm against 10 reluctant insurers. The second trial involved 9 insurers.
You pretend that Travelers (or Citibank) and the other insurers (who existence you deny) eagerly paid billions in claims. As the two trials illustrate, your conclusion is self-serving silliness.
As already stated, those who paid those enormous claims would love the opportunity to recoup their losses. Perhaps you should let them see your "proof." Certainly there would be a handsome reward for your effort.

 

[n0spam4me]

911SpeakOut.org The World Needs Truth
Second video down the page, NIST finally admits to free fall.

GOOD MATERIAL!

 

[SAYIT]

"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.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

So as usual, the conversation boils down not to differences of opinion but rather the unflagging resistance of CTs to deal with facts and realty and the question, as always, is what motivates them? Why do they cling so desperately to their silliness?

The conversation boils down to you having absolutely nothing to back your conspiracy narrative. While I have eye witness testimony and photographs that affirm my claims and contradict yours.

Unless you can explain why you are ignoring Fred Marsilla, an eye witness who climbed the very debris field that you insist never existed? And ignoring every picture of the debris from the crash sites. And ignoring the ASCE report on flight 77's collision with the Pentagon. And ignoring the legion of theory killing holes in your bomb conspiracy. And ignoring both black boxes recovered from the flight 93 and flight 77 crash sites respectively. ANd ignoring the affirmative matches of the bodies of the passengers of flight 93 and flight 77 from their respective crash sites. And ignoring the eye witness accounts contradicting you.

But you can't. Remember, we can still see every piece of evidence you pretend doesn't exist.

"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.

My bad. American Airlines. And you'll still ignore every picture of the fuselage, every picture of debris, every eye witness account, every body pulled from the crash sites being affirmatively identified as that of a passenger, every black box recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93.

In short, you've ignored anything that contradicts your narrative.

But why would anyone interested in the truth ignore what you do? Especially when your 'no hijacked planes' narrative is factually baseless, contradicted by overwhelming evidence, and so comically fails the test of Occam's Razor as to be ridiculous.

Explain it to us.

So as usual, the conversation boils down not to differences of opinion but rather the unflagging resistance of CTs to deal with facts and realty and the question, as always, is what motivates them? Why do they cling so desperately to their silliness?

The conversation boils down to you having absolutely nothing to back your conspiracy narrative. While I have eye witness testimony and photographs that affirm my claims and contradict yours.

Unless you can explain why you are ignoring Fred Marsilla, an eye witness who climbed the very debris field that you insist never existed? And ignoring every picture of the debris from the crash sites. And ignoring the ASCE report on flight 77's collision with the Pentagon. And ignoring the legion of theory killing holes in your bomb conspiracy. And ignoring both black boxes recovered from the flight 93 and flight 77 crash sites respectively. ANd ignoring the affirmative matches of the bodies of the passengers of flight 93 and flight 77 from their respective crash sites. And ignoring the eye witness accounts contradicting you.

But you can't. Remember, we can still see every piece of evidence you pretend doesn't exist.

I have no conspiracy narrative other than that of the 19 hijackers and their cohorts. Like you I am bemused by the CT's unwillingness or inability to process any info which contradicts their silliness.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, I stayed awake during Science 101 lectures.
In order to have the acceleration of gravity, the falling object must have NO resistance at all under it, its not crushing anything or pushing anything out of the way its only falling.

You clearly weren't paying attention as there's no such requirement.

For acceleration to occur the force of acceleration must exceed the resistance its facing. Its a contest of forces. The greater the resistance, the less acceleration. If resistance completely exceeds the force of acceleration, we see *deceleration*. If resistance doesn't completely exceed the force of acceleration, we see a lower rate of acceleration.

Your claim that only with NO resistance can acceleration occur is blithering nonsense and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of physics. If a train is accelerating and I throw a walnut at it in the opposite direction.....per you, the train can't accelerate once the walnut hits it. As there is no longer 'NO resistance'. Back in reality, the train continues to accelerate....albeit at a slightly lower rate.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.....you genuinely don't have a clue how physics works. And you're only demonstrating that with the above post.

Which, of course....I just bookmarked. And every time you want to offer us your 'expertise' on physics, metallurgy, or structural engineering, I'm just going to quote your latest blunder.

and this is were it gets interesting because the supporters of the official story do not have an explanation for why in the case of the WTC buildings that fell as they did, WHY did the buildings accelerate on the way down.

Because the acceleration of gravity exceeded the resistance of the floors being impacted.

Remember, you don't actually have a clue how physics works. And fallaciously assume that ANY resistance makes acceleration impossible. Anyone who has gotten onto the freeway just proved your entire theory mindless nonsense. As the wind resists the movement of my car. Yet in complete contradiction of your claims....I can still accelerate to 65 mph.

Something you insist is quite impossible. And reality demonstrates really isn't.

Building structures are designed to stand and for fire to have so severely compromised the structure that the buildings fell in the manner and in the short time that it took them to fall.

In the case of the WTC 1 and 2, the fire proofing was an interegal part of the withstanding flames. WIth the fireproofing removed from the girders by the impact of the planes.

Leslie Robertson, designer of the WTC 1 and 2 affirmed that the collapse due to fire and structural damage on the scale of 911 was entirely possible. You say it isn't.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[n0spam4me]

at NO time did I assert that ACCELERATION isn't possible with some resistance. The point is that the acceleration of GRAVITY is only possible with the falling object not being hindered by any other object or force.

"Your claim that only with NO resistance can acceleration occur is blithering nonsense and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of physics."

Don't misread what I say.

 

[MaryL]

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.

 

[n0spam4me]

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.

Check post 293 of this thread.....

 

[Skylar]

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.

Physics kinda transcends conspiracy theories. And the idea that acceleration can only occur if there is NO resistence is quite simply blithering nonsense.

As demonstrated every time you overcome air resistance to accelerate onto the freeway.

 

[Skylar]

The physic involved here, nobody knows for sure. One thing we know for sure, Muslims attacked America. The rest is moot.

Check post 293 of this thread.....

And show us where in the link it says that there can be no acceleration if there is any resistance.