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

[Faun]

...Or like in the case of the last video you posted, you don't understand it. They did not say they heard or saw explosions ... they did not say they heard or saw thermite ... they said the building began collapsing floor by floor as if it had been detonated. ...

See, now that little nugget of excrement should tell everyone all they need to know about your approach to this topic, Faun. It's that sort of nonsense that makes it so easy for me to avoid descending into your adolescent pit of name-calling. Your posts do such a magnificent job of speaking for themselves.

"It was as if they had detonated [Yeah.], as if they planned to take down the building -- boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

In case there's any doubt as to the meaning of "detonated", The Oxford English Dictionary should lay it to rest:

Definition of detonate in English:

VERB
Explode or cause to explode: ...

As if it shouldn't go without saying, since it seemed to that firefighter "as if they had detonated" the building, he must have perceived the "booms" very much as he described them.

...But that exemplifies the existence of you Twoofers. All you know is the buildings fell straight down. You then fill in the rest with overactive imaginations to explain causation to conclude it had to be a controlled demolition despite the lack of evidence. ...

And the follow-up further exemplifies the stupidity behind the implied denial that at least two of the firefighters in the video I posted were clearly talking about demolition-style explosives (via synomyms), by way of appealing to that ridiculous denial as a means to denounce "Twoofers" in general. Compelling, ain't it.

Now you're showing the forum you're either lying or delusional or a combination thereof. The firefighter did not employ the word "boom" to describe explosions as you falsely assert. They were describing the manner in which the building came down in that it came down floor by floor, not that explosives were used. The first fireman describes, "floor by floor, it started popping out," while gesturing that with his hand. You'll note, he's not gesturing explosions. The second fireman making similar hand gestures while describing, "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." They were explaining the way the building came down, floor by floor, "booming" with each floor that pancaked ... which they described "as if" it had been detonated, not that it was.

 

[Faun]

I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation. However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.

With no evidence of explosions, there is no evidence the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. Believing there was no other alternative because of the manner in which it fell is insufficient proof without evidence of explosives ... a requirement in bringing down a building.

 

[n0spam4me]

What we have here is a propaganda war.

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"
( remember that bit?)

The perpetrators have made very sure that anybody who dares question the official version of events is ridiculed & marginalized.

There are facts here that can not be negated by anybody, and that being the fact that WTC7 fell straight down and in free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and the building kept its shape as it fell. Now tell me that was NOT the result of a pre-engineered demolition of the building?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was NOT the result of a pre-engineered demolition of the building.

 

[Capstone]

Now you're showing the forum you're either lying or delusional or a combination thereof.The firefighter did not employ the word "boom" to describe explosions as you falsely assert. They were describing the manner in which the building came down in that it came down floor by floor, not that explosives were used. The first fireman describes, "floor by floor, it started popping out," while gesturing that with his hand. You'll note, he's not gesturing explosions. The second fireman making similar hand gestures while describing, "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." They were explaining the way the building came down, floor by floor, "booming" with each floor that pancaked ... which they described "as if" it had been detonated, not that it was.

See if you recognize the man at the very end of this clip:



The name and rank of the guy we're talking about is Captain Dennis Tardio. On page 18 of Dennis Smith's book, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center, he (Tardio) gave an account that was remarkably similar to the one in the Naudet documentary, as follows: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom." This quote unambiguously ties his perception of an audible "explosion" to the apparent top-down "implosion" of the building. So, even if we interpret the multiple subsequent "booms" as the sounds of falling debris, there's no question, that at the very least, his testimony involved the direct audible perception of "an explosion" which prompted him to "look up" ahead of the multiple "booms" that followed the sound that intially caught his attention.

Your disingenuous appeal to those two little words ("as if") fails to account for the fact that Cpt. Tardio had been acquainted with the official narrative by the time he'd given his testimonies to Dennis Smith and the Naudet brothers. Of course he felt compelled to qualify his testimony as he did, because he knew the bulk of the nation was operating on the premise that no explosives had been used in the attacks.

The same holds true for many of the eyewitness accounts from the FDNY oral histories (I could cite scores of testimonies that corroborate Cpt. Tardio's). It's abundantly clear that many of those guys were trying to come to grips with the fact that much of what they experienced didn't jibe with what the rest of the country had been told.

 

[Capstone]

...Any chance I can entice you to try to move your feet fast enough to wiggle out of your latest mess?

You...couldn't entice me with a frosty glass of ice water in the middle of the Mojave Desert after three solid days without a drop to drink. I'd sooner drink the sand.

 

[daws101]

Now you're showing the forum you're either lying or delusional or a combination thereof.The firefighter did not employ the word "boom" to describe explosions as you falsely assert. They were describing the manner in which the building came down in that it came down floor by floor, not that explosives were used. The first fireman describes, "floor by floor, it started popping out," while gesturing that with his hand. You'll note, he's not gesturing explosions. The second fireman making similar hand gestures while describing, "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." They were explaining the way the building came down, floor by floor, "booming" with each floor that pancaked ... which they described "as if" it had been detonated, not that it was.

See if you recognize the man at the very end of this clip:



The name and rank of the guy we're talking about is Captain Dennis Tardio. On page 18 of Dennis Smith's book, Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center, he (Tardio) gave an account that was remarkably similar to the one in the Naudet documentary, as follows: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom." This quote unambiguously ties his perception of an audible "explosion" to the apparent top-down "implosion" of the building. So, even if we interpret the multiple subsequent "booms" as the sounds of falling debris, there's no question, that at the very least, his testimony involved the direct audible perception of "an explosion" which prompted him to "look up" ahead of the multiple "booms" that followed the sound that intially caught his attention.

Your disingenuous appeal to those two little words ("as if") fails to account for the fact that Cpt. Tardio had been acquainted with the official narrative by the time he'd given his testimonies to Dennis Smith and the Naudet brothers. Of course he felt compelled to qualify his testimony as he did, because he knew the bulk of the nation was operating on the premise that no explosives had been used in the attacks.

The same holds true for many of the eyewitness accounts from the FDNY oral histories (I could cite scores of testimonies that corroborate Cpt. Tardio's). It's abundantly clear that many of those guys were trying to come to grips with the fact that much of what they experienced didn't jibe with what the rest of the country had been told.

intentional misrepresentation,,,,

 

[SAYIT]

What we have here is a propaganda war.

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"
( remember that bit?)

The perpetrators have made very sure that anybody who dares question the official version of events is ridiculed & marginalized.

There are facts here that can not be negated by anybody, and that being the fact that WTC7 fell straight down and in free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and the building kept its shape as it fell. Now tell me that was NOT the result of a pre-engineered demolition of the building?

You don't question the "official version of events" ... you reject small facts like the existence of the two passenger jets that crashed into the towers on 9/11. Flaming loons are justifiably "ridiculed and marginalized." No big surprise there.

 

[SAYIT]

Wow. Has it really been 3 years of reading the silliness you author? Your claim that you have "from the very beginning" referred to the noises as "possible explosions" does not square with your adamant claims that the buildings were felled by some combination of thermite and standard CD charges which, unless you refer to some sort of heretofore unknown silent technology, would have made loud, sequential EXPLOSIONS. That also would have required those charges to survive the chaotic fires which engulfed those buildings but if one is going to believe and promote silly 9/11 CT lunacy, one might as well go all in, eh? Any chance I can entice you to try to move your feet fast enough to wiggle out of your latest mess?

You...couldn't entice me with a frosty glass of ice water in the middle of the Mojave Desert after three solid days without a drop to drink. I'd sooner drink the sand.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't explain away the conflicting silliness you post. That's a big step forward for you, Cappy. Congrats.

 

[Capstone]

You can rest assured I do not rest assured when a person who truly impresses me as batshit insane claims something they can't prove (and have failed to prove after years of trying) is based on "irrefutable facts." ...

Irrefutable Fact #1: In order for the upper portion of Building 7's 'facade' to have descended in freefall for the time and distance admitted by NIST, there could have been no physical materials in its path of descent (meaning a 105 sq.ft. chunk of the building had been completely removed from the equation).

Irrefutable Fact #2: The symmetrical drop of that upper portion required a highly unnatural uniformity of damage that cannot be plausibly explained by the fire-induced progressive collpase model (which probably does at least explain why the NIST group offered no explanation for it).

Irrefutable Fact #3: In light of the foregoing irrefutable facts, the official explanation for Building 7's "collapse" implicitly calls for the suspension of faith in the laws of physics...and is therefore a pile of crap.

...Of course .... ignore the fact that no evidence of explosives exists and you can infer anything, doesn't make it reality. Hell, you can infer G-d smote the building. ...

Well, one notable thing that can't be logically inferred from the highly symmetrical 105 ft. freefall...is the official (non)explanation for it.

...But let's examine your bizarre claim ... hopefully, I get this right ... if I'm not mistaken, your claim is that some group of people wired buildings 1 & 2 from top to bottom, and building 7 at least from the bottom, ...

Remote detonation technology would have enabled the inhuman(e) scumbags to adjust the det. sequences on the fly (from top-down to bottom-up), in the event that any of the RC drones failed to reach their intended targets (as may have been the case with Building 7).

...with a blend of explosives and thermite in order to bring the three buildings down with the intent and purpose of completely concealing the fact that they demolished the buildings. ...

The sulfidation observed on some of the precious few pieces of WTC steel that were recovered and preserved, as independently documented by an Italian metalurgist (can't think of the guy's name), indicated a level far beyond the capacities of known possible sources of sulfur inside the buildings -- a finding that suggested the presence of miltary-grade thermate (as opposed to commercially available thermite). This is consistent with the findings of the Harrit group, which confirmed the low atomic weight of the red layers of unreacted chips and further documented the highly-ordered placement of nano-aluminum particles within their plastic matrices. So, I suggest (not "claim") it's likely that the military-grade incendiary, thermate, was one of at least two types of demolition materials used in the operation.

...That's quite a monumental task and would go without saying, require a monumental effort and planning. Never been done before and would have to fool everyone. ...

Obviously, the less than human low-lives who were 'in the know', ranging from those who planned and funded the clandestine effort to the highly trained teams and solo operators who carried-out the 'hands on' aspects of the operation, were individuals with intelligence, influence, means, and/or various abilities (about the only things they were short on, in my humble opinion, were enough science-minded planners...and a single ounce of humanity among them). True, it would have probably required a handful of strategically placed individuals in government, most pressingly to ensure the effective stand-down of US air defense systems, but also to guarantee the spoilation of the crime scenes and to hamper any legitimate investigation into the "attacks" that failed to fool a good number of people from the get-go.

...So they fly planes into the Twin Towers as a diversion and explanation. Again, pristine and immaculate planning required. ...

I believe the "planes" that hit the towers were remotely-flown 767 drones. A number of videos suggest they may have further been aided by laser guidance systems. Not really all that much going on there, at least not in terms of logistics or witting personnel.

...After flying 2 large jets into buildings 1 & 2, they would presumably have ignited the fires in building seven as part of their plan but somehow know the fire department would abandon putting out those fires. ...

The unwavering testimony of Barry Jennings indicated that pre-planted explosives went off inside of Building 7 prior to the "collapses" of either of the Twins. The man who was with him, Mike Hess, originally corroborated Jenning's account, and then strangely changed his story much later. I believe the individual(s) who detonated the early explosives most likely did so to pre-weaken the building in expectation of the drone that was slated to fly into building 7 after the way had been cleared (via the removal of Buildings 1 and 2). Accordingly, it wasn't until the FDNY's full resources had been concentrated on the burning Twins that the pre-weakening charges were detonated in WTC7, and the decision to "pull it" (any effort to put out the fires, that is ) would have come only after the "collapses" of the larger towers and the consequent deaths of 343 of the FDNY's finest firefighters.

...But here's the key ..... they go to such Herculean effort to hide the explosives and thermite so no one would know it was a controlled demolition ... according to you, they simulate hijacking 4 commercial jets so no one will know it was a controlled demolition ... they even fly jets into the Twin Towers so no one would know it was a controlled demolition ... they go to all that planning and execution so no one will know it was a controlled demolition ....... but after all that ........ they intentionally bring all three buildings straight down so they resemble a controlled demolition.

I don't believe the hijackings of flights 11, 175, and 93 were "simulated", at least not as I think you meant that word. The strangely small passenger lists of all three flights (but particularly the coast-to-coast flights) would have served the consolidation of the passengers and unwitting crew members during an unscheduled stop-over. This would have occurred after the mid-air swap-outs for RC drones, following the losses of the transponder signals, as corroborated by the radar data provided by RADES (which documented radar blips that converged with and then separated from those of the reported 9/11 airliners).

Regarding the failure of the demolition team(s) to make the "collapses" look natural, I think it's a clear indication of the deficiency of scientific knowledge on the part of the planners.

Now, withstanding the 3 irrefutable facts I listed at the outset of this post, my suggestions should be seen as speculation based on my personal interpretations of the available evidence, but here's the key: no well-established laws of physics were violated during their formative stages.

Since the same can't be said of the NEOCT, is it any wonder that a growing number of sane people think you debwunkers are nuts?

 

[Capstone]

Just to make sure you got one of the more important points of my most recent foregoing post, Faun, the individuals who planned, intentionally worked to carry out, or were otherwise knowingly involved in the 9/11 false flag operation...were "less than human", no matter how "monumental" their efforts may have been in your eyes.

 

[n0spam4me]

I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation. However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.

With no evidence of explosions, there is no evidence the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. Believing there was no other alternative because of the manner in which it fell is insufficient proof without evidence of explosives ... a requirement in bringing down a building.

You claim "no evidence of explosions" however when anyone points to evidence, that is people reporting sounds of explosions or sound recordings, you seek to discredit, down-play, negate any effort to attach the definition of explosion.
So in YOUR world, there isn't any evidence of explosions, however, in the court of public opinion, there has been a lot of evidence presented, some of it really spot-on and some of it not so good, so indeed there is an abundance of evidence for all sorts of scenarios.

 

[daws101]

I'm really sorry for AMERICA, there is evidence and lots of it to show that 9/11/2001 was a false flag operation. However all I see on this forum are a bunch of closed minds.

With no evidence of explosions, there is no evidence the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. Believing there was no other alternative because of the manner in which it fell is insufficient proof without evidence of explosives ... a requirement in bringing down a building.

You claim "no evidence of explosions" however when anyone points to evidence, that is people reporting sounds of explosions or sound recordings, you seek to discredit, down-play, negate any effort to attach the definition of explosion.
So in YOUR world, there isn't any evidence of explosions, however, in the court of public opinion, there has been a lot of evidence presented, some of it really spot-on and some of it not so good, so indeed there is an abundance of evidence for all sorts of scenarios.

false!
the court of public opinion is without fail all ways wrong....as are you .

 

[deep_space]

the court of public opinion is without fail all ways wrong.

is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?

 

[Capstone]

is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?

More like ham-handed & just plain mental;...but that's Daws in a nutshell for you.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Cap,no spam,WHY do you waste all your valuable time with all these paid trolls on this forum like faun and dawgshit for?

9/11 is the LEAST of our problems that we have to worry about from the government right now.9/11 is just a distraction they want you to engage in with these trolls.

the establishment wants you to waste your time arguing with these trolls here while they plot other things against us.

you can choose to ignore this advise if you want but to do so is being ignorant.this is the advise I have to give-



I really hope you don't ignore it and I have to come back and say it again but seeing as I have give that advise to no spam before and he is still doing it,i have a feeling it will get ignored.

I was guilty of this myself,i used to spend hours wasting my time arguing with all these paid shills also but I finally wised up knowing their handlers send them here in hopes that we feed the trolls so they can occupy our time while the CIA and mossad plat other sinister events against us.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?

More like ham-handed & just plain mental;...but that's Daws in a nutshell for you.

at LEAST get it right that its dawgshit.

 

[daws101]

the court of public opinion is without fail all ways wrong.

is this not rather heavy handed & judgmental?

nope. just a statement of fact...

 

[daws101]

is it handjob's bi weekly nonsense spewing day already ?!
damn I was gonna get him a card!

this will have to do.

 

[Capstone]

In case you haven't noticed, 9/11ij, I don't feed the trolls; I send them packing. True, they usually return after convalescing for a few days, weeks, or in some cases...months, but it's always a pleasure to show them to the door time after time.

Regarding your concern that these 9/11 discussions are intended to distract people like me from more recent goings-on, I can assure you that I do my due diligence to keep abreast of current events from both independent and mainstream sources, and my activity in the ongoing 9/11 debate is in no way distorting my perspective on the more current activities of some of the same groups that were involved in the 9/11 operation.