The mossad and CIA did 9/11.overwhelming facts prove it.

[KokomoJojo]

HEY DUMB ASS I SAID THERMETIC CUTTERS DO NOT EXPLODE THEY CUT

Oh, you said a lot of things about these mythic 'thermetic cutters'. But you have yet to factually establish they even exist. You don't know their size, what's in them, or what they look like while they're operating. YOu can't even provide a single example of 'thermetic cutters' ever being used for demolition of any building anywhere......despite your claim that the technology has been in use since the 1930s.

another debunker fail! LOL

of course they didnt get sophisticated until 1984




look everyone how clueless debunkers are.

this shit is as simple as boiling water FFS

 

[Skylar]

wow looks just like thermetic cutters
BOOM!

Laughing....nd where have you seen 'thermetic cutters' before? Your imagination?

You can't even establish they physically exist. You have no video of them, not one picture, can't establish any physical property, what's inside them, how big they are, what they look like when their burning, you can't cite one instance of them every being used anywhere in history, let alone being used for demolition.

You failed again.

You claim the cut through a girder in a millisecond yet have absolutely nothing to back that up.

You failed yet again.

You claim that they disintegrate when used, yet can't back that claim up either.


And you failed again. You've imagined it all.

And now you're laughably offering us your imagination yet again, telling us that your doctored video looks just like something that neither exists, nor you've ever seen. Oh, and we're still waiting for you to provide an ounce of proof of a 'forensic analysis' as the source of your photobucket gifs.

Are you starting to see why truthers are a national laughing stock?

 

[Faun]

Well, I had fun laughing at the inmates, but KookoomoJojo is clearly intent on running away, as fast as his walker will allow, from the points he lied about responding to, so I suppose it's time to try another thread.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You can't even establish they physically exist.

hey dumb shit, look at the post above your last vomit.

I suppose you have no clue who CDI is or what an explosives loader does either.

not surprising.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Well, I had fun laughing at the inmates, but KookoomoJojo is clearly intent on running away, as fast as his walker will allow, from the points he lied about responding to, so I suppose it's time to try another thread.

unless you need more embarrassment stick around.

 

[Skylar]

You can't even establish they physically exist.

hey dumb shit, look at the post above your last vomit.

I suppose you have no clue who CDI is or what an explosives loader does either.

not surprising.

Um, bud......you clearly didn't fact check your claim. Here's what Tom Sullivan said:

“n the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case [referring to being used in the World Trade Center]. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.”

And here's the patent that Tom Sullivan gave the AE911Truth to back up his claim;

Application Number: 06/494487
Publication Date: 08/14/1984
Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States

AE911Truther even labeled this 'Thermite Cutting Charge' on their website. For a while anyway. Until someone actually looked at the patent and realized it wasn't a cutting charge. It was a low energy thermite*ignition* system.

“This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges.”

Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States

Yeah, nothing says 'cutting through a steel column in milliseconds' like the phrase 'low energy'. Which AE911Truth realized a little too late. And you never realized at all. They even had to post a retraction:

We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a ‘cutter charge’... Our intention was to note that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite cases existed as far back as 1984” (Source)

Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

Laughing.......Oops, is it? So much for your 'expert' testimony.

But you didn't know any of that because you don't fact check anything. You simply gobble down whatever conspiracy flotsam you hear without thought or question. I think. I question. And I fact check. And your claims simply don't hold up.

So again you have yet to factually establish that a 'thermetic cutter' even exists. You have non pictures, no video, no patent, no example of use in history, your 'expert' was so thoroughly debunked that even AE911Truth had to issue a retraction. You don't know its size, what's in it, what it looks like when in use. And of course, you say that they will cut a girder in milliseconds. Citing only yourself. Which means nothing.

And you say the mythic 'cutter charges' leave nothing behind...citing a source debunked and a patent that isn't a cutting charge.

You fail again. Oh, and I'm still waiting for that 'forensic analysis' you promised us. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Skylar]

So with your 'thermetic cutter' turning out to be nothing more than a low energy ignition system, I eagerly await you providing evidence for all the other bullshit you offered us about it.

You said your video 'looks like' thermetic cutters'. Um, you've never seen 'thermetic cutters'. You have no pictures or video. You can't even factually establish they exist. So how can they 'look like' something you've never seen?

You claimed that 'thermetic cutters' will cut a column in milliseconds. But have provided absolutely jack shit to back up the claim. In fact, you've refuse to address the topic now. Can I take it from your complete abandonment that you've tossed that steaming rhetorical pile on the midden heap of discarded nonsense where it belongs?

You claimed that the imaginary 'thermetic cutter' disintegrates after use. Can you back that up with anything? Remember, your bumbling 'expert' Tom (who by the way is only an assistant to the *actual* blasting technician), offered us an IGNITER as a 'thermite cutting charge'....and proved himself uselessly inept.

So who, pray tell, is backing your made up story? And you were saying something 'tards who pretend they are experts'?

Laughing.....'boom' indeed.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You can't even establish they physically exist.

hey dumb shit, look at the post above your last vomit.

I suppose you have no clue who CDI is or what an explosives loader does either.

not surprising.

Um, bud......you clearly didn't fact check your claim. Here's what Tom Sullivan said:



And here's the patent that Tom Sullivan gave the AE911Truth to back up his claim;



AE911Truther even labeled this 'Thermite Cutting Charge' on their website. For a while anyway. Until someone actually looked at the patent and realized it wasn't a cutting charge. It was a low energy thermite*ignition* system.

“This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges.”

Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States

Yeah, nothing says 'cutting through a steel column in milliseconds' like the phrase 'low energy'. Which AE911Truth realized a little too late. And you never realized at all. They even had to post a retraction:

We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a ‘cutter charge’... Our intention was to note that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite cases existed as far back as 1984” (Source)

Correction and Clarification: Article: Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee

Laughing.......Oops, is it? So much for your 'expert' testimony.

But you didn't know any of that because you don't fact check anything. You simply gobble down whatever conspiracy flotsam you hear without thought or question. I think. I question. And I fact check. And your claims simply don't hold up.

So again you have yet to factually establish that a 'thermetic cutter' even exists. You have non pictures, no video, no patent, no example of use in history, your 'expert' was so thoroughly debunked that even AE911Truth had to issue a retraction. You don't know its size, what's in it, what it looks like when in use. And of course, you say that they will cut a girder in milliseconds. Citing only yourself. Which means nothing.

And you say the mythic 'cutter charges' leave nothing behind...citing a source debunked and a patent that isn't a cutting charge.

You fail again. Oh, and I'm still waiting for that 'forensic analysis' you promised us. I won't hold my breath.

more debunker asswipe

nothing has been debunkerd.

sullivan validated their existence, and an igniter for a cutter charge also verifies their existence.

nice try nice fail.
unless of course you can prove their non existence LOL

oh and I did verify that quote btw you might have a different interview

 

[Skylar]

Well, I had fun laughing at the inmates, but KookoomoJojo is clearly intent on running away, as fast as his walker will allow, from the points he lied about responding to, so I suppose it's time to try another thread.

After offering us a low energy igniter as a 'thermetic cutter' so powerful it could sever a girder in milliseconds, it seems you may be right.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Well, I had fun laughing at the inmates, but KookoomoJojo is clearly intent on running away, as fast as his walker will allow, from the points he lied about responding to, so I suppose it's time to try another thread.

After offering us a low energy igniter as a 'thermetic cutter' so powerful it could sever a girder in milliseconds, it seems you may be right.

how much energy does a cutting torch have?

oh and btw just because ae911 put up the wrong patent is meaning less. The military and government pulls patents all the time from public view however special interests do have access to the patent.

lets take nooks for example, I guess they dont exist in debunker fantasy land either

 

[Skylar]

more debunker asswipe

nothing has been debunkerd.

Laughing....yeah, that's why AE911Truth had to issue a retraction. Because they *weren't* wrong? And of course, nothing says 'cuts structural steel colunms in milliseconds' like the term 'low energy'.

Keep running. You make this so easy.

sullivan validated their existence, and an igniter for a cutter charge also verifies their existence.

And 'thermite cutter charge' that Sullivan cited....turned out to be a low energy ignition system that doesn't cut a thing. Sullivan was laughably, comically incompetently wrong. But don't take my word for it. Here's the patent Sullivan cited:

Integral low-energy thermite igniter - The United States of America as represented by the United States

Just cut and paste the portion of Sullivan's 'thermite cutter charge' that actually cuts so much as tin foil. Let alone a structual steel column in 'milliseconds'.

And even AE911Truth had to back away from his 'thermite cutter charge from 1984'. The only thing Sullivan validated was his own hapless ignorance. But then, what you can expect from a man who is only an assistant to the actual blast technicians.

Your first clue might have been that NO demolition expert would back Sullivan's inept claim. Your second would have been that you can't find any evidence of even the existence of such imaginary 'thermetic charges'. Not one picture, not one patent, not one example of their use anywhere, ever. Your third clue would have been the AE911Truth retraction.

But you didn't know any of it, did you Truther. You just swallowed the conspiracy whole without thought, without question, without fact checking. Just obediently believing whatever you were told to think.

You fail again.

 

[Skylar]

Well, I had fun laughing at the inmates, but KookoomoJojo is clearly intent on running away, as fast as his walker will allow, from the points he lied about responding to, so I suppose it's time to try another thread.

After offering us a low energy igniter as a 'thermetic cutter' so powerful it could sever a girder in milliseconds, it seems you may be right.

how much energy does a cutting torch have?

Given that a thermal lance, one of the most poweful cutting tools in the world and the primary tool used to clear the debris from ground zero takes orders of magnitude MORE time to cut structural steel girders than your imaginary 'thermetic cutter' supposedly does, the term 'low energy' isn't gonna cut it.

You can't even prove your 'thermetic cutter' even exists. Let alone that it cuts a steel column in 'milliseconds'. Let alone that your imaginary 'cutter' was in WTC 7. Let alone that it would vanish after use. Hell, you can't even verify a single cut girder, despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands.

Laughing.....your 'thermetic cutter' turned out to be an low energy ignition system for things like chemical heaters. And doesn't cut a damn thing.

You make this so easy.

 

[KokomoJojo]

After offering us a low energy igniter as a 'thermetic cutter' so powerful it could sever a girder in milliseconds, it seems you may be right.

how much energy does a cutting torch have?

Given that a thermal lance, one of the most poweful cutting tools in the world and the primary tool used to clear the debris from ground zero takes orders of magnitude MORE time to cut structural steel girders than your imaginary 'thermetic cutter' supposedly does, the term 'low energy' isn't gonna cut it.

You can't even prove your 'thermetic cutter' even exists. Let alone that it cuts a steel column in 'milliseconds'. Let alone that your imaginary 'cutter' was in WTC 7. Let alone that it would vanish after use. Hell, you can't even verify a single cut girder, despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands.

Laughing.....your 'thermetic cutter' turned out to be an low energy ignition system for things like chemical heaters. And doesn't cut a damn thing.

You make this so easy.

first thats not my theory that your fucked up interpretation of the facts, seems the only arguments debunkers can make are fictitious strawmen.

using your standards you cant prove a fucking nook exists, show me the patents for li6 nooks that obviously cant exist in dablunder fantasy land since no patents are available to the public.

waiting.

fuck that show us the patents for ANY nook!

PROVE THEY EXIST! NO PATENT NO EXISTENCE!

you have proven nothing and a cutter is 'completely' different technology than a lance, go back to school and come back when you know something.

 

[Skylar]

using your standards you cant prove a fucking nook exists, show me the patents for li6 nooks that obviously cant exist in dablunder fantasy land.

My standard is simple: show me. Show me a picture of the actual device that can be verified. Not a drawing. Not a description. A verifable picture. Remember, you've said that the technology has been in use since the 1930s. It should be remarkably simple then to show us.

Unless you're completely talking out of your ass.....

Show me the video you claim to have watched of the 'thermetic charges'. You have seen them, right? After all, you claimed that WTC 7 looked 'just like' thermetic charges. How could you possibly know what a 'thermetic charge' looks like since it doesn't exist and you've never seen one?

Kinda got caught lying there, didn't you?

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to back any of that 'cuts in a millisecond' bullshit that you claimed. Or 'destroys itself during its use' nonsense. Hell, you refuse to even discuss the blithering nonsense you offered us about your imaginary 'thermetic cutter'. You've completely abandoned it.

Good. You can learn.

Now, with no 'thermetic cutter charges' and no 'millisecond column cuts' and no cut columns, you're in a bit of a pickle. As you've already admitted that WTC 7 wasn't brought down by explosive demolition. And your imaginary 'thermetic cutters' turned out to be little more than a glorified lighter than couldn't cut tin foil.

Laughing....the only thing you've managed to demolish is your own conspiracy.

 

[KokomoJojo]

using your standards you cant prove a fucking nook exists, show me the patents for li6 nooks that obviously cant exist in dablunder fantasy land.

My standard is simple: show me. Show me a picture of the actual device that can be verified. Not a drawing. Not a description. A verifable picture. Remember, you've said that the technology has been in use since the 1930s. It should be remarkably simple then to show us.

Unless you're completely talking out of your ass.....

Show me the video you claim to have watched of the 'thermetic charges'. You have seen them, right? After all, you claimed that WTC 7 looked 'just like' thermetic charges. How could you possibly know what a 'thermetic charge' looks like since it doesn't exist and you've never seen one?

Kinda got caught lying there, didn't you?

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to back any of that 'cuts in a millisecond' bullshit that you claimed. Or 'destroys itself during its use' nonsense. Hell, you refuse to even discuss the blithering nonsense you offered us about your imaginary 'thermetic cutter'. You've completely abandoned it.

Good. You can learn.

Now, with no 'thermetic cutter charges' and no 'millisecond column cuts' and no cut columns, you're in a bit of a pickle. As you've already admitted that WTC 7 wasn't brought down by explosive demolition. And your imaginary 'thermetic cutters' turned out to be little more than a glorified lighter than couldn't cut tin foil.

Laughing....the only thing you've managed to demolish is your own conspiracy.

LIAR I admitted no such thing.

the chemistry is bit but its simple in concept, I could give you the recipe but guess what? I prefer to hold it over debunker tards heads because it will be years before you dumbasses figure it out if ever, then I can look back and gloat.

in fact your standard is stoopid simple (like most debunglers) as I have shown and you have proven by tacit agreement that nukes do not exist! You are shown of ILLogical and ignorant your arguments are yet you carry on anyway in delusional pretense!

Thats ok there are others as dumb as you so you will be in good company!


Ok tard you first!

Show me a pic of an li6 container and firing mechanism and i will believe they exist.

 

[Skylar]

I note again how you're obviously avoiding the 8 enumerated pointed Skylar made.

and the world notes again that you lied and cannot tell us what points you think he scored.

you really need to gradute stoopid before continuing with your line of foolishness. The rest of us have left you behind and moved on.

You're lying again. I said he made 8 enumerated points. I need not repeat them since they're still there and you're still avoiding them.

Hell, I'll repeat them:

1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building. Not before the penthouse collapsed into the WTC 7. Not preceding the collapse of the facade later. There's no such thing as explosives that make no sound when they detonate. This point made doubly true when you're claiming that these explosions were suffecient to bring down a skyscraper.

Imaginary 'silent explosives' are exactly the kind of needlessly complicated and laughably implausible holes in the truther narrative that render it an awful explanation in comparison to the official story.

2) Next, the floors you say the explosions occured were ON FIRE. And had been for quite a while. There's no system of demolition that handle being on fire. At best, explosives would have either detonated when the fire reached them or been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. Det cord would have gone up, any wires attached to the charges would have melted, any timers or receives would have been reduced to plastic slag.

Yet your explosives went off in a neat, precise sequence? Nope. Your story is not only implausible, its virtually impossible. Explosive demolition doesn't happen in a burning building because the fire would destroy any explosive apparatus.

3) Next, there were no cut beams. How then could explosive sequences or 'thermetic cutters' brought the building down without cutting the girders? There should have been thousands and thousands of such cuts per your reasoning. Yet there were zero.

Another theory killing hole you simply can't explain. Another pointless, absurd layer of needless complexity that renders your theory a laughably implausible alternative to the official story of structural failure due to fire.

4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs. That's bomb detection experts and their bomb sniffing dogs. Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.

'Ridiculously unlikely' doesn't begin to cover it. And once again, another layer of needless elaboration and complication is added to an already absurdly poor conspiracy. And yet it still gets worse.

5) These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly inspected, occupied, cleaned and maintained. The odds that such a building wide, elaborate system of explosives would have been set within the building and nobody noticed is essentially zero. Especially considering that the Port Authority Bombsquad was *looking* for just such explosives.

Yet your theory requires this. And astonishingly, it still gets worse.

6) Detailed analysis of the dust samples at the WTC site show no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that they were able to detect medication from the WTC pharmacy.....but not the thousands and thousand of explosives your theory relies upon?

Again, that's ridiculously implausible. Your theory is simply an awful, awful explanation.

7) And finally, you've still ignored the FDNY...who watched the building bulge, buckle and burn for hours before the collapse, and correctly predicted its collapse hours before it occured. And you ignore them for no particular reason. That's expert eye-witness testimony collected over hours from direct and unobstructed observation of WTC 7. And they cite massive fire and structural damage. Explicitly contradicting you. And you ignore them entirely.

8) And of course, you also ignore the NIST.....again for no particular reason. They cite reasons quite similar to the FDNY: the massive fires. So you have to expert sources with unequalled access to the scene both giving you a plausible, verifiable cause: massive fires.

And you ignore them both in favor of bombs which you can't establish even exist. And of course, are magically silent, invisible, apparently installed by ninja janitors, undetectable to bomb sniffing dogs, leave no trace behind, and are conveniently fire proof.

Koko's version of conspiracy is slightly different. He claims it was 'thermetic cutters'. Which he can't establish actually exist. Or have ever been used in demolition. Or cut girders in milliseconds. Or any of the silly nonsense he's claimed. Rendering it mere fantasy.

Issues of the 'sound of explosives' wouldn't be problem for the 'thermetic charge' fantasy. But since he still claims a massive underground explosion right before the collapse, and it doesn't exist, he runs smack dab into reality again.

Worse, the imaginary 'thermetic charge' nonsense has its own unique theory killing problems. Namely, number 5. As these charges as described would be utterly enormous. The size of small cars, by the thousands.

There's absolutely no chance that they would have been overlooked by the folks that work there. And less than no chance that the Port Authority Bomb squad would have missed these huge, yugo sized canisters strapped to girders on every floor. Or would have missed the massive bomb in the basement. That's the first place they would have looked, as that the where the 1993 bombers put their bombs.

 

[Skylar]

LIAR I admitted no such thing.

Laughing.....After pages of posts where you literally screamed that your imaginary 'thermetic cutters' weren't explosive ......now it *was* explosive demolition?

Let the backpedalling begin! Unless you're claiming you didn't say this:

MY EXPLOSIVES? YOU ARE LOONY, I just told you that thermetic cutters DO NOT EXPLODE get a fucking clue, go back to knidergarten or something.

KokomoJojo

Smiling....you're really not very good at this, are you?

the chemistry is bit but its simple in concept, I could give you the recipe but guess what? I prefer to hold it over debunker tards heads because it will be years before you dumbasses figure it out if ever, then I can look back and gloat.[/COLOR]

So let me see if I have this right:

You're so knowledgeable and so well versed in the chemistry of your imaginary 'thermetic charges' that you can't verify that they actually exist, can't show us a single picture of the imaginary 'cutters', can't cite a single example of their use in history, can't show us a single video of them in use, can't describe how big they are, and can't tell us what they're made of.

Laughing.....how's that working out for you?

in fact your standard is stoopid simple (like most debunglers) as I have shown and you have proven by tacit agreement that nukes do not exist!

Um, my standard is show me. I can show you a nuke going off. I can show you picture of nukes. I can verify that nukes exist through numerous examples of their use around the world. Hell, they're having a memorial for the use of a nuke on Nagasaki 69 years ago TODAY. Its the anniversary.

You can't factually establish that your imaginary 'thermetic cutters' even exist. The 'evidence' you offered turned out to be to a low energy igniter that coudn't cut tin foil. You can't show us a single picture of this device. You can't show us a single video of their use. And You can't cite a single example of their use anywhere, at any time in history.

You can't verify their properties, you can't tell us how large they are, what they look like when they go off, you can't tell us what's in them, ou can't prove that they will cut a girder in milliseconds. You can't prove that they disintegrate after use. Hell, your claims are so comically debunked, you refuse to even discuss them now.

You lose again, Truther.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and one last question.

You said that WTC 7 'looked just like thermetic cutters'. Give that thermetic cutters don't actually exist and you've never seen one, how can you possibly know what they look like?

No, go ahead, I'll wait.

...........



........




....



..



.


Nothing, huh? If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to lie to support it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

and the world notes again that you lied and cannot tell us what points you think he scored.

you really need to gradute stoopid before continuing with your line of foolishness. The rest of us have left you behind and moved on.

You're lying again. I said he made 8 enumerated points. I need not repeat them since they're still there and you're still avoiding them.

Hell, I'll repeat them:

1) First, there were no sound of explosions immediately preceding the collapse of the building. Not before the penthouse collapsed into the WTC 7. Not preceding the collapse of the facade later. There's no such thing as explosives that make no sound when they detonate. This point made doubly true when you're claiming that these explosions were suffecient to bring down a skyscraper.

Imaginary 'silent explosives' are exactly the kind of needlessly complicated and laughably implausible holes in the truther narrative that render it an awful explanation in comparison to the official story.

2) Next, the floors you say the explosions occured were ON FIRE. And had been for quite a while. There's no system of demolition that handle being on fire. At best, explosives would have either detonated when the fire reached them or been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. Det cord would have gone up, any wires attached to the charges would have melted, any timers or receives would have been reduced to plastic slag.

Yet your explosives went off in a neat, precise sequence? Nope. Your story is not only implausible, its virtually impossible. Explosive demolition doesn't happen in a burning building because the fire would destroy any explosive apparatus.

3) Next, there were no cut beams. How then could explosive sequences or 'thermetic cutters' brought the building down without cutting the girders? There should have been thousands and thousands of such cuts per your reasoning. Yet there were zero.

Another theory killing hole you simply can't explain. Another pointless, absurd layer of needless complexity that renders your theory a laughably implausible alternative to the official story of structural failure due to fire.

4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs. That's bomb detection experts and their bomb sniffing dogs. Meaning that your bombs would have had to have been invisible to both experts looking explicitly for them......and undetectable by bomb sniffing dogs.

'Ridiculously unlikely' doesn't begin to cover it. And once again, another layer of needless elaboration and complication is added to an already absurdly poor conspiracy. And yet it still gets worse.

5) These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly inspected, occupied, cleaned and maintained. The odds that such a building wide, elaborate system of explosives would have been set within the building and nobody noticed is essentially zero. Especially considering that the Port Authority Bombsquad was *looking* for just such explosives.

Yet your theory requires this. And astonishingly, it still gets worse.

6) Detailed analysis of the dust samples at the WTC site show no residue of explosives. This in an analysis so precise that they were able to detect medication from the WTC pharmacy.....but not the thousands and thousand of explosives your theory relies upon?

Again, that's ridiculously implausible. Your theory is simply an awful, awful explanation.

7) And finally, you've still ignored the FDNY...who watched the building bulge, buckle and burn for hours before the collapse, and correctly predicted its collapse hours before it occured. And you ignore them for no particular reason. That's expert eye-witness testimony collected over hours from direct and unobstructed observation of WTC 7. And they cite massive fire and structural damage. Explicitly contradicting you. And you ignore them entirely.

8) And of course, you also ignore the NIST.....again for no particular reason. They cite reasons quite similar to the FDNY: the massive fires. So you have to expert sources with unequalled access to the scene both giving you a plausible, verifiable cause: massive fires.

And you ignore them both in favor of bombs which you can't establish even exist. And of course, are magically silent, invisible, apparently installed by ninja janitors, undetectable to bomb sniffing dogs, leave no trace behind, and are conveniently fire proof.

Koko's version of conspiracy is slightly different. He claims it was 'thermetic cutters'. Which he can't establish actually exist. Or have ever been used in demolition. Or cut girders in milliseconds. Or any of the silly nonsense he's claimed. Rendering it mere fantasy.

Issues of the 'sound of explosives' wouldn't be problem for the 'thermetic charge' fantasy. But since he still claims a massive underground explosion right before the collapse, and it doesn't exist, he runs smack dab into reality again.

Worse, the imaginary 'thermetic charge' nonsense has its own unique theory killing problems. Namely, number 5. As these charges as described would be utterly enormous. The size of small cars, by the thousands.

There's absolutely no chance that they would have been overlooked by the folks that work there. And less than no chance that the Port Authority Bomb squad would have missed these huge, yugo sized canisters strapped to girders on every floor. Or would have missed the massive bomb in the basement. That's the first place they would have looked, as that the where the 1993 bombers put their bombs.

1) First, there were no sound of explosions

LIAR
Penelope posted a video and proved you are lying


2) Next, the floors you say the explosions occured were ON FIRE.
LIAR
Only a couple floors were on fire

At best, explosives would have either detonated

Hey dumb ass this is about thermetic cutters NOT EXPLOSIVES

Fuck you people are stupid

Det cord would have gone up, any wires attached to the charges would have melted, any timers or receives would have been reduced to plastic slag.

You dont need none of that shit neadrathal brain.

Explosive demolition doesn't happen in a burning building because the fire would destroy any explosive apparatus.

thermetic cutters NOT EXPLOSIVES dumb ass

3) Next, there were no cut beams. How then could explosive sequences or 'thermetic cutters' brought the building down without cutting the girders? There should have been thousands and thousands of such cuts per your reasoning. Yet there were zero.

Cutting the bolts, I posted the pics earlier still the DUMB ASS forever the Dumb ass



4) Next, the Port authority bomb squad had gone through the entire WTC plaza only the week before and found no bombs.

Dumb ass it takes less than 30 seconds to apply a cutter to a column



5) snip

SEE ABOVE

6) Detailed analysis of the dust samples at the WTC site show no residue of explosives.

Conventional EXPLOSIVES were not tested for, however radiation was tests were conducted.

This in an analysis so precise that they were able to detect medication from the WTC pharmacy.....but not the thousands and thousand of explosives your theory relies upon?

thermetic cutters NOT EXPLOSIVES dumb ass

7) And finally, you've still ignored the FDNY...who watched the building bulge, buckle and burn for hours before the collapse, and correctly predicted its collapse hours before it occured. And you ignore them for no particular reason. That's expert eye-witness testimony collected over hours from direct and unobstructed observation of WTC 7. And they cite massive fire and structural damage. Explicitly contradicting you. And you ignore them entirely.

yeh if you strapped charges to the columns you could predict it will collapse too, more debunker dumbass.

NIST overulled them said the damage was superficial, another worn out debunker shit story.

8) And of course, you also ignore the NIST.....again for no particular reason. They cite reasons quite similar to the FDNY: the massive fires. So you have to expert sources with unequalled access to the scene both giving you a plausible, verifiable cause: massive fires.

No they dont, tey cite expansion and the failure of one column, more of the same asshelmet debunker dumbass

Good job, you have convinced me you people are a complete bunch of fucking loons.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Oh, and one last question.

You said that WTC 7 'looked just like thermetic cutters'. Give that thermetic cutters don't actually exist and you've never seen one, how can you possibly know what they look like?

No, go ahead, I'll wait.

...........



........




....



..



.


Nothing, huh? If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to lie to support it.

are you completely fucking retarded? How many times do I need to post it for you?

​