yeh actually there is one really good one for wtc7 there is a reporter interviewing a woman holding a bably and you can hear explosions and she jumped and looked that way and then said oh its starting! Everyone in NY knew but troughers it seems.
You mean the same video I posted 2 pages ago? http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/287923-911-preschool-demolition-dummies-31.html#post1062410183 Funny, I don't hear any explosions in that video. Fail again koko. And I know you've seen this; [video=youtube;NwFHEoiUZ7o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o[/video] Area gets weakened, final parts are removed with hydraulic rams or pulled by cables. Force of the falling top part destroys the bottom section and results in global collapse. So, I have shown videos of the WTC collapsing with no explosive signs, and provided evidence of buildings "that falls straight down meaning global failure". You have yet to prove your controlled demolition theory. No bomb recorded, no bomb residue recovered, no flashes seen prior to collapse, nothing, just 2 videos taken after the towers had collapsed of a random blast somewhere in the distance. Nothing specific, nothing concrete. You have nothing koko, and what is worse, you know it. Controlled demolition has been debunked at every turn for 11 years now. Only the think-skulled left believe it.
no, thwere is no sound of demolition charges. There is the sound of a building collapsing. Freaking HUGE difference. Also, if you will notice, Ashley is looking toward the building when the dust starts moving. You got squat, as usual.
I was just thinking that same thing, since the other day he called me the "spelling" police. Then proceeded to tell me that spelling and grammar were the same thing. THEN he claimed that me even bringing it up means I have no truth to my argument. Yay double standards!
If you look at the cast of Truther characters that inhabit this particular 9/11 Forum, one should be thankful for the level of true talent on display.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/lsat-reading-comprehension-tips.html anything to help - - - Updated - - - thats right you got busted the other day too didnt you LMAO
oh so your point then is that they called bazant in to prep the towers for demolition? How did they do that without anyone seeing them?
No, that is not my point you neanderthal. My point is that your claim that mass + pile drive cannot result in global collapse is baseless and proved wrong by the Vérinage technique. 500,000 tons of building falling is not going to be arrested by anything except the ground. Your claim is wrong. Natural collapse is possible and proven. Your theory of bombs and demolition has never been proven, and even now you cannot link any evidence of explosives in those buildings. no documents, no videos, nothing. Wrong again koko.
so you are proving that it can happen by citing a demolition technique that frankly would not have worked on those buildings anyway but its humorous none the less. your theory of planes and no bombs is impossible and has likewise never been proven, if you think it has been then by all means provide the source.
And why would it not work on the WTC towers? WTC towers had far more mass and potential energy than the buildings in the demolition film. Yes, I am proving that mass + pile driver can occur by citing a demolition technique which uses that exact principle. It can, and does occur, as proven. You seem to think it doesn't, let's see your evidence then? Evidence. You claim its impossible but yet have provided not a shred of evidence yourself. Your fantasy of CD has never been proven, not even had the surface scratched. Both airliners weighed ~120,000KG, hitting those towers, fully fueled, at 500mph. The energy equivalent of 1500 and 2000 pounds of TNT. Why do you ignore this? E=1/2mv2 - why do you ignore this? Do you understand this? The planes did more damage to those buildings than any amount of explosives could have. The fires, over 8 stories in each towers, massive infernos, and the heat energy far beyond what thermite could produce, and far beyond what any steel structure could handle. You claim it's impossible, yet you have no idea of physics, mechanics, motion. You fail at every turn, as do your heroes AE911Truth. 11 years, 911 'truth' failure to prove CD. No scientific consensus, no peer reviewed papers, no public backing, nothing. 911 'truth' is dead and all but a few see it. 11 years of not being able to prove the official story wrong, and dodging to provide evidence that can withstand even the smallest amount of scrutiny. Oh, btw, I'm awaiting your admission to your wrong statement on the other thread that yellow/white steel is always molten..
The point is that, once collapse had been initiated, it would not arrests as has been alledged by nut jobs like King, Chandler and little Dickie Gage.
you kids really need to learn evidentiary procedure. I am not the one making the claim here you are. you need to prove it was not explosives since what was hown to us is not reasonably possible. unreasonably anything is possible of course
tyhere are HUGE differences between failure by vernage demolition and the wtc. again you are the "pro" and you fail to see ANY of it.
And you pretend to be a lawyer? Get real Koko. There is no way that the burden of proof is on this side, and making that claim shows how void of legal knowledge you are. The NIST report proves that the towers were NOT destroyed by CD. They were destroyed by 2 airplane impacts, jet fuel, fires and gravity. Against that YOU are making a claim that it was a demolition. Since there are massive amounts of evidence stating it was the way NIST said it happened(Purdue did a study confirming it, MIT did a study confirming it), that means that it has been backed up by the peer review process. That claim has been accepted, and in a court of law you would be laughed out of the courtroom for saying something so completely stupid. What you are trying is a "reverse burden of proof." The requirement isn't on us to prove that it wasn't CD, it's on you to prove it was CD. Get it together.
thanks for proving beyond even unreasonable doubt that you never spent a day in court in your life. See nist can say the moon is made of cheese and the sun is a frozen rundra if they like, I could care less. However its their claim and they have to prove it. That is how court works. LOL All I am required to show is "DOUBT" and there is more than enough of that, that has been shown time and time ad boringmeto(*)(*)(*)(*)ingdeath time again. The fact that you cannot show any other steel framed building that globally collapsed and that the only thing yo uhave to bring to the table is hypothetical guesswork means you CANNOT PROVE what nist is saying. Law? Maybe for breach of fiduciary liabilities yeh. not that troughers understand that
You daily prove the only time you've spent in a court was being a defendant...The NIST has proven what they say,YOU just won't accept it as fact
I've had jury duty just as much as you have koko. You've probably watched Law & Order more than me, so I'll defer to your superior legal expertise.
And how much of that NIST report did you read? Did you also read any of the NC-Star's? What page did you reach before you decided it was not relevant proof of natural collapse? Your shift of the burden of proof amazes me, even after seeing 'truth'ers do it for years. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim goes against the official narrative. Your claim is the theory. Your claim has yet to be proven in court, peer review, mainstream media, anywhere. Therefore you are required to prove it. [video=youtube;qWJTUAezxAI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI[/video]
wow thats pretty kool, all I need to do is get a job with nist and the rules of adjudication get stood on their head. you see you simply do not get it, time and time again, becuase its not proving a negative as your cute little sermon pontificates. In fact its very easy to prove to a judge in a court, to you guys who never seen the inside of a court room? yeh right! not likely.
Why on earth should it matter whether I've been in a court room or not? I'm not a lawyer, I'm a pilot. But you avoid my questions, again. How far through the NIST report did you get before you decided it did not explain the natural collapse hypothesis well enough?
