911 Mr Demo says: Will the REAL COLLAPSE please stand up

the problem with troughers is that they are clueless to the glaring distinction between "proven" and "presumption".

trougher blind statements and ASSumptions do not stand as proof, and are nothing more than bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in a pretty wrapper.

If I seen a properly framed argument from a trougher it would signal the second coming of Christ!

(*)(*)(*)(*) almost like going to court.

 

Nobody needs to go to court to know you lie. All they have to do is read your posts. That is proof enough for everyone but the most diehard blind truthers, but they will believe anything as long as it gets the terrorists off the hook. That is what you truthers are all about, right? Proving Al Qaeda is innocent?

 

Ahhhhh. More bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies from the king. If 7 fell inside its footprint as you claim, how did it damage buildings next to it? As for common industry understanding goes, you're full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Falling inside the footprint means debris does NOT fall outside the normal structure of the building. As an example, I point you back to the highest controlled demolition to date. Source

Once again, your lies have been exposed as nothing but the empty bull(*)(*)(*)(*) of a man with nothing.

 

Nope. But everyone can smell the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) being shoveled by a lawyer wannabe. You wouldn't last two seconds before any legal system anywhere in the world.

 

huh?

well then read my posts and point out any lie anywhere. the only place that happens is in your fertile imagination.

So you speak for everyone? Does that make you the el prezidante or god?

Nothing like a good case of narcissism eh...

Have you tried overdosing? Usually that is a sure fire cure.

The point is to get the correct terrorists on the hook.

You know:



its about policy:

 

Speaking of narcissism. As stated several times before you, it's not presumed you're a liar, it's a fact that you're a liar. Maybe this gets to the bottom of why you're a 9/11 TM member, you just don't understand the difference between fact, backed up by evidence, and what is made up. Remember occam's razor isn't for shaving.

 

Wrong yet again. You claimed "7 did not fall into its own footprint and the common industry understanding stands.", which is false. Since this has been shown to you numerous times, you cannot plead ignorance, although you really should on MANY subjects since your complete lack of knowledge makes it rather obvious you are talking out your ass and not from any kind of position of authority.

So tell us again how the government can add CGI to what every camera records again! I never get tired of you trying to cover up that whopper of a lie!

 

Patriot, thats what happens when you blow them up.

I said 47 stories not 23.

Natural collapses do not happen uniformly or global or across the roof line into the columns.

I know maybe it pancaked?



thats it!

it really pancaked!

 

you need to fix your reading impediment.

I said 7 fell into its own foot print according to industry understanding.

I wouldnt even begin to guess at what you are or think you are saying.

Nothing has been shown to me, more of your fertile imagination overuling the brain. Well I am presuming ther is a brain right?

I will leave it like this

 

Can you provide any source to the statement I have highlighted please?

 

http://education-portal.com/articles/Demolition_Technology_Classes_and_Courses_Overview.html

 

You're obviously having difficulty with reading comprehension.

I said: golf ball sized fusion devices

You said: no micro nukes

I said: 47 story controlled demolition debris fields

You said: nothing to support...7 did not fall into its own footprint

The differences might be subtle to a truther. To everyone else they are glaring. Golf ball sized fusion devices capable of generating the energy of ignition are not physically possible. On the other hand, the term micronuke could mean anything. Photographs of 47 story controlled demolition debris fields are non existent. That does not mean that photos of the WTC7 debris field are non existent.

Most convincing of the reality that WTC7 fell outside its own footprint are the photos of the damage to 30 West Broadway. It's impossible for you to believe that WTC7 fell inside its own footprint unless you believe that 30 West Broadway was inside the footprint of WTC7.



What's also humorous is the conflict in the claims. WTC1 and WTC2 are said to have been demolished as well, yet they clearly did not fall into their own footprints.



How could both debris patterns be indicative of controlled demolition?

 

I don't see anything close to:

It's not anywhere on the link that you provided. If that was your coy way of saying I should take the class than you are witty.

If it's something that's trained in the classroom than it's something you should be able to locate with no issue, if you're actually an attorney this should be in your skill set. I don't ask for sources for things I can find easily myself. I will assume by the fact that you didn't link to it, that you just made it up. Which seems to be something that you do often, which is why no one gives anything you say any weight.

 

so trougher ***** want people to believe that a 750 foot tall building drops within 100 feet of its outside perimeter that its not "in its own foot print"?

​

I would expect that from a couple of the troughers that hopelessly od'd on stupid pills but you?

The self proclaimed trougher physics guru?

Say its not twu.

 

You might want to take a moment to look up the word footprint in your trusty 1828 before you start calling other people stupid.

 

I would certainly think damaging a building across a four lane road (and so much so that it had to be demolished) would fall outside of 'footprint'.

 

not a trougher strong suit

 

you might take a moment to grasp the meaning in its proper context.

nah

 

It's simple really. Koko is able to predict the behavior of uncontrolled collapses regardless of point of failure or mode of failure. It's really an incredible skill for a lawyer to have. Too bad he's just a troofer.

 

yeh actually I am pretty good at that

hey its not my fault you are not an engineer and are incapable of figgering any other way to determine free fall than the trougher script.

dont take it so hard.

its just a typical trougher

 

You'd be the only one.

 

Good of you to admit it was an uncontrolled collapse instead of a demolition. You're still delusional if you think you are able to predict its behavior.

 

30 West Broadway was heavily damaged by the collapse of WTC 7 and had to be demolished. It was across a four lane road from WTC 7. This is clearly not part of the footprint of WTC 7.

See also the damage done to the Verizon building.

 

The Verizon building in NYC, standing well outside the footprint of WTC 7, sustained heavy damage to the south and east facade when WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11/2001.

 

Someone is moving goalposts..

- It fell on its own footprint

- It fell CLOSE to its own footprint.

Pathetic, even for a 'truther'.