Fox News Admits WT7 Was To Be Brought Down By Controlled Demolition On 9/11

Is this the best response you've got? What a coward you are. You got completely owned, and here your are trying to puff out your hollow chest. After you completely lied in your last post, no less.

tsk tsk.

 

There is no evidence of a controlled demolition, there is no logic in the OP of this thread, and when some just goes to name calling they have lost the argument. I find truthers both offensive and funny.

 

its all that is necessary to demonstrate the difference between troughers and truthers such that even in light of his apparent reneging on his statements, you make hay on the part that supports you while turning a blind eye to the part that totally supports truthers.

But then on the brite side your telling the world about trougher fraud and I appreciate that.

 

Even if they discussed the idea, that does not mean that anyone acted on it. Not even Danny Jowenko could explain how it could have been done in only five hours.

 

Nothing about calling the insurance company speaks to there being a controlled demo. You sir lied by omission and now are accusing someone else of it. Here is the thing. A building fell on building 7, igniting fires and taking out a great deal of its structural support. Over the course of the day it was clear that this would be another lost building and if Silverstein (by the way calling him names makes you look childish) called his insurance company to see if he would be allowed to demo the building and still collect is just a business question. But until you provide one piece of real evidence of a controlled demolition you have nothing.

 

He didn't renege on his statement you dim bulb, you just didn't read the entire statement. Nor did the rest of your idiot truther sources, since they also only clipped the part they "liked", meanwhile, leaving out the part that destroyed their hyperbole (and yours). I also asked for you to post information discrediting your once, now distanced, "source", which you seem to have ignored. Prove his words wrong koko, because, afterall, you attempted to cite him when you "thought" it benefited your stupid theories.

Sweet dancing jesus, you are insecure.

 

actually he did explain it, said they must have worked very hard, however there were a few prep explosions that went off earlier in the day, however they killed the witness and the other one is living iin fear of his life.

- - - Updated - - -

rest of what, where are you dreaming this (*)(*)(*)(*) up from anyway, the web at large LOL

yeh he discredited your position quite well too didnt he LOL

 

I already posted the part you Truthers left out multiple times in this thread. So lie at your own risk koko, because it's sitting there for all to see.

 

I already posted you the part that troughers left out.

I did not leave anything out, I directly quoted what was on the page at

 

go ahead continue to lie and your nose is growing by the second as you talk.

I told you my source labelling me a liar only show you in fact are the liar since nothing what you posted is in source I quoted.

http://wideshut.co.uk/fox-news-admi...brought-down-by-controlled-demolition-on-911/

 

There is more evidence that they used unicorn poo to eat through the columns. In their statements that day, neither Hess nor Jennings said anything inconsistant with the accepted narrative.

 

The source you quoted was Jeffrey Scott Shapiro. NAB posted what Jeffrey said, exactly.

 

try to keep up the argument was not about posting exactly what shapiro said. DUH

 

"that day huh"


speaking of poo

 

Koko gets beat down like a red headed step child on the first page, and his only response is to call everyone else a liar. How quaint.

Looks like the bulk of the work is done here, the others have pointed koko's dishonesty, and his back peddle. All I'm going to do is look at the "Insurance Company" claim. In fact, I'll leave that to Ron Wieck;

Skip to 28:10
[video=youtube;2-bdE3uZ5GI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-bdE3uZ5GI[/video]

I think we can consider this case closed, and koko, yet again, disproven.

 

no nab was the liar for misrepresenting the situation after being corrected numerous times as you are now.

some jerk off who believes in the lockness monster claims he is would call his insurance and ask how the building will affect his coverage.

There is no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing way the fire dept could make that assessment.

this is as wacky that thermite variant is not thermite argument.

 

Believed. Nice misrepresentation koko. Again, you are dishonest.

The FDNY are not qualified to assess whether a building is in danger of failure? Am I really reading that correctly? Koko, what drugs are you on? Seriously?

Dismantling a building is very, very expensive. Silverstein as the building owner, wanted to know if his insurers covered the cost of having to bring down a hung structure in the case that the building did not collapse. A very valid question. Just look at the Deutsche Bank Building, it sat in limbo for years with the owners against the insurance companies as to who would foot the cost of dismantling the building.

You find this suspicious, I find you desperate.

The burden for you remains the same, you have not even shown WTC7 was a controlled demolition, therefore this entire thread, just like all your other nonsense theories, is null and void. Period.

 

what a load

no he didnt

that is not "how it will affect his coverage" means. another fail

and I never believed past present or future in the lockness monster or alien lizards from space, but then I am not so sure troughers might be alien lizards! LMFAO

yeh you read that correctly, tell us how they made that assessment? Oh wait duh...dars a big ole ho in da udder side biwding faw down.

lets see that detailed assessment they made.

 

What else are you trying to say here? That Silverstein, one of the key figures in this massive conspiracy, called his insurers off the cuff and told them of his grand plan to blow up a skyscraper of his?? For what purpose? What gain? Just a friendly heads up on the vast insurance fraud to follow? You are absolutely bonkers if you honestly think this is what was going on.

 

Cow cookies. They saw massive impact damage to the facade after enormous pieces of the north tower hit it. Some of them went inside and heard creaking noises. This tends to make fire fighters a little hesitent to enter an unoccupied building for reasons that should be obvious even to the intellectually impaired, after watching two other buildings just totally discombobulate. As Hess and Jennings confirm, they would also have seen that some of the stairways and such were damaged.

Every big city fire depaprtment, among their structural engineers, has a surveyor specificly to assess the degree of lean, thus the likely structural integrity of a building. This is neccessary to determine whether a structure is even worth trying to save if there are no lives at risk from letting it burn. In case you didn't notice, fire fighters have been killed trying to conduct operations in buildings that failed while they were inside.

The surveyor used a transit to measure the angle of the facade to determine whether it was still standing straight up and down. He found that it was not, and that there was a decided bulge in the facade facing the now-collapsed structure across the street.

Combine this with the noticeable chunks blown out of the corner of the building and the huge gash in the front and the damage to the roof line and the observed damage to stairways inside and it should look to any rational person as though those creaking noises meant that the building was already in the early stages of collapse.

By this time, the water supply to many of the hydrants had been cut off by the collapses of the towers. There was not really enough water to cover the exposures that they had to cover or to put out the fires that they could reasonable fight. They had determined from talking to Hess and Jennings that there was nobody left inside the building.

Was there, then, any other reasonable course than to just say "Screw Building 7" and establish a collapse zone around it and leave it to fall down on its own?

Of couyrse, the fire department would not allow anyone to drag demolition equipment into the building to bring it down. That would make less sense than going in there to fight the fires and would present a risk of flying debris outside the collapse zone. People have been killed by ejecta from an explosive demolition about a mile away.

To posite CD is to posit that FDNY is staffed largely by morons.

Take that idea back to the latrine you dug it out of.

 

I posted the original site, the link did not work, I checked AFTER you brought it up, therefore the link you posted was not seen, therefore there was no lie, making hay on pure bs, troughers do they do and as can be seen in previous posts they in fact lie in the process after it has been brought directly to their attention!

 

So where did you copy/paste the quote you based your entire disingenuous OP on koko?

Seriously, you should heed the words of Molly Ivins. “The first rule of holes: When you're in one stop digging.”

 

dreaming again I see.

you simply dont get it, that you need hay to make hay.

 

Hay does make a great absorbent for horsesh!t. Answer the question koko.

 

already did several times. should have been paying attention instead of ranting