Incessant posturing. Nice evasion as always Bob, all this time and you do it without thinking now. It is an absurd idea that a team of at least 100 men would happily place charges in 3 buildings killing thousands of Americans! THAT is why you won't speculate. Repeating your grammar fail doesn't make it correct! Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning quite literally “it doesn’t follow.” My questions followed perfectly, you irrelevantly label them speculation but they are still connected! Part of the reason to speculate is to see how utterly absurd it is to be able to recruit a huge volume of "demolition expert murderers". No it isn't Bob, you are dodging it as you always do. 1. You failed to give any valid reason for the demolition of WTC7 and of course the stunning need for it to actually HAVE a valid reason for it. Given that it being struck by enough tower debris was the ONLY reason "they" could legitimately "demolish" it. If you can't understand how that is a glaring issue then you really are in full denial. WHY demolish WTC7? 2. Irrelevant what Jowenko thought, but how the hell can you explain - demolition charges that take "weeks or months to plan and prepare" surviving many hours of fire, aircraft impacts etc. It's absurd and I don't believe you if you say otherwise. How do they factor in impact points and charges that survive fires? 3 . This may well be a flippant comment but it's meaning is not - how do you figure the meeting went working out what to do? "Let's hope we get lucky with a legitimate reason to demolish it and hope none of the fires or impacts ruin the charges." How could they possibly guarantee WTC7 being put in a position to legitimately demolish it?
@Scott - It's not even an exercise in objectivity or logic. It is totally obvious. What possible reason would they have to overly complicate it to that crazy extreme? Look at just this small section of people needing to be in on this ridiculous "side-conspiracy"! Flight 93 victims' effects to go back to families (aldeilis.net) "United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers. Those remains were gathered by the FBI and other investigators from the 50-foot-deep pit the Boeing 757 jet gouged in a reclaimed strip mine, and from the woods adjoining the crash site. But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost. Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site. They sit in an El Segundo, Calif., mortuary and will be returned to victims' families in February. "We have some property for most passengers," said Craig Hendrix, a funeral coordinator and a personal effects administrator with Douglass Air Disaster Funeral Coordinators, a company often contacted by airlines after devastating crashes. Hendrix said United Airlines' insurance underwriter hired Douglass on Sept. 12 to handle not only funeral arrangements for the victims but also the return of personal effects."
Feel free to quit responding to my posts any time you like then if that's how you characterize my responses. Yes it is, so quit coming up with irrelevant absurd ideas, none of them change what happened on 9/11 and are posted for the purpose of denial and distraction. No, your absurd ideas are not the primary reason why I don't speculate. I try to avoid speculation (although I admittedly do at times in a legitimate discussion) because doing so might distract from the facts about 9/11. How it was done, who and how many were involved are all issues for a criminal investigation into 9/11, something that never happened. That is why there was an effort by the Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry to petition for a grand jury investigation into the events of 9/11. Coming to grips with the reality that the official 9/11 narrative is a fairy tale made for children and that the science proves it to be impossible is the first step that needs to be taken, preferably by as many Americans as possible, then by the US government. As usual, the remainder of your asks me to speculate on YOUR ideas, not interested, especially since your ideas are based on denial of the facts.
An absurd idea that MUST have happened according to your belief system! It's not irrelevant, not a non sequitur, not a distraction it is a very real and significant issue that "911-Truthers" never consider - how do you get an army of demolition experts recruited to murder thousands of Americans. Do you kill any who refuse? No wonder you want to sweep this under the carpet! These are facts and you are not speculating because they show how ridiculous your claims are. Hold on Bob, that is the worst circular reasoning possible. None of it is impossible, all you are doing is theorizing with stuff about demolitions that IS far more likely to be impossible. Nice dodge Bob, but the "viewers" see questions that are not denying any special "truther-facts". WHY demolish WTC7? How did they factor in impact points and charges that survive fires? How could they possibly guarantee WTC7 being put in a position to legitimately demolish it?
Correct, thanks for agreeing that you came up with an absurd idea in order to distract from the facts about 9/11. At least we both agree on something. Now if you can come up with something real and worthwhile about 9/11 that is worth my while discussing, I will be glad to oblige. Your absurd idea is a waste of time, put a fork in it, thanks.
Bob and his ridiculous game playing. That is deliberately taking my quote out of context with a view to flamebaiting. An absurd idea that MUST have happened according to your belief system! It's not irrelevant, not a non sequitur, not a distraction it is a very real and significant issue that "911-Truthers" never consider: How do you get an army of demolition experts recruited to murder thousands of Americans. Do you kill any who refuse? WHY demolish WTC7? How did they factor in impact points and charges that survive fires? How could they possibly guarantee WTC7 being put in a position to legitimately demolish it?
Why should I need to quote your own old post in an attempt to get you to answer relevant questions?! Just above, feel free to speculate on question 1, but 2,3 and 4 require something a bit more tangible.
Talk about thoughtless WTC conclusions I smell the stench of a desperate and frustrated "debunker" trying to spam every thread in this section of the forum praying he's going to convince me that fairy tales are real if he huffs and puffs hard enough.
More Hulsey: PDF analysis of collapse - undertaken by Weidlinger (now Thornton Tomasetti) So we had NIST, a government agency driven analysis, then we had Hulsey "sponsored" by AE911Truth. Creating a false dichotomy of "which is correct", then we get the above, from what appears to be a defense of claims against the building designers. "Based on our analyses and critical review of the analyses, data and engineering judgment of plaintiffs’ experts, we find all of the design errors asserted as a cause of collapse to be either unfounded or based on erroneous, and even contrived, analyses. Our analyses clearly establish that the attacks of September 11 set-off an unstoppable chain of events, given the circumstances of the day, of such magnitude as to exhaust the capacity of the building structural system over the course of seven hours leading to the ultimate collapse of WTC 7. As discussed herein, the claimed “defects” featured in plaintiffs’ experts’ reports are not defects at all. And none of the changes advocated by plaintiffs’ experts would have prevented the collapse." Hulsey dismisses this due to temperatures he claimed never occurred, which is quite remiss, since he didn't do proper fire modelling in the first place. The point here, which I have already stated is that none of the 3 analyses can be fundamentally accurate, since there is too much unknown about the state of the building relating to the internal damage.
Let's see if the FOOLS who actually believe in the 9-11-01 government lies can de-bunk this video of WTC #7 being brought down with demolition explosives. Indisputable Evidence for Controlled Demolition - WTC Building #7
In terms of "what now?", @Scott ignores this reply, then proceeds to ramp up this complete lunacy to another level by dumping this off topic batshit onto the WTC1/2 demolition thread and in addition to the claim about no plane at Shankesvilke, now he's suggesting the WTC aircraft were drones. But he's not a no-planer? Work that one out!
Here's Richard Gage's latest video. 911 truth architect Richard Gage unloads irrefutable evidence of Building 7 controlled demolition https://www.brighteon.com/c2bd5470-9e4f-428c-9f67-465c7ad4ce29 The title says it's about building 7 but he also talks about the towers so I don't consider this to be off-topic. Here's his website. https://richardgage911.org/
That's a big word "irrefutable", can you summarize all the new evidence he's got? Everything so far has been refuted whether you agree with it or understand it. So unless he's suddenly got more than what has previously been seen, all you are doing is spamming repetitious garbage.
It’s just a troofer being interviewed by another head bobbing troofer … nothing new at all so don’t bother.
Please post a link to all the papers written by credentialed experts who have refuted "everything". Posts or articles by members of Metabunk or anonymously written work will be ignored. Thank you.
Correct, the overwhelming evidence has been presented before. Anyone who has been paying attention should be aware of the facts. It has nothing to do with your invented insulting labels for any expert who presents the facts and science proving the controlled demolition of WTC7 (in this case).
there are no facts or science proving the controlled demolition of WTC 7 … just wishful thinking on your part … you’re being conned Bob
Can you explain in what world or what kind of mentality would anyone be wishfully thinking the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 were controlled demolitions? I can easily explain why someone would be wishfully thinking (and hoping and praying) that the official 9/11 fairy tale was 100% reality. Reality is not a con. An impossible fairy tale concocted for the gullible to win the support for a murderous, racketeering objective would be an actual con (to put it mildly).
Stop dodging the point. You need to rationally explain how a 330 ft x 140 ft can possibly have ALL it supporting structure globally fail such that the building 1) freefalls 2) falls virtually straight down Exactly the method in most demolitions. No one on the planet has yet heard a 'rational' alternative explanation for this phenomena from debunkers.
you guys should get together and write a book. You know, blow this wide open. It has Pulitzer written all over it. but you can’t and you won’t because your just spouting troofer nonsense. Just like Gage, Chandler and all the other loons.
It's not overwhelming and he was clearly referring to the video. Please stop taking quotes out of context. You are most certainly not the spokesperson for "anyone" and your version of facts has an proper explanation orders of magnitude less complicated and impossible. You do the same with people who refute your claims and once again in the same short paragraph you mention your version of "facts".
