• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

911 WTC 7, Silent, Thermate, Controlled Demolition Confirmed! [W:688,1372]

KokomoJojo

KokomoJojo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 17, 2014
Messages
7,544
Reaction score
1,503
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let the sobbing begin and tears start to roll!

13 years of debunker bs and misinformation.
13 years of official felching.
Finally comes to a definitive conclusion.


ITS CONFIRMED WTC 7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!


Over whelming preponderance of evidence along with expert testimony from the late 30 year demolition veteran the world can see the perfectly timed demolition sequence, the thermate cutter patents released earlier that year designed specifically for cutting very thick material very fast and the precise demolition sequence used to pull building 7.

Debunkers deny the existence of exothermic cutters.

















​


What is claimed is: 1. An apparatus for cutting a target material having a surface to be cut comprising:

cutting flame generating means disposed within said inner cavity;

activating means operatively associated with said cutting flame generating means to generate a cutting flame to cut said target material; and

wherein said apparatus is structured to be positioned a standoff distance from said surface of said target material when said apparatus is placed on said surface of said target material.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said cutting flame generating means has a thermite charge.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said thermite charge includes a powder comprising, by weight, about 15% to 20% aluminum, about 78% to 85% CuO, about 1% to 3% SiC, and about 0.2% to 4.0% nitrocellulose.

4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein said thermite charge includes parts, by weight, about 16% to 18% aluminum, about 80% to 83% CuO, about 1% to 2% SiC, and about 0.5% to 2% nitrocellulose.

5. The apparatus of claim 1, further including a directional foil positioned in said elongated nozzle for focusing said cutting flame against said target material.


​

6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said inner cavity defines a generally cylindrical volume.

12. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said inner cavity defines a predetermined volume to accommodate a sufficient amount of said cutting flame generating means to ensure effective cutting action on a particular thickness of target material.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein said positioning said cutting flame generating means includes placing a thermite charge in a charge tube and positioning said charge tube in said inner cavity of said housing.

25. An apparatus for cutting a target material having a surface to be cut comprising:
a second housing having a nozzle channel positionable opposite to said nozzle channel of said first housing to permit cutting of said material in two directions, said second housing being connected to said first housing; and
wherein said connection between said housings comprises a fixed connection and a pivotal connection between said housings.

29. The apparatus of claim 20, further including means disposed in said housing for electrically activating said cutting flame generating means.


read it and weep debunkers, time to find a new line of work!
 
Last edited:
RogueWarrior said:
And many more experts disagree with his opinion.
Click to expand...

Your so called experts did not rule out thermate cutters, therefore they cant be experts. No expert would **** up that bad.

If one has ruled them out show us where it is addressed by one of your so called experts.
 
KokomoJojo said:
Your so called experts did not rule out thermate cutters, therefore they cant be experts. No expert would **** up that bad.

If one has ruled them out show us where it is addressed by one of your so called experts.
Click to expand...

Not going to feed the merry-go-round quarters. There has been plenty of posts in other threads about this and other forms of CD hypotheses.
Use the SEARCH function.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Not going to feed the merry-go-round quarters. There has been plenty of posts in other threads about this and other forms of CD hypotheses.
Use the SEARCH function.
Click to expand...

Great way to start a thread by coming on 'strong' with a lame DODGE!
 
Bob0627 said:
These experts are fully versed on thermite, thermate and nano-thermite:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

... but they didn't touch the subject when it came to "investigating" the collapses.
Click to expand...


Thanks!

Shyam Sunder DID say it is the first building to collapse due to fire!

What is claimed is: 1. An apparatus for cutting a target material having a surface to be cut comprising:

cutting flame generating means disposed within said inner cavity;

activating means operatively associated with said cutting flame generating means to generate a cutting flame to cut said target material; and
Click to expand...

He did say fire, of course he also deceptively leads us to believe its an ordinary naturally aspirated fired as seen from the windows, not a high pressure near super sonic flame cutter. How about that?
 
Whatever implicates the government is what I believe.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Any dodge, if it is even one, is better than starting a thread's argument with a faulty premise and/or a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

thats why this thread is tight, yes it is a dodge.
 
The gif has terrible grammar; it must be a joke.
 
ecofarm said:
The gif has terrible grammar; it must be a joke.
Click to expand...

Danish to English is not a direct translation, maybe it would help if you studied Danish?
 
So your claim is these devices exist, therefore 7 World Trade Center was a CD.

:screwy

A finer case of Underpants Gnomes logic it would be difficult to find.
 
Last edited:
KokomoJojo said:
Thanks!

Shyam Sunder DID say it is the first building to collapse due to fire!



He did say fire, of course he also deceptively leads us to believe its an ordinary naturally aspirated fired as seen from the windows, not a high pressure near super sonic flame cutter. How about that?
Click to expand...

Sunder said many things:

"We've had trouble getting a handle on building #7"

"The answer stares us in the face"

“(NIST) has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse”

“(A) free fall time would be ... an object that has no structural components below it"
 
KokomoJojo said:
Thanks!

Shyam Sunder DID say it is the first building to collapse due to fire!
Click to expand...

No he didn't and you damn well know it! :naughty

The very idea is so ridiculous it is proof positive you are not serious and don't actually believe what you say.
 
Mark F said:
So your claim is these devices exist, therefore 7 World Trade Center was a CD.

:screwy

A finer case of Underpants Gnomes logic it would be difficult to find.
Click to expand...

so now we get to see underpants logic that says they dont exist?

something as simple as a pipe with 2 end caps and a slot that can be made in your back yard?
 
Mark F said:
No he didn't and you damn well know it! :naughty

The very idea is so ridiculous it is proof positive you are not serious and don't actually believe what you say.
Click to expand...

Yes he did and you damn well know it Mark.

cant you receive the youtube clips of him in Q&A?

The National Institute of Standards and Technology found that the 47-story building, which stood right next to towers 1 and 2, caught fire due to the debris that flew into it after the planes struck. It eventually fell after seven hours due to instability caused by the fire, not by explosives as some conspiracy theorists have claimed.

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,'' said lead investigator Shyam Sunder.

"Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down,'' he said.

He said it was caused by fire mark.

He isnt lying either because thermite cutter charges are cutting torches and they cause a cutting flame that slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

Here you go mark listen to him say it for yourself




NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

For Immediate Release: August 21, 2008

Contact: Michael E. Newman

Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
 
Last edited:
Bob0627 said:
Sunder said many things:

"We've had trouble getting a handle on building #7"

"The answer stares us in the face"

“(NIST) has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse”

“(A) free fall time would be ... an object that has no structural components below it"
Click to expand...


yeh the whole investigation is not too much more than deception by sleight of word, (syntax terrorism) much the same approach debunkers defend the Official Story with.

High explosives is a specific classification, and thermetic cutting torches do not fall within that category. People are accustomed to the use of rdx for demolition not high speed flame cutters. Not too much more than a play on the general publics ignorance of demolition technique and Danny Jowenko took one look at it and said this is a professional job, these guys knew exactly what they were doing, this is a controlled demolition, absolutely, that he would do it for 1 million, that the wtc7 could be taken down fast and easy.



Hell its right on the NIST site. There it it. Sort of paints debunkers with all their crazy logic and lack of reason in a pretty fraudulent light.
 
Mark F said:
No he didn't and you damn well know it! :naughty

The very idea is so ridiculous it is proof positive you are not serious and don't actually believe what you say.
Click to expand...

The above is proof positive that you deny the historical facts and you're not serious and don't actually believe what you say.
 
Yeh it seems these people will say anything and unless truthers and the public at large take the time to investigate every word said to its full extent to gain full in depth understanding of hundreds of professions the general public will walk away with a totally wrong impression. So while Sundar is technically correct they replace the word demolition with collapse, flame cutters with fire, then NIST used the results of their model to falsely represent the actually event in the final report that chandler busted them on, at first deny freefall that chandler again busted them on getting them to admit it in a public interview. Its no surprise Jowenko was taken out for exposing this to the world! The corporation governments public enemy number one, the peoples hero.
 
I like how the OP states this as a fact yet he puts it in the conspiracy THEORIES section of DP.

Therefor, this is not fact.

REKT
 
Bob0627 said:
The above is proof positive that you deny the historical facts and you're not serious and don't actually believe what you say.
Click to expand...

Read what Sunder said again, and/or watch the video. Then tell us exactly where he says no building has ever collapsed from fire before? Pay very careful attention now.

Do you really believe no building has ever collapsed from fire?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom