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

[Fledermaus]

This response is juvenile. You didn't even make an attempt to counterpoint. Why? Because you can't. It's checkmate.

What is juvenile is your inability to provide EVIDENCE to back up your nonsense.

And your inability to read.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The nose cone? Why would you expect to see something that would obviously get destroyed on it's way through? As for "other clear plane debris", well here ya go:

Boeing "primer green" all over the place.



You've been shown many times before that the lower 2 levels were open space with ordinary gypsum partition walls. Truthers lie and say that it had to punch through multiple masonry walls.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'The C-Ring Punch-Out Hole Was Made by a Warhead'

Your own picture here proves you wrong... You can clearly see 2 layers of brick, and a layer of concrete. Unless you are saying that brick = gypsum.

 

[Fledermaus]

Your own picture here proves you wrong... You can clearly see 2 layers of brick, and a layer of concrete. Unless you are saying that brick = gypsum.

So... If YOU are correct, how does this support YOUR fantasy?

 

[505]

The photo below was taken after impact, but before a good portion of that side caved in from some other explosion. If that hole is the exit for the landing gear, then where is the entrance hole that the plane made? That is the only hole at the time this pic was taken. The landing gear is not visible anywhere.

View attachment 67172930

Christ. Let me go over this R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-W for you since you obviously don't have a clue here.

This photo, that you posted in post #763, that you say is "about 10 feet", is the exit (or punch out) hole:

That is the same hole as this one:

The ENTRY HOLE, the one you just posted in post #796, is THIS ONE:

26 feet tall in the middle and 141 feet across.

Comprende? The ENTRY HOLE is NOT "10 feet". It is 26' x 141'. Or in other words, a plane TOTALLY fits. :roll:

That looks like open space with ordinary gypsum partition walls to you?

WTF is your deal? Can you see inside the building to see the open space and the partition walls in this particular photo? No. You can not. That is obviously a brick wall that separates the E through C structure from the drive that runs between C ring and B ring. If you had bothered to click on the provided link (that you even quoted), you would see the layout drawings that prove what I am saying about the bottom 2 stories being open from the outer facade (entry) to the C ring (exit) brick wall.

The point is that bman's puke truther sources say crap like "the plane had to punch through 6 individual masonry walls equaling 18 feet of reinforced concrete", when the REALITY is that it only had to go through the outer facade wall and then through the masonry wall shown in the punch out photo. Completely feasible for the heavier parts of the plane when it was traveling at the measured and observed speed.

Way to ignore all the obvious green-primered aircraft debris in the photo too.

"9/11 truth - Missing the forest for the trees since 2006"

 

[Fledermaus]

Christ. Let me go over this R-E-A-L-L-Y S-L-O-W for you since you obviously don't have a clue here.

This photo, that you posted in post #763, that you say is "about 10 feet", is the exit (or punch out) hole:

That is the same hole as this one:

The ENTRY HOLE, the one you just posted in post #796, is THIS ONE:

26 feet tall in the middle and 141 feet across.

Comprende? The ENTRY HOLE is NOT "10 feet". It is 26' x 141'. Or in other words, a plane TOTALLY fits. :roll:



WTF is your deal? Can you see inside the building to see the open space and the partition walls in this particular photo? No. You can not. That is obviously a brick wall that separates the E through C structure from the drive that runs between C ring and B ring. If you had bothered to click on the provided link (that you even quoted), you would see the layout drawings that prove what I am saying about the bottom 2 stories being open from the outer facade (entry) to the C ring (exit) brick wall.

The point is that bman's puke truther sources say crap like "the plane had to punch through 6 individual masonry walls equaling 18 feet of reinforced concrete", when the REALITY is that it only had to go through the outer facade wall and then through the masonry wall shown in the punch out photo. Completely feasible for the heavier parts of the plane when it was traveling at the measured and observed speed.

Way to ignore all the obvious green-primered aircraft debris in the photo too.

"9/11 truth - Missing the forest for the trees since 2006"

To be fair Bman did not make the false claim "the plane had to punch through 6 individual masonry walls equaling 18 feet of reinforced concrete" in THIS thread. I do not know if he has done so in the past.

What I want to know is how this fits in to his overall fantasy about what happened on 9/11.

 

[Thoreau72]

:lamo

NO airliner has huh? Well wtf is this then HD?

Exact. Same. Fairings.

Quit spreading bs lies that have been shredded to pieces here for years. Your p4t "modified aircraft" garbage is ridiculous.

No sir, they are NOT the exact same fairings. Those are the standard fairings at wing root and landing gear you depict.

The pictures of the airplane at WTC had those, plus others. And from the shape of those other fairings, it suggested exterior plumbing fairings to me. It could only special purpose it was so big, and there were 2 dozen Boeing 767 modified to compete in the Air Tanker program to replace the KC-10 and KC-135 fleets back in the 90's.

 

[Thoreau72]

BMan

That exit hole is a hoot, isn't it? :lamo

They have an egg shell penetrating through several rings and then leaving an exit hole. Script writers with fertile imaginations and no knowledge of aircraft engineering.

 

[Fledermaus]

BMan

That exit hole is a hoot, isn't it? :lamo

They have an egg shell penetrating through several rings and then leaving an exit hole. Script writers with fertile imaginations and no knowledge of aircraft engineering.

Intentional ignorance is an ugly thing.

A REAL pilot instructor (and everyone that understands aircraft engineering.) would know heavier components travel further in an aircraft incident.

Like those components found and the C-ring....

 

[Fledermaus]

No sir, they are NOT the exact same fairings. Those are the standard fairings at wing root and landing gear you depict.

The pictures of the airplane at WTC had those, plus others. And from the shape of those other fairings, it suggested exterior plumbing fairings to me. It could only special purpose it was so big, and there were 2 dozen Boeing 767 modified to compete in the Air Tanker program to replace the KC-10 and KC-135 fleets back in the 90's.

Ah, the 767 tanker nonsense....

WHEN WERE THE 767 TANKERS CREATED?

 

[Thoreau72]

Found by Leprechauns were they? :mrgreen:

 

[505]

To be fair Bman did not make the false claim "the plane had to punch through 6 individual masonry walls equaling 18 feet of reinforced concrete" in THIS thread. I do not know if he has done so in the past.

What I want to know is how this fits in to his overall fantasy about what happened on 9/11.

He said:

And that hole was from the energy left over after puncturing through every other wall before it.

He's used those sources before that claim there were 6 individual masonry walls separating each ring, and he has a nasty habit of going back to long ago shredded arguments here. I know what he was inferring, even though you are correct that he didn't specifically make that claim here in THIS thread. Just look at how dishonest he is. He KNOWS what I am talking about in regards to the partition walls in the E through C ring structure, yet he plays dumb and makes the comment about the C ring punch out wall "not being gypsum".

Infuriating. I can't tell if it is genuine stupidity or just straight up trolling, but either way, I don't know why I even bother with these dips***s that couldn't buy a clue between the lot of 'em anymore. They are either too stupid to learn/comprehend or just not interested in reality.

 

[505]

No sir, they are NOT the exact same fairings. Those are the standard fairings at wing root and landing gear you depict.

The pictures of the airplane at WTC had those, plus others.

Prove it.

And from the shape of those other fairings, it suggested exterior plumbing fairings to me. It could only special purpose it was so big, and there were 2 dozen Boeing 767 modified to compete in the Air Tanker program to replace the KC-10 and KC-135 fleets back in the 90's.

Prove it.

 

[505]

See what I mean maus?...

They have an egg shell penetrating through several rings and then leaving an exit hole.

E through C ring was one structure for the first 2 floors. It didn't have to penetrate SEVERAL RINGS.

Furthermore, a airliner isn't an EGG SHELL. Unless you think landing gear and engines and keel beams and many other parts are EGG SHELLS. :lamo And to follow such a dumbass statement up with THIS?...

Script writers with fertile imaginations and no knowledge of aircraft engineering.

Yeah. Go fly that "eggshell" and brag some more about your "aircraft engineering knowledge" HD. Haha. Amazing.

 

[Thoreau72]

Prove it.



Prove it.

I've seen the pictures 505, and analyzed them with other pilots. Why do I have to prove it to you? It happened 13 years ago. Other pilots and I were analyzing them 10 years ago. They existed, but you're in denial. Who cares? I don't.

 

[Thoreau72]

See what I mean maus?...



E through C ring was one structure for the first 2 floors. It didn't have to penetrate SEVERAL RINGS.

Furthermore, a airliner isn't an EGG SHELL. Unless you think landing gear and engines and keel beams and many other parts are EGG SHELLS. :lamo And to follow such a dumbass statement up with THIS?...



Yeah. Go fly that "eggshell" and brag some more about your "aircraft engineering knowledge" HD. Haha. Amazing.

Whatever, 404, whatever dimensions you want to assign to the rings, how many of those rings were penetrated by the mythical Boeing, and whatever else you would like to include in your fantasy is fine by me.

It' just a story. The FDR data supplied by the NTSB, 5 years after the fact, was fraudulent, unassigned to an airframe. Meant for public consumption, but that's about all.

Please, embrace your illusion, but don't expect me to buy into such nonsense. eace

 

[505]

I've seen the pictures 505, and analyzed them with other pilots. Why do I have to prove it to you? It happened 13 years ago. Other pilots and I were analyzing them 10 years ago. They existed, but you're in denial. Who cares? I don't.

Translation: I just got owned and can't ever back up anything I claim.

I accept your admission that you have no proof and will humbly take the victory. Thanks for playing.

 

[505]

Whatever, 404, whatever dimensions you want to assign to the rings, how many of those rings were penetrated by the mythical Boeing, and whatever else you would like to include in your fantasy is fine by me.

It' just a story. The FDR data supplied by the NTSB, 5 years after the fact, was fraudulent, unassigned to an airframe. Meant for public consumption, but that's about all.

Please, embrace your illusion, but don't expect me to buy into such nonsense. eace

Again, I accept your admission of defeat in this case and we can move along. Just don't forget to wipe that eggshell off your face.

lol. Eggshell. Get it?

 

[NWO_Spook]

lets see, 50 times the tritium as the surrounding area measured by the U.S. Department of Energy, after being diluted by 30,000,000 gallons of water, not counting what went into the dust or was destroyed by the ongoing heat along with that huge hole blown into the bed rock, the cement floors turned to sub-micron dust, the EMP that disrupted the highest quality cameras, people that were not exposed to fire but their skin was hanging and falling off their faces, people with all the symptoms of a nuclear event, now cancers, worse its appropriately named ground zero, and debunkers cant find any evidence what so ever of a nuclear event.
<snip mindless rant omitted snip>.

Sub-Micron dust and EMP's disrupting cameras? Ground Zero was named for it was a nuclear event? Do you ever read your own tripe?

Now, pleased focus on providing actual evidence for the use of a mini-nuke, not your usual assumptions and poorly developed extrapolations. Where are the medical reports linking the cancers to exposure to nuclear radiation? For I can't find a paper to confirm your claims, and let's face, the insane claims of a mini-nuke by cranks on the internet mean absolutely nothing until a medical report can be produced to support such an obviously moronic belief. Come on, if you want people to believe this stuff, you'll have to put some effort into proving your point. Ranting and raving do nothing to persuade anybody that your story is credible.

 

[NWO_Spook]

You say "hardly, in light of the competition"...by which you mean to say that you are very much in your league on this subject. If this were true, you would know that a grip of ground zero workers have been dying of all types of cancer. This information is widespread, readily available common knowledge; it isn't a "claim" of my own.

I was questioning the claim of your numbers, not the fact that some had the disease. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

How do you expect to debate on the controversial issues when you don't possess even the most basic uncontroversial knowledge that you could easily google? I'm not going to waste the 10 seconds it takes to go google it for you. My patience is thin, and I prefer not to debate with someone who knows so little and is too lazy to do anything about it.

Ok, so you have no academic background and are completely oblivious to the common courtesy of substantiating claims made in the debate arena.

You are definitely out of your league here.

One could state the same for you, however, I don't resort to such childishness.

 

[NWO_Spook]

This information is common knowledge that is uncontroversial and readily available to anybody who is willing to spend 10 seconds to google it. How do you expect to debate the more controversial aspects if you are this clueless about the widely known and accepted information? Yes, you are definitely out of your league if you don't know that ground zero workers are dying from all types of cancers, but mostly thyroid.

I never said that. What is wrong with you? I was questioning the numbers.

It's not my claim. It's news. But since you want to come and debate issues that you don't even know the first thing about, and are too lazy to spend 10 seconds to google it, I did it for you.

2,500 Ground Zero workers have cancer | New York Post

Thank you for supporting your claim, after all, it is merely common courtesy. Ok, I agree with your initial claim and thank you for your efforts. Now, have you the medical report that links these cancers to exposure to nuclear radiation of the kind that is residual after a nuclear explosion? For I cannot find anything credible to support the contention being posited here.

 

[sKiTzo]

QUESTION: Mayor, do you know anything about the report about the possible resources that they found in New Jersey?

GIULIANI: Yes. I think the Police Commissioner was able to get information about that.

BERNARD KERIK, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: I just got a confirmation from the Chief of Detectives, he's reach out to the FBI. They have confirmed that someone has been stopped in New Jersey, three men in a van. However, there was no explosives in the van. All right. They're being held for questioning.

QUESTION: Where in New Jersey, do you know?

KERIK: I can't say yet.

QUESTION: OK.

QUESTION: Why were they stopped and why do you think they're connected with this?

GIULIANI: We can't tell at this point. It's between the FBI and the Port Authority. We just got the confirmation by phone after I left the last briefing.

QUESTION: Were they on the George Washington Bridge as they were heading to New Jersey?

GIULIANI: No, they weren't.

QUESTION: Were they in the Meadow Land?

QUESTION: There were rumors that there were explosives, where did those rumors come from or why did that begin to circulate?

KERIK: I can't tell you.

QUESTION: Were they in the Meadow Land, Police Commissioner?

KERIK: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Were they in the Meadow Land?

KERIK: It's my understanding, but I -- we haven't confirmed that.

QUESTION: Do we know why they were stopped?
KERIK: Not yet.
CNN.com - Transcripts

__

He doesn't seem to know much, does he? Scroll to 1:40 in the video below. Pay attention to what Mr. Kerik is saying. He is declaring all of lower Manhatten from 16th street on south off limits through the following day. If you are in that area for any reason, you will be subject to arrest. Only emergency vehicles will be allowed into that area. He doesn't mention why, though , does he? That's because he doesn't want to tell you that Israeli scumbags detonated one of their Urban Systems exploding vans there, and they don't want anybody around while they clean up and destroy the evidence left by our "dearest allies".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVhBXFly-jM

 

[NWO_Spook]

What you erroneously perceive as "my opinion" is in fact an irrefutable synopsis proving 100% that any retractions with regard to the Israeli truck bombs are not possible to make and still have their integrity intact. I don't expect you to really get what I said as it is complicated and involves advanced problem-solving skills. My ingenious forensic analysis of their wording when they made the initial reports is nothing less than brilliant. I don't know if there is anyone else in the world that was able to catch their mistake and nail them to the cross with it, like I have.

I simply applied the rules of the English language with semantics to prove that any retractions would be impossible. Let's take a closer look. I've already explained this but I'm going to go over it again slowly, so that even you can understand. When these initial reports were made, they gave up too much information to allow for any retractions. The statement that there were "enough explosives to do great damage to the GW bridge", and also "they found tons of explosives" are detailed observations that can only be made by someone who has physically seen them, which is why a detailed observation pretty much cements the words. The vagueness has to remain intact in order for a retraction to be made.

For example, if you say "there were explosives in the van", you can later say "there were no explosives in the van, it was just a rumor". But, if you say "there were this many explosives", you have now given a detailed observation. You have said too much and the window for retraction is no longer there.

Does anybody here actually understand what I've just explained, and how it shows that if any retractions were made, they're lying?

I love how you label your opinion as an irrefutable synopsis. Your assumption is erroneuous, in that that possibility of it being a Chinese whisper was not addressed with any efficiency.

At 1:15 in the video, FDNY confirms gag order - At 1:42 "The REAL stories you want, I just can't give you; we're gagged" - At 4:42 "I wanna give it to you but I wanna work here next week and the week after"

Obviously, if it existed it didn't last as many fire-fighters have commented since. I have read reams of fire-fighter testimony that refutes this 'gag order'. Would you like a link?

Nist did not complete the investigation - this is not my "opinion". If you have information that this is not true, post it.

I was referring to your use of adjectives in creating the rhetoric in your original claim. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the aim of the NIST report. NIST completed the investigation according to their objectives stated and if you don't find that sufficient, that is your opinion.

Exit hole? That's interesting. You mean a plane or missile came out of the pentagon?

Something did emerge from the inside of the outer ring. We've all seen the picture. Surely you know this? After all, you keep telling me I'm out of my league.

We've all seen the circular hole about 10 feet in diameter and the wall still intact, then the later pic with the wall crumbled. The initial hole was either a missile, or a looney toons plane.

What this one?

It's self-explanatory. Where's the jumbo jet?

It wasn't a Jumbo Jet, it was a Boeing 757. And I'm not re-addressing this long debunked canard in that the onus is on you as burden of proof to demonstrate there was no plane.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The nose cone? Why would you expect to see something that would obviously get destroyed on it's way through? As for "other clear plane debris", well here ya go:

Boeing "primer green" all over the place.



You've been shown many times before that the lower 2 levels were open space with ordinary gypsum partition walls. Truthers lie and say that it had to punch through multiple masonry walls.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'The C-Ring Punch-Out Hole Was Made by a Warhead'

I dont see any plane parts




looks more like military toilets to me, got any proof?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Something did emerge from the inside of the outer ring. We've all seen the picture. Surely you know this? After all, you keep telling me I'm out of my league.

yes several debunker fantasies emerged

 

[NWO_Spook]

You couldn't dumb it down anymore. It's dumb enough as it is. What we have here is a classic example of a faither who is always accusing others of not sourcing the claim, submitting a virtual shopping list of claims and sourcing every one of them from his own head.

Are you saying you're are oblivious to these theories? Really? Did I need to source these claims as they have surfaced on here and truther sites repeatedly? Obviously you are out of your league.

You saying "no evidence" is not a valid source. This is what faithers are forced to do when there are no legitimate sources to back their view, and again, that's exactly what this shows.

No, I'm saying there is no evidence because there is no evidence. It is that simple.