Video & Evidence There Was No Controlled Demo

Looks in a pretty bad state to me, funny how a lot of truth sites show mainly North side pictures, but looking at the south side hole, and fire.. we can see what was going on a bit clearer..

Originally posted by snoopy
No. It's absolutely not. That's damage resulting form the fire. You are being really dishonest here by trying to pretend that that is the same thing. NONE of the buildings you claim had structural damage have structural damage. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

And even if hypothetically there was a building the same size and design of the WTC that suffered the same structural damage such as being hit by a plane and still didn't collapse? It would NOT prove that it's impossible for the buildings to collapse. Just as there have been steel structures which have collapsed from fire alone. Both those points prove your claim wrong.

Examples (even though it doesn't make any difference in the issue):

The Madrid Hotel. The steel portion of the building collapsed.

The McCormick Center in Chicago

Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster

Your One Meridian Plaza is a good example in that it was on the verge of collapse from fire alone. And there are others.


I don't think there are any pictures taken that show the whole building engulfed because it happened later on. There are photos of the entire side of the building engulfed in smoke, but you know you've already seen them.

1. So your saying that structural damage caused by fire is different the structual damage caused by debris. You are going to have to explain that because structrual damage is structural damage no mattfer what casued it.

2. Please show the information or photos of the building you listed, are they steel buildings or steel and concrete ?

3. So you agree that the One Meridian Plaza builidng was a steel builidng that didnot collapse from fire and structural damage.

4. Yes their are photos of smoke on the side of building 7 not fires

Originally posted by snoopy
No. It's absolutely not. That's damage resulting form the fire. You are being really dishonest here by trying to pretend that that is the same thing. NONE of the buildings you claim had structural damage have structural damage. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

And even if hypothetically there was a building the same size and design of the WTC that suffered the same structural damage such as being hit by a plane and still didn't collapse? It would NOT prove that it's impossible for the buildings to collapse. Just as there have been steel structures which have collapsed from fire alone. Both those points prove your claim wrong.

Examples (even though it doesn't make any difference in the issue):

The Madrid Hotel. The steel portion of the building collapsed.

The McCormick Center in Chicago

Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster

Your One Meridian Plaza is a good example in that it was on the verge of collapse from fire alone. And there are others.


I don't think there are any pictures taken that show the whole building engulfed because it happened later on. There are photos of the entire side of the building engulfed in smoke, but you know you've already seen them.

1. So your saying that structural damage caused by fire is different the structual damage caused by debris. You are going to have to explain that because structrual damage is structural damage no mattfer what casued it.

2. Please show the information or photos of the building you listed, are they steel buildings or steel and concrete ?

3. So you agree that the One Meridian Plaza builidng was a steel builidng that didnot collapse from fire and structural damage.

4. Yes their are photos of smoke on the side of building 7 not fires

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So what your saying is they used "PULL" when to brought down building 6 but it does mean the same for building 7 ?

The firemen were pulled out by 3:30 the building came down around 5. So your saying that the builidng just happen to wait uintil after the phone call to come down.

I am stating the incident commander decided to PULL the building because he was afraid the building was going to fall and damage more buildings and spread more fire.

Please show me what training you have had in Emergency Incident Mangement. Becasue i have had the training. I was a Federal Police Officer for 12 years.

And do not even say anything about me accusing the firemen of being involved. Thats a tatic people try to use when they do not have enough facts to debate with.

WTC 6 was pulled. Have you not seen it? They attached cables and pulled it down to the side, just as the term in demolition means. Was WTC 7 pulled down to the side with cables?

The phone call did not come at the last minute, they had been doing it since 3pm. This is all well documented. All throughout the day they had been pulling guys out and making collapse zones and predicting the building to collapse. There was no waiting for a phone call.

The incident commander? Who is that? Daniel Nigro was the one Larry was talking to, he is the one who decided to pull it. And do you have any kind of interview with this incident commander explaining why he wanted to demolish the building? What's his name and who does he work for? How did he plant explosives in a building that was damaged and burning? How would he know what would and wouldn't be damaged from the debris and fire?

I don't care how much training you have. I am relying entirly on expert testimony so you aren't challanging me, you are challanging the firefighters and you are pretty much accusing them of being in on this plot. Don't try to pull the authority card on me, it's not going to work. I am upset that you are being dishonest with everyone here.

How can I not say you are accusing the firemen of being involved when thats Exactly what you are doing??

Originally posted by snoopy
That's right, they attached metal cables to it and "pulled" it down to the side. Now I don't recall seeing WTC 7 pulled down to the side with metal cables like WTC 6 was. Does anyone have pictures of WTC 7 being pulled down to thge side with cables?

You defend the official story of what happened to the WTC7 like it was your own son but yet you didn't even see videos of the building coming down? You ask for photo's of cables being used for the WTC7???? Had you seen videos of the WTC7 coming down you would know that there were no pulling cables.... Your question just shows exactly how much you didn't research into this.

Well here look, I will show you a video of the WTC7 collapsing identical to a controlled demolition right into it's own footprints free falling like a telescope closing on it self.







[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


1. So your saying that structural damage caused by fire is different the structual damage caused by debris. You are going to have to explain that because structrual damage is structural damage no mattfer what casued it.

2. Please show the information or photos of the building you listed, are they steel buildings or steel and concrete ?

3. So you agree that the One Meridian Plaza builidng was a steel builidng that didnot collapse from fire and structural damage.

4. Yes their are photos of smoke on the side of building 7 not fires

1. You said that those examples had much worse structural damage and much worse fires. Both of those are completely untrue. That's forgetting about your definition of structural damage. You cannot deny that the damage to those buildings in no way was remotely as extensive as the WTC. And as you asked, no it's not the same that the damage from the fires is the same as the damage from the planes or the falling debris. One is weakening damage, another is key supports being destroyed outright and before any fire damage.

2. They are all steel. You can go look them up.

3. I agree that One Meridian Plaza is a perfect example of my point. It suffered enough fire damage alone that it was no longer structurally sound. And the engineers there knew that it was due to collapse just form the fire, even if they managed to put it out.

More importantly, finding another steel building that hasn't collapsed does not prove that no steel structures can collapse. Not only do the other steel structures that have collapsed from fire alone prove you wrong here, but so do all the engineers and scientists who all disagre with you.

4. Where do you think the smoke comes from? And this is you just trying to avoid the testimony from all the firefighters PROVING there was extensive fires and damage. Or are you saying the firefighters are lying?

Originally posted by snoopy
WTC 6 was pulled. Have you not seen it? They attached cables and pulled it down to the side, just as the term in demolition means. Was WTC 7 pulled down to the side with cables?

The phone call did not come at the last minute, they had been doing it since 3pm. This is all well documented. All throughout the day they had been pulling guys out and making collapse zones and predicting the building to collapse. There was no waiting for a phone call.

The incident commander? Who is that? Daniel Nigro was the one Larry was talking to, he is the one who decided to pull it. And do you have any kind of interview with this incident commander explaining why he wanted to demolish the building? What's his name and who does he work for? How did he plant explosives in a building that was damaged and burning? How would he know what would and wouldn't be damaged from the debris and fire?

I don't care how much training you have. I am relying entirly on expert testimony so you aren't challanging me, you are challanging the firefighters and you are pretty much accusing them of being in on this plot. Don't try to pull the authority card on me, it's not going to work. I am upset that you are being dishonest with everyone here.

How can I not say you are accusing the firemen of being involved when thats Exactly what you are doing??

1. Yes i have seen the video of builidng 6 being PULLED. So in this case PULL means to bring a building down. So again your saying that PULL menas 1 thing for building 6 but something else for builidng 7.

2. Please show me a time on when the phone call was made. And if your saying that the fire commander left his people in the buidling to go make the call ?

3. Well whoever was the fire commander at the time the call was made. Thge police department do not have a commander so it was the fire department commader that became the incident commander.

4. Well i happen to have the education and experience in Emergency Incident. So i would say that gives me a little more knowledge about what goes on in an emergeny incident.

5. I stated the incident commander decided to pull the building. Which is what was stated in the conversation to Silverstein.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
Looks in a pretty bad state to me, funny how a lot of truth sites show mainly North side pictures, but looking at the south side hole, and fire.. we can see what was going on a bit clearer..

Did you ever build a fire in your life?

You would know that it doesn't take a lot of fire to create a lot of smoke.

A 2 meter high fire can cause smoke big enough and high enough that you can see it several miles away, I know because I live in the country and people burn materials some times in their backyards.

The pictures of the size of the fire is consistent with the massive smoke that comes out of the WTC7, it doesn't mean that the fire was as huge as the smoke makes it out to be.

The only pictures of fires that I've seen of the WTC7 are the only fires that was visible around the buildings and consistent with the smoke it emitted.

Most definitely not big enough to bring down a building onto it's own footprint and ignoring the laws of physics in the process.

[edit on 17-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless


Laughable.

You defend the official story of what happened to the WTC7 like it was your own son but yet you didn't even see videos of the building coming down? You ask for photo's of cables being used for the WTC7???? Had you seen videos of the WTC7 coming down you would know that there were no pulling cables.... Your question just shows exactly how much you didn't research into this.

Well here look, I will show you a video of the WTC7 collapsing identical to a controlled demolition right into it's own footprints free falling like a telescope closing on it self.

What official story am I defending? Can you provide a link? Right now all I have defended is the firefighters. Are you saying the firefighters are all lying? Are you saying the firefighters don't know anything about fires?

And thank you for verifying that there were no cables pulling down the WTC 7. That was my point. Hence it was not "pulled". And as for your insult about my research, do you realize you just put your foot in your mouth?

Once again in regards to your analysis of the video you present/ What is your expertise in demolition? Are you a demolition expert? Because all the demolition experts who have seen the footage and the ones who were 100s of feet away watching it collapse say they can see no signs of a controlled demolition. So you must have some kind of expertise that the demolition experts lack. Please share those credentials with us. Otherwise we might think you are just someone on the internet who doesn't know any better and thinks because two things look similar to his untrained eyes that they are the same.

I have to question your expertise because the think most certainly did not telescope, and it most certainly didn't all into its own footprint. You also don't show the WTC 7 from the beginning of the collapse, you show it half way through.

Just do a freakin google search. To 'Pull' down a building is a common term to demolish a building, using cables or not...This argument is getting tiring...

5000+ results for 'pulled down a building'

199.175.219.1...

www.kancoll.org...

To pull is an industry term, and just common sense used in the context that it was.

Originally posted by snoopy
[1. You said that those examples had much worse structural damage and much worse fires. Both of those are completely untrue. That's forgetting about your definition of structural damage. You cannot deny that the damage to those buildings in no way was remotely as extensive as the WTC. And as you asked, no it's not the same that the damage from the fires is the same as the damage from the planes or the falling debris. One is weakening damage, another is key supports being destroyed outright and before any fire damage.

2. They are all steel. You can go look them up.

3. I agree that One Meridian Plaza is a perfect example of my point. It suffered enough fire damage alone that it was no longer structurally sound. And the engineers there knew that it was due to collapse just form the fire, even if they managed to put it out.

More importantly, finding another steel building that hasn't collapsed does not prove that no steel structures can collapse. Not only do the other steel structures that have collapsed from fire alone prove you wrong here, but so do all the engineers and scientists who all disagre with you.

4. Where do you think the smoke comes from? And this is you just trying to avoid the testimony from all the firefighters PROVING there was extensive fires and damage. Or are you saying the firefighters are lying?

1. As stated the building i posted had longer lasting fires and suffered structural damage and did not collapse. Just like building 5 and 6 at the WTC they had worse structurla damage and fires but di dnot collapse.

2. Please show me the infomration on the buildings you posted and if they collapsed from the fire or were brought down afterwards like building 6.

3. Yes, the One Meridian Plaza builidng did not collaspe from fires or structural damage. Which has been my point.

4. IT WAS SMOKE NOT FIRE. SHOW ME THIS BIG INFERNO OR COMPLETELY INVOLVED FIRE AT BUILDING 7 YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT.

Originally posted by snoopy
[1. You said that those examples had much worse structural damage and much worse fires. Both of those are completely untrue. That's forgetting about your definition of structural damage. You cannot deny that the damage to those buildings in no way was remotely as extensive as the WTC. And as you asked, no it's not the same that the damage from the fires is the same as the damage from the planes or the falling debris. One is weakening damage, another is key supports being destroyed outright and before any fire damage.

2. They are all steel. You can go look them up.

3. I agree that One Meridian Plaza is a perfect example of my point. It suffered enough fire damage alone that it was no longer structurally sound. And the engineers there knew that it was due to collapse just form the fire, even if they managed to put it out.

More importantly, finding another steel building that hasn't collapsed does not prove that no steel structures can collapse. Not only do the other steel structures that have collapsed from fire alone prove you wrong here, but so do all the engineers and scientists who all disagre with you.

4. Where do you think the smoke comes from? And this is you just trying to avoid the testimony from all the firefighters PROVING there was extensive fires and damage. Or are you saying the firefighters are lying?

1. As stated the building i posted had longer lasting fires and suffered structural damage and did not collapse. Just like building 5 and 6 at the WTC they had worse structurla damage and fires but di dnot collapse.

2. Please show me the infomration on the buildings you posted and if they collapsed from the fire or were brought down afterwards like building 6.

3. Yes, the One Meridian Plaza builidng did not collaspe from fires or structural damage. Which has been my point.

4. IT WAS SMOKE NOT FIRE. SHOW ME THIS BIG INFERNO OR COMPLETELY INVOLVED FIRE AT BUILDING 7 YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


1. Yes i have seen the video of builidng 6 being PULLED. So in this case PULL means to bring a building down. So again your saying that PULL menas 1 thing for building 6 but something else for builidng 7.

2. Please show me a time on when the phone call was made. And if your saying that the fire commander left his people in the buidling to go make the call ?

3. Well whoever was the fire commander at the time the call was made. Thge police department do not have a commander so it was the fire department commader that became the incident commander.

4. Well i happen to have the education and experience in Emergency Incident. So i would say that gives me a little more knowledge about what goes on in an emergeny incident.

5. I stated the incident commander decided to pull the building. Which is what was stated in the conversation to Silverstein.

1. No no no no. Pull it in demolition terms means to pull a building to the side with cables. Pull it in firefighting terms means to get people or things out of the collapse zone. So you are saying that firefighters were demolishing a building, using the wrong terminology? And that they were part of a plot to kill their own people for an insurance scam? Really? Again, do you see cables attached to WTC 7 like there were on WTC 6? It sounds like YOU are the one claiming it means one thing for one building and another for the other building.

2. There weren't people in the building at that point. They wanted to get everyone and everything out of the collapse zone. That means people doing rescue work in the surrounding areas looking for people, had to get out of there. I think the call he made was around 5ish.

3. Daniel Nigro was the one in charge at the time, and the one who was on the phone with Larry. So you are saying that he is part of this inside job and was part of killing firefighters? How is this not accusing the FDNY of being involved?

4. Apparently not. Sounds like you are just trying to bully your way out of an argument. But again, it;s not me you are challenging, it's the firefighters as I am simply going by them, not my opinion.

5. So you are accusing the FDNY of being part of this conspiracy. You're claiming the FDNY was involved in killing its own people to help with some insurance scam and plot to kill americans. Forgive me, but these are some pretty offensive accusations.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. As stated the building i posted had longer lasting fires and suffered structural damage and did not collapse. Just like building 5 and 6 at the WTC they had worse structurla damage and fires but di dnot collapse.

2. Please show me the infomration on the buildings you posted and if they collapsed from the fire or were brought down afterwards like building 6.

3. Yes, the One Meridian Plaza builidng did not collaspe from fires or structural damage. Which has been my point.

4. IT WAS SMOKE NOT FIRE. SHOW ME THIS BIG INFERNO OR COMPLETELY INVOLVED FIRE AT BUILDING 7 YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT.

1. You stated they suffered greater fires and greater structural damage. both untrue. And none had suffered structural damage prior, you're simply trying to stretch the truth of the word structural, which even with that stretch is not really true. WCT 5 and WTC 6 were different building designs and were pretty much destroyed as well. They just weren't as tall or the same design. And more importantly you are trying to claim that no steel structures can collapse from fire and structural damage. Another false claim.

2. Just do a search of each building name. I am not going to go do the work for you, and copy paste it all into the forum to waste space. Just put the names in google. If you think I am lying, then that will prove it, will it not?

3. One Meridian did NOT suffer structural damage.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." - FEMA report. Thus proving MY point.

4. Once again, are you saying that unless it's caught on film it doesn't exist? And are you saying the firefighters are lying? Please actually ANSWER this question.

Originally posted by snoopy

What official story am I defending? Can you provide a link?

You got to be kidding... everyone knows it lol.....

Originally posted by snoopy
And thank you for verifying that there were no cables pulling down the WTC 7. That was my point. Hence it was not "pulled". And as for your insult about my research, do you realize you just put your foot in your mouth?

I know it was not brought down with cables, it was brought down with controlled demolitions. Just look at the videos for freaks sake... it's a freaking controlled demolition right in front of your eyes... but you can't even acknowledge it.

I did not insult your research, I stated a fact that you are spouting lies about the WTC7 because you spoke in facts about it and yet you didn't even know that no cables was used to bring it down, this showed how much you didn't research into the matter so i pointed it out.

And to be honest, you calling other people idiots is much more insulting then me pointing out that you didn't do much research into the WTC7.

And how exactly did I put my foot in my mouth? You put your own foot in your mouth by saying that I put my foot in my mouth because I didn't.

Originally posted by snoopy
Once again in regards to your analysis of the video you present/ What is your expertise in demolition? Are you a demolition expert? Because all the demolition experts who have seen the footage and the ones who were 100s of feet away watching it collapse say they can see no signs of a controlled demolition. So you must have some kind of expertise that the demolition experts lack. Please share those credentials with us. Otherwise we might think you are just someone on the internet who doesn't know any better and thinks because two things look similar to his untrained eyes that they are the same.

Man you have to be in a serious state of denial or blind to not see that a building falling onto it's own footprints like the WTC7 did is 100% consistent with a controlled demolition.....

Let me guess, your experts testimonies are all coming from the government eh.

Do you want me to gather a bunch of independent experts opinions on the matter?

Originally posted by snoopy
I have to question your expertise because the think most certainly did not telescope, and it most certainly didn't all into its own footprint. You also don't show the WTC 7 from the beginning of the collapse, you show it half way through.

Did not telescope? Didn't you see the video? The sides of the buildings stayed perfectly vertical.... that's a telescoping effect.

I am not an expert on controlled demolition but I'm not freaking blind either... Gees I can't even believe that I have to type these words... I can't even comprehend the idea that a person can still think that the building collapsed from a fire.... this is like a twilight zone, I say it again....

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a preweakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

- Brent Blanchard, Implosion World.

Originally posted by snoopy
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. - Brent Blanchard, Implosion World.

The term PULL means to bring down a building. It does not say to bring down a building with explosives.

Do you know that thier are other ways to bring down a building without explosives or cables. Like cutting the support beams of a weakened builidng.



[edit on 17-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by snoopy
We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a preweakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

- Brent Blanchard, Implosion World.

The pull it comment is not even an issue wetter he meant the building or whatever....

Just look at the darn building being demolished....... there's your damn proof....

You even see the explosion smoke flow coming from the bottom of the building right before it's demolished just like a controlled demolition....


First the bombs goes boom and then the building falls into it's own footprints....

Originally posted by selfless

You got to be kidding... everyone knows it lol.....

Apparently I don't. Please tell me what you mean by "official story". Is it the NIST report? The 9/11 commission report? Which is it?

I know it was not brought down with cables, it was brought down with controlled demolitions. Just look at the videos for freaks sake... it's a freaking controlled demolition right in front of your eyes... but you can't even acknowledge it.

And your proof is looking at a video of a CD? Yet you have no expertise what so ever? I think I am gonna go with the demolition experts instead of you. Somehow I think the experts who make demolitions for a living would know more than you do. Or do you disagree with that?

I did not insult your research, I stated a fact that you are spouting lies about the WTC7 because you spoke in facts about it and yet you didn't even know that no cables was used to bring it down, this showed how much you didn't research into the matter so i pointed it out.

Oh so now you are calling me a liar? Please quote the part where I am lying. That's quite an accusation there. Yes I know no cables were used. But people on this thread are claiming that Larry or someone said to "pull it" and that it was a reference to demolishing the building. And pull it in industry terms means to use cables. So how do you explain this paradox? And you don't point out flaws in my research, you point out that you don't understand what I am saying. Perhaps you aren't following the posts that I am responding to to understand.

And to be honest, you calling other people idiots is much more insulting then me pointing out that you didn't do much research into the WTC7.

Show me where I called other people idiots. And as for research again, Am I the one claiming they said to pull it to demolish the building when as you pointed out there are no cables pulling the building? Might wanna re-think about research.

And how exactly did I put my foot in my mouth? You put your own foot in your mouth by saying that I put my foot in my mouth because I didn't.

Because you claim I didn't research because I asked where the cables were. It was in jest because of the implications being made about the term pull it which means using cables. By now understanding the conversation you were replying to, you put your foot in your mouth. An d you put your foot in your mouth again by trying to turn the expression around incorrectly.

Man you have to be in a serious state of denial or blind to not see that a building falling onto it's own footprints like the WTC7 did is 100% consistent with a controlled demolition.....

So you don't have any expertise? And then are you claiming that the demolition experts are all in denial? how can it be that people who do this for a living don't see any signs of a controlled demolition when it's so obvious to you? What do you know that the experts don't?

Let me guess, your experts testimonies are all coming from the government eh.

not a single one.

Do you want me to gather a bunch of independent experts opinions on the matter?

I don't think there are any government demolitionists. All the ones I have heard are all independent.

Did not telescope? Didn't you see the video? The sides of the buildings stayed perfectly vertical.... that's a telescoping effect.

If the sides stay perfectly vertical, then it didn't telescope. And have you seen all the damage that the collapse did to the surrounding areas?

I am not an expert on controlled demolition but I'm not freaking blind either... Gees I can't even believe that I have to type these words... I can't even comprehend the idea that a person can still think that the building collapsed from a fire.... this is like a twilight zone, I say it again....

So you're saying that the demolition experts are all blind then? And no one claimed it collapsed from fire, that was just one of the factors.

Yes it is like the twilight zone because you seem to think that all the experts don't know what they are talking about and that you, someone with no education on the subject does. You seem to think that because two things look similar to you that they must be. A long time ago people saw ships disappear over the horizon and concluded the earth was flat because thy could see it right in front of their eyes. But scientists showed them that it only *looked* that way to them and that the world was really flat.

you're essentially trying to tell me the world is flat in context of WTC 7. Again, I apologize, but I am going to go with the experts who have years of training and studying doing this stuff over someone who's only expertise in demolition is looking at a clip of video.

Originally posted by selfless

The pull it comment is not even an issue wetter he meant the building or whatever....

Just look at the darn building being demolished....... there's your damn proof....

You even see the explosion smoke flow coming from the bottom of the building right before it's demolished just like a controlled demolition....


First the bombs goes boom and then the building falls into it's own footprints....

You HAVE to be kidding me. OK, I am not going to even bother replying to you any more. This is just too absurd to even acknowledge. Ultima at least brings some facts to the table, he doesn't pass off uneducated (in terms of the topic) opinions and try to use opinion to dismiss facts. I am hitting ignore. not because you're a bad person, but because it's simply going to waste space and time in the thread if I keep responding to you. So if I don't respond, it's not because I am actively ignoring you, it's because i won't see your posts.