WTC - Controlled Demo Admission by Fox News

reply to post by turbofan


No. They've been answered elsewhere.

It's incredibly tiresome that you continually change the subject. Perhaps you could address my (on topic) remarks. Or even the answer which I provided to your question, which you've simply decided to ignore.

Certainly, after you address the questions on the previous page that you
initially ignored.

reply to post by turbofan


What are you talking about? You didn't ask any questions. You made a series of off topic assertions designed to allow you not to engage with the point of the thread.


Edit to add

Furthermore - I didn't ignore them. I just pointed out that they were "OT".

[edit on 11-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

Let me post it here since you've missed it three times now:

Sorry, what was your "strong" evidence again?

So... what is your evidence to suggest some small office fires
can bring down a steel core building in a controlled demo like fashion?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Based on the testimony of the people that were standing next to it that day and on the limited photos of the south side the building was going to have to come down.

Get it straight. There were also people that day who say the South face and said there was NO WAY the whole building could have came down like it did from that damage. NYPD officer Craig Bartmer provides one such testimony. Did you include his testimony? No. You also don't explain how firefighters could have predicted an unprecedented structural failure, that had never happened before.

They may have been expecting a local collapse in the immediate vicinity of where something had impacted the building, but even freaking NIST tells you goons that this damage would have been insignificant to the whole building coming down. So what use is it arguing that the firefighters knew it was coming down, based on reasoning that NIST has refuted?

reply to post by turbofan


I can't be doing with this. Do you really not understand that you are changing the subject? That you are avoiding the topic of the thread?

I'm not going to bother rehashing a load of arguments that have been done to death elsewhere. If you want to discuss the article and what I consider its negligible value as evidence for what the OP suggests then feel free to reply.

Nice answer!

I started this thread and it's about C.D. of WTC7. We are discussing
C.D. of WTC 7. Imagine that.

You engaged in a debate with me, now finish it off...unless you just
like to believe lies without any sort of justification?

Originally posted by turbofan
Where is your evidence to support that fire could have knocked the building
down in a controlled demo like fashion?

Where is your evidence of bombs going off. Therm*te being painted on columns?

How do office fires produce pyroclastic flow?

WTC was a Volcano? They actually found tephra at Ground Zero?? WOW Tino... that's amazing. I saw a movie like this...who was it Tommy Lee Jones and Anne Hache?

Classic! This is better than the Rob Balsamo stuff!!

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by turbofan
Where is your evidence to support that fire could have knocked the building
down in a controlled demo like fashion?

Where is your evidence of bombs going off.

That's the best evidence you have to support the theory that fire brought WTC7 down?

No wonder you support the NIST report. You haven't read it or don't understand it anyway.

Come on Six, are you really that ignorant of the video(audio) sounds
of explosions, Barry Jennings interview, the hundreds of FIRE FIGHTERS,
the on-site witnesses, the radio transmissions of FIRE FIGHTERS, the
video testimony of molten steel, the scientific paper from Harrit and the gang?

So you think that pyroclastic flow happens from fire, or high pressre from
falling objects?

Can you show me a video, or credible source (photo perhaps)...which
is documented that indicates pyroclastic flow from falling objects, or
burning objects (other than a volcano, or explosive)?

Here is a picture of what DUST resembles:


Here is the other "stuff":


Not many people understand the difference. Do you?

While you're at it, try to find me a video of the WTC7 falling that has any
significant 'fire'. I know of three perspectives that show nothing.

reply to post by turbofan


Okay. Since you keep avoiding the issue and changing the subject I'll take that to mean that

-- you cannot support the veracity of the source you put in the OP

-- you have no answer to the quotes from the firemen I posted above (on your request, you should note)