911 WTC World Trade Towers, Did Thermate do This?

The only reason it wouldn't is if you had double standards.. But this rhetorical question just looks like it's you answering my question with a yes, meaning you believe you apply the same standards.

But it doesn't appear you do this, based on what I've read of yours, for example, you have accused, as a factual claim, KSM as being behind the 9/11attacks, without any evidence at all, let alone evidence validated by any independent third parties.

What "9/11 information" have I claimed to have investigated? When did I make such a claim?

No doubt I have done personal research on some aspects of 9/11... Yes there are SOME aspects of 9/11 that have been independently investigated... Mostly ones I personally don't care that much about.

As with any criminal case being discussed, the most important aspect to me has always been the "whodunnit".

Can you name ANY independent investigations into who conceived, plotted, orchestrated and/or funded the attacks which came to the same conclusion as the 9/11 commission report?

As far as I know, such does not exist.. You have to basically just take the government's word for it even though they don't present any real evidence (just that they tortured him into "confessing").

Since my speculation tends to end with LIHOP (not MIHOP) I am also interested in things like why the response was crap, why nobody ever got disciplined for any failures, why the top three positions in the military chain of command ALL suddenly went AWOL when the attacks were unfolding, the government claim that it was beuracratic, procedural problems and incompetence alone that stopped 9/11 being prevented, etc.

Have ANY of these been investigated by any outside sources and came to the same conclusion? If so, by whom?

Regarding evidence, have any of these ever been independently validated:

-The steel samples which NIST evaluated to come to the conclusion in their reports

-Interrogations of KSM et. al as relied upon by the 9/11 commission.

-The computer which the government claims (without proof) belongs to KSM.

-Those aircraft black boxes which they did manage to recover

Any of those? Or are they invalid evidence by your standards?

Also, please tell me the way that you, personally, know whether or not a particular piece of evidence has a good, unbroken chain of evidence. Does the government publish for members of the public a record of who had the evidence in their possession and when?

My question was an attempt to determine consistency in your standards, nothing more. Again, I realize that SOME things have been determined independently as the same conclusion.. The sky was blue that day and such.

Not for the major aspects however, as far as I know, most importantly the whodunnit and why didn't the government manage to stop it.

 

they sure do.the official conspiracy theory apologists cant get around bld 7 and barry jennings testimony,thats why they had to kill of barry jennings because the media and the shills that have penetrated message boards everywhere,cant get around bld 7 which proves the presence of thermite brought them down.the pull it thread was closed but they cant get around what that thread was saying either that pull it is a trem used in demolitions.when they were bringing down the other buildings hit by the debris with explosives,they said-lets pull it right before they brought it down.they lose in the game of chess on that EVERYTIME and get checkmated and they know it.lol.

the other thing that was mentioned in that pull it thread that was closed that the OCTA'S cant get around is silverstein when asked what he meant by when he said pull it,he said he meant it was to get the firemen out.yeah and Im the king of england.lol. he took the OCTA'S to school over there with the point they cant get around which is when was the last time someone referred to people as IT? the octa's crack me up with that logic,they try and get around it making up the most stupidest crap knowing they are defeated.lol.

 

Pull is NOT a term used in explosive demolition, and again as an outsider to the demolition industry, he wouldnt have used a term they would use.
And 'it' refered to the firefighting team, Example 'The team had been racked with so many injuries,that it was decided to pull it from the schedule for the rest of the season'

 

How come you don't answer my question?

I'm just asking if you also expect independent third party validation for evidence presented by the United States or its agencies.

 

If I could provide a link with demolition experts using the term "pull" in describing the explosive destruction of the building his company is about to demolish, would that be considered valid and accepted if genuine?

 

I do not understand how wtc 7 proves thermite brought them down. A hypothesis for how wtc 7 collapsed was recently published in Structure Magazine- there is no mention of thermite in this hypothesis. Additionally, to my knowledge, thermite is rarely, if ever used in the capacity suggested in alternative explanations of 9/11.

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=284

 

No, because pull is a term for a whole other type of demolition...

 

Exactly,'cutter charges' need to be shaped charge explosions,not incendiaries.

 

That's because you think we're talking about regular thermite.

Obviously, you and I and the rest of the people outside the little 9/11 Denial parallel universe aren't up on all the latest Super Special Top Secret applications and variations of "thermite".

Like, in particular, the magic kind of thermite that can burn horizontally so as to sever columns. Neat trick, that.

 

So...pull IS a term used in the demolition industry? You saying it ISN'T used when referring to explosive demolition in bringing down buildings?

 

That's what I'm saying

 

Ok...so if I link someone in the demolition industry (with video of a controlled demolition) using that term....it doesn't exist? C'mon now. Step in it...please.

 

You have one instance of one person using the term and you accept that as 'common usage'?

Weak.

 

The whole anecdote was about 'pulling' the operations.

 

The whole discussion is asinine, of course. It requires us to believe that the NYFD willingly took part in the murder of 343 of their brothers plus thousands of civilians.

 

If you have such a video,quit baiting and post it.

 

Ok brother. First, I'll establish that the term "pull" IS used referencing the use of explosives in the demolition industry. I don't want to leave you any wiggle room ,so, here is some supportive information first...

At this link (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/article/everglades-forever-gone) the demolition company describes that
"Utilizing a total of 137 pounds of linear shaped charges and 50 lbs of dynamite “kicker charges”, CDI worked in only the partial basement to the west, the Lobby Level and 4th floor of the structure. Placed in over 400 locations, the shaped charges were sequentially initiated over a period of 5.4 seconds, working from southwest to northeast through the structure. Following the seemingly endless 2.6 second natural pause in the non-electric initiation system, the structural charges detonated on cue, allowing the southwest wing of the structure to fail first, creating the desired lateral “pull” on the north and east curtain walls."

At this link (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/sears-catalog-warehouse) they say that:

"Approximately 2,700 lb. of explosives were placed in 2,918 holes on six levels of the structure. CDI’s delayed detonation of charges, the product of 50 years of explosives demolition experience, pulled the massive warehouse structure away from a U.S. Post Office facility only 18 -ft away without damage."

Here we have a PBS/Nova interview of Stacey Loizeaux, who at the time was 26 years old and had worked for Controlled Demolition, since the age of 15.
Link: (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html)

I quote the following:
"NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down."

This source (http://www.seattlepi.com/kingdome/main.shtml) Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc., says this of the Seattle Kingdome demolition back in 2000, states:
"The roof did its job, the gravity engine worked. It provided the energy we needed to pull the columns inward."


None of the above references insinuate or are associating anything other than the use of explosives to accomplish their goal of demolishing said structure.

There are several uses of the pull term...take your time and allow me the time to retrieve corresponding videos. I'll see if I can't post several for you to insist aren't credible for one reason or another.
Readers...take note.

 

Here are several indicators of WTC7 being "pulled" all wrapped up nicely in one source.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-silverstein-wanted-to-demolish-building-7-on-911.html


Alex makes the information easy to interpret and saves some of the bouncing all over the net to provide an argument against people who wouldn't admit it was controlled demolition regardless of what evidence is presented. I ask that instead of summarily dismissing the source, how about addressing what you believe are "problem" areas specifically? Pick one.
Pay attention readers...watch the wiggle.

 

'Truthers' have no problem accusing the FDNY of complicity to murder.

Unless they had to do it face to face.

 

Oh good. An exercise in semantics.

You do see that in, every instance above, the description is not of the operation (ie: "We pulled the building") but in the actions of the structure itself (ie: "the columns were pulled inward")

You have yet to provide an instance of the phrase "pull" being used to describe the controlled demolition using explosives. In fact, in your first example, you left out the following paragraph:

And that changes the meaning of what you posted. A bit dishonest, don't you think? Why did you leave out the sentence about how the building was 'pulled'?

There remains no evidence that WTC7 was demolished using controlled demolition.

 

And I was expecting so much more....

 

So thermate can only possibly be placed by firefighters?

 

Name ONE truther who accused the FDNY as complicit.

 

Kevin McPadden
David Ray Griffin

It seems pretty straight forward.

If you say that Silverstein's "pull it" comment means it destroy the building the FDNY had to be in on it, since he was speaking with a member of the FDNY.

I just don't see any room for gray area there.

 

Fair enough.. Some truthers say that.. Thank you for providing a good answer.

Now, can you tell me when I accused the FDNY of complicity of murder?