Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 11, 2016.
Why are you asking me? You already said you see nothing. And I told you I'm ok with that.
Really Bob? Is that what I said? That explosives do nothing? Yopu must be getting desperate now to put words into my mouth. I am asking for you proof that you have that shows controlled demolition charges powerful enough to hurled multi-ton pieces of steel assemblies hundreds of feet laterally and impaling buildings.
You must have reading comprehension problems. Go back up and read my explanation and show me where I said or suggested fire could do that. I gave you an explanation and you ignored it.
Once again, you have reading comprehension problems. I asked for proof of controlled demolition charges hurling multi-ton steel assemblies hundreds of feet laterally.
Typical Bob response when backed into a corner. I've seen this all too many times from you.
Show me controlled demolition explosives that hurl mutli-ton steel assemblies hundreds of feet laterally.
Right Nothing fits your "massive explosion" either. That's why you "don't care to explain"...
Because you said there was one. Where Bob? I just posted two photos that show no changes which indicates there was NO massive explosion. It's that simple.
It's not mine, it is what it is, I had nothing to do with it. What doesn't fit is that according to NIST, the tower was globally destroyed from fire/damage just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition and it happened just like that to 2 other towers on the same day. This is the same NIST that has been exposed in full detail as conducting a fraudulent investigation into the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11. What you're trying to do is concoct any explanation that you believe fits the NIST theories.
Sorry, but it is "yours". Why? Because there is nothing there Bob. No massive explosion. You're the one claiming there was. I proved with screenshots of the very time you claim there was and we find out your making things up.
No massive explosion like you claim.
Just like your claim/insinuation that controlled demolition explosives have enough power to eject a multi-ton steel assembly hundreds of feet LATERALLY and impale a building. Then when asked to provide proof with either math, physics, or actual video proof that they do, you play they "I don't care" or "I'm not going to try and convince you" cards. Just excuses when you are asked to explain your claims.
You don't want to try and convince anyone of anything and you don't care. That's why you continue to post and even start your own threads.
Ok there's NO explosion for YOU and you "proved" it. It that helps you, good for you, however your beliefs, despite the evidence, mean nothing to me. But you can keep repeating that belief to yourself and for others if it makes you comfortable, I don't care.
I post the facts, whether you believe them or not is your prerogative. You don't like the facts, ignore them or fight them, I don't care. You don't believe "controlled demolition explosives have enough power to eject a multi-ton steel assembly hundreds of feet LATERALLY and impale a building" but you believe fire can or that the interacting forces of gravity and collision have that capability (which of course YOU have no way of proving), that's ok with me, I still don't care. The fact is the building was destroyed by explosive forces top down sequentially for both towers. It's so obvious on video and even more obvious when you see it in continuous loop, but not for you and I'm quite ok with that.
No, there is no evidence of a MASSIVE EXPLOSION like you claim. The photos prove it and why you can't post evidence showing a MASSIVE EXPLOSION. Because there was none. That's why you hide behind your "don't care" claims.
You've presented no evidence of this claimed MASSIVE EXPLOSION so your "despite the evidence" claim is ridiculous.
As has been proven.
Your conclusion that explosives were used is based upon a mountain of incorrect information. You have been called out on a couple of your claims in this very thread and refuse to discuss them, hiding behind your "I don't care" baloney.
Not for you.
And your conclusion that all 3 towers collapsed just like 3 perfectly planned and executed controlled demolitions but weren't controlled demolitions is based on the OCT which is not only a fantasy in itself but is mostly incomplete due to the coverup of massive amounts of information. So we both have our sources of information.
"Perfectly planned and executed controlled demolitions?" You mean there are other controlled demolitions that start from the top down and spew debris hundreds of feet in every direction?
Tell me something Bob. If demolitions hurled multi-ton steel assemblies hundreds of feet laterally, impaling other buildings, where are these same characteristics for WTC7?
Oh really? Do you know who Tony Szamboti is? He and gerrycan (the author of the Shear Ignorance video you linked to) are buddies. Tony says you didn't need explosives all the way down. All you needed was to blow 10 or so floors and the descending debris would take care of the rest. I thought gravity couldn't do that?
A perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition destroys the entire building globally and in a matter of seconds, otherwise it's not a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition, such as:
What is amusing is that you actually believe (or pretend to believe) that fire/damage is capable of doing the same thing as a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition.
WTC7 was not the same type of controlled demolition as the twin towers obviously but the result to the building was the same.
You will have to speak to gerrycan and/or Tony Szamboti, I am not either one of them.
YOU posted the proof. Sorry if that is beyond your mental capacity.
No comment on Tony, a truther mechanical engineer, provding an explanation that goes against your "gravity cannot do that" claim?
Nope, Tony was not tasked with investigating 9/11 and had nothing to do with 9/11. If YOU have a problem with Tony, take it up with Tony.
Reading comprehension Bob. Come on now...
I posted what Tony said, who is a truther and mechanical engineer. He directly refutes your claim that "gravity couldn't do it" with his own explanation.
I said "fire/damage" doesn't have the capability to destroy buildings like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition, I never said that about gravity, controlled demolitions use gravity as one of the forces to destroy a building. What Tony allegedly says is what Tony says, take it up with Tony, I'm not Tony. I assume YOU believe fire/damage does have the capability to destroy buildings just like a perfectly planned and executed controlled demolition, am I correct?
I saw the pictures of the impaled Amex building about 14 years ago on the mainstream media. Likely I did not see it on the internet, though it's been too long to remember accurately. So sorry I do not keep a copy or a link of everything I read or saw all those years ago.
That you apparently did not see it speaks to your level of knowledge on the subject, quite low. If you wish to call me a liar or something like that, well I would understand. That FEMA or some other branch of the federal government might scrub the images from public view would be easily understandable, as there are some things they would rather the public no longer see.
It happened. If you are unaware of it I'm sorry. That's your problem not mine.
The force required to do that could be calculated, if only we knew the mass of that piece. Whatever the force required, gravity could not have been the source of that energy.
As an additional response since your post lacks context (talk about reading comprehension, try writing comprehension), what I did say is that gravity/colliding forces cannot hurl multi ton objects and embed them into buildings hundreds of feet away. It also does not have the capability to damage WTC7 over 300 feet away or hurl other multi ton objects 600 feet away.
As far as Tony goes, I have no idea what he actually claimed or in what context, just what you claim he said out of context and he's not here nor am I Tony nor is he the subject of this discussion as much as you want that to be. So that issue is still irrelevant.
Eleuthera, please carefully read my quote again below:
Please show me where in my quote above I said I doubted you saw a picture of the "impaled Amex" building.
Please show me where in my quote above I asked you to provide the link or picture you are referring to of the "impaled Amex" building.
Please show me which part of my quote above implies that I did not see the picture of a piece of the WTC perimeter facade stuck in the Amex building.
Please show me in my quote above where I insinuated that you were a liar for saying you saw said picture.
See above as this has no relevance to what I asked.
Please show me where in my quote above a said it DIDN'T happen.
See the problem is you MISSED the part of my post where I asked for video of "other "controlled demolitions" where explosives hurled heavy structural components laterally, hundreds of feet away into other buildings." I didn't ask you to provide pictures of the "impaled Amex" nor did I ever say there WASN'T a piece of the WTC perimeter facade in the Amex building.
Really? So in your opinion, a piece of the perimeter facade from 1000 ft up, being pushed outward by descending debris and then falling in a PARABOLIC trajectory COULDN'T have fallen into the Amex building hundreds of feet away? You think that's impossible? Explain something to me when looking at this picture below.
Was is the damage pattern direction (red arrow) consistent with an object falling from a PARABOLIC trajectory from above and not a lateral ejection at high velocity (green arrow)? Why did the facade piece not "impale" the building like an arrow?
You are correct that you did not directly any of the things I might have said or implied you did, and thank you for supplying one of several of the photos regarding the Amex building.
You are probably better at vector analysis than I, and more capable of calculating the force to achieve that vector, if only you could calculate the mass of the pieces involved.
Considering that the official NIST explanation is that airplane impacts, jetfuel and office fires and gravity caused the towers to collapse, if that theory were true the building did not tip over, and something had to provide the lateral vector to complement the vertical vector provided by gravity to achieve the final resting place of that piece.
What provided that horizontal vector?
And noticing the many shattered windows in the photo you provided, what element of gravity, office fires and airplane strikes led to that?
Separate names with a comma.