Those IMPLAUSIBLE & IMPOSSIBLE cellphone calls

[Lovelynice]

One, one how the fuck do you make it one?.

Now you attempt to claim that I am saying things which I am not.

Shows how much of a liar you are.

 

[Lovelynice]

First there is the guy/guys planting/removing evidence at WTC. The removing of the black boxes, the planting of the forged passport (to make it look like a real terrorist was on the plane.)

Already dealt with that. Pay attention, dear.

How many people really needed to "plant evidence"? NONE. Nobody needs to plant any evidence at the site at all, instead all that is required is the telling the media that such "evidence" was found. Nobody has ever shown that magic passport of Atta's have they?

As to the blackboxes, where is the mystery in orders to the FBI (from the White House or someone else at the very top) to take such and such an item to such and such a place? Nobody among the agents on the site would see anything wrong with such orders.

These excuses of yours get shot down in flames sooooo easily!

You're not very smart are you?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

So what did you say here then?

Great, so ONE guy.

As to the WTC black boxes, how in hell would anyone know that there was anything wrong with their orders when they are told to send the black boxes anywhere??? As to passports – wasn't there just ONE PASSPORT actually found in the area, oh wait on, that one turned out not to exist either – it was a myth. Most of what was said to be "found evidence" didn't even have to be there, since all that is required is for some boss guy at the very top to simply SAY that such-and-such item was "found" at the WTC. We never saw any pictures of that passport in situ, on location at the WTC, did we?

Hmm...and there wasn't much of a search for bodies either. The orders were given by Giuliani to simply scoop the lot up without any searching, without any investigation.

I discussed that on this thread;
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=504265

 

[Bad_Doggie]

As to the blackboxes, where is the mystery in orders to the FBI (from the White House or someone else at the very top) to take such and such an item to such and such a place? Nobody among the agents on the site would see anything wrong with such orders.

These excuses of yours get shot down in flames sooooo easily!

You're not very smart are you?

So nobody else sees it, no firemen, police other emergences sevices on site, none??? And it was by chance it was the FBI who found it and no one else?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Oh you went so quick!!!! Shame I wanted to ask you about some of your other replies and why you missed out some of my points that were inconvenient to you.

But it is late here so it will have to wait until tomorrow. In the mean time one of the things you still didn't answer .....

If.....

The nutty "Arabs"

didn't do all this who did?


1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.
1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.
1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans.
1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.
2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.
2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 11 German tourists.
2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.
2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.
2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.
2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.
2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.
2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2003 (May): 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco.
2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.
2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 17.
2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.
2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.
2004 (March): 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 and injuring more than 1,500.
2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.
2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9.
2004 (Dec.): Terrorists entered the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9 (including 4 attackers).
2005 (July): Bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
2005 (Oct.): 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.
2005 (Nov.): 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.
2006 (Aug.): More than 25 arrested in plot to blow up jetliners between London and U.S.

Surely, this is not the work of J-dub, Rummy, Blair et al is it?

If it isn't then why would they have to stage 9/11 and risk the consequences of being found out? There is enough material there for them to justify going to war with Afganistan and Iraq without 9/11. No?

Oh and don't forget to check out Pookies responce to your problem with The Stuyvesant Building. Interesting.....I think that we have to call that one busted!

Woof!

 

[Pyro Paul]

a thermo-nuclear explosion melted (and well vaporized) the metal stand it was placed on, causing it to crash down onto its own footprint...

and the Nuclear explosion was not a 'controlled demolition' of the structure, rather it was mearly an explosion of an explosive; however is proof positive of a Structure being forced onto its own foot print simply by Heat exchange.


what do i win?

 

[Lovelynice]

Oh you went so quick!!!! Shame I wanted to ask you about some of your other replies and why you missed out some of my points that were inconvenient to you.

Oh you really are full of bullshit aren't you!

Unlike trolls such as yourself, I have a real life to go to. You probably only read about other people's real lives while you sit in that fugg-ugly chair of yours, eating your snacks and getting less healthy by the minute.

I'll reply to all your silly points in good time.

 

[Lovelynice]

didn't do all this who did?...

What has that got to do with anything???

We were talking about 9/11 weren't we?

I guess because you were losing, you decided to change the subject.

Not all those attacks were done by Arabs either. I mentioned about the Bali Bombings on another thread. Truth about the Bali Bombings

It was already widely reported in the mainstream news in Australia about the Indonesian Police and Military's REAL INVOLVEMENT in the Bali Bombings. Years ago!

Some of those other attacks you list were committed by fake Al Queda cells (also caught out and turning out to be working for various intelligence agencies), and/or part of black ops run by western intelligence agencies such as "Operation Gladio". You can check out the video "Terrorstorm" for a pretty concise fill-in on "Operation Gladio" and the atrocities committed by western intelligence agencies to put the blame on communists. Similar false flag operations are being done these days to blame Arabs.

Now, get back the subject; 9/11. Otherwise I'll put you on IGNORE

 

[Lovelynice]

So what did you say here then?

What's wrong, are you having reading difficulties?

Read again what I said;

As to the WTC black boxes, how in hell would anyone know that there was anything wrong with their orders when they are told to send the black boxes anywhere??? As to passports – wasn't there just ONE PASSPORT actually found in the area, oh wait on, that one turned out not to exist either – it was a myth. Most of what was said to be "found evidence" didn't even have to be there, since all that is required is for some boss guy at the very top to simply SAY that such-and-such item was "found" at the WTC. We never saw any pictures of that passport in situ, on location at the WTC, did we?

Hmm...and there wasn't much of a search for bodies either. The orders were given by Giuliani to simply scoop the lot up without any searching, without any investigation.

I discussed that on this thread;
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=504265

and what I stated which you seem to have problems paying attention to;

Already dealt with that. Pay attention, dear.

How many people really needed to "plant evidence"? NONE. Nobody needs to plant any evidence at the site at all, instead all that is required is the telling the media that such "evidence" was found. Nobody has ever shown that magic passport of Atta's have they?

As to the blackboxes, where is the mystery in orders to the FBI (from the White House or someone else at the very top) to take such and such an item to such and such a place? Nobody among the agents on the site would see anything wrong with such orders.

These excuses of yours get shot down in flames sooooo easily!

You're not very smart are you?

So that kind of leaves you looking like you are trying to put words in my mouth by deliberately attempting to twist the meaning of what I say. Bad luck, asshole, it doesn't work.

 

[phrodeau]

Was that the same Australian news source who reported that the Stuyvesant bomb threat happened instead at WTC7?

 

[Lovelynice]

By the way, you shills still haven't dealt with the biggest problems you have in your excuses.

1) No steel-framed tower buildings have EVER COLLAPSED STRAIGHT-DOWN in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel-framed buildings, both before and after 9/11. So an incredible magical coincidence is being claimed for not one, not two, but THREE such buildings all on the same day! AMAZING!

2) Nobody has ever succeeeded in simulating the actual collapses themselves, and shown that there was enough energy for a gravitationally-driven collapse; meaning that they could not show that there was enough energy from gravity alone to break past the structural strength and resistance of the rest of the building. That's your miracle magic problem again which your USA government version of 9/11 can't get past. Everytime you've cited somebody as suceeding in this, it's always turned out that they were either totally wrong or outright lying.

3) Considering these above, and the facts that all three buildings went down in a way identical to other controlled demolitions, in the time-frame and speed of typical controlled demolitions, and there is no example of any steel-framed tower buildings collapsing this way except by CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, then you have MAJOR PROBLEM with your bullshit excuses.

4) Your claim that "Pull it" had nothing to do with controlled demolition in the case of WTC 7 has been shown as another puile of crap excuses on your part because of Indira Singh did state: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Now that's very clear. Also clear is that Silverstein admitted that he ordered WTC demolished, he said "pull it", which most definitely is a term for controlled demolition as even this shows in the case of a cleanup worker mentioning the same term for the controlled demolition of WTC 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for controlled demolition. Anyone can listen to that here - http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

Which fits with the dictionary meaning

It's already very clear from the context and how Silverstein said it, that "Pull it" was the order to demolish the building.

Demolish: (?), v. t. To throw or PULL DOWN; to raze; to destroy the fabric of; to pull to pieces; to ruin; as, to demolish an edifice, or a wall.

dictionary . laborlawtalk . com / demolish

Destroy; do away with, make away with; nullify; annual; sacrifice, demolish; tear up; overturn, overthrow, overwhelm; upset, subvert, put an end to; seal the doom of, do in, do for, dish, undo; break up, cut up; break down, cut down, PULL DOWN

websters - online - dictionary . org / definition / destroy

To "pull" something as in "pull it", "pull it down", "pull down", or just "pull" is also common in many military organisations as a term for controlled demolition of objects, buildings, and obstacles.

So eat shit, Pookie, you're lying again.

5) So all of this fits extremely well with what the New York firemen said;

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

(the clip, by the way, Pookie, is taken from an Australian documentary shown on Aussie TV - and they stated it was from WTC 7. I haven't seen anything from you to show them wrong. Maybe you should post frames for comparison).

6) I asked you before;
Please show how ASSYMETRICAL damage can somehow lead to SYMMETRICAL collapse. -
apparently you are incapable of explaining such an absurdity and so far all you've done is try to dodge the question.


7) There is your major problem dealing with the issues here in my previous post which you have NOT been able to deal with, and have avoided....

The photo shows the north face of WTC 7 reflected, with the fires visible. Do they look like huge raging infernos filling the entire building to you?
http://xs206.xs.to/xs206/06375/wtc7_northface.jpg

You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES

There was no - repeat NO twenty story HOLE in WTC 7, why lie?, just don't bother posting lies and wasting every one's time with nonsense like that will you for a change?

I want you to post an attached photo of this twenty storey hole in WTC 7, and I want you to describe in detail exactly where this hole is.

While you are at it I want you to explain why WTC 7's 14th and 15th floors were in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 heavily fortified with bomb proof glass facing the twin towers.

They have since claimed it was a bunker for Mayor Giuliani in case of terrorist attacks would you believe, which he took the opportunity not to use on the day of the attacks!

I want you to explain why these two mysterious fires started given that no windows had been smashed on the corresponding floors, or any where on the entire facade of the building facing the twin towers, never mind and twenty story hole! - Even if they had been that is not necessarily reason for a fire to start.

Why did the automatic sprinkler system conveniently fail to activate and extinguish these fires?

Why did the then new WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein clearly state in a TV interview a year after the attacks that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack? The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Photos taken shortly before before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

Explain to everyone why buildings that didn't belong or weren't insured by Silverstein holdings and that were right beside the twin towers and sustained massive damage - far more damage than WTC 7 - didn't collapse into their own footprints at near free fall speed!

Yet this WTC 7 building - which was by the way the strongest building on the WTC site being fortified with solid cross section girders rather than the 'H' type because it straddled the a major electrical substation - was conveniently demolished, tell tale streamers and charges can be seen all over the front of the building and explosive charges running up the side in a straight perpendicular line running up the sides.

The penthouse can clearly be seen falling in through the roof first as the building was violently eviscerated from the inside.

Why was the steel from this controlled demolition immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the possibility of explosives, and to try and determine the cause of it’s collapse so as to prevent it happening in future?

Unfortunately, we may never know what happened because the steel from the WTC was immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the real reasons for it‘s collapse.

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from ground zero. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month fire experts told congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped so far, without being examined because investigators did not have authority to preserve wreckage". - One investigator of the WTC told New York Times, "this is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied." The member asked not to be identified because members have been "threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press". "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said .

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."
- Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/manning3oo.jpg

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/madrid4zh.jpg

Now look this folks - much stronger building, unexplained small fires behind unbroken windows and failed state of the art sprinkler systems, and no fires visible upon collapse, fires not even hot enough to break a window! YET........

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc-7.gif

There was also NO INFERNO in WTC 7, but just some MINOR fires. Not serious at all, and the damage was MINOR in comparison to the size of the building.

WTC 6 had FAR MORE DAMAGE, and other WTC buildings had far worse fires than WTC 1, 2, & 7.

Larry Silverstein, ADMITTED on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7

Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:

"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan.

So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!

And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?

and the damage that was done was MINOR in comparison to the building. Particularly when other buildings in the WTC complex had REAL INFERNOS and FAR MORE DAMAGE and STILL DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

Besides, it was "pulled" just as old Larry Silverstein said.

CBS News’ Dan Rather
also commented that the collapse of building 7, which
wasn’t hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt
to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.
"For the third time
today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen
too much on television before when a building was deliberately
destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

NBC’s Pat Dawson reported
the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath
of the towers’ collapse.
"The chief of safety
of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received
word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is
another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as
quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place and according to his theory,
he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted
in the building."

MSNBC news anchor Rick
Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices
in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions,
which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought
by police to be bombs.
"Police have found
what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear
that it may lead to another explosion."
"I spoke with some
police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me
they have reason to believe that one of the explosions
at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the
planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked
on the building that may have had an explosive device
in it."

During an exchange between
ABC’s Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following
the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption
is again that controlled demolition must have been used
to take down the building.
"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks
north of the World Trade Center. The second building that
was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."
"The entire building
has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off….when
you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It
just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."

Peter Jennings: "If
you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building
being demolished on purpose knows, that you’re going to
do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure
of a building and bring it down."

Police chiefs, fire department
heads, veteran news anchors, eyewitnesses on the ground
- everyone’s first reaction was "controlled demolition"
because the events suggested nothing else.

8) When REPEATEDLY asked this, EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

All Pookie could do was make up bullshit excuses citing some LOW-RISE, definitely NOT towering hi-rise buildings including a mere 4-storey building, and another similar LOW-RISE building. Come on, Pookie, you never even apologized for trying to pass off those crappy low-rise structures as being the same as towering skyscraper.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Using your fallacy

NO steel-framed building has ever been hit by a jetliner and NOT fallen straight down into its footprint. Never! Not once!

Point, game, set, match; PROVE me wrong!

 

[Byron In Exile]

NO steel-framed building has ever been hit by a jetliner and NOT fallen straight down into its footprint. Never! Not once!

Point, game, set, match; PROVE me wrong!

You forgot to add...

Can ANY of you silly shills cite a SINGLE exception to this??????? With a HUGE SEA GREEN PHOTO, video, or ANYTHING else.

 

[phrodeau]

Already dealt with that. Pay attention, dear.

How many people really needed to "plant evidence"? NONE. Nobody needs to plant any evidence at the site at all, instead all that is required is the telling the media that such "evidence" was found. Nobody has ever shown that magic passport of Atta's have they?

As to the blackboxes, where is the mystery in orders to the FBI (from the White House or someone else at the very top) to take such and such an item to such and such a place? Nobody among the agents on the site would see anything wrong with such orders.

These excuses of yours get shot down in flames sooooo easily!

You're not very smart are you?

How many people told the media that such evidence was found, then?

Please respond only with a number.

 

[Ally C]

Like I said...

I can't see why, if your message is of such god-awful importance to you, you repeatedly broadcast it on this site. When I logged on there were circa 85 souls aboard the good ship General Board. Take away your detractors and there's not much of an audience left really, is there? If you're after converts you really should think about looking elsewhere. I'm definitely not saying "leave" ... that would be pointless and it isn't my call anyway. I am saying if you truly believe in all the stuff you've posted - hand on your heart, hope to die - then show us (and yourself) that you're serious, and go spread the word where you can actually make a difference.

Maybe Lovelynice is out there spending their "real life" toppling governments and what not. Perhaps this thread was a small part of some extremely complex online guerilla warfare to promote the truth?

Posts 837, 838 and 839 really settled matters anyway, so apologies for resurrecting this nonsense.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

NO steel-framed building has ever been hit by a jetliner and NOT fallen straight down into its footprint. Never! Not once!

Point, game, set, match; PROVE me wrong!

Is the answer to the most perplexing question of all time really that easy??? My!

Funny I seem to have heard it somewhere before!

(But, the bit I don't get right. Is why Cheney waited 7 hours to blow it. Was it like a belated encore or sumint?)

 

[Bad_Doggie]

What's wrong, are you having reading difficulties?

So that kind of leaves you looking like you are trying to put words in my mouth by deliberately attempting to twist the meaning of what I say. Bad luck, asshole, it doesn't work.

No I am not. What I am saying is that I find in hard to believe that so few people are involved as you claim. That they know nothing of the consequences of the actions they are being asked to carry out and that they wouldn't understand the relevance of what they have/had been ask to do.

How you can suppose that 'one guy' found the black boxes in amongst the tons of debris I have no idea. But, from what I can make out that is your contention. In addition to this there were a lot of other people on the site who weren't from the FBI and to assume that none saw anything or found the Black boxes (and didn't realize what they were as they handed them over to your FBI 'One Guy") is a little far fetched. No? To say the least

Look even your friends agree with me that it was more than "One Guy". One of them even implicates the NSTB so they are now added to the numbers too!!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/281004blackbox.htm
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

Furthermore, and in addition to this you also have other people at other sites (Shanksville and the Pentagon) also adding and removing evidence so my contention is that the number at WTC must be more than one (a good deal more) and at all 3 sites must be quiet a large number. No?

I believe you wrote "One guy" for dramatic affect, a childish attempt to negate my point. But, anyway you look at it there must be more than One. A lot more

Bad luck asshole it just don't add up!!!

Are you starting to see it yet, still denying it?

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Maybe Lovelynice is out there spending their "real life" toppling governments and what not. Perhaps this thread was a small part of some extremely complex online guerilla warfare to promote the truth?

Posts 837, 838 and 839 really settled matters anyway, so apologies for resurrecting this nonsense.

Nah, I think she is a troll for the US government. To deflect real debate about things that are really happening to this hash of logical nonsense.

 

[Lovelynice]

No I am not. What I am saying is that I find in hard to believe that so few people are involved as you claim. ...

I find it hard to believe that anyone would accept that ALL OF THE PEOPLE involved in any kind of secret operation would know EVERYTHING about that operation, every detail, every plan, and every person in it. To me that claim of yours is UTTER BULLSHIT !!!

The ONLY people who need to know what was planned are those at the VERY TOP of the operation, which probably means less than a dozen at most. You're a very silly man to even pretend otherwise.

 

[Lovelynice]

Nah, I think she is a troll for the .....

Go pull the other one - it plays tinkerbells.

If anything, it's more likely that YOU are talking about YOUR OWN JOB, and trying to DEPERATELY avoid answering that little problem that NONE of you fuckwits has managed to answer;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.


nor have any of you ever been able to provide any proof of cellphones being able to make SUCCESSFUL calls from planes flying six miles up at over 450mph - without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which DIDN'T EXIST until 2004). I've asked REPEATEDLY for you morons to back you bullshit claims about those cellphone calls - and YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO!

So clearly those cellphone calls were all FAKE!

 

[Lovelynice]

NO steel-framed building has ever been hit by a jetliner and NOT fallen straight down into its footprint. Never! Not once!

Yes, planes have hit buildings before, and they did not fall down.

Now please explain how this DUMB EXCUSE of yours applies to WTC 7 - which was NOT hit by any plane, and did NOT suffer any serious damage that any of you shill morons can show a picture of. We already know that those huge clouds of smoke that you loonies try to pass off as coming from WTC 7's "INVISIBLE infernos" actually was coming from the very real and VERY EASILY VISIBLE infernos burning in the neighbouring buildings (WTC 5 and WTC 6) - which did not fall down (maybe because they weren't owned by Larry Silverstein)

Also I'm still waiting for you shills to deal with the biggest problems you have in your excuses.

1) No steel-framed tower buildings have EVER COLLAPSED STRAIGHT-DOWN in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel-framed buildings, both before and after 9/11. So an incredible magical coincidence is being claimed for not one, not two, but THREE such buildings all on the same day! AMAZING!

2) Nobody has ever succeeeded in simulating the actual collapses themselves, and shown that there was enough energy for a gravitationally-driven collapse; meaning that they could not show that there was enough energy from gravity alone to break past the structural strength and resistance of the rest of the building. That's your miracle magic problem again which your USA government version of 9/11 can't get past. Everytime you've cited somebody as suceeding in this, it's always turned out that they were either totally wrong or outright lying.

3) Considering these above, and the facts that all three buildings went down in a way identical to other controlled demolitions, in the time-frame and speed of typical controlled demolitions, and there is no example of any steel-framed tower buildings collapsing this way except by CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, then you have MAJOR PROBLEM with your bullshit excuses.

4) Your claim that "Pull it" had nothing to do with controlled demolition in the case of WTC 7 has been shown as another puile of crap excuses on your part because of Indira Singh did state: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Now that's very clear. Also clear is that Silverstein admitted that he ordered WTC demolished, he said "pull it", which most definitely is a term for controlled demolition as even this shows in the case of a cleanup worker mentioning the same term for the controlled demolition of WTC 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." The term is industry jargon for controlled demolition. Anyone can listen to that here - http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

Which fits with the dictionary meaning

It's already very clear from the context and how Silverstein said it, that "Pull it" was the order to demolish the building.

Demolish: (?), v. t. To throw or PULL DOWN; to raze; to destroy the fabric of; to pull to pieces; to ruin; as, to demolish an edifice, or a wall.

dictionary . laborlawtalk . com / demolish

Destroy; do away with, make away with; nullify; annual; sacrifice, demolish; tear up; overturn, overthrow, overwhelm; upset, subvert, put an end to; seal the doom of, do in, do for, dish, undo; break up, cut up; break down, cut down, PULL DOWN

websters - online - dictionary . org / definition / destroy

To "pull" something as in "pull it", "pull it down", "pull down", or just "pull" is also common in many military organisations as a term for controlled demolition of objects, buildings, and obstacles.

So eat shit, Pookie, you're lying again.

5) So all of this fits extremely well with what the New York firemen said;

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC 7
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&NR

(the clip, by the way, Pookie, is taken from an Australian documentary shown on Aussie TV - and they stated it was from WTC 7. I haven't seen anything from you to show them wrong. Maybe you should post frames for comparison).

6) I asked you before;
Please show how ASSYMETRICAL damage can somehow lead to SYMMETRICAL collapse. -
apparently you are incapable of explaining such an absurdity and so far all you've done is try to dodge the question.


7) There is your major problem dealing with the issues here in my previous post which you have NOT been able to deal with, and have avoided....

The photo shows the north face of WTC 7 reflected, with the fires visible. Do they look like huge raging infernos filling the entire building to you?
http://xs206.xs.to/xs206/06375/wtc7_northface.jpg

You need to post photos or links to video of VISIBLE FIRES

There was no - repeat NO twenty story HOLE in WTC 7, why lie?, just don't bother posting lies and wasting every one's time with nonsense like that will you for a change?

I want you to post an attached photo of this twenty storey hole in WTC 7, and I want you to describe in detail exactly where this hole is.

While you are at it I want you to explain why WTC 7's 14th and 15th floors were in the months and weeks leading up to 9/11 heavily fortified with bomb proof glass facing the twin towers.

They have since claimed it was a bunker for Mayor Giuliani in case of terrorist attacks would you believe, which he took the opportunity not to use on the day of the attacks!

I want you to explain why these two mysterious fires started given that no windows had been smashed on the corresponding floors, or any where on the entire facade of the building facing the twin towers, never mind and twenty story hole! - Even if they had been that is not necessarily reason for a fire to start.

Why did the automatic sprinkler system conveniently fail to activate and extinguish these fires?

Why did the then new WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein clearly state in a TV interview a year after the attacks that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack? The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

Photos taken shortly before before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

Explain to everyone why buildings that didn't belong or weren't insured by Silverstein holdings and that were right beside the twin towers and sustained massive damage - far more damage than WTC 7 - didn't collapse into their own footprints at near free fall speed!

Yet this WTC 7 building - which was by the way the strongest building on the WTC site being fortified with solid cross section girders rather than the 'H' type because it straddled the a major electrical substation - was conveniently demolished, tell tale streamers and charges can be seen all over the front of the building and explosive charges running up the side in a straight perpendicular line running up the sides.

The penthouse can clearly be seen falling in through the roof first as the building was violently eviscerated from the inside.

Why was the steel from this controlled demolition immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the possibility of explosives, and to try and determine the cause of it’s collapse so as to prevent it happening in future?

Unfortunately, we may never know what happened because the steel from the WTC was immediately and illegally shipped off before almost any major examination had been done to check for the real reasons for it‘s collapse.

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from ground zero. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month fire experts told congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped so far, without being examined because investigators did not have authority to preserve wreckage". - One investigator of the WTC told New York Times, "this is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied." The member asked not to be identified because members have been "threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press". "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said .

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."
- Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/manning3oo.jpg

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/madrid4zh.jpg

Now look this folks - much stronger building, unexplained small fires behind unbroken windows and failed state of the art sprinkler systems, and no fires visible upon collapse, fires not even hot enough to break a window! YET........

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc-7.gif

There was also NO INFERNO in WTC 7, but just some MINOR fires. Not serious at all, and the damage was MINOR in comparison to the size of the building.

WTC 6 had FAR MORE DAMAGE, and other WTC buildings had far worse fires than WTC 1, 2, & 7.

Larry Silverstein, ADMITTED on Public Broadcast Television that explosives were used to demolish WTC building #7

Yes, Silverstein, who had conveniently insured these buildings (which had been ordered to be dismantled due to safety hazards) for billions of dollars just weeks before 911, said on public television:

"(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we´ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"

In the demolition industry, “pull” is the common term they use for demolishing buildings with carefully positioned explosives, an operation that can take seasoned professionals weeks to plan.

So even the building owner admits that explosives were used to demolish at least one of the three WTC buildings!

And if planning to demolish WTC 7 had been carefully prepared for weeks, why not the other two?

and the damage that was done was MINOR in comparison to the building. Particularly when other buildings in the WTC complex had REAL INFERNOS and FAR MORE DAMAGE and STILL DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

Besides, it was "pulled" just as old Larry Silverstein said.

CBS News’ Dan Rather
also commented that the collapse of building 7, which
wasn’t hit by a plane, resembled a deliberate attempt
to demolish the structure using incendiary devices.
"For the third time
today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen
too much on television before when a building was deliberately
destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

NBC’s Pat Dawson reported
the working hypothesis of the FDNY in the immediate aftermath
of the towers’ collapse.
"The chief of safety
of the Fire Department of New York City told me he received
word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is
another bomb going off. He tries to get his men out as
quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place and according to his theory,
he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted
in the building."

MSNBC news anchor Rick
Sanchez reported that police had found suspicious devices
in and around the WTC area and that the secondary explosions,
which were reported by numerous survivors, were thought
by police to be bombs.
"Police have found
what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear
that it may lead to another explosion."
"I spoke with some
police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me
they have reason to believe that one of the explosions
at the World Trade Center aside the ones caused by the
planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked
on the building that may have had an explosive device
in it."

During an exchange between
ABC’s Peter Jennings and reporter Don Dahler following
the collapse of the north tower, the first assumption
is again that controlled demolition must have been used
to take down the building.
"Yes Peter its Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks
north of the World Trade Center. The second building that
was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed."
"The entire building
has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off….when
you see the old demolition of these old buildings. It
just folded in on itself and it is not there anymore."

Peter Jennings: "If
you wish to bring, if anyone has ever watched a building
being demolished on purpose knows, that you’re going to
do this you have to get at the, at the under infrastructure
of a building and bring it down."

Police chiefs, fire department
heads, veteran news anchors, eyewitnesses on the ground
- everyone’s first reaction was "controlled demolition"
because the events suggested nothing else.

8) When REPEATEDLY asked this, EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed STRAIGHT-DOWN into their own footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you silly shills cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

All Pookie could do was make up bullshit excuses citing some LOW-RISE, definitely NOT towering hi-rise buildings including a mere 4-storey building, and another similar LOW-RISE building. Come on, Pookie, you never even apologized for trying to pass off those crappy low-rise structures as being the same as towering skyscraper.

 

[catfish]

Yes, planes have hit buildings before, and they did not fall down.

Other than the Empire State Building being hit by a B-25 Bomber in 1945, what major skyscrapers have been hit by LARGE aircraft?

 

[ButterPixie]

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc-7.gif

catfish can't face reality.

 

[phrodeau]

Let's assume for a moment that every single telephone call made on 9/11/01 was fake. What would it prove?

Were the planes hijacked or not? Were the planes destroyed with all aboard or not? How does the legitimacy of a phone call favor either argument?

 

[catfish]

http://h1.ripway.com/ken_from_dublin/wtc-7.gif

catfish can't face reality.

Yeah, whatever sparky, why don't you go tighten the tinfoil on your head, I am sure the Illumanati are reading your thoughts. By the way, show me a skyscraper that has been hit by a large passenger jet at high speed please.