Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

a reply to: neutronflux

Hello, neutronflux, hello hellobruce.

It's irrefutable and incontrovertible. Just because you cannot see it or choose to defend the big lie doesn't mean that it's believable.

A generation from now, a grade 10 student, armed with nothing but his textbook, a stopwatch, and some YouTube videos of the destruction of the twin towers, is going to prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that indeed the twin towers were brought down by explosives and the aircraft, swapped out, remotely piloted, military variant 767's operating within the context of the smokescreen of war games operations underway that day, leaving that whole region without fighter aircraft and what few were available sent in the wrong direction, intentionally via a hijacking of the military apparatus by some rogue group, pointing to the complicity of the deep state and shadow government.

Thus the poor kid will end up a targeted and surveilled "person of interest" while his own Facebook Page is officially stamped as "fake news" and his own smartphone the instrument of their surveillance, which when discovered and betrayed shall not only prove him right, but put the bind on that same evil faction of the deep state, bringing about their downfall everywhere and in every sphere of opinion except that of the oldstream media.

Some version of this kind of thing will happen and happen again, but some day people looking back on it will come to wonder how anyone could have been so easily duped by such a bloody affair, including everything that ensued in the wake of 9/11.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

If Jones, Wood, Gauge, or the guys of loose change actually proved something, they would kill the cash cow 9/11 profit industry.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Sorry, there is no physical proof of CD. All proof leads to contraction and bowing causing tower failure.

The *ahem* less endowed posters here are always good for a chuckle.

"Nonono don't look here or there, crazy truther, I like tinfoil, buildingz on fire = imploding into dust. Happens all the time. Don't believe your eyes, I know more, everybody knows better so that's that. Plus the TV says so."

That about sum up your "argument"?

How bad would it suck to be trolling around trying to defend such abhorrent crimes?

When three buildings collapse like an implosion some people would have you believe it just happened that way...I guess I don't see what angle you are playing?

Never mind the stock options being traded, insurance claims being taken out, how about all the gold in the basement that went missing? Factor after factor indicating a very big conspiracy.

The truth will come out eventually. And the simpleton posters, (y'all stick out like sore thumbs) with your cynical, irrelevant and very moronic comments....your "services" will no longer be required.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: JesusXst
a reply to: searcherfortruth

I think when the Truth comes out, there's gonna be a lot of rats running for cover over it.

The truth will never come out. Just like JFK. A narrative has been told and we're supposed to believe it, but it is highly suspect. It's been 53 years and we are no closer to the truth on that one. It will be the same for 911

True Rez, but America's never had a President like Trump either.

a reply to: searcherfortruth

Never in the history of steel enforced buildings, has one of them ever collapsed due to structural damage from fire, EVER.

Pretty scientific there ace, care to elaborate how it did happen, then?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Sorry, there is no physical proof of CD. All proof leads to contraction and bowing causing tower failure.

a reply to: intrptr


Good example of conspiracists using video out of context. Thanks.

Like to link to the video that doesn't edit out the sound of the tell tale sign of charges detonating at 140 dbs.

Care to provide the name of the demolition and the number and type of charges used? The man hours needed to prepare the building.


Or explain how a CD system would servive hours of raging fires, extensive building damage to pull of twice in one day the first CD of a high rise office building over 50 floors and the first top down demolition of high rise office building. Plus, without inflicting damage of demolition shrapnel to WTC debris, victims, raining out into street, and adjacent buildings.

Then add, if your part of the thermite camp, how slow and inconsistent burning thermite was used to pull off the first top down CD of buildings twice in one day using a damaged and fire ravaged CD system?

a reply to: neutronflux

Like to link to the video that doesn't edit out the sound of the tell tale sign of charges detonating at 140 dbs.

What explosive evidence do you see anywhere in the video? You can time stamp it for me , if you dare.

a reply to: neutronflux

Every one of your posts does the same thing.

Lots of verbage, lots of statements. No proof of statements. No supporting backup. Nada.

A simple fireproof door will survive hours of raging fires.

Listen, it is very simple.

Tall structures fall over ... not down!

The fuel from the aircraft exploded as it left the building. That is what those huge fireballs were. I repeat ... the fuel burned outside of the building.

It does not matter what evidence is placed at your feet, it will be meaningless.

Your arguments require support, not your blanket condemnation.

P

a reply to: intrptr

Ok, then name the building that was in the video so I can research the method of CD.

The name of the video is "Vérinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition"? Are you saying demolition charges were not used?

a reply to: pheonix358

One, that is a rant with no debatable facts.

Two, CD backers use eyewitness accounts out of context of loud noises and fire balls in the lobby. The noise was from crashing elevators who's cables were cut by the jets.

The fuel caused a flame front that ran down the shafts in to the lobby. The fuel is what lead to widespread fires throughy the towers.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: intrptr

Ok, then name the building that was in the video so I can research the method of CD.

The name of the video is "Vérinage Compilation - Explosiveless Demolition"? Are you saying demolition charges were not used?

Thats the whole demonstration, how puling out one floor near the top of a building initiates top-down, progressive collapse. They weaken the structure on one or two floors part way up and then use cables and tractors to pull out the remaining support to initiate the collapse on those weakened floors. The weight of the upper floors crushes each floor, one after the other, all the way down to the ground.

You can see them pulling out the weakened floor at the end. They do it that way in Europe so they don't have to use explosives. Its an alternative method and explains the physics of what happened on 911 after the fires were allowed to burn unchecked until the structural support on those floors could no longer support the floors above it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: pheonix358

One, that is a rant with no debatable facts.

Two, CD backers use eyewitness accounts out of context of loud noises and fire balls in the lobby. The noise was from crashing elevators who's cables were cut by the jets.

The fuel caused a flame front that ran down the shafts in to the lobby. The fuel is what lead to widespread fires through the towers.

Fuel air explosive effect of dumping tons of jet fuel down the elevator shafts then igniting the aerosol cloud.... Wham!

The collapse wave alsol pushed compressed air down the shafts ahead of the collapse, making puffs outside the building ahead of (lower down) the collapse wave on the floors the elevators normally stop at.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: neutronflux

A simple fireproof door will survive hours of raging fires.

A building wide system of ignition wires, remote detonators, det cored, charges applied to columns with blasting caps are not fire doors.

Tall structures fall over ... not down!

How would a building composed 95 of void space tend to fall sideways? Gravity pulls at everything straight towards the center of the earth. Builds being mostly void and gravity is was makes CD practical.

Why would failed connections sheared by the stain, load, and gravity fail different than ones induced by CD.

Are you saying it's impossible to use CD to make a building or structure fall sideways?

a reply to: neutronflux

One, that is a rant with no debatable facts.

Hello pot, meet the fire.

Two, CD backers use eyewitness accounts out of context of loud noises and fire balls in the lobby. The noise was from crashing elevators who's cables were cut by the jets.

Ok so the firemen who reported explosions, were on the scene, got it wrong did they. But your unsupported statements should be taken as proof because what .. you say so?

The fuel caused a flame front that ran down the shafts in to the lobby. The fuel is what lead to widespread fires throughy the towers.

Statement again with no support or proof. There are videos of firemen in the lobby and guess what, they were not fighting fires in the lobby but hey!

P

a reply to: intrptr

You do understand I am arguing against CD and support the inward bowing failure leading to tower collapse.


What is your theory to WTC 1 and 2 collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: intrptr

You do understand I am arguing against CD and support the inward bowing failure leading to tower collapse.


What is your theory to WTC 1 and 2 collapse?

Same as you, structure compromised by unchecked fires weakening support just enough on several floors to initiate collapse at the weakened floors. I was merely adding to the discussion.

As long as you agree it was the impact of jumbo jets, and resulting damage caused by the impact, and unchecked fires fed by jet fuel and tons of office furniture, fanned by steady winds aloft though the broken windows.

What about Gauges and Jones implied notion that tower collapse speed was only possible with the use of floor by floor induced failure by CD / Thermite?

originally posted by: neutronflux
What about Gauges and Jones implied notion that tower collapse speed was only possible with the use of floor by floor induced failure by CD / Thermite?

If you are asking me that, some debris fell aead of the collapse front, just like in the examples of the demolition compilation video I embedded above. Watch it again and see debris falling ahead of the collapse.

Besides that nothing falls faster than free fall and wouldn't be expected to.