Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company

a reply to: HorusChrist

it had to be have the asbestos removed to get more tenants and make money again but that is very costly. and doing controlled demolition the legal way is also very expensive.

Apparently, no evidence of explosives was ever found, which is evident by the fact that no demolition explosions are heard on video as the WTC buildings collapsed, which explains why seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Apparently, no evidence of explosives was ever found, which is evident by the fact that no demolition explosions are heard on video as the WTC buildings collapsed, which explains why seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Not going to find it if you don't look for it, right..

a reply to: wildb

Not going to find it if you don't look for it, right..

How are you going to find something that wasn't there in the first place? I've posted the videos of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, so from those videos, you now have a fresh start to post those demo explosions timelines.

How are you going to find something that wasn't there in the first place?

Now thats just dumb, if it wasn't looked for we don't know if it was there, thats the point... if you don't want to find it you don't look for it.. If there was a real investigation it would have been looked for..

I've posted the videos of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, so from those videos, you now have a fresh start to post those demo explosions timelines.

Are you stuck in groundhog day or is it something worse?

a reply to: wildb

Now thats just dumb, if it wasn't looked for we don't know if it was there, thats the point...

How would you know? After all, I've asked you to post the demo timelines and even you, can't find the demo timelines in order to post them here for all to see.

a reply to: wildb

Are you stuck in groundhog day or is it something worse?

Question is, why haven't you posted them here for all to see if they were posted earlier?

How would you know? After all, I've asked you to post the demo timelines and even you, can't find the demo timelines in order to post them here for all to see.

TextQuestion is, why haven't you posted them here for all to see if they were posted earlier?

Because unlike you I don't see a need to repost everything over and over again. They have been posted by me and others, everyone following this thread has seen them and commented on them.

So stop asking, we are not going to play your silly game..

TextHow would you know?

Because thats what NIST said...

This.

a reply to: wildb

In other words, you are unable to refute my claim with evidence. Why didn't you just admit that you had nothing of substance that refutes my claim?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

In other words, you are unable to refute my claim with evidence. Why didn't you just admit that you had nothing of substance that refutes my claim?

We have been over this, if you can't remember what people say to you stop posting, it only makes you look foolish, or a troll ..

a reply to: wildb

The fact of the matter is, you have no case for explosives or thermite.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

The fact of the matter is, you have no case for explosives or thermite.

Your trolling again...

a reply to: wildb

No, just stating the facts. In other words, to make my point crystal-clear, 9/11 conspiracy theorist are unable to backup with evidence, what they claim, and the challenge for you was to prove me wrong by posting those demo timelines, which you have failed to do because no such demo timelines exist.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

No, just stating the facts. In other words, to make my point crystal-clear, 9/11 conspiracy theorist are unable to backup with evidence, what they claim, and the challenge for you was to prove me wrong by posting those demo timelines, which you have failed to do because no such demo timelines exist.

Again trolling, I have as much evidence as you,and you know what that means, nothing..

originally posted by: skyeagle409
Apparently, no evidence of explosives was ever found

If 9/11 was an inside job, and they also controlled the crime scene (which they did, well-armed), then of course they're going to say they found no evidence.

NIST has been caught lying or omitting on numerous occasions. Why would it be any different for other government organizations?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
which is evident by the fact that no demolition explosions are heard on video as the WTC buildings collapsed

That is not quite accurate. A video released by NIST does contain sounds that could be explosives detonating. Even if many video cameras didn't pick up the sounds, far too many people did hear the detonation sounds.

Here's that video released by NIST along with a select few of those witnesses who heard the detonation sounds:



Whether the detonations can be heard on video or not (besides the one above), is a mystery. However, the witnesses were very clear and descriptive of what they heard and felt.

To corroborate the witnesses, we can also see some of the explosives being detonated in collapse videos:


Those ejections seen as the towers are collapsing is consistent with high-powered explosives being detonated like is shown in the controlled demolition at the bottom of the above image.


To add on top of all that, there were at least three first responders that saw low-level flashes with popping sounds circling around both towers below the collapse fronts.

Flashes, explosive ejections, boom sounds heard and felt by witnesses, all are signs of controlled demolitions regardless whether many videos picked up the sounds or not.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
which explains why seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Another inaccuracy. There have been others, but this is one of the better ones: Dr. André Rousseau, Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, former researcher for the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), and who has published 50+ papers on mechanical waves and geology, published a paper on the seismic data from 9/11.

The paper:

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?


His conclusions:

The wave events undeniably have an explosive origin.

Controlled demolition of the three towers is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves.

For every scientist who says "no", there's also one that says "yes". The witnesses, video/audio evidence, and scientists that say "yes" are all in agreement that the buildings came down with explosives. There's too much evidence suggesting as much.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Good post BoneZ, Sky will be along to tell you your wrong.. I think your right..

a reply to: wildb

Good post BoneZ, Sky will be along to tell you your wrong.. I think your right..

I doubt he will, _BoneZ_ is a Moderator. However, _BoneZ_ presentation is correct and is a fact.

a reply to: Informer1958

I did not catch that, maybe he can set him strait in a PM..