WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by argentus

One more time

reply to post by kidtwist

 

For one, mods have banned the word 'truther' (see a few pages back).

.

For the record, what I said was "please stop using "truthers" as an invective -- in other words "stupid truther", "take that, TRUTHER", etc. Please don't call anyone a "shill".

If the topic cannot be discussed/debated without engaging each other in a personal manner -- that is, staying on-topic -- then the thread will probably be closed.

Please post on topic, everybody. Please keep the personal stuff out of it. Pretty clear, right?

Thanks!

edit on 28/5/12 by argentus because: (no reason given)

Oh, now you elaborate what you really meant. Basically, they dont like the term shill, and we dont like the term turther, so both should be banned in any form. You cant ban the term shill and allow truther to be used in other ways. Please be clear so we know what you really mean. Thx

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
The picutre is photoshopped..Someone put a picture of Low-Bypass Turbofan engine(only used in military crafts)

I think this is more accurate(High-Bypass Turbofan engine,,only for commerial jets)

Hey genius, it's the inside of a jet engine.

inventors.about.com...

At least try to think critically. Did you go to school for nothing?

Oh I see , the turbine alone survived and the outer shell must have pulverized... Right?


Sure

I put that ridiculous "engine" planted on the sidewalk under the scaffolding in the same category with Muhammad Atta's passport, the scanty shards of debris planted in front of the Pentagon, and the crap dumped into the pre-existing hole in Shanksville. For the gullible, they are an appeasement. For the intelligent, they are an insult.

Originally posted by exponent
It's funded by the TV License, not tax. I have a TV license, and clearly know a lot more about it than you.

I said it was funded by the tv license, and meant it is a tax! It's optional, but if you want to watch it legally then you have to pay your tv tax (license). Jeez, you could easily tell what I meant, and I even included that it was funded by the license, I just didnt explain it in the way you woulde have liked, however, it was eay to see what I meant.

It definiely isnt a private broadcaster as was mentioned, hence my reply, the government control it, and they enforce the law on tv licensing.



[qote]You now claim you've seen something you claim you'd never even heard of moments ago. Why are you being so dishonest? Are you trying to save face?

Obviously I saw it I posted it! Why would I post it and not watch it, I seriously thought you had another video because there is more stuff by him, I also have a phone call recording with him on it bookmarked somewhere, I'll dig it out tomorrow as I'm going to bed shortly.

This is just un-sourced fantasy. It has no logical connection nor did Danny Jowenko ever say it. In order to make a building collapse at the top like WTC1 and 2, you do not destroy the bottom first. That would result in a failure at the bottom.

Everything is fantasy to the tv watching OS crew!

He stated that demolitions are normally done from the bottom, as I say I know full well what he said I've seen the video about 20 times! However, these were different to WTC7, we know there were explosions at the bottom, and yes it did come down from the top first, but there were explosions at the base before the planes hit, and before the towers fell, so it would suggest that the combination of explosions in different places all contributed to it coming down.

Seeing as NIST conveniently didn't check for explosivesin 1, 2 & 7 we will never know the exact type they used.
But if WTC7 was a controlled demolition then that confirms that anything was possible with 1 & 2, because if WTC7 was an inside job, then it was all an inside job.

You or any of your buddies have not answered my NIST questions, which were:

Why did NIST not look for explosives in any of the buildings?

Why did NIST exclude seismic blast dats for WTC 1, 2 & 7?

Why did NIST excluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

Why did NIST exclude there was foreknowledge that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

Why did NIST ignore the FOIA for a good while initially?

Why did NIST not release all evidence together, instead in dribs and drabs?

I could list numerous why did NIST questions, but if you and your buddies would care to answer these for now then I'll happily start taking you a bit more seriously. That'll do fore now, I'll check back tomorrow to see if you have addressed these questions, or if you have failed to debunk then adequately...

Any other replies I've missed I'll address tomorrow when I have time to check back...

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I put that ridiculous "engine" planted on the sidewalk under the scaffolding in the same category with Muhammad Atta's passport, the scanty shards of debris planted in front of the Pentagon, and the crap dumped into the pre-existing hole in Shanksville. For the gullible, they are an appeasement. For the intelligent, they are an insult.

Yeah, the 2 other passports they 'found' at Shanksville, and the 'hijackers' letter they found at shanksville!

They must think we were born in a barn!

Originally posted by kidtwist

You or any of your buddies have not answered my NIST questions, which were:

Why did NIST not look for explosives in any of the buildings?

Because to the professionals, there was no evidence of explosives. Do not forget, in the real world, there needs to be actual evidence of said event. To the professionals, people saying they heard explosions is not hard evidence of explosives and not enough to investigate. Also, no evidence was discovered during clean up.

Why did NIST exclude seismic blast dats for WTC 1, 2 & 7?

There were no explosive blasts recorded, other than the impacts and collapses. Seismic data was not necessary.

Why did NIST excluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

Because there was no evidence of demolition. Its that simple. No series of detonations prior to collapse.

Why did NIST exclude there was foreknowledge that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

Because there was NO controlled demolition. The only foreknowledge was of impending collapse due to visual evidence of damage and slow structural failure. Why are you saying "foreknowledge that WTC7 was a controlled demolition"? That was never said before. You are pretty much lying.

Why did NIST ignore the FOIA for a good while initially?

It was an ongoing investigation for starters. Also, from what I heard, the issues of the ownerships of the videos. But I cannot comment further on that.

Why did NIST not release all evidence together, instead in dribs and drabs?

See above.

I could list numerous why did NIST questions, but if you and your buddies would care to answer these for now then I'll happily start taking you a bit more seriously. That'll do fore now, I'll check back tomorrow to see if you have addressed these questions, or if you have failed to debunk then adequately...

Any other replies I've missed I'll address tomorrow when I have time to check back...

edit on 28-5-2012 by kidtwist because: (no reason given)

well I gave it a start.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
The picutre is photoshopped..Someone put a picture of Low-Bypass Turbofan engine(only used in military crafts)

I think this is more accurate(High-Bypass Turbofan engine,,only for commerial jets)

Hey genius, it's the inside of a jet engine.

inventors.about.com...

At least try to think critically. Did you go to school for nothing?

Oh I see , the turbine alone survived and the outer shell must have pulverized... Right?


Sure

Ah, there's that smug attitude again.

Well to answer your sarcastic question, yes. yes it did. because as anyone intelligent enough to understand that something that is more fragile will fall apart and smash, will also understand that something that is denser and heavier, will more than likely, survive. The propellers and outer casing of the jet engine were smashed, while the center kept going.

be honest, you really don't know very much about the topics at hand, right? I have seen people try to hide their ignorance and inexperience with heaping doses of smugness and sarcastic rebuffs. Also lots of incredulity, especially when one has no idea the complexity of the question or answer. Which is all I ever see you do. Are we having a civilized discussion or are we just going to stand around and act like immature children that do not want to learn something? and no, you do not win the debate by causing the opponent to give in frustration when all you do is act like a child.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
The picutre is photoshopped..Someone put a picture of Low-Bypass Turbofan engine(only used in military crafts)

I think this is more accurate(High-Bypass Turbofan engine,,only for commerial jets)

Hey genius, it's the inside of a jet engine.

inventors.about.com...

At least try to think critically. Did you go to school for nothing?

Oh I see , the turbine alone survived and the outer shell must have pulverized... Right?


Sure

Ah, there's that smug attitude again.

Well to answer your sarcastic question, yes. yes it did. because as anyone intelligent enough to understand that something that is more fragile will fall apart and smash, will also understand that something that is denser and heavier, will more than likely, survive. The propellers and outer casing of the jet engine were smashed, while the center kept going.

be honest, you really don't know very much about the topics at hand, right? I have seen people try to hide their ignorance and inexperience with heaping doses of smugness and sarcastic rebuffs. Also lots of incredulity, especially when one has no idea the complexity of the question or answer. Which is all I ever see you do. Are we having a civilized discussion or are we just going to stand around and act like immature children that do not want to learn something? and no, you do not win the debate by causing the opponent to give in frustration when all you do is act like a child.

That's not being a smug. You are always condescending and I welcome it. It gives you character. Could you imagine every member having the same style. Ease up bro


Now you carelessly said :

"something that is more fragile will fall apart and smash, will also understand that something that is denser and heavier,will more than likely, survive"


Wow!!!

If that's true than both jet liners WOULDN'T have been able to successfully distribute whatever amount fuel the planes were carrying to weaken the floor above and allow the dynamic pancake decent that our NIST so adamantly claims,,, right?

I cannot stop laughing..

How do you know the engine kept going? Because of the picture member Waypasthisbedtime posted??
It can't be Gdeck,,jeje,, it just can't be. There must be more pictures of the same engine,,, right?


Finally,, in your last paragraph , I counted 9 insults. I wonder if moderator DontTreadOnMe will give you warning? Probably not

Overall, I don't buy Yours or Way's case in how this supposedly magic engine did what it did.

Sorry, very weak... And the picture is a forgery.

reply to post by SimontheMagus

I actually ran into 4 of the alleged hijackers at Flagler airport in Florida . They landed just after me in an Emery Riddle Piper Cherokee evidently training to fly the planes . When I tried to make a comment to the Pilot about the gusting cross winds the other 3 walked quickly back to see what was going on and basically shield me from view of the FBO . I felt really threatened with the guys having their hands in their pants pockets and sizing me up . The pilot quickly moved in front of me and said he was just commenting about how rough the wind was or something to that effect . They then swung around and walked to the FBO / Restaurant .I thought I had talked to a Saudi Prince or something that might get you killed . I didn't know just how close I was to being killed until I saw the pilots picture among the hijackers photos . They were here , the Japanese were at Pearl , we knew ahead of time both times that we were going to be attacked and let it happen if not actually helped in the attack . For example at Pearl we had them on radar and were told to ignore it knowing all the time the Japs were out there . At the WTC Cheney had our Airforce sitting on their thumbs watching helplessly waiting on his word . The FBI was called off of Atta while they were looking at him . The FBI was looking at their training not to land but to control the airplane in the air . We got our Pearl Harbor just like Cheney said .

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
reply to post by exponent

 

Then post another picture of that corner street. There has to be more than one picture of that specific engine. C'mon dude.

img14.imageshack.us...
www.apfn.org...
www.drjudywood.com...
www.911review.org...
i13.photobucket.com...
i13.photobucket.com...
i13.photobucket.com...
www.picturedesk.org...
img242.imageshack.us...
edit.81x.com...
z3.ifrm.com...
i662.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by kidtwist
I said it was funded by the tv license, and meant it is a tax! It's optional, but if you want to watch it legally then you have to pay your tv tax (license). Jeez, you could easily tell what I meant, and I even included that it was funded by the license, I just didnt explain it in the way you woulde have liked, however, it was eay to see what I meant.

What you meant to do is to try and show me up, but you're completely ignorant on the matter:

It definiely isnt a private broadcaster as was mentioned, hence my reply, the government control it, and they enforce the law on tv licensing.

The BBC is explicitly separate from the government. How about you educate yourself: www.bbc.co.uk...

Everything is fantasy to the tv watching OS crew!

You really can't even admit to the tiniest point can you? Despite the fact you were and are remain completely ignorant you seem to think that you don't have an obligation to do any research whatsoever.

Why did NIST not look for explosives in any of the buildings?

There was no unambiguous test.

Why did NIST exclude seismic blast dats for WTC 1, 2 & 7?

There is no seismic blast data.

Why did NIST excluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

They didn't. They tested it and found any plausible charges would produce deafening bangs more than 1km away. We have video from the event and those bangs did not occur.

Why did NIST exclude there was foreknowledge that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

They didn't, they interviewed the firefighters involved and found that it was Chief Nigro who set up a collapse perimeter.

Why did NIST ignore the FOIA for a good while initially?

How would anyone know that? I don't work for NIST, nobody else here works for NIST, why don't you ask them?

Why did NIST not release all evidence together, instead in dribs and drabs?

Because it's not all stored in one big filing cabinet called '911 EVIDENCE DO NOT SHOW TO TRUTHERS!!!'

I could list numerous why did NIST questions, but if you and your buddies would care to answer these for now then I'll happily start taking you a bit more seriously. That'll do fore now, I'll check back tomorrow to see if you have addressed these questions, or if you have failed to debunk then adequately...

How can I 'debunk' a question. You're just desperately trying to avoid having to answer for your own ignorance on the matter. At least I can admit when I am wrong.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
How do you know the engine kept going? Because of the picture member Waypasthisbedtime posted??
It can't be Gdeck,,jeje,, it just can't be. There must be more pictures of the same engine,,, right?

It is visible on the videos from the day!

Please, stop mistaking your own ignorance for a lack of evidence. You and kidtwist are being incredibly arrogant in dismissing all evidence you were not aware of as fake. You've read a few conspiracy sites and think that's all that it takes to understand such a huge and complex event. You've clearly not even bothered to read the official reports.

Why should anyone listen to a word you say, when you don't even know the very basics of the events that day?

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Oh I see , the turbine alone survived and the outer shell must have pulverized... Right?

So first you are amazed that the engine could get through the tower without being stopped or damaged on the way through. The state of the engine proves that it was damaged on the way through, and you say that's what makes it impossible?

Is everything impossible to you unless it matches exactly what you want it to be?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
reply to post by exponent

 

Then post another picture of that corner street. There has to be more than one picture of that specific engine. C'mon dude.

img14.imageshack.us...
www.apfn.org...
www.drjudywood.com...
www.911review.org...
i13.photobucket.com...
i13.photobucket.com...
i13.photobucket.com...
www.picturedesk.org...
img242.imageshack.us...
edit.81x.com...
z3.ifrm.com...
i662.photobucket.com...

Wow Way, do you have a secretary on call?. You are good.


Ok I stand corrected there was a turbine sitting upright on the corner of Murray. But still that turbine looks too small for a 767. And Murray is more than 2 New York blocks away from ground zero.

And who positioned the smoking turbine upright?

And who would take the effort to place the street sign next to it for the photo shoot?. Yes I'm sure there was an investigation on it. I'll will try to search for that affidavit.


Still suspect sorry.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
How do you know the engine kept going? Because of the picture member Waypasthisbedtime posted??
It can't be Gdeck,,jeje,, it just can't be. There must be more pictures of the same engine,,, right?

It is visible on the videos from the day!

Please, stop mistaking your own ignorance for a lack of evidence. You and kidtwist are being incredibly arrogant in dismissing all evidence you were not aware of as fake. You've read a few conspiracy sites and think that's all that it takes to understand such a huge and complex event. You've clearly not even bothered to read the official reports.

Why should anyone listen to a word you say, when you don't even know the very basics of the events that day?

Nope, unfortunately I watched them all and no flying engine after the fact.

My evidence is my signature. Pretty sure that's enough. Have you ever seen my signature in a conspiracy website,,,,don't think so. And I have a copy of NIST next to my toilet.


What have I said incorrectly in regards to the 911 time-line?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Oh I see , the turbine alone survived and the outer shell must have pulverized... Right?

So first you are amazed that the engine could get through the tower without being stopped or damaged on the way through. The state of the engine proves that it was damaged on the way through, and you say that's what makes it impossible?

Is everything impossible to you unless it matches exactly what you want it to be?

Yes,yes yes,,, but that turbine is too small for it to belong to a 767. Its sitting upright dude. Who picked up and stood it upright. Wasn't it hot?


If it doesn't match with my signature, its bunk.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Nope, unfortunately I watched them all and no flying engine after the fact.

Stop lying to people. You and I both know you haven't watched them all and are literally lying to appear more impressive. Took me less than 30 seconds to find this video:


It's a bit truther-y but the fact is you could have equally found it, you just don't want to hear things that disagree with you.

My evidence is my signature. Pretty sure that's enough.

Pretty sure it's fantasy. Stop posting fantasy as fact and accusing others of doing so. If you actually bother to research, you can find that the engine is an exact match and it has been significantly damaged and had all its outer stages separated. Personal incredulity won't change this.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Oh I see , the turbine alone survived and the outer shell must have pulverized... Right?

So first you are amazed that the engine could get through the tower without being stopped or damaged on the way through. The state of the engine proves that it was damaged on the way through, and you say that's what makes it impossible?

Is everything impossible to you unless it matches exactly what you want it to be?

Yes,yes yes,,, but that turbine is too small for it to belong to a 767. Its sitting upright dude. Who picked up and stood it upright. Wasn't it hot?

It's the INSIDE of a turbine. Is that too complicated for you to fathom? That an engine got damaged on the way to the ground?

reply to post by exponent


Like I said :seen them all. The main object in the video could be anything .... Seriously

How does that video disagree with my POV?

Regardless if it was an engine , two things change:

1) It was not a 767 that it the tower

2) That supposed flying engine in the video did roll down into the corner of Murray and stopped under a scaffolding, sitting upright .

C'mon


And I have not accused anyone of being delusional. If you want me to I can pm you

I did do my research, didn't find anywhere stating "exact match" .


The funny thing is you couldn't debunk my signature if you even tried.

reply to post by Varemia


I don't think you know what a turbine is . That is not the inside of a turbine. Sorry my friend. If you want try posting the magic engine on murray and a photo of the inside of a turbine.

Wow

And you said "the engine got damaged on the way to the ground",, so it was in perfect condition after leaving the tower?

At least the other OSers are smart and stubborn. You are just plain stubborn.