1)Does Alex Jones use Big Jim Tucker - in Endgame, and elsewhere?
2)Does 'Big' Jim Tucker have a long and ongoing relationship with Willis Carto?
---------------------------------------------------
Larry answered (!)
1) Yes
2) I have no idea, and even if he does...so what?
---------------------------------------------------
Well, the answer to (2) is also "YES", Larry.
You should be ashamed of your ignorance.
Tucker has worked for, and with, Willis Carto for decades. So that's a direct line between your publisher, Alex Jones, and Willis Carto......an anti-semitic, racist fascist. I'll leave you to work out the "so what" of your publisher working with fascists..........
--------------------------------------------------
Now for Larry's questions.......but first.....I ask you, Larry, to keep your questions on this topic restricted to this thread. You're spamming all the posts, and all on the same topic. Keep it all here in future, huh? I'm happy for you to disagree with me, I don't mind that at all. And I don't mind if you post your "facts"......but keep them all here in one place, or at least where they're relevant? Else I'll just move them all to this one place. OK? I've no intent to censor you as you did me, but I won't let you derail every thread onto your hobby horse.
Right.........to Larry's questions, then.
Larry asked:
1. WHAT CAUSED THE PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE? Hmmmmm?????????Of WTC7?
Was it a "perfect symmetrical collapse"? WTC7 sags in the middle before collapse. That's what I'd expect, though I readily confess I'm no architect. Are you?
If it was "perfectly symmetrical", so what? What would that prove, even if it were? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that a modern building, built out of steel, in a rectangular shape would collapse somewhat symmetrically, if it were to collapse.
WTC7 burned all day long, had suffered considerable damage from falling debris from the collapse of the towers in the morning, and was of a peculiar design which allowed large parts of the central floorways to be removed creating an aesthetically pleasing, but structurally weak atrium effect.
And, critically, there is no positive evidence for anything other than a collapse initiated by other means than fire and damage sustained from the debris of the earlier collapse of the twin towers.
If you have some positive evidence for collapse other than through the (considerable) fires and debris damage, what is it? I'm quite open to accepting evidence for some other cause of collapse apart from fires and structural damage, but I've never seen any. There isn't any. If you can actually provide some, what is it?
If you toss a coin, does it always land on heads? No.
2. Why did buildings that were RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers, in which debris fell RIGHT ON TOP ON, not suffer universal collapse, but WTC 7, the FARTHEST away, that had minimal damage and minimal fires collapsed not only universally, but in perfect symmetry???
Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No.
Buildings have collapsed before from fire - even steel framed ones. There are plenty of transcripts and statements from FDNY that say they were worried the building was going to collapse. The Silverstein episode even makes that clear. Don't pretend you aren't aware of them?
3. On videos just prior to WTC 7's collapse, you can hear policemen say "This building is coming down soon"----HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT IF A BUILDING HAD NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE?
Have such buildings been of the same type of construction as WTC7, and have they been damaged by falling debris like WTC7? No. And even if they were, does a flipped coin always land on heads? no.
4. can you explain the plethora of buildings SINCE 9-11 that were fully ablaze where fire consumed the ENTIRE building and burned MUCH longer, even as long as an entire DAY and yet they did NOT collapse? Can you explain that??????
5. Why all the cover-ups about 9-11? Why wasnt an investigation conducted IMMEDIATELY instead of 441 days later?A contrary claim of Conspiracy Theorists is that FEMA were on the scene the day before 911. hardly fits with your suggestion nothing was done for over a year. And the clear-up and official response obviously began the moment the 1st plane hit. They didn't leave ground zero as it was for 441 days did they? So what do you mean by "no investigation"? You mean the investigation you are referring didn't start until 441 days afterwards. That doesn't mean no investigation was conducted earlier - of course it was - it's imbecilic to suggest otherwise.
As for cover-ups over 911: Bushco were warned in several ways that an attack was imminent. If Bushco were as negligent about such warnings as they were about everything else they did, then that alone is reason enough for "coverup". The mere existence of "coverup" does nothing to prove it was "an inside job". It could just as easily point to a cover-up of Bushco's negligence - which is my personal take on it.
There are also issues about the building never having had to pass NY building codes because it was Port Authority. And in the 1970s, when the WTC were built, the FDNY safety chief warned that modern skyscrapers were disasters waiting to happen, because of the sacrificing of safety to profit, the use of lightweight steel, modern building methods reducing safety margins, etc etc. ALCOA whom supplied the steel are also big political donators. All these issues have recived scant attention compared to that given to "space rays", "mini-nukes", "super nano-thermite", etc.
6. So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL?But that's just your effort at manipulation. You are being transparently disingenuous. And it's easy to prove how disingenuous you are being: you have provided me with a choice quote.....
"Larry Simons believes that 'Comments left at Prisonplanet.com led Poplawski to kill 3 police officers'.
31 comments:
First of all dickhead---I put my answers on ALL the threads because you were telling me ON ALL THE THREADS that I hadnt answered, when in fact, I already DID several times...assface.
Now, to your ridiculous, contradictory and dismissive "answers".
You say WTC 7 sags in the middle before collapse. Hmmmmm. Thats what WE (the truthers say) because we contend that the central column is being blown out, which demolitionists do with buildings they demolish. So, Im glad we agree on something. Glad you admit that the central column is being blown out.
Have you seen the films of WTC 7? Anyone watching that will say the fall is STRAIGHT down..perfectly symmetrical. Also, what causes the little penthouse on the very top of the building to collapse FIRST? Only ONE thing can cause that---the underneath being blown out underneath.
WTC 7 did NOT burn all day long. A day is 24 hours. WTC 7 had very small sporadic fires that burned for 8 hours tops. They were routine fires in any firemans handbook.
You said:
"If it was "perfectly symmetrical", so what? What would that prove, even if it were? Seems perfectly reasonable to me that a modern building, built out of steel, in a rectangular shape would collapse somewhat symmetrically, if it were to collapse."
So what--what would that prove? Thats your brilliant answer? Seems reasonable that a building would collapse symmetrical? You mean WITHOUT explosves? SHIT---hy do they have demolition companies if all it takes is to set it on fire and damage it a little? If all you had to do was damage a building a little and set off a few fires, the demolition companies would be out of business!!! Youre a MORON. Also, name ONE building that has ever suffered a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE when damaged by objects or fires---name ONE. Note: I said UNIVERSAL collapse---meaning the whole fucking building, straight to the ground. Name ONE....ONE.
Funny how in your first sentence of your response you said:
"That's what I'd expect, though I readily confess I'm no architect. Are you?"
Funny how people are NOT experts or architects when they cant answer hard questions, but when they are trying to PROVE their points they become instant experts. Youre "not an architect" but then you suddenly become one when you say:
"Seems perfectly reasonable to me that a modern building, built out of steel, in a rectangular shape would collapse somewhat symmetrically, if it were to collapse."
and then:
"WTC7 burned all day long, had suffered considerable damage from falling debris from the collapse of the towers in the morning, and was of a peculiar design which allowed large parts of the central floorways to be removed creating an aesthetically pleasing, but structurally weak atrium effect."
All of a sudden a fucking expert huh??? Not an "architect" but somehow you KNOW this huh??
"And, critically, there is no positive evidence for anything other than a collapse initiated by other means than fire and damage sustained from the debris of the earlier collapse of the twin towers."
You mean, OTHER than the fact that the damage and fires were asymmetrical, yet the collapse was symmetrical? How does asymmetrical damage produde a symmetrical collapse??? According to your logic, I wouldnt have to chop down a tree at the base to knock it down, I can just chop the tree in different areas throughout the length of the tree and it will fall straight down. I dont care WHAT the building is made of, simple physics tells you that an object of ANY shape or size will only collapse universally if you weaken it from below. Set your house on fire right now and take a wrecking ball through portions of it and see if it falls STRAIGHT down-----it wont.
"If you toss a coin, does it always land on heads? No."
What in the HOLY FUCK does that even mean?????? OMG, is THAT your best???? OMG!!! Ive been debunked---praise God, The Turd has the answer to 9-11! A coin doesnt always land on the same side!!! BRAVO! You solved 9-11!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."
Thought you wasnt an architect??? Youre right, they werent all the same height, design or position. Buiding 7 was MUCH more state of the art and stronger than WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6---yet WTC 7 collapsed with minimal fires and damage but the others did not. WTC 5 was even fully ablaze and did not collapse. Thanks for making my point for me. God this is so fun schooling you.
You said:
"Buildings have collapsed before from fire - even steel framed ones."-----UNIVERSAL COLLAPSES, YOU MEAN??? NAME ONE--and provide the link. Dont send me links to buildings that have PARTIALLY collapsed. I want links that show a UNIVERSAL collapse due to fire. I will be IGNORED on this one.
"Have such buildings been of the same type of construction as WTC7, and have they been damaged by falling debris like WTC7? No."
Ahhh, the architect speaks again. No, they werent the SAME. As I said, WTC 7 was MUCH more state of the art than any of the other buildings. Are you denying that WTC 7 was a state of the art building?
"A contrary claim of Conspiracy Theorists is that FEMA were on the scene the day before 911. hardly fits with your suggestion nothing was done for over a year."
When you make statements like this, I can tell you have not read ONE book on 9-11. Im talking about the INVESTIGATION of 9-11. The 9-11 Commission, you dickface. There was an investgation BEFORE the 9-11 commission? Hmmmmm, thats funny. Then why did the Jersey girls kick and fight Bush for one for 441 days??? Have a link that backs up your claim the investigation started sooner? Id love to see it. Im talking OFFICIAL investigation-----not a private unofficial one.
I LOVED your doage and deflect reply to question 6:
"But that's just your effort at manipulation. You are being transparently disingenuous. And it's easy to prove how disingenuous you are being: you have provided me with a choice quote....."
Translation: It was a great question Larry and I admit I cant answer it so Ill type some gobblygook just to say I didnt ignore it, but it will make no sense
Now can you ACTUALLY answer question #6? It was a very logical question. If you cry like a pussy about being deleted, and you condemn those who censor, then do you think Alex Jones should have censored Poplawski's comments because YOU think Jones influenced him?
So when you say shit like "Larry Simons believes that 'Comments left at Prisonplanet.com led Poplawski to kill 3 police officers'."----you are purposely LYING. Im saying since YOU think Jones influenced him, do you think Jones should have deleted the comments???
Hmmmm??? Am I gonna get a REAL answer this time, or another deflection?
First off - I think you provide a great example of how Troofers conduct an argument.
2nd - are you an architect Larry?
No.
Will you listen to the accumulated weight of arguments by architects, physicians, firefighters and demolition experts? No. Larry knows better.
There really isn't much point going beyond there. But WTF, I'll indulge you.
Glad you admit that the central column is being blown out.
No - I said that the building sags in the middle first as it collapses - thereby discounting your argument of perfect symmetry.
What is your positive evidence for demolition? All you have to say is the building sags in the middle first - just as might be expected in a collapse of a building with a structural weakness through its central point (via the atrium effect caused by removable flooring design).
Larry: Have you seen the films of WTC 7? Anyone watching that will say the fall is STRAIGHT down..perfectly symmetrical.
I've already told you I've heard all the arguments Larry. Don't be conceited and think you're offering anything novel here?
And you just admitted that the building sags in the middle first. That isn't a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
And anyway - there's nothing suspicious about a modern building collapsing in a pretty symmetrical fashion - it was built in a symmetrical fashion, distributing forces throughout its structure, using cantilever design. If you build a house of cards, and the structure is weakened at even one single point, it isn't a surprise the whole lot comes down - in one go.
regardless - you don't have a single piece of positive evidence for any other explanation. Maybe you're right - but you don't have any positive evidence for it. So why do you believe it?
Larry: Also, what causes the little penthouse on the very top of the building to collapse FIRST? Only ONE thing can cause that---the underneath being blown out underneath.
No - it needn't suggest explosive demolition at all. What positive evidence do you have for it being an explosive demolition? If you have some let's see it? You have none - I know - I've been looking for it for 8 years, and it isn't there.
WTC 7 did NOT burn all day long. A day is 24 hours.
LOL. 24 hours includes night-time, Larry.
Larry: WTC 7 had very small sporadic fires that burned for 8 hours tops. They were routine fires in any firemans handbook.
No Larry - you haven't read the firefighters' testimony - or seen the pictures - or you're calling them liars and the pictures fakes.
Seems reasonable that a building would collapse symmetrical? You mean WITHOUT explosves?
If you have some positive evidence to the contrary let's see it? I notice you didn't provide any. And I know you won't provide any because.....you can't. When you can provide such evidence the world might believe you Larry - but until then, the evidence says otherwise. You want to dispense with the scientific method fine - that's up to you.
Larry: If all you had to do was damage a building a little and set off a few fires, the demolition companies would be out of business!!!
On the contrary - it is you whom suggests demolition is a quick and easy affair.
I said there were extensive fires which burned all day, and the building was heavily damaged by debris from the towers' collapse earlier in the day.
If you have positive evidence for demolition let's see it. You haven't provided any.
Larrry: name ONE building that has ever suffered a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE when damaged by objects or fires---name ONE. Note: I said UNIVERSAL collapse---meaning the whole fucking building, straight to the ground. Name ONE....ONE.
Well, the logical rebuttal of this argument is there has to be a first time.
And of course, steel buildings have previously collapsed due to fire. This for example
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/
24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/mccormick_fire.html
The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.
But don't let an expert tell you, huh? You're an architect, right?
Larry: they werent all the same height, design or position. Buiding 7 was MUCH more state of the art and stronger than WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6---yet WTC 7 collapsed with minimal fires and damage but the others did not.
All wrong, Larry.
There were substantial fires, and WTC7 was of a peculiar design - it had removable floor structure so that the building could be reconfigured - including the possibility of having a large opening - atrium - through the centre.
Larry: Are you denying that WTC 7 was a state of the art building?
Depends what you mean. Are you denying that in the 1970s the NY Chief of Fire said the modern (state-of-the-art?) buildings going up were death traps and that a tragedy was waiting to happen?
Larry: Have a link that backs up your claim the investigation started sooner? Id love to see it. Im talking OFFICIAL investigation-----not a private unofficial one.
Of course the investigation 'started' sooner - it started as soon as the planes hit/buildings fell. Just because the 911 commission didn't convene until a year later, doesn't mean no investigations happened until the suits sat down. Duh.
Larry: 6. So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL?
But that's just your effort at manipulation. You are being transparently disingenuous. And it's easy to prove how disingenuous you are being: you have provided me with a choice quote.....
"Larry Simons believes that 'Comments left at Prisonplanet.com led Poplawski to kill 3 police officers'.
You are a MORON.
Nearly ALL controlled demolitions are perfectly symmetrical. A central column being blown out first does not negate that. The HAVE to blow out a central column so the building falls INWARD. You can watch the video and SEE thats its perfectly symmetrical. Im beginning to think you dont know what "symmetrical" means.
"If you build a house of cards, and the structure is weakened at even one single point, it isn't a surprise the whole lot comes down - in one go."
LOL! Youre comparing a state of the art building or ANY building really to a house of cards????? LOL!!!! I can blow on a house of cards too, like I was blowing out candles---does that mean WTC 7 would fall if I blew on it to fall over?? That only happened in the Big Bad Wolf story. God, youre a fucking MORON! Now, I know the level of intelligence Im working with here!
God you are SOOOO fucking DUMB!
I said: WTC 7 did NOT burn all day long. A day is 24 hours.
Youre reply? "LOL. 24 hours includes night-time, Larry."
Yeah, I KNOW it includes NIGHT time too---but YOU said it burned ALL DAY, not me! That means YOU said it burned ALL DAY and ALL NIGHT. YOURE the one that said ALL DAY. So, are you ADMITTING that it burned at NIGHT too? You are STUUUUUUUUPID!!!
You said:
"On the contrary - it is you whom suggests demolition is a quick and easy affair.
I said there were extensive fires which burned all day, and the building was heavily damaged by debris from the towers' collapse earlier in the day."
There you go saying ALL DAY again. And you acknowledged earlier that includes the night since a day is 24 hours, so youre admitting AGAIN you think WTC 7 burned at NIGHT too. The building was HEAVILY damaged by debris? Any pictures to back that up???? EXTENSIVE fires? Any pics to back that up?? Of course you dont---none exist!
The links you gave under the McCormick Center crap are invalid. One takes you to a page talking about the WTC, the other says "page not found"---lol. That ALONE tells me all you did was look at some site, found the link and copied and pasted it WITHOUT actually looking at it. Why is the page not there TURD? Huh????
Ive seen the McCormick Center pics before asshole. It was NOT a Universal Collapse! I SPECIFICALLY told you NOT to send me pics of a partial collapse, and thats EXACTLY what you do. (Actually you sent me an invalid link! LOL)
Here is a CORRECT link to the picture of th McCormick Center:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/mccormick_fire.jpg
Notice, it is NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE, the outer walls are STILL in tact as well as parts of the roof. This was just a massive roof cave in, NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE. Care to be schooled anymore???? By now, your 3 readers have probably abandoned you because I have kicked your ass with facts.
The hilarious thing about you citing the McCormick Center as a comparison is when you earlier told me:
"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."
And yet you cite the McCormick Center---which was "not the same HEIGHT, not the same DESIGN and not the same POSITION" as WTC 7. Yet, that didnt deter YOU from using it as an example to make your point. BUT, since it was NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE like WTC 7, it was a SHITTY example.
SCHOOLED AGAIN
I LOVE this part:
You said:
"Depends what you mean. Are you denying that in the 1970s the NY Chief of Fire said the modern (state-of-the-art?) buildings going up were death traps and that a tragedy was waiting to happen?"
So what if he said in the 1970's????? WTC 7 was built in 1987!!!!!!!!!! DUMBFUCK! Why would a quote from a fire chief referring to buildings built in the 1970's have any bearing on a building built in 1987??????????
WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!
You said:
"Of course the investigation 'started' sooner - it started as soon as the planes hit/buildings fell. Just because the 911 commission didn't convene until a year later, doesn't mean no investigations happened until the suits sat down. Duh."
My question was: Do you have a LINK that PROVES the investigation began earlier? I will assume because you did not post any, you do not.
SCHOOLED AGAIN
Oh and by the way, dont you know the #1 sign of being wrong and debunked is when youre asked about something a 2nd time and you just REPEAT the same answer you did the first time? When will you give an ACTUAL answer to my question #6??? Let me guess.....never??
Heres the link of the McCormick Center picture again. I cant help it if this stupid website cuts off the link. By the way, I looked at the very site where you got the McCormick Center crap and the actual page says "page not found"--so dont blame it on this posting board cutting off your link. I looked at the actual link on the site. Says "page not found". Funny how I have to HELP you find the RIGHT links that even YOU use to debunk me!!! LOL. If this link doesnt post in full, Ill keep trying
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/
docs/mccormick_fire.jpg
I tried the link I just posted, it works and the picture is there that shows the NON-universal collapse of the McCormick Center. I think you KNEW your own link was invalid. You just wanted to post something hoping that I wouldnt actually check it out. I had already seen the McCormick Center pics before and KNEW it was NOT a universal collapse, but it was funny knowing deep inside youd use all the classic debunked examples.
Gonna go to Popular Mechanics next? Go ahead. Im ready for it. DUMBFUCK.
Hmmm, no comments. I guess its plain to see....victory is mine. Go ahead, leave all my comments up so your 3 readers can see how I destroyed you.
Youre nothing but a windbag who sits around and lets the TV make your mind up for you. Then you come on blogs and constantly repeat the same mindless posts over nd over, flat out DENY people answer your questions when they have 4 and 5 times, and resort to old tiresome debunked theories (many of which I have schooled you on....smoke billowing from WTC, McCormick Center). Another tactic of yours is using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence. You dodge, deflect, ignore, spin, lie and simply make up things when I get you into a corner. Then you simply just say things that are blatantly false (like the 9-11 investigation began the day after 9-11, and that other buildings have collapsed due to fire before)---things just completely made up, of which you provide no links for.
Ive wasted too much time with you. Youre a mindless buffoon and I bet it angers you to no end that Ive DESTROYED you on these facts. For Christs sake, Ive even HELPED you with your OWN links you gave me!!! The one of the McCormick Center of which your link said "page not found"----I come back on and give the RIGHT link.
Youre an embarrassment to humanity. I suggest closing your blog (is it a blog? lol) since you get LESS hits in 18 months than I do in any given 4 days. You hve the TRUTH??? LOL. NO ONE is listening, pal.
Goodbye Turd....I win.
Are you an architect Larry? What is your expertise?
No answer.
No, you're not an architect - you have no expertise, right?
Larry: Nearly ALL controlled demolitions are perfectly symmetrical.
So anything that collapses nearly symmetrically must be a controlled demolition? LOL. Even though there's not a single shred of evidence for it? Just your a priori sense that "it must be so"?
Fine - you are entitled to believe whatever you like, Larry. The thing is, there is simply no evidence for it.
A central column being blown out first does not negate that. The HAVE to blow out a central column so the building falls INWARD.
And if those same columns suffer failure from some other reason - like fires burning all day and suffering damage from falling debris (as the firefighters there say they did) then the result is obviously much the same. Duh.
There is evidence for fires, debris damage, and an imminent collapse - read the firefighters' testimony, for example.
Whereas the evidence for demolition is non-existent. All you have is your faith that it was a demolition.
Believe what you like, but there's simply no evidence for it Larry.
Larry: YOU said it burned ALL DAY, not me! That means YOU said it burned ALL DAY and ALL NIGHT.
LOL. I said it burned all day - so therefore I said it burned all day and all night? Duh. Clearly I said "it burned all day" - I did not say "it burned all day AND all night". LOL - see how you can twist the simplest thing?
Larry: EXTENSIVE fires? Any pics to back that up??
You've seen the pictures. And you've read the firefighters' testimony.
You disregard them. There's no helping you.
Do you have any pictures from WTC7 of the extensive paraphernalia required for demolition? No. You don't even have anything to disregard.....
Larry: Youre nothing but a windbag who sits around and lets the TV make your mind up for you.
I don't watch TV tbh. But anyway - it is you whom disregards the expert testimony of the firefighters who were at the scene in favour of your "faith" in a thesis for which there is no evidence.
And it's you whom places trust in websites like americanfreepress whilst disregarding the testimony of firefighters who were there, numerous experts, pictures, etc etc.
Larry: Another tactic of yours is using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.
Are you an architect or an expert in some relevant field, Larry? No - but it is you whom rejects the testimony of experts and people who were at the scene.
And it is *you* whom claims "it could not have happened" as the experts testify. So your criticism is ridiculous and in fact applies to yourself, not me.
You're entitled to believe Willis Carto's americanfreepress and to trust your faith in a thesis for which you have absolutely no positive evidence - but nobody else has to, Larry.
If the question is turned around, and your thesis is subjected to scrutiny - you have not a shred of positive evidence to even assess.
Where are your pictures of demolition gear? Explosive charges? None. Detonation cord? None. If we ask "How, when, who, where?" about demolition you have absolutely nothing. Just your belief. Ho hum.
"LOL. I said it burned all day - so therefore I said it burned all day and all night? Duh. Clearly I said "it burned all day" - I did not say "it burned all day AND all night". LOL - see how you can twist the simplest thing?"
A DAY is 24 hours----which includes the NIGHT! Thats not twisting, thats literal FACT
I LOVE how you "conveniently" left out addressing these points:
"The links you gave under the McCormick Center crap are invalid. One takes you to a page talking about the WTC, the other says "page not found"---lol. That ALONE tells me all you did was look at some site, found the link and copied and pasted it WITHOUT actually looking at it. Why is the page not there TURD? Huh????"
"Notice, it is NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE, the outer walls are STILL in tact as well as parts of the roof. This was just a massive roof cave in, NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE. Care to be schooled anymore???? By now, your 3 readers have probably abandoned you because I have kicked your ass with facts.
The hilarious thing about you citing the McCormick Center as a comparison is when you earlier told me:
"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."
And yet you cite the McCormick Center---which was "not the same HEIGHT, not the same DESIGN and not the same POSITION" as WTC 7. Yet, that didnt deter YOU from using it as an example to make your point. BUT, since it was NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE like WTC 7, it was a SHITTY example."
"You said:
"Depends what you mean. Are you denying that in the 1970s the NY Chief of Fire said the modern (state-of-the-art?) buildings going up were death traps and that a tragedy was waiting to happen?"
So what if he said in the 1970's????? WTC 7 was built in 1987!!!!!!!!!! DUMBFUCK! Why would a quote from a fire chief referring to buildings built in the 1970's have any bearing on a building built in 1987??????????"
I LOVE how you only address the points you can muster an even partial explanation for but you conveniently OMIT addressing the ones that I COMPLETELY NAIL you on! I love when I read your responses and how you carefully select the ones you want to address and you leave out theones where you have NO answer.
Care to address why I HAD TO PROVIDE the CORRECT link for the McCormick Center picture??? Why would I HELP you with your "debunking"? The answer is, you KNEW your link didnt work, you were just typing a link that OTHER people found for you. Turns out, it said "page not found". I had to get the right link FOR YOU.
You are a disgrace! Address my points above that you "missed"....LOL. You WONT, because you CANT.
So come on Larry - tell us what you've "proven"?
Nothing.
There are no other examples of a building "just like WTC7" - so don't be surprised nobody can find you one.
But that applies to your argument too, though you fail to realise it. With no previous examples of a building "just like WTC7" having suffered similar damage and fires as that experienced on 911, you don't have an example to "prove" that what happened on 911 to WTC7 is anomalous. You just make the hollow claim that in your opinion "it shouldn't have happened like that." Well, here's the news, Larry - it did.
Until you can provide positive evidence for some other explanation, you have *nothing*. Zilch. NADA. You don't even attempt to provide positive evidence for your thesis - because there is none.
And your opinion is that of someone who has "watched a lot of videos". Well, doesn't cut any mustard, sorry.
As for the firechief writing in the 70s that modern skyscrapers were "deathtraps" and "a tragedy waiting to happen" - did it escape your comprehension that 1987 is after the 1970s? Hence the relevance.
You might not think it's relevant, but you haven't provided a single thing that is relevant.
What did happen, Larry? What's your thesis? And where is your evidence for your thesis? You have provided none.
And the WTC7 burned all day - not all day and all night - all day. Nutter.
You are a COMPLETE fucking MORON!
You said:
"As for the firechief writing in the 70s that modern skyscrapers were "deathtraps" and "a tragedy waiting to happen" - did it escape your comprehension that 1987 is after the 1970s? Hence the relevance."
Yeah, he said that IN THE 1970's----IN THE 1970's and the entire reason you mentioned it was to point out that buildings built PRIOR to him saying it were "deathtraps"-----that would EXCLUDE WTC 7, which was built in 1987!!!!!!! You were trying to make the point that he was including WTC 7 as one of the "deathtraps" but it was built AFTER he said it! Are you THIS FUCKING DUMB ON PURPOSE, or was you BORN this fucking dumb????
By the way, IDIOT. You CONTINUE to IGNORE the fact that I schooled you on the McCormick Center photo that you posted an INVALID link to, but I posted the RIGHT one that actually SHOWED a page! Why do you keep ignoring me on this one issue?
The McCormick Center was NOT a universal collapse. I provided the link of the picture. Tell me something MORON---why, after I asked you to NOT send me links of buildings that did NOT suffer universal collapse, did you send one ANYWAY???
Is it because you cant FIND ANOTHER EXAMPLE of a building that suffered universal collapse that wasnt taken down by controlled demolition????
Hmmmmmmmm???? Will you IGNORE me a FOURTH TIME on this issue?????
Hmmmmmmmmmm???????????????
You also keep ignoring this:
"The hilarious thing about you citing the McCormick Center as a comparison is when you earlier told me:
"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."
And yet you cite the McCormick Center---which was "not the same HEIGHT, not the same DESIGN and not the same POSITION" as WTC 7. Yet, that didnt deter YOU from using it as an example to make your point. BUT, since it was NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE like WTC 7, it was a SHITTY example."
Larry: ...the entire reason you mentioned it was...
You're a mind reader now too? Not satisfied with just being a clown?
Larry: to point out that buildings built PRIOR to him saying it were "deathtraps"-----that would EXCLUDE WTC 7, which was built in 1987!!!!!!!
How do you know what the dude meant? How do you know he could only have meant buildings already built?
His criticism was actually about "modern building techniques".....the reduction in built-in superfluity for hard-nosed financial reasons (hey - this is new york we're on about).....the reduction in the use of stone.....the reduction in the amount and size of steel used.....the "fancy" new designs. Such criticisms could easily become even more relevant and urgent as time passed and building techniques "progressed".....and margins were cut.
That's a potential scandal that's received no attention, right, Larry?
If you look back at New York history, there are some horrifying stories of fires in factories and hi-rise hovels, from which there was no escape. They never even built fire-escapes and such like.....people were burned to death.
That is, until there were some notable tragedies and the outcry amongst the poor wretches - working long hours in rotten jobs at the dangerous factories - became irresistable. Only then, and only relatively recently did such things as building codes come to be better implemented.
And there's a couple of things about buildings, and building high:
1) Building high maximises potential profit - it's a money game.
2) The lighter a building, the higher it can go. Obviously there's some problems with that.
And obviously 1) and 2) are related in a capitalist, and oppositional dynamic?
I think that's at least worth bearing in mind.
The WTC never had to attain a building codes certification - because it was Port Authority, and Port Authority were exempt.
PA issued all the building certifications perhaps? But they didn't have to do so for themselves? Cozy.....and it'll never get hit by planes, anyway, right? Who knows?
Larry: Is it because you cant FIND ANOTHER EXAMPLE of a building that suffered universal collapse that wasnt taken down by controlled demolition????
I can find another example of A building.....but not one identical to the WTC7, no.
How many buildings "identical" to WTC7 are there? How many have ever suffered "identical" conditions?
How many buildings sufficiently "similar" to WTC7 are there? How many have experienced similar conditions?
And from a sample size of TOTAL ZILCH - Larry somehow knows it was "absolutely impossible".
-----------
You just cannot make a reply without insults and/or profanity, can you? Gets tedious quick when it's in every post, you stupid fucking fucky fuck fuck.
"His criticism was actually about "modern building techniques"....."
And he said in the 1970's!!!!!!!!!!! MEANING: Buildings up UNTIL that time. Youre saying he meant FUTURE builings???
MORON!!!!!!!!!
"I can find another example of A building.....but not one identical to the WTC7, no."
First of all...NO YOU CANT find another example---because thats what I originally asked for!!
2nd---what would be the point UNLESS it was identical?????
MORON!!!
I WIN
You were BEAT by a "troofer"
post THIS video...MORON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owyqt-8RnKI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Fbotched%2Dbuilding%2Ddemolition%2Dreinforces%2Dwtc%2D7%2Dlie%2Ehtml&feature=player_embedded
If it doesnt fully display, i ill repost it
I just copied it and put it in the URL bar, it works. Watch it MORON
Hey Turd, you know, since you think minimal damage an minimal fires cause perfect symmetical collpses of buildings...why dont you start your own company? Call it, the "Small fire and small damage demolition company".
You go to the building, set a few areas on fire and take a wrecking ball and damage a few spots---and wait a few hours--and then sit back and watch it collapse perfectly symmetrically and fall in on itself and the watch the building turn to dust.
Youd make MILLIONS!!
Or I could just sprinkle a little super-de-dooper nano-thermite on it?
Or maybe fairy dust?
That'd make me a demolition-man extra-ordinaire too, right?
You are the one that thinks it was achieved by demolition - not me. Yet I am the one under attack - apparently for suggesting an absurd method of demolition.
But it's you who is arguing for demolition, Larry - not me. Isn't that right?
So YOU explain it? YOU explain why demolition isn't so easy - and then tell us how it was done?
DEMOLITION IS YOUR ARGUMENT - NOT MINE.
So you explain how your notion of demolition isn't absurd?
In your video, Larry - go to 2.10?
What do you see swirling around the building?
A *lot* of smoke.
Look towards the base of WTC7 - you can even see smoke coming from this side of the building.
The side of the building nearer us is the one that was furthest away from the WTC Towers, right? It was protected from damage by the rest of the structure of WTC7, right? That's obvious.
Images from the front show a building so swathed in smoke it is impossible to get a very clear view of the damage it has sustained.
It seems incontrovertible that there is smoke coming from WTC7 - and lots of it - but from the front....and it flows away in the direction of the wind - S/SE - just like it had for the twin towers. But that's the opposite side of the building from the camera angles presented here.
Yet even here - we can clearly see smoke rising from THIS SIDE of WTC7.
And to the left of WTC7 (in the video) there is a large amount of what looks like firesmoke . Just as it looks in the pictures taken from the front.
"What do you see swirling around the building?
A *lot* of smoke.
Look towards the base of WTC7 - you can even see smoke coming from this side of the building."
I see smoke but since the fires at WTC 7 were profoundly MINIMAL, the smoke you see is the smoke from WTC 4, 5 and 6---mainly from 5, because WTC 5 was fully ablaze, I have pictures of 5 completely on fire and I have pics of the smoke pouring DIRECTLY out of WTC 5 and 6 and that same smoke is the smoke you see in front of WTC 7. Are you suggesting that massive amount of smoke is coming from the very SMALL fires from WTC 7? My god, you have WAY more faith than I do!!
You didn't answer the question, Larry/RTO.
AGAIN.
You keep avoiding answering - continue and I am going to just start putting all your comments in some dustbin.......
Here's what you didn't answer on this thread:
DEMOLITION IS YOUR ARGUMENT - NOT MINE.
So you explain how your notion of demolition isn't absurd?
If it's so hard for a building to be destroyed, how did anyone rig it for such a complete demolition - unnoticed - without leaving a single bit of evidence - of cord or detonators - without making any detonation noise?
Come on - answer or face being removed for continually refusing to answer questions.
PROVE that the smoke outside of WTC 7 was COMING FROM WTC 7. I have pictures that CLEARLY shows the smoke coming from WTC 5 and 6.
What have YOU proven????
NOTHING
Awwww, are you gonna censor me????? Awwwwww, poor babyyyyyy
Hmmm. You have problems, Larry.
Clearly you can't manage interacting with adults. Now you're reduced to pathetic and frankly embarassing posturing.
You've been warned several times, and your behaviour hasn't changed. You have been asked questions, and you've dodged them over and over.
You've been indulged, but in return all you have given back is disrespect, insults and vacuity.
You have served your purpose though - you are a good illustration of what 911 Troof is comprised of. And it ain't up to much, honestly.
You deleted my civil and relevant posts at your blog after just.... what? 3 posts I made? And you deleted the rest - accusing me of trolling. And look how you behave here........
Your conscience won't escape such facts, Larry. You've made a fool of yourself, and your cause.
How many times have I asked for a PHOTO of another example of universal collapse due to fire since giving me the NON-universal collapse of the McCormick Center (in which your link took you to a page that said 'page not found' and I HAD TO PROVIDE THE LINK)????
I asked you about THAT WAYYYYYYY before you asked YOUR questions---when I get an answer to that, I answer your questions....fuckweed.
You "warnwed" me-----LOL. Ooooooooooooooooooo, what will you do? CENSOR me?????? LOL Delete my posts? Oooooooo the big TURD is gonna do what he CLAIMED he never does. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaahahaha!!!!
honda stratford ct low credit auto bed covers ford auto splenectomy plug in the smart grid
Post a Comment