I notice you repeat the same old vague claims rather than providing some evidence. That is correct: there is no evidence to such an inside job or you would be able to produce it rather than whine about incredulity.
I have provided EVIDENCE, just because you don't recognize the significance of it, doesn't in any way invalidate the evidence.
You have not produced any evidenced period. Your claim that you have is a proven falsehood. It is not my opinion or belief it is an irrefutable fact. You have exprfessed only uneducated and uninformed opinion you have not produced on iota of evidence.
So, exactly how would you describe the fall of WTC7? and if the ONLY foundation for that argument is the NIST report, that is rather poor for support. the correct terminology as has been mentioned before is that WTC7 descended at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity. and that is very significant, that is why the opposition must negate this bit, but you really can't.
You are wrong. WTC7 fell slower than free fall as it should have that is fact and the end of your false claim. Once again not a speck of evidence from you. Here is a clue for you questions are NOT evidence. Produce some evidence and stop with the repetitive dancing away from facts
in a statement that is agreed upon by both NIST and AE911TRUTH, WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration. and this is documented. the fact that you refuse to accept it as evidence in no way diminishes its significance.
No the NIST report stated no such thing this lie has been proven a lie over and over. Like it or not you are stating a falsehood and you know it. WTC7 did not fall at free fall acceleration absolute fact now produce some evidence
Um I am stating a negative it is on you to cite where it says what you claim and you never have. EVery time you do it is pointed out how wrong you are
Either you have never read the report, or you choose to misrepresent what it states. Page 46 there is a graph of the acceleration of WTC7. and this doesn't support the case for free fall acceleration? what?
No it does not you are quite deliberately misrepresenting what it states and this has been proven every time you cite that source.
no he is right, and even nist agrees with him, so what kind of debunker lunacy are you posting? 30 demolition pro Jowenko agrees too, so whats the major malfunction?
He is wrong and so are you. NIST stated no such thing. Jowenko is nothing more than a self proclaimed expert with an opinion which the facts prove wrong. It fell slower than free fall absolute fact The malfunction is in the lies of the conspiracy theorists who ignore that fact. No evidence exists of controlled demoltion it is strictly wishful thinking
Who is making that judgment? This guy ran a company that was trusted with doing controlled demolitions and doing them right, this takes considerable skill and experience. what is up with the attempt to negate the testimony of a true recognized expert? The 2.25 sec of free fall for WTC7 as much as puts up a huge neon sign that sez "THIS IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION"
Sorry genericBob. The only reason that you think controlled demolition could have been the ONLY cause of what we saw is because you cannot comprehend how the weakening and failing of structural components due to damage and fire could have caused this to happen. As I have said before, when you are debating something, you had better fully understand opposing side. If is VERY clear that you do not.
I can comprehend the weakening & failing of structural components. and the other part of this that I also comprehend is the probability of having ALL of the support disappear out from under the falling mass such that what was observed on 9/11/2001 happened, that is we can clearly see the north & west face of the building descending in a manner that is indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity. and people insist that this action is the product of chaotic fires + damage to the south face of the building by rubble thrown by the "collapse" of the North Tower. just for an example, if a lumberjack intends for a tree to fall in a specific direction, most certainly this is not accomplished by making random cuts around the base of the tree, the cuts must be focused on a specific way to cause the desired result. the fall of WTC7 is far too organized for it to not be the product of intelligent design.
One thing that truthers never seem to talk about regarding WTC7 is the testimonial record from the FDNY officers who assessed the damage to building 7 prior to its collapse. They determined that it had been so severely damaged that's structural integrity was critically compromised and that it was in danger of imminent collapse. So worried were they about it collapsing that they abandoned rescue efforts and evacuated the area, clearing a collapse zone around the perimeter of the building. FDNY Officers' Testimonies to the Condition of WTC7 on 9/11
Is that what I said? But if it was a controlled demolition, don't you find it curious that FDNY officers had also predicted it would collapse based on damage assessments? That is one very lucky coincidence--unless of course you believe the FDNY were "in on it".
Fire fighters work similar to the military, they have a chain of command and the lower ranks simply do as they are told. The fact is that someplace in the upper command levels of the New York Fire Dept. there was most probably somebody who was in on the fraud and gave orders for others to follow, and the others did indeed follow orders and it went down like we all saw on the "NEWS".
So you think they were lying when they said the decision to evacuate was made by their own personal assessments of the damage to WTC7?
Firefighters are also unionized and the members wouldn't take kindly to being threatened by the FDNY. And they wouldn't follow 'orders' to break the law...period
There it is!...just add another character to your conspiracy...no proof, no evidence, no statements...just completely made up.
Would the firefighters at street level have to know about the explosives, all they need to be told is that the higher ups have consulted with the experts and the building is in danger of "collapsing" therefor, fall back and keep the tourists out of the area.
So, after killing all those firefighters in towers 1 & 2, why would they care about those in building 7? Go on, keep making up more bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
