Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Art Wholeflaffer wrote:

Cardinal Chunder wrote:

Art Wholeflaffer wrote:

I was reviewing my postings on 9-11-01 and have found out that I not
only exposed 9/11 that day as an inside job (which is sooo obvious) but
I also correctly blamed the Debunkers are the main culprits.
They alone would've put the nano-thermite/mini-nuke in WTC 1, 2 and 7;

Nano thermite / mini nuke !!! Hahahahahah!

My oh my, has debunking fallen that low...well, yes.

Ha-Ha-Ha-ha to you Bub, supporting the traitors, but sadly
that is all too typical :<

So you're going to provide any evidence to support the notion that such
things as nano-thermite & mini-nukes exist in any form let alone that
required to bring down these buildings without leaving any trace of
themselves?

No? Well then.

Anthrax being some kind of non sequitor you just tossed in.

No, straight from Ft. Dietrick,  which kinds of shoots down all of your
other stupid and implausable explanations!

It's a non-sequitor, as was your response.

WTC-7, and you say fires, that's not even a credible
reply, unless your a complete idiot.

Actually it is a credible reply, unless you are claiming the firemen
(who had just lost friends and colleagues) were lying about the massive
structural damage and heavy fires on multiple floors. Or that the
pictures of WTC7 showing thick smoke belching from one whole side of the
building were fabricated.

It's credible ONLY and I repeat ONLY if you are trying to cover-up
something
like how everything was pulverized and this was the only time in world
history
that steel buildings - 3 of them - totally collapsed - as in - as the
owner
readily admitted on TV - controlled demolition style.

Which means, as the proof has it, the explosives were planted weeks
before,
as the elevators were closed down and the teams were sent it.

I hate to see how the debunkers are supporting the home-grown
terrorists, but it sure isn't the first time, and I'm afraid it won't
be the
last time.

Curious how the anthrax was sent to the then 2-opponents of the
(sic) Patriot Act, and the photographer that shot the pix of
the 2 Bush drunken kids.

Is that what you are claiming?

My only claim is that your debunking has reached new lows.

10.  Controlled Demolition "Implosions" Require Skill

  The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete
collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the
"official" theory that random fires plus damage caused all these
collapses.  Even with high-level cutting charges, achieving such
results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise.  As Tom
Harris, an authority in this field, has explained:

The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way
it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building
over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of
blast is the easiest to execute.   Tipping a building over is something
like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters
detonate explosives on the north side of the building first...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be
preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion,
demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its
own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat
requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the
world will attempt it.
Blasters approach each project a little differently... [A good] option
is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the
other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally
speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower
floors first and then a few upper stories... [nb: The upper floors then
fall as a tamper, resulting in "progressive collapse"-- this is
common in controlled demolition.]  (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

Careful observation of the collapse of WTC 7 (video clips above)
demonstrates a downward "kink" near the center of the building
first, suggesting "pulling" of the support columns, then the
building's sides pull inward such that the building "collapses
straight down into its own footprint" (Harris, 2000).  The plumes of
debris observed on upper floors of WTC 7 as the collapse begins appear
consistent with explosive cutting of supports for "a few upper stories"
as outlined above.   FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a
well-confined footprint:
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled
downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion... The average
debris field radius was approximately 70 feet.  (FEMA, 2002, chapter
5.)
Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the
collapse of WTC 7, and yet:
This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition
companies in the world will attempt it.  (Harris, 2000; emphasis
added.)
Consider:  Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of
WTC7 and the Towers, when "toppling-over" falls would require much
less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?  And
where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the
buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway?  These questions suggest
the need for further investigation.
One of the people a thorough investigation should question would be
demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition,
Inc.  Speaking of the way the WTC buildings came down, he said in an
interview:  "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put
explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help
collapse the structure." (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Just right - "explosives in the basement" agrees with eyewitness
reports of pre-collapse explosions down low in the buildings (point 7
above).  Also, this would be the way to effectively sever the support
columns, consistent with both the apparent initial drop of the
communication tower (WTC Tower 1) and the "kink" in the middle of
WTC 7 as its collapse began.  Yes, and as president of Controlled
Demolition, Inc., Mr. Loizeaux would know the "handful of demolition
companies in the world [that] will attempt" a symmetrical controlled
demolition or "implosion". (Harris, 2000)  His company is certainly one
of these and was hired to do the rapid clean-up work following the
building collapses.

If you still haven't looked at the rapid symmetrical collapse of WTC7
for yourself, why not do so now?  Watch for the initial "kink" or
drop in the middle, and for the "squibs" blowing in sequence up the
side of the building, and notice the symmetrical, straight-down
collapse.  All of these features are common in controlled demolitions.
.  See for yourself at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html .  A great deal of
further information is presented from a serious scientific
point-of-view at this site http://wtc7.net/ .