Education Forum Moderated by Anti-Semitic Crackpot---John Simkin is Aware

[Dr. William Niederhut]

I already answered this question TWICE above.

Please read my answer.

As for the nonsense claiming that Twin Tower steel girders were not liquefied, please refrain from repeating the disinformation.

There is clear documentation of the liquified steel on film.

Study my reference (above) on 9/11 Science 101.

[Tommy Shanks]

I already answered this question TWICE above.

please refrain from repeating the disinformation.

You're apparently the disinfo specialist, doc. I'll stick with the clear consensus of the scientific community that the towers collapsed because the damage from the plane impacts. No ridiculous controlled demolitions or remote controlled planes or whatever other gibberish you're peddlin.

[Dr. William Niederhut]

You're apparently the disinfo specialist, doc. I'll stick with the clear consensus of the scientific community that the towers collapsed because the damage from the plane impacts. No ridiculous controlled demolitions or remote controlled planes or whatever other gibberish you're peddlin.

Consensus?

The shills pushing the false Bush/Cheney/Zelikow narrative about 9/11 are, essentially, telling the sheeple to ignore the evidence of their eyes and ears.

Ignore the visible and audible explosions that pulverized the Twin Towers, and ignore the cascades of molten steel that were "flowing like a foundry" at Ground Zero, in the recorded testimony of NYFD firemen.

Ignorance is bliss, eh, fellas?

[Tom Graves]

You're apparently the disinfo specialist, doc. I'll stick with the clear consensus of the scientific community that the towers collapsed because the damage from the plane impacts. No ridiculous controlled demolitions or remote-controlled planes or whatever other gibberish you're peddlin.

Tommy,

You don't seem to realize that oodles and gobs of "Deep State" bad guys planted oodles and gobs of charges and faked the footage of the Saudi dudes' boarding the planes and the recorded flight paths, etc., etc., etc.

Heck -- almost as many "Deep State" bad guys as those who carried out (and continue to cover up!) the JFK assassination!!!

What's wrong with you, Tommy?

You sound like a CIA disinfo agent to me!!!

-- Tom

[Dr. William Niederhut]

Newsflash, Tom.

There is no footage of the alleged hijackers boarding the planes that struck the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.

None.

As for the explosives, who controlled security at the WTC during the weeks prior to 9/11?

Also, when Silverstein "Told them to pull" WTC7 on 9/11, to whom was he referring?

[John Mytton]

Newsflash, Tom.

There is no footage of the alleged hijackers boarding the planes that struck the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.

None.

As for the explosives, who controlled security at the WTC during the weeks prior to 9/11?

Also, when Silverstein "Told them to pull" WTC7 on 9/11, to whom was he referring?

Also, when Silverstein "Told them to pull" WTC7 on 9/11, to whom was he referring?

For a start, when Silverstein made the comment he was on the record and being interviewed for television, how stupid would he have to be and admit to what amounts to insurance fraud and jeopardize his almost a billion dollar pay-out, do you CT's ever think through your absurd theories??
Secondly, within context of the above quote, Silverstein says he received a call from the Fire Department Commander and was concerned about the loss of life, so why on Earth would Silverstein give the go ahead for a controlled demolition to the Fire Department Commander or does it make more logical sense that the "pull it" quote meant the evacuation of the fire department's firemen?? 

And as for WTC7's "controlled demolition", it's obvious you don't have any formal training in Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Physics, Demolition or even Architecture and you clearly get all your "science" training from Kook websites and the back of a cornflakes packet!

1. The start of the WTC7 collapse happened many seconds before the oft quoted "free fall" collapse when the penthouse collapsed into the building when the supporting structural internal beams gave way.

Pay close attention to the penthouse @0:03 seconds.

For a more in depth analysis.

 

A real controlled demolition is preceded by deafening explosions as hundreds of kilograms of explosives are set off to weaken the buildings support structure and then compare it to the relatively silent WTC7 collapse! Case closed!

WTC7 collapsing from 27 different angles.

And as for the south tower collapse, again in any footage we don't hear any preceding Earth shattering explosives being detonated, all we hear is collapsing floors.

At the moment of collapse we see the outer walls bow inwards because the catastrophic failure of the floor supports give way which subsequentially causes the upper floors to crash down.



Besides the Towers looking nothing like any "controlled demolition" ever, the collapse atypically comes from the top down.







And finally, what extra value was caused by the towers collapse? Seriously?
• If the reason was to start a War on Terror, the imagery of the planes striking the buildings easily accomplished that.
• The unacceptable risk of planting hundreds/thousands of kilograms of explosives and hoping beyond hope that the massive fires wouldn't set off these explosives!
• Having the standing towers on fire and smoking for days or weeks is a lot more visually powerful than a pile of rubble.
• The damage created by the impact, the fires and the fact that the towers were giant tombs of thousands of bodies would make the case for an actual controlled demolition a no-brainer. And I understand that the removal of the asbestos(for a safe CD) would have been costly but the cost for the CT's "controlled demolition" had to come from somewhere? But regardless, under the circumstances and the eventual trillions for the war on terror, this cost would be negligible.





JohnM

[John Mytton]

JohnM

[Bill Brown]

Nothing left for John Mytton to do other than just drop the mic and walk away.