Israel did 9-11.
This presentation identifies the evidence that the 'ideation' (conception) of the 9-11 plot goes back at least to 1978. Israelis worked to gain control of the World Trade Center security. At every juncture of planning, execution, and cover-up there are zionist operatives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0A_rutyxo
9-11 was not investigated as a crime. It was a foregone conclusion--without evidence--that 9-11 was an act of war.
Commendable work by Christopher Bollyn.
Maintenance workers aren't here to seek the truth. Their tactic is to lie, deceive and mislead.
When lies, deception and misdirection don't persuade, they also project their own failings on their adversaries.
We've completed the 2nd 100 pages of exchanges in this topic.
A stark contrast exists between the "maintenance workers'" postings and the postings of Payne/whole2th regarding analysis and supportive references.
The persistence of the maintenance workers is consistent with tactics used by zionists to contain (put up a smokescreen to cover) evidence of Israeli-zionist perpetrators of 9-11.
An interesting aside. People applying for grant money to repair damages from hurricaine Harvey have to sign this agreement. Note provision #11 in the agreement.https://www.youtube.com/embed/3s0A_rutyxo
Meet David Chandlers 100 fold math mistake in force...now if you only knew what it meant in regards to the second law of motion...
The allegation (alleged to be illustrated by the crude drawing) does not communicate clearly any mistake made by Chandler.
You and your fellow maintenance worker(s) are desperate to absolve Israel from responsibility for the 9-11 crimes.
Israel did 9-11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3335&v=3s0A_rutyxo
Emarine does not account for large explosions in the lobby of the Twin Tower.
His pile driver idea does not explain waves of explosions 20-40 floors below the cascading arches of debris.
This repeating clip shows explosions--the North Tower being explosively demolished.
Visual proof of cutter charge severing corner column: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ-k-iOg0M
Blade and emarine would have us believe they are using logic.
Their narratives are designed to conceal the obvious: explosive demolition.
The preponderance of evidence supports explosive demolition--and is especially evidence in Building 7 destruction.
9-11 was a zionist-conceived and executed crime. Zionist media continue the cover-up.
This excellent presentation covers the 'ideation' (conception) of 9-11 and notes zionist operatives at every juncture where the crime could be accomplished and covered up.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0A_rutyxo
Two Jews show their dogged determination to reject the evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRQN7YkxrEw
Note the pattern of 'thinking' that they employ in their mutterings.
What is all this crap about "massive center c... (
How do you account for complete destruction of the 47 central core columns which were cross-linked at every floor with massive beams as shown in the images Payne has posted?
The "pancake hypothesis" which your description resembles was rejected by NIST as having a very low probability of having occurred.
You are grasping at straws, Blade_Runner.
Who do you work for?
So now you go out of your way to hurt my feelings... My buddy & I have had a well established relationship long before you showed up blessing us with pure bullshit... Jr...
The alleged "well established relationship" is one of total disagreement about what happened to 3 buildings on 9-11. Payne's position is that the buildings were rigged with explosives.
Calling my efforts "pure bullshit" and expecting people to accept your label as a refutation of the effort I've made to establish Payne's thesis of explosive demolition is wishful thinking, at best, on your part.
Your "rebuttal" consists of labeling ("pure bullshit"). Whose reply is actually bullshit?
you are clueless on the construction of the "mighty" center core... That's why you only show the large bottom floors and Photoshop what you can't see inside higher up... you want a refresher on reinforced concrete buddy?...
Payne is not your buddy, and was not born yesterday.
It is you who have no legs to stand on.
you can call the top section whatever you choose... objects fall from the top down on earth and impacts the first object under its path not the first 90 objects... one floor with a weight limit ... the top section well exceeded this weight limit from the static weight alone... the rest is basic physics in which you can't revise to the planet earth according to larry payne...
The top sections of both Twin Towers disintegrated well before their intact masses could have crushed the more massive structures below. The top section of the South Tower was tilted and should have 'slid of the side' as its angular momentum (*if it had stayed intact) would have put that section to the side of the skyscraper. Instead, that section of 15-20 floors disintegrated and both Towers demonstrated radially symmetrical explosive destruction in waves of explosions from the top-down.
Your physics is woefully lacking as you attempt to cover-up obvious explosive demolition.
Top of the South Tower sliding off--could not possibly have been a 'pile driver' to crush, symmetrically, the lower, more massive structures.
Radially symmetrical explosions produce a ball of ejected debris.
You ask "Could falling floors tear this structure apart?"... Yes... look at the crude drawing once again & follow the down arrow in the middle... do you call the top section of structure " floors"... the answer is no... it was the entire top structure mass including the floors... time to quit the deceptive crap buddy...
The entire top structure exploded into pieces such that its mass was not available to accomplish what you allege with your crude drawing.
It is proven that explosive demolition took place in the THREE buildings in New York with far better analysis and evidence than you have produced here.
Infowars? ? ? ? ? Now we know where you get your news - from a bigmouth with nothing in his head.
I'm also disappointed in Infowars for several reasons.
Having said this, would you have specific criticisms directly refuting the claim that FBI wiped cell phones rather than just making a sweeping rejection of the source (Infowars)?
Even David Duke gets a lot of things right--while his name is used as permission to reject everything Duke produces.
Such sweeping rejection does a disservice, IMO, to productive exchange here, Alicia.