Monday, September 6, 2010

Proof That Most "WTC7 Smoke" Was NOT Coming from WTC7

This is not new information, but this is what some morons need....old information to disprove their old, long-debunked fairy tales

by Larry Simons
September 6, 2010

I'm sure we have all seen the famous photos [below] of WTC7 supposedly "fully ablaze" and the smoke that is supposedly "pouring from WTC7". Smoke "pouring from WTC7" is a scenario that is essential for the buffoons that need to believe that WTC7 was "fully ablaze" so they can claim it collapsed due to fire. One problem: One major, much needed element the photos below do NOT show...............fire.




What they have never seen is photos from the REAL cause of most of that smoke. The "pouring smoke from WTC7" was actually the pouring smoke from WTC5, which was fully ablaze! Here's the proof. You can see WTC7 on the far left in each photo below. Notice how the smoke that was actually pouring from the roof of the fully ablaze WTC5 is drifting over to the south face of WTC7. These pictures are virtually IGNORED on every 9/11 "debunking" site. I wonder why.



Notice the smoke actually billowing from the roof of WTC5 [the small building below that is being sprayed with water] and heading toward the south face of WTC7. Wingnut official story defenders claim this smoke [that is clearly seen coming out of WTC5 and heading in the direction of WTC7] is actually smoke that is billowing out of WTC7.

These pictures also prove that there was enough water to fight the fires. The official story claims that the WTC7 fires were not extinguished because the destruction from the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 destroyed the water system. You can clearly see water being sprayed on WTC5 in both photos above. Because WTC5 was fully ablaze [unlike WTC7]. Below is what "fully ablaze" looks like.



And as you can see, WTC5 did not collapse


Know why? Because fire alone does not collapse buildings.

28 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

One problem: One major, much needed element the photos Larry posted above do NOT show...............fire.
-------------------

[only one shows fire but WTC7 isn't visible in that picture.....]

I don't believe there's any fire in those pics, because I can't see fire.......only smoke.

That's how silly your usual argument against WTC7 being on fire is. You can't see the fires....so it can't be on fire. Well, your pics show smoke but no fire.....so we must conclude there's no fire. Duh.

People only need to avail themselves of this video to understand where the smoke was coming from - WTC7:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

IT's an avi - you might need a codec, DivX player, VLC, or something.

---------

If the WTC next to WTC7 was "fully ablaze", what set it alight?

the_last_name_left said...

Another version of the most clear vid:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58582387431741404&q=wtc+7&hl=en#

----------------------

WTC7 was UPWIND from the other damaged buildings and fires.

What drew the smoke UPWIND, LArry?

nothing drew the smoke upwind, the smoke came from WTC7. that is obvious from the video.

the_last_name_left said...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg

Come on Larry.......your claim is ridiculous - that smoke is coming from WTC7.


How can you deceive yourself so?

Anonymous said...

hey last queenie fraud name left, youve never been to nyc to see ground zero. so zip it. no building has ever come down due to fire nor smoke. fire does not get that hot to bring down the building. plus other buildings around wtc 7 were on fire and were more structurally damaged such as the bankers trust building. that building alone proves us right. hands down. why didnt that building collapse? now you queeenie spin or ignore that? by the way answer larry question.

Larry said...

“[only one shows fire but WTC7 isn't visible in that picture.....]”

WRONG!! BOTH pics I posted show WTC7 in the picture!!

“I don't believe there's any fire in those pics, because I can't see fire.......only smoke.

That's how silly your usual argument against WTC7 being on fire is. You can't see the fires....so it can't be on fire.”

Oh my god! Are you fucking RETARDED????? YOU ARE SAYING WTC IS ON FIRE!!! NOT ME!!! YOU CLAIM THERE’S SMOKE [which there is] BUT SMOKE CAN ONLY BE PRODUCED BY FIRE----AND WTC7 IS NOT ON FIRE IN THE PICS----AS IT SHOULD BE TO VALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS THAT THE SMOKE IS BEING CAUSED BY FIRE! You have said REPEATEDLY that WTC7 was FULLY ABLAZE------now I say “One problem: One major, much needed element the photos Larry posted above do NOT show...............fire” and you AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE’S NO FIRE-----but THERE SHOULD BE FIRE TO PRODUCE SMOKE! Jesus!!!

“"the official defenders of the 9/11 myth" --- Troofers!”

Actually that’s talking about YOU.

“"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories. –FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers"”

Wait a minute---you just ADMITTED that there was NO FIRE in the pictures I posted!!!! Now you quote someone saying it was “completely involved in fire???” WOW!!!

“I didn't see your latest post when I posted HERE in response to your question for evidence of WTC7 leaning, and which I gave you…”

Ummmm, actually I already addressed this!! I posted my story at 4:24pm yesterday and you posted your comment at 10:17am--------------SIX HOURS AFTER I POSTED MY STORY---and you claim you “NEVER SAW IT”----LOL!

“your blog is eating posts”

Ahhhhhh it’s a conspiracy!!!!! LOL

“Do you have any spent/unspent explosive charges? detonators? any documentation to support it?

No.

You have NOTHING.

So why do you believe it?”

I have the smorgasbord of contradictions on your part where you constantly deny something and then ADMIT it in the very next post. Ex: There was no fire at WTC7/the building was “completely involved in fire”---and “the firefighters don’t need fire to save lives/then you admit the building was EVACUATED”—and on and on and on…..you CONTINUALLY contradict yourself, REFUSE to answer questions that Ive asked 9 times and continually REPEAT responses that I have already addressed ---yet you fail to address MY questions even ONE time.

This is now the 10th time I have asked this question:

“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

WHEN, OH WHEN, WILL I GET AN ANSWER?????????????????

Larry said...

thanks anonymous-----Ive made those points before about wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Bankers Trust----but like 50 of my past questions---he continually IGNORES them.

According to TLNL, of all the buildings surrounding the twin towers---ONLY wtc7 collapsed, and that was the ONLY state of the art building of them all

the_last_name_left said...

Do you doubt that those other WTC buildings were set alight by the collapse of the Towers?

YES or NO?

Do you agree that they were much smaller buildings than either the Towers, or WTC7? Size matters.

Do you agree that the other WTC were effectively destroyed by the collapse of Towers?

Else what caused the fires and the damge which required WTC6 to later be demolished?

Why do you feel able to accept the other WTC buildings were set on fire and badly damaged by Towers' collapse, and yet find the same conditions "impossible" for WTC7?

The fact that not all of the buildings collapsed says nothing - the other WTC were effectively destroyed by the collapsing Towers and the fires that started as a consequence. The other WTC were not built like WTC7, were far smaller, and did not have the peculiar design characteristic of WTC7.

But you just claim it's impossible the same conditions prevailed at WTC7 as the other WTC which you accept were heavily damaged by debris and subsequent fires.

See, you believe all that smoke wasn't coming from wTC7.

Where was it coming from then?

The adjacent building !!!!

Oh wow. But somehow, for you, that makes it impossible WTC7 could have suffered debris damage and fires. Ridiculous. If the other WTC were damaged by debris and suffered huge fires there's every reason to expect the same of WTC7.

This is evidenced by the fires seen in WTC7, the huge amounts of smoke leaving the building, the firemen reports of damage, creaking, movement, fire and fears of collapse. It's evidenced BY the collapse itself.

That you hold so vehemently against such facts exposes you as prejudiced.

You can't accept the simplest of facts if they contradict your "thesis" of conspiracy. Pathetic.

It's amusing to see your thread here - pictures of WTC7 blowing smoke like crazy and your prose claiming it isn't. Hilarious. haha.

the_last_name_left said...

L: “If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"
----------

Accepting your premise for a moment -

***** Then how do you know the characteristics exhibited by the building were NOT indicative of an impending collapse? *****

Anonymous said...

hey last queenie fraud name left. answer larrys question. and explain the bankers trust building . never mind, youll ignore it as usual. stop making things up and realize larry owns you.

Larry said...

"Accepting your premise for a moment -

***** Then how do you know the characteristics exhibited by the building were NOT indicative of an impending collapse? *****"

First of all, stating that a building has never collapsed due to fire before is NOT a "premise" it's a FACT. It's also a QUESTION---one that you have STILL failed to ANSWER.

The answer to your STUPID question is:

I DONT know! The burden of proof is not on ME---it's on YOU. YOU and "supposedly" others [i say "supposedly" because you have failed to provide ONE piece of video tape with the police quotes] who claim that you KNEW the building was coming down BEFORE it did would need EVIDENCE that you KNEW it was coming down.

If something has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, how would you even KNOW what events/characteristics would lead to that incident to occur??

If a disease broke out across the nation that 3 million people had and NO ONE died from it, but then one day a group of doctors PREDICT that one lone person will die from it---and that person DOES die from it, then it stands to reason that the group of doctors KNEW in advance what symptoms/characteristics it required for that lone person to die when NO ONE ELSE had died from it. Relating this to your stupid question [above]---you'd be asking: "How do you know the symptoms/characteristics exhibited by the disease victim were NOT indicative of death?" Are you telling me that if it was YOUR loved one that was the ONLY ONE who died from the disease and doctors made a prediction they were going to die and they DID, you wouldn't be asking "How did you KNOW he was going to die [when NO ONE ELSE did?"] Oh, of course not! Not YOU! You would just fall down and accept it with NO questions asked!

My question to you is: How did all these people KNOW it was going to collapse? The key word is "KNOW". If they GUESSED, I wouldn't be asking the question---but they weren't GUESSES, they KNEW. So, I will ask one more time:

“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Will you actually ANSWER it this time???

Larry said...

“Do you doubt that those other WTC buildings were set alight by the collapse of the Towers?”

Nope, not at all----what’s the relevance of the question??

“Do you agree that they were much smaller buildings than either the Towers, or WTC7? Size matters.”

3, 4, 5 and 6 were much smaller, but Bankers Trust wasn’t, which sustained more damage and more fire---yet did not collapse. Point of the question?

“Do you agree that the other WTC were effectively destroyed by the collapse of Towers?”

When have I ever denied this? Yes I agree---and NONE of them collapsed. Point of the question?

“Else what caused the fires and the damge which required WTC6 to later be demolished?”

Was this English?

“Why do you feel able to accept the other WTC buildings were set on fire and badly damaged by Towers' collapse, and yet find the same conditions "impossible" for WTC7?”

No clue what you’re talking about. The other buildings were damaged and on fire MORE than wtc7----yet none other than wtc7 COLLAPSED! YOU’RE the one who accepts that much smaller buildings would NOT collapse with more fire and damage!

“The fact that not all of the buildings collapsed says nothing”

It wasn’t “not ALL”-------------------NONE of the others collapsed!

“ - the other WTC were effectively destroyed by the collapsing Towers and the fires that started as a consequence.”

Ahhhh, the architect has spoken!

“The other WTC were not built like WTC7, were far smaller, and did not have the peculiar design characteristic of WTC7.”

You’re right, wtc7 was built MUCH BETTER---it was state of the art---and the NEWEST of all the other buildings!

“But you just claim it's impossible the same conditions prevailed at WTC7 as the other WTC which you accept were heavily damaged by debris and subsequent fires.”

“SAME CONDITIONS”????? Oh, so youre saying the damage to Bankers Trust, wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6 were the SAME as wtc7??? Oh, so wtc7 was “fully ablaze” with fire? Wtc7 has gigantic holes in it’s roof from the twin towers debris falling DIRECTLY on top of it? You have YET to show me pictures of wtc7 “LEANING” BEFORE its collapse! You have YET to show me pics of the building “fully ablaze”-------------where are these pictures??

“See, you believe all that smoke wasn't coming from wTC7.

Where was it coming from then?”

ARE YOU RETARDED???? THIS VERY STORY SHOWS WHERE IT’S COMING FROM! WTC5!!!!!!! ARE YOU BLIND?? CAN YOU READ???

“Oh wow. But somehow, for you, that makes it impossible WTC7 could have suffered debris damage and fires.”

When have I EVER said it didn’t suffer damage and fires???? WHEN??? I’ve always said it SHOULDN’T HAVE COLLAPSED!!!!! IDIOT!!

“If the other WTC were damaged by debris and suffered huge fires there's every reason to expect the same of WTC7.”

The others [that suffered MORE damage and fires] DID NOT COLLAPSE!!!

“This is evidenced by the fires seen in WTC7…”

The SMALL fires


“the huge amounts of smoke leaving the building….”

That I PROVED was coming from wtc5!! You say there’s smoke, but have YET to show me pictures of the FIRE that caused that smoke!

“the firemen reports of damage, creaking, movement, fire and fears of collapse. It's evidenced BY the collapse itself.”

Which prompted my question: “If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?”---which you have STILL failed to answer after I’ve asked it 12 times!

“It's amusing to see your thread here - pictures of WTC7 blowing smoke like crazy and your prose claiming it isn't. Hilarious. haha.”

It’s not a “claim”------I show EVIDENCE that wtc5’s smoke is blowing in the direction of wtc7 and I also show a picture of the FIRES that produced all that smoke coming from wtc5! Where’s YOUR pics of the fires that “supposedly” produced the smoke from wtc7????????????

the_last_name_left said...

L: I show EVIDENCE that wtc5’s smoke is blowing in the direction of wtc7

LOL - no you don't. Maybe in your twisted mind it looks like that to you, but it doesn't look the least bit like it to me.

How did the smoke travel upwind, Larry?

Watch that video I posted - it absolutely proves beyond doubt that the smoke was coming from WTC7.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Sort your codecs out?

And listen to the audio? It even says what you asked for - that building's coming down.
-----

Even as you insist it was impossible for people to suspect the building would collapse, we have the facts that professional fire-people on the ground at the time DID suspect it would collapse. And it did.

You're heading towards your silliness again - with this rubbish about "KNOW".

Nobody "knew" the building would come down - they could only SUSPECT it.

What you totally fail to address is how all these professional ER peeps suspected it would collapse, if such a thing was "impossible".

You suggest the conspiracy made people believe it would come down, thereby preventing shock when it did - because people were led into "expecting" it.

But you don't address how they were made to believe it would come down.

You even go so far as to claim it was "impossible" for people to know it would come down......and yet somehow your conspiracy managed to make fire-professionals believe it would.

How?

How did they manage to do that, Larry? Did they make the building creak so as to convince the firemen it was coming down?

Did they make it smoke? Did they set fires in WTC7 so as to make the firemen believe it was on fire? [In which case, wasn't it on fire?]

Did the conspiracy make the theodolites give wrong readouts........or did they cause the building to give a bit, so that the theodolites gave the right readings so as to convince firemen that it was gonna collapse?

Or did the building actually have structural failure, fires, damage?

Because that's the easiest way to convince professional experienced people that a building is coming down - by either 1) the real thing, or 2) mimicing the real thing.

So......did the conspiracy mimic all the indications the building was failing, or were the indications really happening?

Or are you saying all those firemen, medics and police are lying?

Or what?

-----

It's ridiculous you pretend I haven't repeatedly given you the reasons why fire-professionals suspected the building was going to collapse. You have had the list of indications repeatedly - damage from WTC tower collapse, fully involved with fire, creaking, engineers' transits on the building. Testimony from named firefighters, medics and police attests to it. You can't keep pretending you haven't been given this info - deal with the substance of it instead? Call them liars, or explain how they saw fires, heard creaking, read theodolites, saw damage etc?
-------------

And what about Alex Jones and Rivero? You haven't commented on their split. I'm interested to hear your thoughts about it.

Seems AJ kicked Rivero because of his anti-semitism/jooo obsession.

Rivero's gone too far-right and anti-semitic for Alex Jones to be able to expand his audience?

Apparently Jones doesn't mind genuine anti-semitic fascists such as Eustace Mullins so long as they keep their trap shut about it on his show?

It's an interesting split, and it seems to be causing some waves -- unsurprisingly as 911 Troof/Patriot Movement is deeply anti-semitic and fascist.

Any thoughts on the split, Larry?

Larry said...

My question ignored AGAIN, for the 12th time. Now, for the 13th time:

“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Why does someone who has the truth ignore a question so many times??

Hmmm??

the_last_name_left said...

Are you stupid? You've had the answer to your stupid question, over and over.

Or are you saying you are unfamiliar with the evidence?

It is only your assumption that it was "impossible" to suspect a building would collapse.

How many times can a building collapse?

If a building has never collapsed before, how can anyone know it would collapse no matter what the indications were?

So, no-one can ever tell a building might collapse. Sure. What a ridiculous position you hold to. No surprise, it's the only position left to you.

---------

So, let's get this straight.......

You believe it is impossible for someone to suspect a building might collapse, regardless of its condition - unless it has collapsed before?

HAHA. Can you not see how ridiculous that is?

the_last_name_left said...

Here's Larry contradicting himself and the Troof movement's claims (again)

L: They were video stills of the ACTUAL COLLAPSE and it was only a SLIGHT lean.
========

A slight lean during collapse? Ok. So why also claim the collapse was "perfectly symmetrical"

Infowars - leaders of your stupid Troof Moo-ment claim:

What was witnessed on 9/11 was a perfectly symmetrical collapse...
http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

But Larry accepts the building was leaning during collapse.

A leaning building is NOT perfectly symmetrical, by definition.

Perfectly symmetrical means one can transform it any way and it still looks identical.

A leaning building fails such a definition, because if one rotated it 180 degrees around it's base then the lean is going the opposite way.

Larry (and Troofers generally) can only maintain their position by twisting reality or the meaning of words - hence a leaning building is symmetrical; smoke coming from WTC7 is coming from WTC6; a vanity publisher is a peer-reviewed science journal; etc

Larry said...

"Are you stupid? You've had the answer to your stupid question, over and over."

Acknowledging a question is NOT the same as ANSWERING it. You have NEVER answered it!

"If a building has never collapsed before, how can anyone know it would collapse no matter what the indications were?"

EXACTLY!!! That's MY question! You not only NOT answer it----but you re-ask it YOURSELF!!

"You believe it is impossible for someone to suspect a building might collapse, regardless of its condition - unless it has collapsed before?"

"SUSPECT"...NO-----but the people you quoted were not GUESSING-----they KNEW. It is impossible to KNOW if it has never happened.

"A slight lean during collapse? Ok. So why also claim the collapse was "perfectly symmetrical"

Symmetrical in that it was weak ALL THE WAY AROUND the building in order for it to fall straight down. It can still be at a lean and fall straight down. The opposite of this would be tipping over. It did NOT tip over like a cut down tree [AS YOUVE ADMITTED]!!

"A leaning building is NOT perfectly symmetrical, by definition."

WRONG. A building TIPPING OVER is not perfectly symmetrical by definition!

"A leaning building fails such a definition, because if one rotated it 180 degrees around it's base then the lean is going the opposite way."

So, youre saying it tipped over then????

Why not address YOUR blatant contradictions??

Ive mentioned them earlier and you IGNORED them--so I will post again:

YOU SAID THE FOLLOWING CONTRADICTIONS:
There was no fire at WTC7/the building was “completely involved in fire”

“the firefighters don’t need fire to save lives/then you admit the building was EVACUATED”—

Now, will you ANSWER my question??

14th time now:
"“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?”

the_last_name_left said...

Are you mental?

How would anyone know if a building was going to collapse? What do you think, retard? I've told you plenty of times already.

Aren't you getting embarassed about asking such a stupid question?

I've made it easy for you, look:

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2010/09/according-to-madman-larry-simons.html

the_last_name_left said...

Me: "You believe it is impossible for someone to suspect a building might collapse, regardless of its condition - unless it has collapsed before?"

Larry: "SUSPECT"...NO-----but the people you quoted were not GUESSING-----they KNEW. It is impossible to KNOW if it has never happened.
---------------

They KNEW, even though it was impossible to know! You're crazy??

And how do you know they "KNEW" rather than "SUSPECTED"? What the hell are you on about? How did they KNOW it was coming down, rather than suspect it?

You mean because of the damage, the fires, the noises, the movement? lol

No, because according to you none of those things happened - the firemen either lied about it, or were hynotised into believing it, or something.

And according to you, the firemen KNEW the building would collapse, even though it was impossible to know. And they KNEW the building would collapse, even though there were no indications of collapse.

-----


you are saying that even if there were the most extreme fires imaginable in WTC7, huge amounts of smoke and incredible amounts of damage from debris......it would have been impossible to suspect it might collapse, because it never happened before?

One wonders why you are so desperate then to pretend that smoke isn't coming from WTC7 - it makes no difference to you whether it is or not, as it would be impossible for anyone to suspect the building might collapse....because "it had never happened before".

Yours is a ridiculous position, Larry, as I suspect you know.

As 911 has "never happened before" how do you KNOW what was possible or impossible about it?

---------

Look at your lies on the righthand side here:

"Small fires that were routine in any fireman's manual"

Rubbish!! Try reading what the firemen say?

"...yet collapsed in it's own footprint completely symmetrically just like a demolition"

Not completely symmetrically - not into it's own footprint --- IT WAS LEANING OVER TO THE SOUTH.

You accept the building leant over as it fell - so how can it have fallen "in its own footprint"? [ no apostrophe in "its"]

Larry said...

You said:

“They KNEW, even though it was impossible to know! You're crazy??

And how do you know they "KNEW" rather than "SUSPECTED"? What the hell are you on about? How did they KNOW it was coming down, rather than suspect it?”

Hmmmm. The cop that said “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon” was “SUSPECTING”??? Notice, he didn’t say “Keep your eye on the building, it MIGHT come down/it PROBABLY would come down/it is LIKELY it will come down”--------------he said “it WILL BE”. And THAT quote is on VIDEOTAPE!

You said this also:

“Experienced fire professionals can form a pretty good idea of a buildings structural integrity.”

Oh yeah? Then why did NO ONE---and I mean NO ONE suspect the twin towers were going to collapse? If they can form a “pretty good idea of a buildings structural integrity” then NO ONE should have died in the towers---including all those firefighters, because “EXPERIENCED FIRE PROFESSIONALS” should have KNOWN the twin towers were going to collapse as well!

NO ONE feared the collapse of Bankers Trust? Wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6??? They were all damaged MORE and some had raging fires-----but no one even “suspected” their collapses----right? They didn’t suspect the twin towers collapses EITHER------------------NOPE! ONLY building 7’s!!!

You also said this:

“It is not *impossible* to suspect a building might collapse - it's perfectly possible. To "know" it will is a slightly different matter. You purposefully insist only the second sense can operate - "know" as opposed to "suspect". They SUSPECTED the building was going to collapse. Seemingly they felt damned sure it would collapse - for all the reasons they have given, on the record. That's positive evidence by experienced professionals - firemen, police, medics......incl. chief of FireDept Nigro, Commanders on the ground, using engineer's transits, etc.”

AFTER I said this:

“That shows you have done ZERO research, because several policeman were overheard just before the collapse saying "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon"----that's more than just "suspecting" it. Seconds before that statement in the clip below, you hear an explosion. But, of course, you wont watch it!”

Tell me something stinky nuts, when a cop says “keep your eye on that building, it WILL BE coming down soon”-----is he “SUSPECTING” it will collapse by the use of the words “WILL BE”???? Or does “WILL BE” means he KNOWS it’s coming down?

If I say, “The products WILL BE getting delivered soon”------am I “SUSPECTING” they will be arriving, or am I SURE????

Got an answer??

Oh by the way, answer this one [15th time asking now]:

““If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE .... how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Real Truth Online said...

Hmmmmm. Now you’re changing your tune. NOW you’re saying you never said you [or anyone else] was SURE it would collapse---but yet, you posted these quotes!! [ALL indicate CERTAINTY that wtc7 would fall]


“I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor” –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti


“The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down”. –Captain Robert Sohmer

‘At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down”. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

“Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable”. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

You also said THIS:

“The experts on the scene that day were convinced it would collapse. Else they are all lying.”

What was that???? You said “they were CONVINCED”!!! In other words, they KNEW. Being convinced of something is FAR from “SUSPECTING”---------it’s practically KNOWING. I’M NOT saying they knew------------YOU ARE. My question is [and has ALWAYS been] HOW did they know????

You also have made other statements that indicate certainty of wtc7’s collapse-----FAR from “suspicion”----such as:

“Did the conspiracy make the building lean so as to suggest the building would collapse?”

“But by your own argument, as it had never happened before, it was impossible for the conspiracy to know the impossible - just as it was supposedly impossible for the firemen present on the day to know what would suggest the building was going to collapse”

“If it was IMPOSSIBLE for the firefighters on the ground to "KNOW" the building might collapse, then it must have been impossible for the conspirators to plan a fail-safe way of convincing the firemen that it would collapse.”

[in the above quote---you are saying that it WAS possible for firefighters to KNOW it was going to collapse—or else you wouldn’t have used it to make your stupid point]

“You say it was impossible for fire/engineers to be able to "know" WTC7 was going to fail........but that doesn't stop you implying that the conspirators hoodwinked them into believing it was going to collapse -- even though such a thing is apparently impossible to know. lol.”-------------ANOTHER of your stupid points in which you indicate that you claimed they KNEW

Even AFTER you made all these comments indicating people KNEW it would collapse, you still have the balls to say:

“How would anyone know if a building was going to collapse? What do you think, retard? I've told you plenty of times already.”

the_last_name_left said...

Simple question -

Is it reasonable to expect fire-professionals to be able to tell when a building is likely to collapse - even if it has "never happened before"?

what indications do you think would quite reasonably lead fire-professionals to suspect a building might collapse?

Larry said...

You were on my blog today TLNL, at 2:50pm MY time-----you refuted NOTHING.

Anonymous said...

larry, last queenie fraud name left has no evidence to refute you our your claims. hes debunked nothing. he spin lies then gives the old who cares after you destroyed him. hes never answered the wooden stove question and hell never answer the question on the building coming down. hes ignorant.

the_last_name_left said...

Simple question -

Is it reasonable to expect fire-professionals to be able to tell when a building is likely to collapse - even if it has "never happened before"?

what indications do you think would quite reasonably lead fire-professionals to suspect a building might collapse?

Anonymous said...

hey last queenie fraud name left, answer larrys question first. your proof is in these pictures you dick. stop ignoring and making things up. just admit it larry owns you and your blog. go blow socrates and plato.

Anonymous said...

hey last queenie fraud name left, answer larrys question first. your proof is in these pictures you dick. stop ignoring and making things up. just admit it larry owns you and your blog. go blow socrates and plato.

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha its 9/11

Anonymous said...

larry hes a jack ass. hell never answer the question.