9/11 Charlatans EXPOSED Denying Building 7 Damage

See Pathetic Con Men Lie About BBC Documentary The Third Tower. This 9/11, let’s really work together to counter their deceptions which are misdirecting peop…


(Visited 32 times, 1 visits today)

Share This Post

Comments (46)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
So then you completely disagree with NIST s findings that determined stored fuel and damage were not factors in the collapse and it was initiated by the failure of column 79 due to fire alone ?
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

That's a bullshit lie conspiracy theorist such as you promote.

No other highrises don't normally contain power stations, generators and various fuel tanks.

No other highrises aren't built on-top of three main columns in a cantilever design.

And other steel structures have collapsed due to fire.

GOOGLE IT
John Keeley's avatar

John Keeley · 611 weeks ago

However, my issue is this. Never before has a high rise steel structure collapsed due to fire. Never before in History. I don't have facts in front of me about these other skyskrapers that ''never'' collapsed due to huge fires that burned for days.

One would ''Have'' to believe that the previous high rise structures were also housing generators, and other explosive Fire Fueling equipment. Never before in history... has a steel high rise collapsed due to Fire. 3 in 1 Day. Common Sense
John Keeley's avatar

John Keeley · 611 weeks ago

Lucid Fallacies... I've got one main thing to mention here. WTC7 collapsed due to ''fires'' raging in the building... as these videos you've posted attempt to depict? They said there were gas explosions, generators... things of this sort in WTC7, yes I can see that causing a substantial fire no doubt
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

"No, the damage in that photo was not significant enough to bring the building down."

Video of WTC7 damage.

tinyurl com/ludic911
John Milligan's avatar

John Milligan · 611 weeks ago

Two pricks for the price of one
yeah, my bad. I typed that to the wrong person. I meant to ask that to the conspiracytard.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

There is nothing to explain. That theory/notion/supposition is RETARDED and only a person with little to no critical thinking skills would believe it.
You seem to be the guy to ask this question to. Can you please explain to me the motive for blowing up a random skyscrpaer, that had nothing to do with anything? Also please don't say there was secret documents there, because that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. People sneak in the building every night to put bombs in the building, but they can't just seal the documents? Also blowing up the building, would put a lot of these documents on the street. Please explain.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

That is not the point of the video.

The video is pointing out that your conspiracy theory sources like Alex and Jason here are LIARS.

Do you deny they are LIARS ?
poopmantle's avatar

poopmantle · 611 weeks ago

No, the damage in that photo was not significant enough to bring the building down.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

No it didn't because if you didn't have WTC1 hitting WTC7 the fires wouldn't have started in the first place inside WTC7 that lead to the failure of column 79.

What NIST says is they ran a computer model heating the vicinity of column 79 with the same/similar energy level as the incident and in doing so it failed the model also showed a collapse.

THAT'S IT

It proves nothing to support you idiotic conspiracy theory of explosives.

PROVES NOTHING

Watch my recent uploads of WTC7 fires.
Hairlikecottoncandyy's avatar

Hairlikecottoncandyy · 611 weeks ago

this extent of structural damage is not shown in the picture. there is just some kind of hole, or some kind of size.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

Please watch this playlist from the first video in sequence to at least the 40th or shit... watch the entire god dam thing !

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUZvxcfs21-iIUTJWE3SwTv3ifcd4OIc5
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

No it didn't because if you didn't have WTC1 hitting WTC7 the fires wouldn't have started in the first place inside WTC7 that lead to the failure of column 79.

What NIST says is they ran a computer model heating the vicinity of column 79 with the same/similar energy level as the incident and in doing so it failed the model also showed a collapse.

THAT'S IT

It proves nothing to support you idiotic conspiracy theory of explosives.
PROVES NOTHING

Watch my recent uploads of WTC7 fires.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

Watch this playlist at least to the 20th video.

tinyurl com/ludic911debunk
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

"NIST report does not say column 79 failed due fire" -TheEots

BULLSHIT
scoooped out...lol ...a line straight out of popular mechanics....not the NIST report....
you can all cap all you want but the NIST report does not say column 79 failed due fire and other structural damage you just made that up ..it says column 79 failed due to fire and its failure under any circumstance would have initiated the collapse sequence
NIST determined other than igniting fires ..damage from falling debris was not a factor in the collapse of wtc 7
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

You troofer shit-for-brains claimed for years there was no damage to WTC 1 AFTER the collapse of WTC 1 as is seen in this video of Alex fucking Jones and Jason Bermas.

You can't deny this damage anymore as there is VIDEO EVIDENCE OF IT.

Visit my channel for WTC 1 south side videos showing massive smoke and damage.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

Can't you fucking troofer morons comprehend anything that happens - happens on a god damn timeline and in a certain sequence.

If anything in that sequence is broken then the end event doesn't happen.

Column 79 wouldn't have failed "on it's own" to cause the entire collapse.

It failed FIRST ON IT'S OWN but only DUE TO FIRE AND OTHER STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM WTC1 HITTING THE GOD DAMN FUCKING BUILDING LIGHTING IT ON FIRE AND CAUSING MAJOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

BUT

The column wouldn't have been damaged if WTC 1 hadn't fallen into WTC 7 causing major structural damage.

SHIT

It created a gash that was 30-40 feet wide running vertically the length of the building and also scooped out 30%+ of the base to the fucking tenth floor !!!
according to NIST fire alone caused the failure of column 79...pal..and the failure of this single column regardless of damage would of caused the collpase
LudicFallacies's avatar

LudicFallacies · 611 weeks ago

And WTF do you think caused the failure of that single column pal !?!

Post a new comment

Comments by