Mark Loizeaux - President of Cont. Demolition Inc

Mark Loizeaux - President of Controlled Demolition Inc puts forward his argument for WTC7 not being brought down by explosives.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• mark
• loizeaux
• 911
• wtc7
• explosives
• thermite
• demolition
• september

[JZJYRWO]

@Sandberg1972 The cars are a result of radiation and there were mushroom clouds above the towers. Steven E Jones is the shill that keeps the truth movement from the real truth. Nuclear demolition

[Sandberg1972]

@JZJYRWO Who do u mean by "they"?

No I dont'think nanothermitic materials were put in cars.

But perhaps these cars were burned so badly because they were hit with molten iron from thermitic reactions that were taking place during the collapses.

Perhaps YOU've got better ideas that also make sense?

Let's hear it!

[JZJYRWO]

@Sandberg1972 Do you think they put nanothermites in the cars too?

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail Yeah that'll get u off the hook, right? ;) U won't have to do any explaining on why the existence of a 1st phase and 3rd phase somehow disproves CD. Nicely done.

Instead u just gave me a few links to bullshit Blanchard & wicked idiot Mark Roberts. I have read their BS already, and concluded it is indeed that, bullshit, especially Blanchard.

So u've managed to evade all the important stuff, congrats on that, now let's quickly shut this thing down, OK? Sleep tight!

.

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail Other than that, it's my humble opinion that for a steel skyscraper to fall into itself requires a lot of precision. It requires even more precision to completely destroy itself.

No random "natural" event is going to produce such a neat and total collapse of such a huge steel structure. It never has, and very probably never will.

U're forgetting by the way that NIST had to be forced to admit the existence of freefall, for they had omitted that fact from their initial draft.

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail Could u elaborate a bit on the part where u claim that the existence of the 1st & 3rd stage somehow disproves controlled demolition? Thanx in advance.

Now, since u fail to appreciate the grave consequences of the existence of freefall at WTC7's collapse, I think it's rather useless to continue this.

It's not that hard though, to grasp, one would think.

Had it really been a natural occuring event, we would've seen gradual deformations & partial collapses, if at all any.

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail I told u where to go, I assume u're able to punch in "NIST Final Report on the Collapse etc." when doing a google search. U pick out the link from NIST, go to the PDF-file and then go to page 44. Think u can achieve this outrageous effort?

The reason why I'm using the info from NIST itself is because it's fairly easy to expose all the fraudulent science that they did. The fact u're not even aware of this fact that NIST has admitted freefall tells a big story. It's tough aint it?

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail Dude, it's in the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, chapter 3.6, page 44. NIST defines Stage 2 with the north face descending at gravitational acceleration.

Now, slowly get to grips with this, OK?

Go look it up, then wonder why NIST doesn't recognize the obvious implications of it.

Good luck!

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail U know, u sure sound like a bit of a dumbass.

U're pretending there's no evidence for everything I've said. U don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence in this case.

YOU claim the facade fell close to freefall, that is not a fact, I don't know where u got that from. The whole bldg minus the mech. penthouse & everything underneath it, fell AT freefall for 100 ft. That is a fact that is acknowledged by NIST, only YOU do not seem to be aware of it. Denial is all u have

[Sandberg1972]

@TheHungrySnail @ last, the information of the 2.25 sec. of freefall that occured is in the revised version of the NIST report on WTC7, after they forgot to mention it in their initial version. Kinda odd that NIST missed that crucial phenomenon, wouldn't u say? But have a go at explaining freefall without the additional input of energy provided by explosives and/or incendiaries.

And what does linking eachother to a peerreviewed paper have to do with the application of the scientific method?