Re: Debunking the debunkers - WTC7 Larry Silverstein's Pull It
Loading...
Loading...
625
views
Loading...
Uploaded by 911MmRy on Jan 20, 2008
UPR Supports pathetic try to debunk the debunkers fails miserably
for further infos to the possibility of a controlled demolition of the WTC see
http://tinyurl.com/z6zyc
for further infos to the term "Pull it" see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2oYDDCnrf8
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Controlled_demolition
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
7:07
Molten Iron FLOWING LIKE LAVA debunking the debunkersby occision1,365 views- 5:33
Explosions Prior to the Collapse of the WTCby 911MmRy8,384 views
- 3:59
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explainedby RKOwens4272,706 views
- 1:00
Larry Silverstein admits to having demolished wtc building 7by vinayakaya153,490 views
- 4:07
But Larry Silverstein Said "Pull It"!by boloboffin18,432 views
- 1:21
From 9/11/2001: "Mr. Pull-It" Larry Silverstein and WTC 7by PaulLandis5,009 views
- 3:51
9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 foundby RKOwens4214,267 views
- 3:47
Larry Silversteinby ToastedMojo3,700 views
- 2:45
Demolition terminology: What Does "PULL IT" Mean? (9/11 - Building #7)by vicki6814,256 views
- 4:00
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Suspicious Insurance Policyby RKOwens415,591 views
- 3:29
Debunking 9/11 Debunkers: Flight 93by JewFor911Truth2,755 views
- 3:50
9/11 Debunked: Larry Silverstein's "Pull It" Explainedby RKOwens433,128 views
- 2:57
The Knack / No Matter Whatby hyperbottler5,705 views
- 1:16
Pull It?by itchyandscratchy34,348 views
- 1:04
9/11 Conspirator Larry Silverstein Confessionby Bi0hazardx846 views
- 4:22
Alex Jones on Larry Silverstein & Building 7by mule19693,848 views
- 0:30
Larry Silverstein (BBC Version)by Xenomorph911WTC2,520 views
- 2:06
NIST WTC-report. What a laugh ...by troglodyt339,615 views
- 0:24
THE TRUE STORY OF WTC 7by tru2da1god2,478 views
- 4:05
The Third Tower: "Pull It"by buddhaglass3,324 views
@911MmRy
"We have never, ever heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement."
ImpolsionWorldDOTcom
911 TRUTH DEBUNKED!
ctcole77 3 months ago
Yes he did give the order to pull it. Mr. Dumbass because a building can't be wired for demolition in 10 minutes. You alleged de-bunkers of the de-bunkers are a lot stupider then the actual definition of the word "stupid".
StageMan 1 year ago
@911MmRy There are lots of credible experts just go to architects and engineers for 911 truth there 1333 a and e who think controlled demolition. Also check out dwain deets and his interview with CIT he is a rocket scientist who worked for NASA for 35 years!
anewlow23 1 year ago
What is it that causes freefall collapses, that are generally done in sections, to minimize collateral damage?
That's it... Teams of people set the buildings on fire and watch them fall in freefall right?
Oh wait. That never works.
They use explosives to undermine the structures, then, they either use cables or other explosives to initiate the collapse in stages.
Demolitions use explosives (which cause evaporated steel)... which was found at the WTC7 site by NIST.
antiklaus 3 years ago
You do realize the logical fallacy in the "fell in 16 seconds" video, right?
Come on... you can do it.
If I hold up two bricks at 47 stories, drop one, and it falls at freefall speed, and then wait 8 seconds, and drop another one that falls at freefall speed, do I say that the bricks took 16 seconds to fall?
No, I say I have two bricks that fell at freefall speed.
Compare that to what happened.
Penthouse, fell at freefall.
Facade fell at freefall.
No matter how you slice it.
antiklaus 3 years ago
You don't even know the difference between evaporated steel and shattered steel. You are hardly one to be asking people to do research.
All of your research comes from 9/11 myths, a website run by a mid-twenties computer expert from the UK.
Hardly the "expert" I'd be wanting to do my research.
antiklaus 3 years ago
so when even you figured it all out, why don't anybody convince some credible experts that all this time the "nuts" were right?
911MmRy 3 years ago
Sorry buddy, but I studied physics in college and I've been researching 9/11 for 3 years now. I'm NOT the one who's confused here! The only theory that I have found that can substantially explain the data is controlled demolition for all 3 buildings. The only thing asymmetric about the collapse is the crimp or fault line which is a key characteristic and identifying mark of controlled demolition. Where they blow out central columns first to make the building fall in on itself.
WarCrime911 3 years ago
have you actually seen on which floors tower 7 was on fire? or better on how many floors? and it was no perfect symmetrical failure. close to perfect symmetrical but that's it.
your cd claim does not explain anything. it raises more questions that no damn cter ever cared to explain
watch?v=3vsqo7YJQm8
just a little example, of if they wanna explain anything or just want to make you confused
911MmRy 3 years ago
The scientific method would be to experimentally and logically test EVERY explanation, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE, INSANE, OR UNLIKELY it may be! Go through them and make sure that the theory fits the data. Whatever you are left with, no matter how improbably, is the truth.
The only thing that can explain a perfectly symmetrical failure on both sides of an uneven trapezoid shaped building, is controlled demolition. Look how perfectly it falls! This was NO an accident!
WarCrime911 3 years ago