PDA

View Full Version : Refute this 9/11 WTC7 evidence successfully and win $130


FinalSolace2
06-17-2015, 12:02 AM
If anyone can successfully refute this I will send them $130 I will post a picture with me holding $130 if you don't believe me.


This is the most surgical set of analysis and investigation you're ever likely to see

DXRDq9nKJ0U

This is the most surgical scientific analysis I have ever watched, scientists, engineers, structural engineers, controlled demolition experts In the USA and Europe are all beginning to agree this was an inside job- The neoconservatives meanwhile are trying to trigger a war with Russia- The world owes it to itself to stop these mass murders taking the world over the cliff.


Why was WTC7 rigged with explosives? It was here the SEC was based- would they have files inside that were sensitive enough to include a fail safe in the event of market investigation or the takeover of America by a foreign country that could be used to litigate against vested international elite interests. Have they got enough sensitive data on federal and state employees, intelligence finance and financial records for secret ops that the building was pre rigged with explosives- like in those films where hackers rig their bedrooms and basements with explosives and self destructing hard drives? If so why don't they say they (the fire dept, or private emergency demolition train military or black ops team) brought down building 7 as a fail safe instead of making it part of the narrative of a terrorist attack. Is the really the possibility of a gigantic secret society with maybe 10's of thousands of people part of it, hidden in the wider society? This is an important conspiracy.

http://www.wtfrly.com/wp-content/911truth/fp/2013wtfacts34fp.jpg

As it stands- my opinion- Terrorists are operating within America- they know no allegiance to a state, law enforcement, politicians, the official government, and are affiliated with the Neocon infused Shadow Government

FinalSolace2
06-17-2015, 12:41 AM
There was an explosion in the WTC lobby.

Did terrorists drive a truck bomb in there- there are numerous video testimonies about the lobby- an explosion ripped the lobby apart- the ceiling was gone, Granite slabs blown across the lobby area, all the 3 inch glass surrounding the lobby blown out, the whole thing was obliterated by a huge explosion. Account of what was seen concluded it to be the 2nd explosion on par with the 1st plane hitting. Then after the 3rd explosion was the second plane hitting.

None of this is explained.

G1zED8dy63w
DHeVDu5JIa0

FinalSolace2
06-17-2015, 02:43 PM
1biKeaOH3qc
l0lzZvCNkJw

James Woods has an IQ of 180- official fact

FinalSolace2
06-17-2015, 02:57 PM
http://i58.tinypic.com/inbqc6.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/ra2iqq.jpg

Contractors had access to the elevator shafts just a couple months before- in the first video above, a controlled demolition expert speaks about a military rapid explosive rigging time frame in relation to WTC7. There is Port Authority radio testimony of Power downs a few days before the bombs went off.

KnsoGCNTLys

FinalSolace2
06-17-2015, 03:26 PM
9/11 was some kind of multi nation spy wargame, as at least 5 foreign intelligence agencies were following the hijackers

Drunken Savior
06-17-2015, 11:23 PM
If anyone can successfully refute this I will send them $130 I will post a picture with me holding $130 if you don't believe me.

Ok....



refute

verb
re·fute \ri-ˈfyüt\

transitive verb
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations

I refute that. Check pls.

spider-prime
06-17-2015, 11:48 PM
AND WE HAVE A WINNNNNNER!

FinalSolace2
06-18-2015, 05:22 AM
Ok....



I refute that. Check pls.

The first video shows all the allegations by a bunch of the 10,000 architects engineers and transnational demolition experts who have spent over 9 years investigating the evidence alleging WTC7 was a controlled demolition, Rand Paul presidential candidate is calling for disclosure. Two US congressmen have put up motions for 'public' disclosure of 28 pages of private intelligence reports.

I will post each argument one by one individually.

Drunken Savior
06-18-2015, 06:53 PM
I'll refute those too.

You should have chosen your words more wisely. You don't need proof to refute something, you just need the will. People refute rumors all the time without providing any proof.

So now you're in a position to either weasel out of your offer or pay me.

spider-prime
06-18-2015, 07:24 PM
He is right, give him the check or go to the PEOPLE'S COURT!

I0F-IHwgC-Q

FinalSolace2
06-18-2015, 09:53 PM
I'll refute those too.

You should have chosen your words more wisely. You don't need proof to refute something, you just need the will. People refute rumors all the time without providing any proof.

So now you're in a position to either weasel out of your offer or pay me.

damn cant argue with that- I feel like a complete dick linguistically and syntactically speaking. :confused::clap::slap:

OK I mean to say= 'if' you can prove the evidence wrong



and plus in England we spell check- cheque- so we less likely get confused.