So it was all 'dustified', only it wasn't, and then no one was allowed near it, even though thousands of people were all over the pile for months. Riiiiiiight.
this is not about what you can invent from what I said and as usual out of context. If you want to talk about that go to the appropriate thread so people can see what I said in context
paraphrasing is not quoting, I explained how I meant the post here if that is not good enough too bad.
Nice try, but I quoted you directly. Changing your mind after you're caught fabricating won't help. Now, can you support your claim, or will you continue to dodge the subject? (I predict option 2)
do you have any idea how lame what you are doing is? If the best you can do against me is make hay on a grammatical deficiency that I corrected no less really shows how insignificant and valueless your whole position is. This is funny My corrected grammatical deficiency is not the topic here and I am sure the OP would appreciate it if you would not destroy their thread with this crap
I'm not discussing your grammar. I'm pointing out your blatant contradictions. Your newest tactic is 'indignation'. I'm happy to discuss the OP. Can you do so without fabricating or contradicting yourself?
Only when in enclosed within with the aircraft structure. The geniuses here are talking about jet fuel exploding like a typical high explosive. I am talking about ground zero NOT being tested for explosives.
You're putting words in my mouth,scooter...I never said the fuel exploded like 'typical high explosives',but it was enough
OK They still had bombs and would have caused major damage WITHOUT the gasoline aboard the planes...d******!
Enough to do what...burn? The jet fuel being ignited did not explode with enough energy to damage the structure in the way high explosives would. It sure must be nice to live in Lala land...or is it Fantasy Island
The planes were full of fuel (not gasoline, btw) and caused major damage when they hit. The fuel itself caused damage. The resulting ignition of the aerosolized fuel caused even further damage.
It didn't need to do the same amount, or the kind of damage high explosives would. The damage it caused (immediate and long term) was enough to imperil the building.
Seeing the final result. Reading reports from NIST, Purdue University, MIT and several other international engineering groups.
Go forth yourself and read the reports. Here's a great place to start: Link This article, and the accompanying videos, show that NIST did indeed test explosives and demolition theories. Despite what you read on 'truther' websites, they were very thorough.
The official 9/11 reports are just that, "theories" Reading them is pretty much as others have described them, as pre concieved conclusions. It wasn't an investigation, it was a project.