Sure. How much are you willing to pay me to do research for you? Or..you can look for that yourself. I suggest you start here: 911datasets.org/index.php/Main_Page
It’s just you said there was no evidence of cutting charges on the steel and audio so I thought you had looked at it and could reference it.
Usually when we say "there is no evidence" it doesn't mean "I have zero knowledge of what I am talking about".
You and whom else? When someone else asks you to show evidence of zero evidence what sort of black hole do you attempt to climb into?
"Whom" is a subject there. "No evidence of a struggle" implies one looked at the room. "I don't know I haven't looked" is the response you are looking for.
Oh, I see your mistake here. You think that since I implied that I would charge you for research that I haven't researched. I find that poor logical arguments are typical of truther posts. Just because I haven't offered it to you free of charge, does not mean I have not done it. I've looked in the room. I've studied it at length. I suggest you look yourself because I could care less to describe the room for you. I'm not your personal research assistant. Chew your own food. Explain to me why you feel it is my duty to provide you with a comprehensive report of "photos" and audio" to prove that none contain evidence that supports your claim? I pointed you to a massive database that contains a very comprehensive library of everything you asked for. Have at it and support your own argument.
We both made claims. Let me remind you of yours. I made my own claim, but you asked me to back up your claim.
Nonsense. You made a strong claim there were no cutting charges and provided no evidence. You framed it as one or the other. X not Y or Y not X.
Yes, I think I did a spectacular job of providing no evidence of cutting charges. No one has done a better job than I did right here in this thread providing zero evidence of cutting charges. Do you dispute with some evidence that I did provide evidence of cutting charges? I had to edit this post just to make sure everyone knows just how proud I am of how little evidence of cutter charges I posted right here on this thread. (Zero in fact)
Oh man, it's the "I know you are but what am I defense." However will I counter? How about...why don't you show me some evidence of cutter charges?
C4 doesn't detonate in fire. Charges and caps can be insulated. - - - Updated - - - On second thought jet fuel can't melt steel.
Oh man. You just completely crushed the zero arguments that depend on jet fuel melting steel. Great job!
C-4 STILL burns when exposed to fire,and the detonators couldn't have been adequately insulated,especially ones dislodged by the impact of the jet..
Steel is such a great building material because it is elastic. That means when deflected it does a great job of returning to its original shape when stress is removed. Heat lowers steel's elasticity. This reduces steel's ability to return to its original shape under stress. Steel does not have to melt in order for it to no longer be an effective structural member. It just has to be heated. This is why the steel in modern high rises is insulated. It's to protect the structure from weakening due to the heat of a fire, not because anyone is afraid the steel will melt. In the towers the insulation was ineffective. This was due to two reasons, first, there wasn't enough of it, and second much of it was removed by the impact of the aircraft.
ah yes! and you always can tell when heat from an office fire causes a steel column to lose its strength! Only problem is that I cant find anything that looks like that in the rubble pile. I am sure you can provide plenty columns that have failed due to heat for us to look at right?
"detonators couldn't have been adequately insulated" get serious already thats hilariousl "especially ones dislodged by the impact of the jet.." not if they strategically placed them.
