High Rise Building "Experts Speak Out" about 9/11

Well, there's a small problem with that theory, pal. There's a lifetime chemistry expert who has a peer-reviewed research paper in circulation which concludes the opposite, and you have absolutely nothing truthful with which to contradict him. Except of course, blanket denialism and links to your own threads.

You have literally not a leg to stand on. There are nearly two hundred eye-witness statements from 9/11 that confirm phenomena consistent with a controlled demolition. Online videos show that the collapse of WTC 7 looked precisely like a standard controlled demolition. I mean it was literally identical.

Yet NIST did not perform any tests for explosives of any kind. Something which, had they followed the scientific method, should self-evidently have been standard.

Therefore, there has been deception at the highest possible levels of the American system. It is absolutely, completely irrefutable.

 

And this.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

As well as this.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=293132

And this;

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=293132&page=26&p=1062588419#post1062588419

- - - Updated - - -

No thermite found. Feel free to show me any evidence of it over on the thermite thread.

 

You can't find what you're not looking for, and NIST wasn't looking for anything except what it was told to look for. Meanwhile, the evidence got shipped to China.

 

You are demonstrably now lying. You have not made a mistake. You are lying. This site's records will show we have had this precise conversation before, during which I informed you, with specific examples, that Millette has no peer-reviewed research on this topic, and that he cannot get his "research" published because the points he raises are outright lies, easily disproven by reading Harrit's paper. I showed you several examples of where he was lying, including his claim that elemental aluminium had not been discovered.

Yet you have now simply reposted the exact same link and are pretending that conversation never happened. I have no honest idea why you would do that, but it is extremely clear that you are now being deliberately dishonest, for reasons unknown.

 

Cool story quantum.

Feel free to show me any evidence of thermite over on the thermite thread.

oh, and fyi, Millette hasn't even attempted to pair review it because its only a preliminary report. Even preliminary, it still shows that chips identical to Harrits (a)-(d) do not contain elemental aluminium, and are therefore not thermite.

 

The tree fell in the forest and its roots are facing east and the top of the tree is west, and its horizontal but, nobody saw it fall so, it must not have fallen. Can't prove it...then it didn't happen. Same old, same old.

 

Harrit found kaolin,end of story....

 

The reason are not unknown. Deliberate dishonesty is the entire basis for all things "official".

 

Not in the real world it isn't.

 

Never get tired of the same old lies do you

 

Bull feathers. Bentham is a paid to print rag with no credibility and idiot boy Harrit can't tell kaolin from Cricket Krap. There is no kaolin in thermite of any kind.

You have literally not a leg to stand on.

To the eye of a fire fighter, (*)(*)(*)(*) NO!

None were called for by law or logic, nor was there anything to test. Punk ass amateurs like Little Dickie expect the Fire Department to go swab down every piece of a collapsed building for unicorn poo now? And screw Erik Lawyer. That manual he cites is not law. It is a guideline for investigating incidents to which there are no witnesses. I had already had years more experience and training in these things before that punk started flapping his gums. There were no observed phenomena that suggested a need to test.

No, there is onlydeception at street level where punks like Lawyer and Dickie and Chucklenuts Jones run around consorting with a sorted nuts and flakes like that fake Marine kiddie diddler who hooked up with Dickie recently.

You don't have the chops to judge this.

 

That means something to the educated, but what does it say to the sorts that would follow Harrit and Jones?

 

NIST actively looked for explosives? DO TELL, please, with a source stating such.

 

NIST had no reason to look for explosives nor, once the scene had been secured, would they have been able to test anything clearly cut by explosives. At best, they could do air samples, which had all come up relatively clean for their purposes.

 

No reason? Really leftysergeant? NIST had no reason to look for explosives? Well here is a reason. It looks like, acted like, and seemed like a classic controlled demolition at the time. Even Dan Rather saw it as controlled demolition before he was told to shud up.

National Institute for Standards and Technology is supposed to be a professional research institution. They get paid big bucks to do research and they found "No reason to look for explosives" for buildings that were exploded? NIST should have looked for explosives. That was their job. NIST should be defunded. NIST is a joke and they are laughing in your face. 9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11

Mocking us in our faces. 9/11 ... 9/11 ... 9/11.

Dan Rather admits 9 11 controlled demolition self evident
[video=youtube;05LRK-e3IDA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05LRK-e3IDA[/video]

 

You keep cherry picking that quote.

 

I do keep cherry picking that quote because I don't like to be mocked by controllers who are funded by my tax dollars. You keep mocking me by distorting the quote and I wonder why?

 

Dan Rather NEVER states that this was a CD.

Its very dishonest to clearly misrepresent someone's words like that.

he deserves a little more respect than this.

- - - Updated - - -

baseless paranoid speculation.

and much of the evidence is still in the USA.

Ive touched WTC steel with my own hands. You can too.

 

I don't distort the quote, I put it up in its entirety. You clipped it to dishonestly mislead people who haven't read the whole thing.

 

cherry-picking, personal attacks, distortions, dishonesty, demagouging, half-truths, is all Truthers have.

its why their "movement" today is an outright failure.

 

I did not clip that video quote. I pasted it in its entirety. You are making stuff up to distort the truth. Otherwise you would link to the quote like I did.

 

You didn't link to the quote. You posted a clipped video version that dishonestly distorted what he said.

 

what is the text of this quote?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333632&page=7&p=1063355210#post1063355210

 

and is that freefall speed?