Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Mar 29, 2013.
Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Explain to me how controlled demolition leaves molten metal?
Alright, but stating it was used but failing to explain how it was used, doesn't count as proving 'how the government did it'. No one has shown how thermite was actually used, nor, in many peoples opinion including my own, how they shown that thermite was even present.
Actually not many controlled demolitions fall at free fall. Regardless, the towers both fell at 60% the speed of free fall. Which is no where near. If I said to you I had $100,000, but I only had $60,000, you would accuse me of exaggerating. Well, the towers fell at 60% free fall, not at free fall, so stop exaggerating.
As for the footprint claim, you do realise there was something along the lines of a 8 acre debris field, right? A lot of the material fell outside the footprint, as you can see with both buildings collapsing. That's why WTC7 took so much damage from the North Tower. Basically, the only thing the collapse of the WTC has with a controlled demolition is that they both collapse downward.
"I don't know anything about it, so therefore I say it fits"
You accuse the masses of being fooled, and yet you yourself follow the word of truthers by not even taking the time to learn chemistry and apply it to the Bentham paper? How long have you been advocating an inside job theory? How many years have you had to learn science and apply it to your own research? What have you been doing all this time? Did you not even stop to think and apply the same critical thinking to your own material as you do the official story?
no ocntrolled demolition has left a pile of doo doo in the basement and there is a pile of doo doo so it cant be a controlled demolition.
your reasoning skills are simply out of this world
I remember I used to shoot model rockets in a field that had been bulldozed clear, and some of the trees had been buried when they leveled it all up.
Spontaneous combustion had started the trees smoldering underground to the extent that we couldn't walk across that stretch of ground comfortably
- - - Updated - - -
Yet another irrelevant answer with a bonus it's also irrational.
It was not easy to rig the towers,no such animal.......
It takes time and planning...........
This is the smoking gun...........
This is why it was an inside job.........
It was a chain of command of the money masters all the way down to the grunt soldiers of the Pentagon.............
Name some names and/ or show some evidence.
If I could, I would be already DEAD>>>>>>>...............
yet again koko avoids the question and replies with childish babble.
So you have no evidence, no sources ... just wild speculation?
just like nist huh
stop stepping all over yourself and come up with a new script already
NO,NOT like the nist
precisely like nist
No,not even koko
Stop projecting your shortcomings on others....
everything nist did was purely speculative and anyone capable of reading and understanding the english language knows it
Anyone with a remedial understanding of structural physics knows that NIST is spot on. That they were confirmed in their findings by MIT, Oxford and other independent studies bears witness to this.
Guess that's why so many thousands of engineers globally disagree with them... oh wait, 99% agree with them lol
No,it wasn't koko
Not everyone has trouble walking and chewing gum.
I think they are up to about 3000 now at 911 truth
EVERYTHING nist did is speculation likewise for anyone who jumped on that bandwagon.
Whats so kool about it as usual the deeper you boys dig to prove this wrong the deeper hole you dig yourselves.
Jojo, apparently "LMAO" to you means "Lying My As$ Off"
Just because you keep repeating your lie above does not make it any more true.
I don't need to. MIT, Purdue, Oxford and others have all independently confirmed the findings of NIST.
More importantly, the NIST findings have been put into practice in new skyscraper construction.
They used far more than speculation, Jojo. The proof is in the reports and actions.
excuse me but confirming it and proving it are entirely different things
and neither is a report proof
shees what kind of lala land are these people preaching
You were just joking right
I'll pretend I didnt read that silliness
Cover your eyes to all evidence. Standard 'truther' tactic.
nah just certain static interference
we should start a thread about why troughers have such comprehnsion difficulties
Separate names with a comma.