Can you explain to me, in detail, what is happening in those pictures? What are you implying? What effects on the steel am I looking at specifically? What explosives were used to create those effects? What process was used to plant the explosives in the tower? Show your work, thanks.
yup I can. But I prefer you do your own homework and when you develop an opinion or theory come back and talk ta me. But then NIST or the commission report must have explained it all at length and detail so just quote them, that would be fine as well! .
I've done the research, I have my own opinion, and I know what I am looking at. Is this just more truther games so that you don't have to show your work? Of course it is. Can you tell me what process takes place to make the steel appear that way? What I am asking is, I have seen you post a ton of pictures of steel. Fang, and others have taken more than enough time to break down exactly what is happening in those pictures. Do you understand the information that is being presented? I like this reverse burden of proof that we have going on. You post a ton of pictures and instead of explaining why they are "suspicious" you reverse the burden to me so that I have to prove why they are "normal". That's not how it works koko, your claim, you provide the evidence, and show your work. Explain what we're looking at or admit you have absolutely no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea what's going on. I'll be waiting.
Really" he has been debunked in spades, apparently you missed it. Otherwise it is the gubs responsibility to prove the matter they claim to be true. you agree with them. Hence the burden is in the right place. on you. If you need me to explain what you see in those pics then you have not done your homework. If you really did do your homework then you have not learned anything and you get an F for failure.
The government reported what it is, and provided scientific method to prove that it is what they claim. You have to have scientific evidence to refute what it is you claim it to be. That is how it works. They make a claim, back it up. Then you make a claim, and back it up. I can cite the NIST report right here that will describe exactly what happened to all of the steel. It's in the FAQ section, and it only takes about 30 seconds to find. That's why I don't NEED you to explain it to me, since it's your claim I expect you to back it up. That would require explaining to me what it is you see that confirms explosion, and why what you're seeing confirms it. Then show your work. I haven't failed at all, and the burden isn't in the right place at all. As a lawyer I would expect you to know something about where burden of proof lies. It's blatantly clear that you don't. If a lawyer accuses someone of lying (which you are doing in regards to the NIST report), then the burden of proof is on that accuser to show that they are right, and provide evidence to back up their claims. This is 4th grade knowledge, nothing flashy.
Did Mythbusters ever do a mock 9-11 crash? I think this would be an interesting challenge at the 1/100th scale. Find the steel and concrete necessary to simulate the buildings and mass. Find a remote-controlled airplane and fly it into the building with the appropriate amount of jet fuel. There is no way that the speed of a remote controlled airplane could ever approach a jet, however, a kinetic energy balance with mass could be done.
Adam Savage briefly discusses that here: [video=youtube;tLUPXhZIuJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUPXhZIuJo[/video]
Wow thats awesome! I am so glad to hear it! Its about time. So paste the text from NIST that explains and proves what happened to these pieces:
Wrong yet again. We're saying you, a pretend lawyer, have completely failed at establishing that your "evidence" is what you claim it is or even what it is or what it is suppose to prove. What? You can't? No surprise there. What's the pathetic excuse this time?
I don't know what part of "your claim, your burden of proof" you don't seem to be understanding. For a pretend lawyer you aren't very good.
I am still waiting for that NIST report you were talking about that explains ALL the steel etc. what do you think it is? A conspiracy by the people against the government? LOL
I know you are, and I am telling you I will not provide one until you tackle the various requests made from you above. Although, you're following typical truther tactics. Answer each question with a question so that you never "commit" to a theory. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book Koko, and it's kind of sad that you're busting it out. As I have stated several times before, you are showing us pictures of steel. Tell us what we are looking it, and why it's suspicious. You are providing this "evidence", as is the case in every courtroom around the entire world, you have to explain your evidence. You then have to link that evidence to the crime in order for it to be considered relevant. You have failed to provide any of that information, please do so and stop avoiding.
Yet another complete and utter failure by the poster who likes to pretend he is a lawyer. All you've established, koko, is that your claims are baseless because you can't even begin to explain or prove anything. Animated gifs do exactly nothing but prove the poster's claims are as childish as the gifs.
Wow thats awesome! I am so glad to hear it! Its about time. So paste the text from NIST that explains and proves what happened to these pieces: what possible reason would I have to come up with some theory? I do not need a theory. You are the one with the theory, that is the governments conspiracy theory, that is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and your failure to prove out the theory you believe in proves its bul(*)(*)(*)(*). lol you said nist explained all that steel and cant even post it. well I read the reports and no they did not account for all the steel. you have nothing, zippo nada oh and btw if you want to get into proper evidentiary process hell yah I will go there with you! If you think you are drowning now you havent seen anything yet LOL
So you are now openly saying that you have no idea what happened. You can't even say if this steel is relevant to your theory because you haven't one. Thanks, that's all I needed Koko. You, the lawyer, certainly have reading comprehension problems. At no point did I say I couldn't post it, I said I wouldn't post it. I located the information in under 20 seconds using the google search terms "NIST steel FAQ". I then navigated the page to the FAQ, and they address everything in regards to the steel there. However, since your pictures aren't sourced, no idea where they came from, and no reason why anyone would consider them worth a (*)(*)(*)(*) I don't really care what method you're using to declare victory this time. Anytime Koko, we can get into it all you want and I will hand you your ass much like what's been taking place in this entire thread by everyone, including me. You aren't a lawyer, I would go on record as saying I don't believe you have a high school education. I am certainly not convinced you have any form of secondary schooling. You can't spell, you can't read, and you have issues doing even the most basic research. You have little to no knowledge of steel, or it's components. You can't even provide a workable theory because you're afraid to stick to something.
Yes. It means you are so out of truthtard ideas that you have to resort to childish gifs and then play guessing games hoping someone will see something you missed or actually mistake you for someone honestly looking for debate.
sure I can explain it, but you cant and NIST DIDNT and that is what is important here. Hell you dont even recognize that it came from the towers! LMAO How clueless is that? So no need to lecture me! Not to mention I said how many times now that you can get everyone of those pics from the FOIA releases over the 5 years. THEY CAME FROM NIST FOIA RELEASES THEY CAME FROM NIST FOIA RELEASES THEY CAME FROM NIST FOIA RELEASES I hope that helps, and dont even think about demanding I buy you glasses.
