He still pretends his retarded little toy proves a complete collapse was impossible despite the obvious fact it is a retarded little toy and proves nothing.
Nope The jet didin't explode against the building, it pentrated the building and disintegrated with fuel and other petroleum liquids igniting and burning. The probability of explosives on the jets was extremely high, yet no tested for them
Wrong yet again. You're on a roll! High explosives going off during the crash would have had a very dramatic effect on the explosion AND the damage and would STILL leave people like you completely in the wrong. Explosives on the plane isn't what you truthers try to pretend is real, don't you know that? You like to pretend the explosives were what caused the collapse. Now you're trying to pretend like the explosives were on the plane? BTW, High explosives generally don't go bang in a fire. They burn, but they don't explode. A friend of mine said they use to burn small amounts of C4 in the fire to keep warm when he was in Vietnam. That's why you have to use blasting caps if you want them to go boom.
Now you say this: But previously you said this: You don't know what you are talking about and then accuse me of being wrong. psik
Jet fuel will not severe steel, will not urn a chunk of copper into a projectile that can pentrate armor and will not detonate a primitive nuclear device. The ignition of jet fuel in aircraft crash is not in anyone close to the destructiveness of military or commercial grade high explosives. You Ozians always talking about physics when refering the governmet BS 9/11 story, but then you want talk in generalities whn talking about explosives and other variables involved the the destruction that occured that day.
Really? Water will sever steel, given the right conditions. What does that have to do with 9/11? You Narnians sure do make nonsense statements.
Jet fuel didn't have to sever steel on 9/11, just weaken it's structure No one said anything about any copper And if burning jet fuel ignites the primary charge.... And that's a laugh,you whining about 'generalities;
The ignition of jet fuel in aircraft crash is not in anyone close to the destructiveness of military or commercial grade high explosives. Tell that to the survivors of kamikaze attacks
Wrong yet again! Still on that roll, I see! A project is any definable task. You feiging complete ignorance only makes your silly little opinions that much less credible. You lose. Yet again. Merry Christmas!
Thank you Mr Wizard. Please tell me exactly where the folks at Purdue got it wrong. They seem to think the mass and speed of the fuel had more then enough energy to do tremendous damage to the WTC structure. You must know something they don't. What is it? http://wiki.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/doku.php?id=projects:visualization_large-scale_simulations
wrong there was zero explosives investigate for and truthers we not allowed gubafia to go near it much less test for themsleves on site. what aploy
Didn't you say all of the steel was 'dustified'? Now it was 'off limits'? How could people help in clean up without coming near the steel? Your argument makes no sense. In addition, I'd like you to back up this claim that the steel was 'off limits'.
by coming near it I mean fully testing it. I never say all nope you can do your own googling LOL Just be happy I brought it to your attention
Nope, you clearly said 'come near it'. Naturally your story changes: You were shown to be wrong. You're welcome for correcting you. (Again) You seem to have missed the part where you contradicted yourself regarding 'dustification'.
Nope, never said 'all'. Oh, wait ... Show any instance of anyone on the scene being denied access to the steel. There was quite a bit of it, everywhere. Perhaps the 'truthers' were just to lazy to do their own research?
I never contradicted myself, your as usual erroneous conclusion. was not shown to be wrong in the sense that I meant it. sorry no hay to be made here LOL
