The 9/11 Attacks: Pardon Me But This Is Just Absolute Comedy!

This makes no logical sense whatsoever.

 

Oh I agree. Because the cause of the collapse was the controlled demolition which caused the buildings to collapse symmetrically at freefall speed, as if there were no resistance whatsoever between the damaged sections and the ground.

Basically, I'm not reading any more of your rubbish, but do please feel free to keep writing it.

 

Maybe that's because NIST was made up of experts in their field, while you (and I) are relatively clueless laymen who are prone to misunderstand their use of language/jargon.

- - - Updated - - -

Did we go to the moon?

 

That's a false appeal to authority because the conclusions which NIST have arrived at contradict both themselves and the evidence. NIST is demonstrably not a credible source of information. What type of "expert in their field" does not bother to test for explosives while investigating a crime which obviously and visibly involved a series of controlled demolitions? Do not make me laugh, son.

Of course. You will need to find another false association to try to discredit what I am saying. I think aliens probably exist, somewhere. Maybe try that.

 

No, it goes to the heart of why NIST failed to accurately assess the collapse. It is how they fooled you and many others.

Ask yourself why they did not study the global collapse? Or not even report on it? They left it to public indoctrinated people to decide how the global collapse happened. NIST: "The people will believe a pancake theory and ignore the time it would take to pancake to the ground or not even understand the fact that it is impossible." They knew full well that most people don't understand Newton's third law of motion.

 

Except they don't.

Oh?

There was nothing about the collapses that indicated a controlled demolition. As people have already pointed out, there were no explosives seen or heard. I've seen and heard demos in videos - they're quite different from what happened on 9/11.

Just trying to get a measure of who I'm dealing with.

 

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
[video=youtube;ERhoNYj9_fg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERhoNYj9_fg#![/video]

 

vs

[video=youtube;SaBQ3AkRetI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/video]

No contest.

 

Yep, the grapefruit still knows more about 9/11 than truthers do.

 

No I am pretty sure you are the one who doesn't understand and since it is pointed out to you and you ignore it I will assume you are either too dogmatic about your "special knowledge" or mentally impaired.

 

Two completely different situations. In the Sound Evidence for Explosions video, the microphone was turned down so that the reporter could hear the mother talking without all the background noise. In the video you posted the sound was captured specifically to catch the explosions. Plus, they were two completely different controlled demolition tactics.

The sound evidence for explosions was obvious in the video I posted and testified to by eye witnesses.

 

You're mischaracterising what was actually heard and reported, and I'm thinking you fail to realise just how loud those explosions are. It doesn't take a microphone turned up or directed toward them to pick them clearly and distinctly.

Also, what evidence do you have for making claims about any sort of controlled demolition tactics being used on WTC buildings? The powder ostensibly collected after the collapses and allegedly exhibiting characteristics similar to thermite of some sort? Or are you suggesting some other more quiet method? And if so, what was it and where is the evidence for it?

 

clueless laymen?

I suggest you limit to talking about what you actually know, which is your own lack of qualifications and not assume that everyone else is as uneducated as you claim to be.

 

The stupidity in the OP is overwhelming.

NIST said the pancaking hypothesis was not the cause of collapse, but pancaking inevitably occurred after collapse initiation. That is why we can find images of pancaked floors in the rubble.



NIST only investigated up until the point of collapse initiation because they are not idiots. They understand, as well as anyone with an IQ above room temperature, that the moment the building began to fail, and that top section began to move down, nothing was going to arrest the share force of the kinetic energy produced.

The reason why controlled demolition theories always have, and always will fail, is because of the simple fact that from the moment those two buildings were hit, they were doomed to fail. There was no controlled demolition because there was no need for controlled demolition. Simple as that.

 

wow 3 posts later you now are an expert qualified to do forensics work.

some forum posters never cease to amaze me

 

Any moment of freefall collapse is strong evidence of controlled demolition.

 

yeh because anyone with a double digit IQ would require a full analysis and nist stopped because there is a point where no lie is good enough like wtc 7 and that loony model they made with secret data that does not look even close to the actual demolition of wtc7












yeh nist had a good reason to stop there, and they didnt even do that right.

the initial collapse of the above buildings was demolition but the buildings stopped and failed to crumble to the ground!

Yeh if I were working for a criminal government I would run from going beyond the initial collapse and (*)(*)(*)(*) that all up too.

 

That, and the simple fact that evidence for controlled demolitions is noticeably lacking. The sight and sound of explosions is missing, and the debris that any kind of demo charges would have left behind is missing.

I see the truthers clinging to anything and everything they can to try and support their views, and of course in this they fail to account for other possibilities and contradictory facts to their views. They end up being what they accuse NIST, as well as the people who accept what NIST has said, of being, only worse.

 

Newton's third law of motion was suspended for three WTC buildings on 9/11. Yeah, right.
And you have ocean front property for sale in Arizona too I'll bet.

 

Animated GIFs? Oh noes! Now our argument is surely doooooomed

 

I love it when people who fail to understand Newton's laws think that they were violated.

 

yeh sux to have the truth out in the open and in your face doesnt it.

These dablunder sites were doomed before they started and you already admitted you are not qualified to argue the matter, so what you said makes no sense.

 

maybe another explanation of bulers buckling theory would help cover that little inconvenience up?

 

I love it when people try to pull the wool over the eyes of people who understand Newton's laws of motion. How about that ocean front property in Arizona? How much do you want for that?

 

I love the gifs, it shows a complete lack of understanding of what happened but provides great comedy relief.