Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 2, 2011.
how the hell do you know what the parties would use? mouse in your pocket?
He doesn't know..He's doing the same thing all the resident "debunkers" in this place do... They make stuff up and then try to pass off that conjecture as fact.
I know what you're telling me.. But you still didn't answer the question.
You say they would have chosen RDX.. But, I'm not asking if it's their choice, I'm asking if it's the only possible choice.
Your reluctance to answer even the simplest yes/no question instead saying stuff that wasn't asked about (you'd make a good politician) speaks volumes. In fact that tells me more than even your answer would have.
It shows WHY you avoid it.. You KNOW RDX is not the only possibility, but you must parrot the NIST argument about how ruling out RDX would rule out everything else, and admitting other options means you would have to disprove them being used in order to support your argument.
So you won't admit it.. You'll just reiterate the unsubstantiated conjecture, per usual.
Jeeze, why do I keep having to remind truthers about common sense?
From someone whose stock in trade hre is 'unsubstantiated allegations',I suppose this is high praise,as for RDX being the only possibility,I asked you to tell ME,because I don't know,I'm just telling you after reading that RDX would usually be used.
The key word in your post is "USUALLY".
There was nothing at all "USUAL" about this demolition.
you have trouble understanding that?...I even used a comma
And you're trying to derail the discussion by going off on a tangent, as truthers often do.
I'm not making a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing up,and who CARES if anything else could have been used, point in NO explosive residue was found at the WCT site
Name one unsubstantiated allegation that I'm trying to pass off as fact.
If you don't know then fair enough.. The answer is no, it's not the only option.. I am guessing that just a couple more cargo van's worth of Tim McVeigh's bomb could have pulled off the job, I imagine the military has a few things in their armory as well that could deliver raw destructive force.
You said it would have been used.. Based on what you were saying it looked like you were just mirroring the NIST argument in that RDX wasn't possible so everything else can be ruled out as well. If you don't think this then nvm. If RDX would only "usually" be used then its absence can't rule out the possibility of any other explosive devices having gone off.
I was responding to comments YOU made in THIS thread.
Who cares? Examining ALL possibilities and explanations for measured data and observations is CRITICAL in any proper scientific investigation. Your conclusion can't be proven without ruling out other possible conlclusions first. This is basic science and this is one area where the NIST reports fail.
Of course there was nothing found because they didn't look!
You're arguing exactly like NIST now.. They triumphantly declared off the bat: I'll tell you what we DIDN'T find.. Evidence of explosives!
They are trying to deceive people into thinking they scientifically disproved something when in fact they did not, they only didn't find evidence because they did not even pursue that avenue at all due to arbitrary and incorrect assumptions e.g. how they didn't look for evidence at the WTC7 site because nobody claimed they heard a boom there, when this is a lie as people did report hearing a boom there.
Who exactly said 'they didn't look'?
And NONE of the steel exhibited the signs of explosives, just mangling from the collapse
And FYI, I don't 'make stuff up',that's your Modus Vivendi....
NIST. They were asked if they looked for physical traces of explosives or thermite.. They responded:
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
It's a FACT they didn't investigate the possibility of any explosives. You'll not find anything where they explored that avenue. They wrote it off as impossible based on lies and used that justification to not look for any evidence. Then they triumphantly declared they didn't find the evidence, implying they looked when they didn't, implying the hypothesis was scientifically ruled out, when it wasn't.
You mean like the "swiss cheese" steel that FEMA said whoever took over the investigation needs to look into?
I don't suppose you can show me the analysis performed on this piece showing how the perforations were caused by a collapse? You can't.. This is one of the "bad" pieces of evidence that doesn't reconcile with their predetermined conclusion and so was ignored and brushed under the rug.
You just did... "They would have used RDX" is pure conjecture.l
Okay, give me one example of something I made up and am trying to pass off as fact.
Read 6.3.4 in NISTNCSTAR 1-3
Especially the parts about the samples that FEMA had already studied.
Sample K16. Have a good long read of that chapter.
That NIST 'lied' about their findings
NIST lied?!?! Frankly...I'm shocked.
I didn't say this... Show me what specific quote please.. I'll stand behind my own words not yours.
You didn't also read this? NIST clearly FAIL to explain the damage.. They do conclude it was due to high temperatures, even exceeding the 700-800o C range, but make NO explanation for temperatures this high in a sample from a column removed from the impact/fire zones, other than it must have somehow happened in the rubble pile and so is therefore OUTSIDE the scope of their investigation and they don't need to deal with the issue then.
Yet another red herring?
Think about this for a second, guy.
You argue that all the steel was turned to dust.
Why are you arguing that NIST failed to explain a sample of steel from the impact zone? How could NIST fail to explain a sample of steel from the impact zone? Shouldn't the steel in the impact zone be dust?
No it's a fact.. NIST have not reconciled their theory with all available data and observations, and this fact is evidence of their unscientific approach.
Nonsense.. I never claimed any such thing as this, about all steel being turned to dust.
Also the sample I was referring to was not from the impact zone, I said the sample that was REMOVED from the impact zone.. In fact this piece was perforated by temperatures that MUST have been HIGHER than in the fires in the impact zone, yet was never even in the impact/fire zone, so where did those temperatures come from?
Sorry about that. I confused your screen name with someone else. In my defense I was posting from my phone at the time.
according to WHOM?...truthers?
The scientific method.
Separate names with a comma.