so then is that way they call a fission/fusion nuke thermo nuclear? LOL - - - Updated - - - but thats not 1,2, or 7 LOL
What's your point? You think a thermonuclear explosion would have been missed going off in a couple of skyscrapers? You've been shown the evidence repeatedly by now that, yes, heat from a hot, sustained melts steel (sufficiently to reduce its strength considerably, which is the most important thing in the case of the twin towers' collapses), whereas is there is nothing to suggest that there was any form of nuclear weapon used, nor to suggest that one was needed in the first place.
He needs to make the qualification that you find a melted steel column from one of the buildings that was hit? Isn't that painfully obvious?
He probably knows that this is the only pic extant, and as all the steel has been scrapped he knows we can't show him a pic that satisfies his qualification. This pic is the only one available that depicts this effect, however, it doesn't mean it didn't occur in the other buildings, and he should know that too. Basically, it's a technique known as reversing the burden of proof: posit a silly idea, then expect everyone to debunk it, and in the minds of some, if people can't debunk it, or can't be bothered, then the idea becomes true. That's a technique a lot of truthers use in my experience. There's another technique behind this. Did you notice how he has made it the qualifier? Without stating thus, we know are expected to come with shots that look like his 'example' provided, and if we can't, we lose. But while we are running around looking for his proof which he will dismiss using another method, we have forgotten that his sample is not the only way metal reacts in fires. Did you find yourself expecting to see images that reflected the one he supplied? If so, then you fell for the trick. His image is not the only visual effect from fires we can expect. Note he started with this: "ah yes! and you always can tell when heat from an office fire causes a steel column to lose its strength!" And then provided the pic. So now we are supposed to run around looking for a pic that resembles the pic he posted, when in reality, it is entirely unnecessary. That is why I posted the pic without comment, for I wanted to see what he did with it, and he virtually followed the script.
The nuke has to be one of the dumbest ideas conceived by the idiots in 9/11 truth, only to be exceeded by the 'no-planes' lunacy. ETA: Oh, I forgot about Judy Woods and energy beams causing 'dustification'-that is the dumbest of them all, but nukes and no-planes are up there with those who need a spirit level to stop drooling.
Well I agree that the fact a similar effect was seen in another building makes the exercise of visual estimation pointless. But don't you find it suspicious there wasn't a thorough public and independent examination of the columns by engineers?
Heh. Yep, it's funny what people with no clue can come up with when they have a crazy agenda driving them..
No, as I and many others, feel that the notion of a CD is politically, practically and logistically preposterous.
No-one said any such thing. You asked if I found that suspicious and I told you why I don't, then you have the temerity to post that last ridiculous statement? You have been to the 'Truther School of Auto-Response', haven't you? Obviously you haven't given the idea of a CD much thought. Give it time, it will appear as ludicrous to you one day, as it does to rational individuals now. Nukes? Come on, too stupid to even give thought to. Thermite? A proven myth, as the specious nature of the claims and methodology have been exposed. Anything else? Nope. No physical evidence for the use of explosives. What more is there to say on the matter? If you believe in the plausibility of a CD, good for you, but let me treat that idea with the contempt it deserves, as is my right.
And this is in response to me stating there should have been an investigation, and you saying no because "you and many others" didn't want one. Pot/kettle? You seem to have little else than dismissive name calling. Personally I agree nukes and thermite are unlikely, but see no reason to dismiss cutting charges. Instead of thinking of gratuitous negative adjectives to describe opposing views, why not explain why cutting charges are unlikely? Oh, because "you and many others" decided a priori they weren't with no evidence, and have no need for an investigation.
What more 'investigation ' do you need? was there ANY evidence of cutter charges found in the pile? Were every one of the cleanup crew 'in on it?'
yeh, everyone knows that steel buildings with no causal damage cave in on themselves, in their footprint at freefall as a result of office fires all the time. Thats why office fires are the first choice of demolition teams to pull hirises! Every rational person knows that
Strawman. I didn't say that and you damn well know it. Please revise comprehension. Strawman. I'm using logic and evidence, or the lack thereof. Why? Cutting charges are as equally preposterous. The adjectives I use are apt and not gratuitous-that is your confirmation bias directing your thoughts. Ok, who deployed these cutting charges? Unknown. Was there any physical evidence of explosive deployment in the rubble? No. What is the motivation for such an act? Unknown. Is there any evidence whatsoever to support the contentious theory of a CD? No. WTF do you want? Do you want me to make up random (*)(*)(*)(*) like 9/11 truth? Strawman, you should stop doing that.
And out comes the old canards and logical fallacies. Free-fall? So what? Chandler didn't even know how long the collapse took, and you are just parroting his erroneous claim. The free-fall meme has no relevance for it was only observed for 2.25 seconds after the collapse had been going on for 12.5 seconds. That meme has no meaning, yet you guys trot it out every time and you get told why it is dumb, every time. Footprint? The significance? This is just a reworking of the 'first time in history' canard which is just the fallacy 'argument from incredulity'. You left out other 'firsts' in order to deceptively colour your argument. 1) The first time two such buildings of such a design had been struck by airliners. 2) The collapse of the twins cut off the water supply for the fire fighters, so 7WTC went unfought for over seven hours. Missed that one didn't you? No, I think you left it out on purpose. Finally, no demo team would user fire as a medium as it is too erratic, and that is why your comment is moronic, but you know that.
List of things that cause buildings to collapse that demolition teams don't use: Impacts from Passenger Aircraft. Fires Earth Quakes Volcanoes Tidal waves Hurricanes Tornadoes Pests Things that demolition teams DO use according to moronic truthers: Nuclear weapons Hurricane powered space based directed energy weapons. Thermite Fire fighters.
