Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 25, 2013.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    and if you scratch a trougher hard enough a psychopath comes out.
     
  2. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The energy signature is meaningless for the purpose of proving that it was thermite. The ability to burn in an inert or no atmosphere is a known characteristic of thermite.

    No ignition in a vacuum, no thermite. That simple.
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83

    I asked to see the energy signature. no energy signature to bad, its bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
     
  4. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your question is nonsense in light of the existence of Kaolin. No explosive materials were used.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    proves nothing, anything less than an energy signature is useless. whats the matter with you people arguing such silly (*)(*)(*)(*)


    this is what explosives look like since the resident self proclaimed "experts" are so clueless.



    [​IMG]
     
  6. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's funny, the "industry experts" from ImplosionWorld say you're wrong. Are they lying also?
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    you misapplied what they said as is everyone else of your ilk.
     
  8. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds great. The you should no problem showing me what I "misapplied".
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    why dont you start by reading the title.

    not only does that clip show explosives there is something else about it that all you forensic experts should immediately see that is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing no brainer proving it did not happen as the official fantasy said.
     
  10. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    . Now show me how I "misapplied" what they said. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    they never said such a thing, prove it.
     
  12. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
  14. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now show me how I "misapplied" what they said. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,136
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    were they up there at the time?
     
  16. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OH....so now the eyewitnesses were bought...and you can support that claims with evidence, right?

    Bring it, clown!...there is just no depth to your intellectual dishonesty, is there.
     
  17. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,055
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First off, Fraud, your entire copy and paste job was useless. Millette's name wasn't in any of it. So you know what I did, just for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles? I followed you're link. Guess what I found in your link that actually surprised me. Again, 'Fraud, you fail to read your own link, as it debunks you. From your link:

    Not only did you fail at copy and pasting the accurate information from your link, but you also failed to even read it. Your own link says that there was no thermite at the WTC. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH It goes on to say:

    This debunker stand tall my good man, you've done absolutely nothing other than proving mine, and Millette's point even further. I've noticed you've run from this thread, but why don't you come back? School me again, haha. Clownshoe
     
  19. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let's get more stupidity from that article that RTW listed, this individual certainly has sources doesn't he? The problem with those sources? Not a single one of them is from a non-truther website. They are all the same kind of stupid. All start with confirmation bias, and all state the same truther meme's. This article maybe a TL;DR scenario. If you want to read it, go ahead, if not, it's going to be a little lengthy as this article he referred to is garbage.

    Some quotes from already debunked bull(*)(*)(*)(*):

    Everyone know that is wrong, it's been debunked some many times it's stupid. A building fell on WTC 7, and it didn't fall into it's own footprint. It covered 4 lanes of traffic.

    Of course this entire part largely unsourced. The only thing he sourced out of that entire paragraph was that they sprayed 10,000 gallons of water Lol. It doesn't matter that the building became a gigantic oven due to the fires being trapped. They don't mention that, just more of their woo stupidity.

    That's right, oral report of explosions. As if that hasn't been tackled a thousand times before. I followed the link to the 'International Center for 9/11 studies" but they didn't have (*)(*)(*)(*). They filed that lawsuit in 2009 to encourage the NIST to release all their data, which the NIST did over 3 years ago. Guess what? The international **** group didn't find a damn thing. They made a HUGE deal out of getting it, and how NIST was "hiding it". Now that they have over 2 terabytes of information from NIST, they still haven't done (*)(*)(*)(*) with it. Good work guys!

    Here they make Carbon Nanotubes sound ssscccccaaarrryyyy. They're found in demolition, blah blah blah. However, you know what else they're found in:

    Yeah, car parts. Guess what blew up, and got crushed in the collapse of the buildings. Go ahead, take your time. Really think about it.

    So his argument is that there is no thermite in the chips, but there was thermite on the chips, which got washed away when Millette cleaned the chips, but didn't get washed away when it was soaked in MEK. Everyone got that? See the sense that makes? Obviously it's an accurate assessment. :confusion:

    If I thought 'Fraud had the ability to write this well, I would think he wrote the article. They threw in the "arabs with box cutters" meme. Classy, eh? This keeps getting better.

    We've got more people in on it now too. So the article basically says they added all of this explosive stuff during this upgrade. Turner construction was kind enough to not even charge them for it, according to the invoice. That's fairly nice.

    In any case, what 'Fraud considers his slam dunk piece is absolute garbage. He thinks the entire thing is sourced because the comments are underlined and have links. Those links go to garbage sites though. It's all truther sites, the most common being 9/11blogger. Needless to say, if your main source is 9/11blogger, your article is crap.
     
  20. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You need to read the WHOLE conclusion, rather than highlighting selective things that you want people to THINK endorses your premises. Hint: IT DOESN'T. It goes on to say that Millette's "study" is flawed. You'd get that if you actually read the whole thing, but, I understand yor goal. Millette "doesn't recall" which chips he WASHED before "testing" them, and IF you read the entire document, you realize that Thermite WAS the conclusion. Iguess I'll have to hold your hand and reference it for you. It goes like this (from the part of the document you referenced but EXCLUDED because it negates your goal. From the document:

    The "explosives" used at the WTC were probably nano-thermite, tailored so that there would be just enough percussive blast to damage targeted structures without blowing out windows or making the blast so obvious that it would still be audible if recorded on a microphone half a mile away and replayed through laptop speakers (although it could be heard through headphones or sub-woofer). Nano-thermite, perhaps with added sulfur, was more likely to have been applied to the core columns of WTC2 or WTC7 in the planned impact zone, with the installation times being nearer to 9/11/01 than 1996, which would allow for further technological advances after the WTC1 SFRM "upgrade". The heavily sulfidated steel from WTC7 and from either WTC1 or 2 (Jonathan Barnett's Sample 2), and the orange-yellow melt pouring from WTC2's consistency with a cooling iron-sulfur melt hanging at its eutectic point at ~1,000 °C as it gives up its latent heat of fusion (and certainly inconsistent with molten "aluminum"!), indicates that a thermate variant was used. With Flight 93 shot down over Shanksville and Indian Lake before it could hit its intended target, accelerants installed at the planned WTC7 impact zone could have remained unreacted after the backup plan involving explosives on critical columns on lower floors was put into operation hours later.


    Now, you COULD reference tham myriad of other points raised in the document, if you read it, but, maybe I'll do that for you too, after you fire back with your agenda driven, misleading BS. In fact, I look forward to it.

    Oh, and I'm still here bro...I'm not "running". Now continue with you barrage of insults, and misleading propaganda, and I'll be here when you come up for air.
     
  21. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    10 years and you still have no proof that anything other than what we all witnessed that day happened. Two planes, loaded with fuel and people crashed into the WTC towers and initiated collapse of the towers.

    No controlled demolition, no thermite, no nukes, no high-energy weapon and no HAARP....just planes.
     
  22. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remote controlled planes (but I digress). We have planes crashing. We have an obvious conspiracy. We do not know more than that, other than an "official" BS offering of what they want us to think happened, and most people are too stupid or too ignorant to question it. That's all we have.
     
  23. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remote controlled planes?...proof? Where are all the people who checked in and boarded those planes?

    We have an obvious conspiracy - Proof?....Who are the parties involved?

    Actually we do...well, the people who have critical thinking skills do. The rest of you people are still scratching your head.
     
  24. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, we have little in the way of proof on anything concrete. We have a "story", some crashed planes, fallen buildings, and the PNAC agenda. Everything else is open to speculation.
     
  25. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you have evidence that supports or does not support any claim made, regardless of opinion. There is not evidence of controlled demolition or explosive material. No evidence of nuke. No evidence of high-energy weapon and no evidence of HAARP.

    We do have evidence of planes, evidence of passengers who were on those planes, flight paths tracked on radar....we have plenty of evidence.
     

Share This Page