You forgot cutting charges, which admittedly doesn't sound ridiculous and spoils your strawman dichotomy.
I know I may not receive a response for some time, but what makes you think cutting charges are more reasonable as a trigger than thermite, nukes, energy beams or any of the other craziness posited over the last decade? Personally, I feel it is just as daft and just as implausible.
You missed my point completely and no-one made such a suggestion. Whether it is thermite/thermate/nano-therm*te/nukes/cutting charges/energy beams/flying orbs or any of the other lunacy posited by 9/11 truth makes no difference. They are all as equally specious. A belief in the controlled demolition of the WTC is just foolishness-that was the point, and I still maintain it and no-one can provide evidence to the contrary.
the indisputable 'FACT' remains that thermate cutters are 100% real. NIST explained that freefall can 'ONLY' occur when the supporting structure is removed. NIST admitted that freefall did occur and entered it into the record. You need to show: 1) how the supporting structure was removed 2) without demolition 3) in a manner 'fast' enough to result in freefall before any reasonable person who is not suffering from incredulity and denial would even consider your version.
Stop fibbing now. They did not claim or admit that free fall occurred because it did not. Nor did they say it did anywhere in their report. In fact the evidence shows it DID NOT occur. Nor did they make the other claims you alude to
you nailed it. i would post a couple of videos that the 9/11 apologists have never been able to debunk that backs up everything you just said but I have learned too many times that they know they can hide behind the computer so they wont watch it cause they only see what they want to see.
the only thing that foolish is being gullible enough to ignore the laws of physics and what many witnesses saw and heard many being credible firefighters experienced in explosives as wel as the fact demolition experts have said thats what brought them down.miserable fail. You forgot cutting charges, which admittedly doesn't sound ridiculous and spoils your strawman dichotomy. so very true.you nailed it.
you took the 9/11 apologists to school major big time there.well done. very simple as pie to do with them,
The notion that bombs,nuclear or otherwise were used on 9/11 and that first responders are dying of 'radiation exposure illness' goes past stupidity straight on to moronic An incredibly,utter MAJOR fail
well then you would be talking about yourself then because the only 9/11 conspiracy THEORISTS are you 9/11 apologists ignoring the laws of physics and what experts have said as well as very many credible first responders. truely astounding how you can accept it that both parties are corrupt,that there is no difference between the two,that they only serve the bankers instead of the people and yet when it comes to 9/11,you do what people who have been conditioned and programmed their whole lives into believing there is a difference in the two parties do.they ignore facts that Obama is no different than Bush which you agree on yet,you ignore facts the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. Do me a favor,for now on till you can deal with reality they were brought down by explosives,dont like a post of mine anymore when i talk about how we have a corrupt one party system designed to look like two because until you can deal with these facts that it was an inside job,then you might as well go out and vote for someone like Obama,Bush,or Romney who are all part of the elite instead of someone like ron paul would would serve the people instead of the bankers unlike those other three clowns.
Logic is what all you 9/11 apologists obviously have not been using the fact you all worship what our corrupt government institutions tell you and the CIA controlled media as your SOURCE instead of listening to credible witnesses and what experts says,miserable fail. - - - Updated - - - and they say WE are the ones who believe in wacky conspiracy theories and have warped logic.
there is no point in my arguing with these people that as you can see will go to the extent of posting lies, or are suffering from clinical incredulity or do not have the required background to understand the information given to them. Those having the required background to properly assess the data recognize the following chart provided by NIST as not only admission, but 'certification' of freefall.
yep when you stop looking for facts,that DOES ruin the conspiracy theory that 19 muslins and bin laden were behind the attacks.
which ends the debate and takes the 9/11 apolgists to school.they can only whine and cry in defeat.thats why i have them all on ignore because they cant accept defeat no matter how many times you take them to school with these facts here you were so brilliant in posting.hee hee.
thats the understatement of the century. the conspiracy theory guys who defend the official version that fires brought down the towers,the pentagon was hit by a plane,ect ect are the ones that are far far out there and nutty.hee hee.
again the understatement of the century.lol - - - Updated - - - you really nailed it in your first paragraph major big time.
yep the crackpot conspiracy theories that 19 muslims were behind 9/11 is indeed a crackpot conspiracy theory. a bunch of nonsense indeed.
No need to get so worked up, mi amigo. You are wrong, largely because the version of 9/11 to which you subscribe also happens to fit with your anti-government ideology. You like blaming the government for 9/11, thus you filter information accordingly. Religious people do the same sort of thing for the same sort of reason, albeit where evolutionary science is concerned, so you're hardly alone here. Your claim that the non-conspiracist, i.e. accurate and fact-based, interpretation of what happened to the twin towers and WTC 7 "ignores the laws of physics and what experts have said" shows your bias and your ignorance in this matter. The government can be a corrupt mess without blowing up buildings in New York. It really is possible for the world to be that complex
a) Denial? Is that what 9/11 truth tells you to say in response? What a load of moronic crap. b) What experts? Gage and his idiot cronies like Chandler? The guy who doesn't even know how long 7WTC took to collapse? Why hasn't Gage put forth any papers for review to prove his nonsensical claims? Simple, he can't. Why are there over 50 independent academic papers in support of the NIST report? c) No, it hasn't been proven at all or Gage would have the evidence required to build a prima facie case for a new investigation, and he doesn't. You can revel in your belief system all you want, but until you guys can actually prove one of your claims, you'll be forever relegated to the 'nutter' section of internet fora.
So much misrepresentation in one post. a) The collapses did not 'ignore the laws of physics'-that meme is dead. b) No testimony claims outright that the buildings were demolished and 9/11 truth can't tell when someone uses a metaphor and a simile. c) Only one 'demolition expert' came out in support and he has subsequently recanted his belief. Your lies need to be a little better to get past me. Actually, it wasn't a strawman dichotomy and the guy doesn't know what he is talking about, nor do you by the sound of it. But if it makes you feel smart, run with it. - - - Updated - - - Empty bluster which is obviously full of (*)(*)(*)(*). Get back to me when you can discuss the subject like an adult.
So what? I never said they weren't. You are still missing my point by a whole planetary orbit, and I don't care if termite cutters exist or not, as it is completely immaterial to my point and just as retarded as any other method claimed by 9/11 truth. Citation required. You know the Eastern Penthouse shows the interior collapsed before the curtain wall. Right? So did the curtain wall have a supporting structure when the interior was gone? Did the material collapsing in the interior accelerate the collapse of the curtain wall? There are other reasonable possibilities that may have occurred in the chaos of the collapse that don't require a leap of logic into CD territory. As I started, it was noted for 2.25 seconds at the 12.5 second mark. Are you reading my posts at all? Do you know that free-fall was actually exceeded according to the figures supplied by NIST? No I don't. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof again, and I don't fall for your lame tactics. YOU need to show how free-fall is significant given the figures I quoted, and you need to explain how the CD narrative is confirmed by free-fall being exceeded. How does this fit into your narrative? It's not 'my' version, and I don't give a flying (*)(*)(*)(*) if you consider it or not. You need to show me why free-fall is significant given the above figures. Come on, do something for a change.
