Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Collapse of World Trade Centre 7

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    DTrotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭DTrotter


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    Reported you.

    wtc7.gif
    Everytime someone responds with where's the evidence or anything i just hear a big loud buzzer.ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    This picture just blasted you out of the water.

    Yeah, sounds like a thermite blast alright.


  • Options
    #33
    edanto
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    DTrotter wrote: »
    How does it tie in to Israelis/Jews?

    Beats me. I mean I've read over the thread and you're the first to mention that, so I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking.


  • Options
    #34
    polishpaddy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭polishpaddy


    Thats why i reported him.


  • Options
    #35
    Timmyctc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,825 ✭✭✭Timmyctc


    amm but didnt the investigators find residue matching that exactly of an altered form of thermite which was introduced to the building's interior structure during matenance works like 2 months prior?


  • Options
    #36
    DTrotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭DTrotter


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    Thats why i reported him.

    Thanks Kermit.
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055580607


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    DTrotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭DTrotter


    edanto wrote: »
    Beats me. I mean I've read over the thread and you're the first to mention that, so I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking.

    Two threads down rover.
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055580607


  • Options
    #38
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    DTrotter, if you wise to go down certain avenues then use the other thread. You were the frist to bring up the subject here and it looks like an attempted to derail.

    PolishPaddy, you've received a warning for breaching the forum charter. Specifically "If you report a post please do not then go on to address the post."

    Further off topic posts will result in infractions/bans.


  • Options
    #39
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    edanto wrote: »
    so I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking.

    Yellow card for personal abuse.


  • Options
    #40
    DTrotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭DTrotter


    Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!!

    This is the thread title just a bit down the page, posted by someone who has posted in here. The title alone suggests that all the answers are in there, god forbid I want evidence to tie the claims in here to a thread that has "all the proof in the world".


  • Options
    #41
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    wtc7.gif


    Everytime someone responds with where's the evidence or anything i just hear a big loud buzzer.ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    This picture just blasted you out of the water.

    Ah ok so.

    You're going to get the truth out by ignoring facts and repeating a non argument.
    Yep that'll work.

    Or are you going the address the points I brought up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    Timmyctc wrote: »
    amm but didnt the investigators find residue matching that exactly of an altered form of thermite which was introduced to the building's interior structure during matenance works like 2 months prior?

    You got a link to that or anything I could read up on about it ?


  • Options
    #43
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Timmyctc wrote: »
    amm but didnt the investigators find residue matching that exactly of an altered form of thermite which was introduced to the building's interior structure during matenance works like 2 months prior?
    Source?

    And thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions.


  • Options
    #44
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,387 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    edanto wrote: »
    Other than the fact that it housed (one of?) the dedicated Emergency Response Centre for NYC and the Security Exchange Commisions offices complete with files on hundreds of active investigations?

    I mean, it's a goldmine for CTs. Drop WTC 1&2 to start a phony war to boost business (arms) and take out WTC 7 to damage investigations into dodgy financial dealings.

    Frankly the CT is more plausible than the official version, just it's very scary and the evidence is overwhelming (in volume as opposed to supporting one conclusion or the other).

    You may consider the motives to be more plausible. The evidence is not.


  • Options
    #45
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    You got a link to that or anything I could read up on about it ?

    Probably referring to the sample taken by Steve Jones.


  • Options
    #46
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    polishpaddy wrote: »
    wtc7.gif

    NO NEED FOR WORDS.

    Crap, he's got an animated gif. What use is evidence in the face of that?


  • Options
    #47
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,387 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Exactly. All that gif shows is a building collapsing. But such a shot, which doesn't even show the bottom half of the building, cannot be compared to videos of other buildings collapsing because in both controlled demolitions and WTC7, the causes of collapse were internal. Explosives are planted internally. WTC7 in my opinion collapsed due to the failing of the internal support structure. None of this can be seen from the top half of a blurry gif.


  • Options
    #48
    DTrotter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 232 ✭✭DTrotter


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    Exactly. All that gif shows is a building collapsing. But such a shot, which doesn't even show the bottom half of the building, cannot be compared to videos of other buildings collapsing because in both controlled demolitions and WTC7, the causes of collapse were internal. Explosives are planted internally. WTC7 in my opinion collapsed due to the failing of the internal support structure. None of this can be seen from the top half of a blurry gif.

    When I asked him to link it to another thread he started where he claimed contained indisputable proof that Israel was responsible he reported me. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person but this place reeks of flinging Sh** against a wall and seeing what slides down slower than the rest.


  • Options
    #49
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Lets keep our (collective) calm here.


  • Options
    #50
    markomongo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭markomongo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Source?

    And thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions.
    Thermite was used to cut the core columns...
    jones9_p1_5.jpg


  • Options
    #51
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    markomongo wrote: »
    Thermite was used to cut the core columns...
    jones9_p1_5.jpg

    After the collapse, during the rescue and clean up operation.

    If indeed that is a cut made by thermite.

    And still doesn't change the fact that thermite has never been used in controlled demolitions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    markomongo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭markomongo


    King Mob wrote: »
    After the collapse, during the rescue and clean up operation.

    If indeed that is a cut made by thermite.

    And still doesn't change the fact that thermite has never been used in controlled demolitions.

    Possibly...but in my opinion very unlikely.

    I believe it was used to cut the core columns so the two towers would fall at free-fall speed symetricaly into their own footprint encountering slim to no resistance.
    The physicist Steve Jones who tested dust samples says-"it looks like thermite with sulpher added, which is a very clever idea".

    He and many other scientists believe that this 'super thermite' was the cause of the towers collapse.

    Galileos law of falling bodies confirms this free fall speed.

    MoltenStreamCloseup.jpgMolten steel pouring from the tower...possible proof of thermite reactions.

    Super-thermite is an extremely powerful explosive that releases much more energy per gram than any other conventional explosive used in demoliton.

    Temperatures at Ground Zero remained at over 1000 degrees for over a week after 9/11 and it is estimated that the so called fires would have burned into late December if a special cooling agent had not been added to the water.
    show_image.php?id=41

    Note also that the heat under the 47 story WTC7 is similar to bith towers 110 story five days after the collapse indicating similar means or energys used.

    Thermite reactions give off a GRAYISH WHITE ALUMINUM OXIDE and this can be seen streaming away from upper floors during collapse as shown below.
    911_-_aluminum_oxide.png

    The top section of WTC2 appears below to break
    the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum-

    911_-_tower_destruction_5.png


    Shredded steel and dust was blasted upwards and outwards;
    this breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy.
    911_-_tower_destruction_2.png

    Pyroclastic dust clouds covered Manhattan;
    all the concrete and all the office equipment was turned to dust...pulvarised.

    911_-_tower_destruction_4.png

    Explosive squibs (many more of these photographed from a multitude of angles).
    wtc-squibs.jpg

    They are the first two buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire, WTC7 later that day was the third.

    I could go on and on. But even just look at other events on the day...
    Eg. The tiny hole in the pentagon before the walls collapse, no evidence of large plane debris or wing impact etc.

    The Shanksville crash site...again no evidence of a boeing plane found and a quote from Wally Miller- "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there".

    Americas air defence (NORAD) against hijacked planes, with 100% sucess rate fails 4 times in one day?

    Several of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive...

    Wake up...investigate 9/11


  • Options
    #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    markomongo wrote: »
    Possibly...but in my opinion very unlikely.

    I believe it was used to cut the core columns so the two towers would fall at free-fall speed symetricaly into their own footprint encountering slim to no resistance.
    But it didn't fall at free fall speed or on it's own footprint and it did encounter a lot of resistance.
    markomongo wrote: »
    The physicist Steve Jones who tested dust samples says-"it looks like thermite with sulpher added, which is a very clever idea".
    Note "Physicist" not engineer or chemist.
    I've read the paper. It doesn't include other possibilities for the presence of thermite.
    Oh and the fact the paper was published in a dodgy journal.

    markomongo wrote: »
    He and many other scientists believe that this 'super thermite' was the cause of the towers collapse.
    And have they ever proposed a method for this?
    Cause thermite is never used like that.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Galileos law of falling bodies confirms this free fall speed.
    Not quite
    http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
    markomongo wrote: »
    MoltenStreamCloseup.jpgMolten steel pouring from the tower...possible proof of thermite reactions.
    And you know that's steel because?
    And as far as I know thermite doesn't produce a stream of molten steel like that.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Super-thermite is an extremely powerful explosive that releases much more energy per gram than any other conventional explosive used in demoliton.
    And you know this because?
    markomongo wrote: »
    Temperatures at Ground Zero remained at over 1000 degrees for over a week after 9/11 and it is estimated that the so called fires would have burned into late December if a special cooling agent had not been added to the water.
    show_image.php?id=41

    Note also that the heat under the 47 story WTC7 is similar to bith towers 110 story five days after the collapse indicating similar means or energys used.
    And how exactly is this indicative of thermite or a controlled demolition?
    markomongo wrote: »
    Thermite reactions give off a GRAYISH WHITE ALUMINUM OXIDE and this can be seen streaming away from upper floors during collapse as shown below.
    911_-_aluminum_oxide.png
    Nope absolutely not else in the building at all that could produce smoke at all.
    But don't you claim that's pulverised concrete later on in your post?
    markomongo wrote: »
    The top section of WTC2 appears below to break
    the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum-

    911_-_tower_destruction_5.png
    Hang on. Didn't you also say earlier that the tower fell on it's on footprint? That doesn't look like falling on it's own footprint at all.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Shredded steel and dust was blasted upwards and outwards;
    this breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy.
    911_-_tower_destruction_2.png
    No it doesn't. As you said in the previous point: the conservation of angular momentum.
    Your argument isn't very consistant.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Pyroclastic dust clouds covered Manhattan;
    all the concrete and all the office equipment was turned to dust...pulvarised.

    911_-_tower_destruction_4.png
    And? How is this indicative of a controlled demolition?
    markomongo wrote: »
    Explosive squibs (many more of these photographed from a multitude of angles).
    wtc-squibs.jpg
    Well that looks like that's at the moment of collapse. That could very well be caused by the floors pancaking.
    Real squibs go off on every floor before the collapse not during.
    Oh and thermite doesn't explode.
    markomongo wrote: »
    They are the first two buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire, WTC7 later that day was the third.
    Yep nothing else happened to them that day at all. Not like a plane hit them or anything.
    And there have been loads of instances of building of similar size and construction with a similar fire. {sarcasm/}
    markomongo wrote: »
    I could go on and on. But even just look at other events on the day...
    Here are a few tasters-
    Well given most of these claim don't actually stand up to scrutiny maybe you should look into the rest them a bit harder.


  • Options
    #54
    markomongo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭markomongo


    You do not understand my points at all...
    For a start that freefall website you reference is bogus and almost laughable. Im not even wasting my time debating it.

    I will however admit that the free-fall claim is exaggerated but not by much. The fact remains that so little resistance occured something must have had an influence...eg. explosives.

    You find it important that I should 'note' that I quote a physicist...is this supposed to void my claim? Do you know anything about science?
    You mention the fact that it was published in a dodgy journal...you must be joking. Here is a journal written by 9 scientific professionals titled-

    "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

    Link to journal- http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
    Please download, read, learn and understand...

    By the way...molten steel IS produced from a thermite reaction in a stream exactly like the photo I have shown.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And you know this because?

    I know from reading scientific journals... something i suggest you do.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And how exactly is this indicative of thermite or a controlled demolition?

    Are you seriously asking this question? What else would produce such heat five days after the collapse?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope absolutely not else in the building at all that could produce smoke at all.
    But don't you claim that's pulverised concrete later on in your post?
    Look at the picture again...you can clearly see (unless you are visually impaired) the white smoke trailing from the ends of the pieces of metal indicating that the Termite is cooling.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Hang on. Didn't you also say earlier that the tower fell on it's on footprint? That doesn't look like falling on it's own footprint at all.

    Exactly...it should have fell over the edge and not brought down the tower...but, it met no or little resistance from the floors beneath so this angled piece fell almost straight down thus breaking the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum as mentioned later in my post.

    If you were a demolitions expert do you think you could have brought the towers down in a better fashion than what happened? Its text book... watch it again for yourself and ask, if you knew no better would you agree that it was a controlled demo? I believe every right minded person on the planet would...
    King Mob wrote: »
    No it doesn't. As you said in the previous point: the conservation of angular momentum.
    Your argument isn't very consistant.

    No...that was a different point completely...
    King Mob wrote: »
    And? How is this indicative of a controlled demolition?

    What else could have completely pulvarised and destroyed everything in mid-air? Not much else to my knowledge except explosives...
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well that looks like that's at the moment of collapse. That could very well be caused by the floors pancaking.

    It is at the moment of collapse. The squibs contain thick dust of a light colour, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.

    Thermite could have been used along with conventional explosives but again please read the scientific journal quoted earlier...
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yep nothing else happened to them that day at all. Not like a plane hit them or anything.

    Was the official reason for WTC 7 collapse not due to fire and structural damage? Was the intensity of the fire in Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 not blamed for weakining the steel? If this isnt YOUR belief as to what caused all three collapses then what are they?

    And would you care to provide me with your suggested reasons for the following questions-

    1.How Americas air defence (NORAD) against hijacked planes, with 100% sucess rate fails 4 times in one day?

    2.How several of the alleged hijackers have turned up ALIVE? (and still the FBI have not revised their list!)

    3.No evidence of a Boeing plane found at the Pentagon?

    4.No evidence of a boeing plane found at Shanksville?

    If you can answer these I have many more.

    Peace love union respect.


  • Options
    #55
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    markomongo wrote: »
    You do not understand my points at all...
    For a start that freefall website you reference is bogus and almost laughable. Im not even wasting my time debating it.
    Is it's bogus as you claim why not explain why it is?
    markomongo wrote: »
    I will however admit that the free-fall claim is exaggerated but not by much. The fact remains that so little resistance occured something must have had an influence...eg. explosives.
    Well there can't be facts unless you can show as a fact that it did fall at free fall speeds.
    markomongo wrote: »
    You find it important that I should 'note' that I quote a physicist...is this supposed to void my claim? Do you know anything about science?
    You mention the fact that it was published in a dodgy journal...you must be joking. Here is a journal written by 9 scientific professionals titled-

    "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

    Link to journal- http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
    Please download, read, learn and understand...
    I have read it.
    It's a dodgy journal because, for a fee you can publish in that journal without peer review. You know one of the most important parts of science.

    As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance. And it jumps to a conclusion it can't reach if it was being an honest paper.
    markomongo wrote: »
    By the way...molten steel IS produced from a thermite reaction in a stream exactly like the photo I have shown.
    And going to back this up?
    How do you know it is steel exactly?
    markomongo wrote: »
    I know from reading scientific journals... something i suggest you do.
    Yes I do as a matter of fact. Care to link to them?
    markomongo wrote: »
    Are you seriously asking this question? What else would produce such heat five days after the collapse?
    I don't know.
    How do you know it was thermite?
    Doesn't it cool very quickly?
    markomongo wrote: »
    Look at the picture again...you can clearly see (unless you are visually impaired) the white smoke trailing from the ends of the pieces of metal indicating that the Termite is cooling.
    And there's smoke pouring off everything in that photo of a variety of other colours. It's hardly conclusive.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Exactly...it should have fell over the edge and not brought down the tower...but, it met no or little resistance from the floors beneath so this angled piece fell almost straight down thus breaking the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum as mentioned later in my post.
    Unless of course there was a giant gapping hole in the building or something.

    And it's still not falling on it's own footprint.
    markomongo wrote: »
    If you were a demolitions expert do you think you could have brought the towers down in a better fashion than what happened? Its text book... watch it again for yourself and ask, if you knew no better would you agree that it was a controlled demo? I believe every right minded person on the planet would...
    Well how can it be text book when you claim they're using a method that's never been used before on a building of a size that's never been demolished?
    markomongo wrote: »
    No...that was a different point completely...
    Well would the fact the building didn't fall straight down explain that?
    markomongo wrote: »
    What else could have completely pulvarised and destroyed everything in mid-air? Not much else to my knowledge except explosives...
    No-one is claiming it was pulverised mid air.
    And how would thermite do this exactly?
    markomongo wrote: »
    It is at the moment of collapse. The squibs contain thick dust of a light colour, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
    And all those floors were completely clean of everything where they? And stayed that way despite raging fires.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Thermite could have been used along with conventional explosives but again please read the scientific journal quoted earlier...
    Except there isn't a scrap of evidence for explosives.
    markomongo wrote: »
    Was the official reason for WTC 7 collapse not due to fire and structural damage? Was the intensity of the fire in Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 not blamed for weakining the steel? If this isnt YOUR belief as to what caused all three collapses then what are they?
    So they could only fall down for one reason then?
    A combination of factors is impossible?
    markomongo wrote: »
    And would you care to provide me with your suggested reasons for the following questions-

    1.How Americas air defence (NORAD) against hijacked planes, with 100% sucess rate fails 4 times in one day?
    It'd didn't and it never had "100% success rate"
    markomongo wrote: »
    2.How several of the alleged hijackers have turned up ALIVE? (and still the FBI have not revised their list!)
    They weren't
    markomongo wrote: »
    3.No evidence of a Boeing plane found at the Pentagon?
    There was.
    markomongo wrote: »
    4.No evidence of a boeing plane found at Shanksville?
    There was.
    markomongo wrote: »
    If you can answer these I have many more.

    Peace love union respect.
    Are any of they actually based on something solid?


  • Options
    #56
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    King Mob wrote: »
    As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance.
    More imporantly, it tests combustion in an environment where oxygen was present, which doesn't and cannot establish that it was thermitic in nature.

    A thermitic reaction should be established by showing that it occurs in the absence of oxygen.


  • Options
    #57
    markomongo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭markomongo


    bonkey wrote: »
    More imporantly, it tests combustion in an environment where oxygen was present, which doesn't and cannot establish that it was thermitic in nature.

    A thermitic reaction should be established by showing that it occurs in the absence of oxygen.

    It can occur in the absence of oxygen but dosent have to.


  • Options
    #58
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    markomongo wrote: »
    It can occur in the absence of oxygen but dosent have to.
    So it doesn't matter that the paper used a method that cannot give the answer the paper reached?
    Not strike you as a problem?


  • Options
    #59
    markomongo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭markomongo


    King Mob wrote: »
    Is it's bogus as you claim why not explain why it is?

    Well there can't be facts unless you can show as a fact that it did fall at free fall speeds.

    I have read it.
    It's a dodgy journal because, for a fee you can publish in that journal without peer review. You know one of the most important parts of science.

    As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance. And it jumps to a conclusion it can't reach if it was being an honest paper.

    And going to back this up?
    How do you know it is steel exactly?


    Yes I do as a matter of fact. Care to link to them?

    I don't know.
    How do you know it was thermite?
    Doesn't it cool very quickly?

    And there's smoke pouring off everything in that photo of a variety of other colours. It's hardly conclusive.

    Unless of course there was a giant gapping hole in the building or something.

    And it's still not falling on it's own footprint.

    Well how can it be text book when you claim they're using a method that's never been used before on a building of a size that's never been demolished?

    Well would the fact the building didn't fall straight down explain that?

    No-one is claiming it was pulverised mid air.
    And how would thermite do this exactly?

    And all those floors were completely clean of everything where they? And stayed that way despite raging fires.

    Except there isn't a scrap of evidence for explosives.

    So they could only fall down for one reason then?
    A combination of factors is impossible?

    It'd didn't and it never had "100% success rate"
    They weren't

    There was.

    There was.

    Are any of they actually based on something solid?

    Their seems to be no point in continuing a debate with you if you are as close minded as this post suggests. You seem to me to be one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers worldwide you just wont believe anything else.

    Do some more research and you may not like what you find but you cannot dismiss the facts or even the (to me) very obvious posibilitys.

    All truth passes through three stages:
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)


  • Options
    #60
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    I find it strange that Norad fooked up so badly that day and were told to stand down. Im following the thread have a question if someone wouldn’t mind answering it.


    Does the fact that this thermite test was undertaken where oxygen was present mean that it wasn’t present in the building or is that just standard scientific procedure for actually testing for the presence of thermite?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    markomongo wrote: »
    Their seems to be no point in continuing a debate with you if you are as close minded as this post suggests. You seem to me to be one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers worldwide you just wont believe anything else.

    Do some more research and you may not like what you find but you cannot dismiss the facts or even the (to me) very obvious posibilitys.

    All truth passes through three stages:
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
    Yep all those times where I was asking for evidence and asking for to explain your in more detail mean I'm closed minded.

    And weren't you the one who said:
    For a start that freefall website you reference is bogus and almost laughable. Im not even wasting my time debating it.
    That doesn't sound very open minded.

    As for research I have done plenty.
    I've never seen a single conspiracy accusation stand up to scrutiny.

    But why not prove me wrong?

    Unless of course your one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers conspiracy theory site worldwide you just wont believe anything else?


Advertisement