a reply to: GenRadek
And I know for a fact that the evidence has been posted here on ATS countless times.
and again, the one thing you can not do it to show that here by either contributing it or linking to it....ONLY tell us about it.
point to ONE thread , that discusses the 2008 NIST hypothesis crews claim that NEW science occurred ONLY on 9-11.....and anything showing it false.
why did'n you in your post?
you start by TELLING what I post has already been explained, then INSTEAD of showing that, YOU proceed to further attack the
bunkers should know by now that does not work.
and, how long do ya want me to wait?
In fact the whole site has very good observations and explanations that are easy to understand.
duhbunking9-11..lmao......why can't you people EVER point to the ACTUAL 2005 NIST scientific investigation bestowed by Congress to scientifically
investigate how and why three buildings fell on 9-11....INSTEAD, you point to
bunker sites that TELL you what the reports REALLY mean huh....
ONE example; like how they LIE about the falling tower debris hitting WTC7....2005 NIST found that DID NOT occur....
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."
or how the 2005 NIST can't even see the fire in WTC7.....HOW many FDNY claims are on that website that claim..."INFERNO"....."fire coming out of EVERY
window'....why does NO pic out of the 50,000+ and 150 hours of video NIST had access to, show ANYTHING like this?????
why can I point to those 10,000+ pages and YOU can't?
You mean to tell me, that, in a fire, that is spread across 10+ floors, each an acre in size, burning from end to end, with a 767 inside, is NOT going
to have explosions being heard?
fire that NEVER covered a single floor at any time....SPOT fire that continually moved.....ya see Edna hanging onto the very steel YOU claim is" SO
funny that you i----s can only point to a 10 second clip of this INFERNO....there was MORE fire seen in the 1975 tower fire on the 11th floor that
burnt for almost 4 hours and covered 70% of the floor including the entire core.....NO structural replacement of ANYTHING....NO collapse.
a "767'...like it's just parked there in it's entirety?!?!?!?
and tell me what is up there to explode....FDNY knows what is there....and the majority state "explosions NOT consistent with office fires'....NO gas
lines or combustibles in the towers....Class 'A' type buildings do not allow that...maybe cans of computer air huh!!!!
People in the "truth" movement need to realize that hearing explosions does not signify explosives. In easier terms: Hearing kaboom =/= bomb.
people in the 'truth' movement are ASKING questions and DEMANDING the supporting evidence of the claims pushed as truth....I need NO evidence to do
the 2005 NIST did not investigate for explosives or accelerants....their parameter was only impact damage and fire....people whom support that
OFFICIAL CLAIM from this 2008 hypothesis crew, that "NONE were there for the ENTIRE day", is based on 26 SECONDS of collapse video.....and need their
f/n heads examined...or at the least, lopped off.
[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse. Based on
visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling...NIST concluded that a blast event did not occur
yes your Honor.....we have direct evidence based on these collapse videos that no explosives or accelerants were used the entire day.....but we are
NOT gonna show you that data...[just trust us].
....lol....."SPECIALIZED" computer modeling!!!!!!
Presenting a claim within a scientific context by using NOTHING to validate the claim, is called BULL#!
...no matter who says it.
and TWO airliners burning!!
to which the 2005 NIST found caused LITTLE damage to each tower....less than 15%, and NO supporting evidence the FIRES PRESENT allowed the collapse to
there are many NON-bomb/NON-explosive sources of "explosions" that one would expect in such a large fire. I wish I wish I wish people would get that
through their thick skulls.
again, you assert but forget to FOLLOW THROUGH!!!
tell me what 'combustible' is capable of explaining what they all hear.....
edit on 2-7-2014 by hgfbob because: I added stuff