✔ The red pill video watch if you want to wake up quickly.(911)

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

What company tested the steel beams for residue chemical compounds for demolition?

Why would they need to test for a specific chemical if the visual and metallurgical examination of the steel showed that the steel was never worked on / burnt / fractured by thermite, bombs, or explosives.

The methodical hand searching of WTC debris never revealed steel worked on by demolitions, an ignition system for CD, blasting cap fragments, nor the fragments of shape charges. Yet 6,000 pieces of human remains that could fit into test tubes was recovered.

I would think the recovery of a shape charge would be the only time a chemical test would be practical. How would randomly sampling over 1,000,000 tons of debris for chemicals of explosives be meaningful in any way?

Can you site:
The captured sound of implosion charges setting off. Charges that would have created a 140 db sound wave easily detected up to a quarter of a mile away.

The evidence of over pressure events from implosion charges.

Demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured, human remains, the debris, from the street, cars in the street, nearby buildings.

This has only been pointed out to you over and over and over and over, again and again and again....

a reply to: Informer1958

Are you suggesting that everyone on ATS is not capable of reading and understanding A&E?

#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

Why are you giving me a link to an AE Truth page that deals with WTC 7?

Were you not discussing the towers when you wrote this:

A fact that you do not understand, only a part of the WTC would have falling the lower bottom half of the WTC would still be standing.

Where is your proof of this, I see nothing in the link you have provided. Nothing. I'd prefer if you quit calling me a liar repeatedly, show some class and debate honestly.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why would they need to test for a specific chemical if the visual and metallurgical examination of the steel showed that the steel was never worked on / burnt / fractured by thermite, bombs, or explosives.

Are you creating excuses to why no one tested for thermite, bombs, explosives, chemicals residue of anything?

Looks to me you are.

The methodical hand searching of WTC debris never revealed steel worked on by demolitions, an ignition system for CD, blasting cap fragments, nor the fragments of shape charges.

Who gave the "orders" to be searching for ignition system for CD, blasting cap fragments, or fragments of shape charges?

No one did. The fact is no one was looking for any evidence of any of the above. Just because you claim none were found, doesnt mean that your "opinion" are true.

Can you site:
The captured sound of implosion charges setting off. Charges that would have created a 140 db sound wave easily detected up to a quarter of a mile away.

The evidence of over pressure events from implosion charges.

Demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured, human remains, the debris, from the street, cars in the street, nearby buildings.

This has only been pointed out to you over and over and over and over, again and again and again....

No, I do not need to.

This thread Topic is not about the derailment of your questions. What does your question have to do about the OP?

This has only been pointed out to you over and over and over and over, again and again and again....

a reply to: Informer1958

No, I do not need to.

Does this not indicate to you no evidence of explosives?

a reply to: D8Tee

I answered your question honestly.

a reply to: D8Tee

a reply to: Informer1958

A fact that you do not understand, only a part of the WTC would have falling the lower bottom half of the WTC would still be standing.

You did not answer this question. I am asking for your evidence and you are resorting to calling me a liar, being dishonest and posting pictures of crying babies? Alls I would like to know is where you are getting this idea from that the towers should have remained half standing, you must have gotten the idea from somewhere right?

Let's do the math on thermite concentration in WTC dust.

The assumptions...
One: not sure how the thermite would end up in dust.
Two: Would assume the supposed molten metal would entrain much of the unreacted thermite.
Three: would assume the thermite would be in some device to direct the weld.
Four: would assume the thermite would be in harden containers for its protection.
Five: assume the thermite was distributed floor by floor.

Based on the assumptions, any given amount of unreacted thermite would have an equal chance of being turned to WTC dust as much as the median probability of any given material of the 1,000,000 tons of WTC. The thermite would be evenly distributed through the ruble and dust. If it was broken free of what ever device it was housed in.

To get to pounds,
1,000,000 tons x 2,000 lbs / 1 ton =
2,000,000,000 lbs.

Let's assume a lab can detect only down to a minimum of .001 pounds of thermite for ever pound of dust.

So.... 2,000,000,000 x .001 = a minimum of 200,000 pounds of unreacted thermite spread throughout the dust and ruble.

Let's say only 10 percent of the thermite went unreacted. That means, between the two towers, 2,000,000 pounds of thermite was used.


Add on the fact the iron oxide, aluminum oxide, and magnesium oxides are corrosion products and widely used in materials. Finding "thermite" would be like trying to find table salt dumped into the sea.

Our own gov. lied to america and was complicit 911 period.

a reply to: Informer1958

I had the courage to state I champion inward bowing caused by floor truss contraction as the initiation for tower collapse. And created a credible argument around the fact the towers were brought down by inward bowing. Based on studies, building design, linking to material.

Let's see if I can get this right.

You don't have the courage to state what you believe is the no BS cause of the collapse for WTC 1 and 2?

Yet, you will state you don't have enough evidence to conclude any given theory.

Yet, you will contradict yourself by stating inword bowing and the NIST conclusions are wrong.

And you don't have the discernment to label which conspiracy tower collapse theories are total BS. Nukes and Dustification for example. To get to the truth. But will still contradict yourself by saying inward bowing and the NIST conclusions are all lies without stating and explaining and why. Other than a video told you so.


All the while, conspiracy debunkers will provide evidence, science, testimony, studies, accounts, peer reviewed material to answer questions asked by you. Answering as openly, and to a person's best ability to be intellectually honest as possible.

But you insist and openly practicing a form of intellectual dishonesty by ignoring questions directed at you. You only rely on innuendo, straw men arguments, and personal attacks.

To you it's all a lie, but the hoax and exploitation of the truth movement. and you will not even call out the con artists in the truth movement.

a reply to: silo13

We watched the Video. I'm going out there to say everything he presented is out there in different video's. That said it was well put together, except for his running narrative on his family life, the video could really have done without that! The interview at the end was a little creepy at times, I ended up not watching most of it because his views seemed to me to be out there a bit.

a reply to: neutronflux

But you insist and openly practicing a form of intellectual dishonesty by ignoring questions directed at you.

From you, I do. You taught me well.

I don't care about any dead Truth movement. However, I see you are emotionally effected deeply by this so call dead movement.

You only rely on innuendo, straw men arguments, and personal attacks.

Oh, we are not allowed to defend ourselves from the hoopla from the likes of you, who practice all the above innuendo, straw men arguments, and personal attacks, as you just demonstrated?

a reply to: Informer1958

I have provided first hand accounts, documentation, documentary videos, reports, and evidence that steel was retained and the WTC debris hand searched for evidence.

Prove there was an order given not to search for fragments of explosives. It was just ignore when they recovered 19,000 pieces of human remains. Hand searching with the mission to recover evidence and personal effects. Was it given to the local cops and fire fighters working at the pile? The engineers and cleanup crews with CD experience at the pile? The heavy equipment operators at the pile? The NIST guys working the pile? The law enforcement and forensic teams hand searching the WTC debris at the lay down yards/landfills? The FBI? The Off site NIST guys? The coroner's office picking up remains from the staging areas.

I made no excuses. The visual examination and metallurgical analysis of the steel revealed no steel worked on / burnt / fragmented by demolitions.

I was quite clear, the hand searching of WTC debris for evidence resulted in no evidence of CD. As in, there was no demolition fragments to chemical test for type of explosives.

Going to just ignore my very relevant question on how randomly testing over 1,000,000 tons of ruble that housed no evidence of CD would be meaningful in anyway.

Just killed another on of you strew man arguments.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

But you insist and openly practicing a form of intellectual dishonesty by ignoring questions directed at you.

From you, I do. You taught me well.

I don't care about any dead Truth movement. However, I see you are emotionally effected deeply by this so call dead movement.

You only rely on innuendo, straw men arguments, and personal attacks.

Oh, we are not allowed to defend ourselves from the hoopla from the likes of you, who practice all the above innuendo, straw men arguments, and personal attacks, as you just demonstrated?

Then have the courage to state what you believe is the no BS cause of WTC 1 and 2 collapse.

Or stop contradicting yourself by stating you don't have enough evidence to make a decision, but magically can determine in ward bowing or the NIST conclusions are false without a logical and credible argument.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Since you made the statement "a fact that you do not understand,

No sir, you do not understand because you support the OS narratives.

and no other structural engineer has made such a statement, I thought you would like to explain it so non-experts could understand such an elusive "fact."

#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

www1.ae911truth.org...

I'll make it easy for everyone. People can go to the above sources and view the information for themselves and form their "own" opinions.

So you can't explain it and send people off to the A&E site to be buried in unfounded claims and misinterpreted videos. That link is the "Archive Site;" you should check the active site before making anymore posts about how the collapse should have somehow stopped on the way down. I see Gage's hand in that idiocy.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

Since you made the statement "a fact that you do not understand,

No sir, you do not understand because you support the OS narratives.

and no other structural engineer has made such a statement, I thought you would like to explain it so non-experts could understand such an elusive "fact."

#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

www1.ae911truth.org...

I'll make it easy for everyone. People can go to the above sources and view the information for themselves and form their "own" opinions.

So you can't explain it and send people off to the A&E site to be buried in unfounded claims and misinterpreted videos. That link is the "Archive Site;" you should check the active site before making anymore posts about how the collapse should have somehow stopped on the way down. I see Gage's hand in that idiocy.

It's like this person tries to generate foot traffic for the truth movement. Yet, the person acts like they are denouncing the truth movement. Very disingenuous.

KNOCK OFF THE TIT FOR TAT!

If you have nothing to add, move on before it leads to a Posting Ban. The topic is not each other or any topic other than the one in the OP.

A Reminder -

IMPORTANT: STRICT RULES

Within the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, the Terms and Conditions will be strictly enforced, along with the following additions:

Name Calling: Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Personal Attacks: Taking focus off the subject matter and toward each other will not be tolerated in any form. You will experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Thread Derailment: Posting of any irreverent or ridiculous information that disrupts the flow of productive discussion will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Trolling: The repeated posting of content that supports any specific position, without interacting with members regarding that position will be considered Trolling in the 9/11 Forum. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Minimal Posts: Any minimal post that is nothing more than "atta-boy" agreement, or "nope" disagreement will not be tolerated -- if you post, contribute something. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

External Sources: There has been way too much copy-and-paste of massive amounts of content from external sources. You should never post more than FIVE (5) paragraphs from each external source. If you post more, we will indiscriminately cut it down to two or three paragraphs. If you do this repeatedly, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Do not reply to this post.

edit on 6/18/2017 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)