It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trying to resolve 9/11

page: 121
17
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




The collapse initiation was not below the points of impact.


Where were they then, WTC1 & 2 respectively by NIST?




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux




The collapse initiation was not below the points of impact.


Where were they then, WTC1 & 2 respectively by NIST?


Sigh.

This has been repeatedly liked to you. Are you just blind to any information that kills the truth movement fantasies?
Start here.



The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2
Thread startertrevor Start dateOct 14, 2014

www.metabunk.org...








Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel.

As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. "The ensuing loss in vertical load-carrying capacity was confined to a few storeys but extended over the entire cross section of each tower."[23] In the case of 2 WTC, the eastern face finally buckled, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. Later, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[24]

en.m.wikipedia.org...






www.nist.gov...

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;






CONSTRUCTION AND COLLAPSE FACTORS1

COLLAPSE

www.fireengineering.com...

Review of video footage of the WTC 2 collapse suggests that it probably initiated with a partial collapse of the floor in the southeast corner of the building at approximately the 80th level. This appears to have been followed rapidly by collapse of the entire floor level along the east side, as evidenced by a line of dust blowing out of the side of the building




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

This is where you cite sources where the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 initiation occurred.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Yeah, about those bombs that went off long after the planes impacted....

"Secondary explosions"
"Detonations"
"Explosion in the lobby"
"Explosions in the basement"
"Elevators exploded"
"Three explosions"
"No fire - it just looked like a bomb went off"

Etc, etc, etc.




Should we believe people who were actually in the buildings before they collapsed?

Of course we should. Everything else is just distraction.

Remember that.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MoonMine
Yeah, about those bombs that went off long after the planes impacted....

"Secondary explosions"
"Detonations"
"Explosion in the lobby"
"Explosions in the basement"
"Elevators exploded"
"Three explosions"
"No fire - it just looked like a bomb went off"

Etc, etc, etc.




Should we believe people who were actually in the buildings before they collapsed?

Of course we should. Everything else is just distraction.

Remember that.



And again...

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.


Your cited “evidence“ produced no frequencies/amplitudes in the seismic data for detentions with the force to cut steel columns. By sound, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is saying there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.

There were no detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There was no evidence of transient pressure waves from explosions in the atmosphere where the pressure waves had the force to cut steel columns.

Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan. Detonations that should have the sound energy of at least 130 Db, and should be distinctly heard above the sound of helicopters with the max sound energy of 120dB. Audio of explosions with the force to cut steel columns would be clearly heard on the audio with no need for manipulating the sound. Explosions with the force to cut steel columns would be evident in the seismic evidence.

You cannot produce physical evidence of columns cut by pyrotechnics. Especially when the truth movement claims the resistance of each floor had to be removed by removing the structural steel of each floor.

When the core columns fell last, after the complete collapse of the floor systems.


Making the argument the core columns were cut floor by floor ahead of the falling mass false.

edit on 6-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: MoonMine

And if individuals where close to explosions of steel columns being cut. They would have permanent hearing damage and permanent loss of of hearing. Ruptured eardrums. They would have been hit by distinctive shrapnel from splintered columns. How many recorded cases of demolition shrapnel recovered with the dead, human remains, and the injured?




Katie Bender's family commemorate
20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.


edit on 6-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MoonMine

I don’t think any of your witnesses sustained injuries consistent with explosions with the force to cut steel columns.




Blast Injuries: From Improvised Explosive Device Blasts to the Boston Marathon Bombing

pubs.rsna.org...

The expanding hot gases created by the explosive form a blast wave of compressed high-pressure air moving at supersonic speeds
(9,10). The point of highest pressure is known as the peak overpressure (10). This point is followed by a “blast wind,” or “dynamic overpressure,” that can move in excess of 2000 km/h. After the blast wind is a drop in pressure resulting from the displaced air pushed outward by the blast wind and wave.
The graphical pattern produced by changes in pressure with time known as the Friedlander waveform applies to blasts in open spaces
(Fig 2). In confined spaces, the walls, floor, and ceiling reflect the blast wave and result in amplification of the blast energy by as much as fourfold to eightfold; windows and vents reduce the energy by venting some of the overpressure. The scale of injuries experienced by blast victims is dependent on their distance from the nucleus of the blast, with the magnitude of the pressure wave inversely related to the third power of the distance, as well as the amount of debris and shrapnel thrown by the explosive device. Injuries are caused by compression and shearing effects in tissues, debris carried by the blast wind, and blunt trauma caused by the victim being displaced and impacting immovable objects (11).

Injuries encountered in most IED detonations can be divided into primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary injuries
(Fig 3) (2,10–15). Primary injuries are a result of the high-pressure blast wave and the subsequent drop in pressure after the blast wave. This combination causes compression and shearing of tissues as the wave passes through the body and results in injuries to gas-filled structures such as the ear, the lungs, and, rarely, the bowel, as well as traumatic brain injuries (11,13). After a blast, secondary injuries are the most commonly encountered and are blunt or penetrating injuries resulting from materials thrown out from the bomb casing (primary fragments) and debris from the environment being carried by the blast wind (secondary fragments) (13,16). Tertiary injuries occur as a result of victim displacement by the blast wind and include visceral injuries, fractures, and closed head injuries. Tertiary injuries also include injuries sustained as a result of structural collapse (as can occur in the bombing of a building), such as crush injuries




posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Should we believe people who were actually in the buildings before they collapsed?

Of course we should. Everything else is just distraction.

Remember that.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: MoonMine
a reply to: neutronflux

Should we believe people who were actually in the buildings before they collapsed?

Of course we should. Everything else is just distraction.

Remember that.



What does that even mean?

Again...

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.

Your cited “evidence“ produced no frequencies/amplitudes in the seismic data for detentions with the force to cut steel columns. By sound, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is saying there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.

There were no detonations with the force to cut steel columns. There was no evidence of transient pressure waves from explosions in the atmosphere where the pressure waves had the force to cut steel columns.

Again. CD systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate collapse of the twin towers as attested to by video evidence.

You are falsely confusing expect sounds of “explosions” from a building fire, and expected from a building failing from being overloaded.

You have produced no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Explosions that would be obvious, awe inspiring, and echoed about manhattan. Detonations that should have the sound energy of at least 130 Db, and should be distinctly heard above the sound of helicopters with the max sound energy of 120dB. Audio of explosions with the force to cut steel columns would be clearly heard on the audio with no need for manipulating the sound. Explosions with the force to cut steel columns would be evident in the seismic evidence.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

From your metabunk thread, post #10 is on the right track:

www.metabunk.org...


edit on 7-2-2020 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

From your metabunk thread, post #10 is on the right track:

www.metabunk.org...



If it’s not worth actually quoting in your post, why would I care?

Let me guess. Your referencing something debunk father down in the thread.

Again.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

This is where you cite sources where the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 initiation occurred.


edit on 7-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




If it’s not worth actually quoting in your post, why would I care? Let me guess. Your referencing something debunk father down in the thread. Again.


Was it debunked? No.

Post #10 is seeing the whole moving system/picture in his or her mind, unlike you(and NIST); not fixated on thermal expansion or contracting as a result for the bowing but finding a cause for the speed and force to make it happen suddenly.

Again
Since you won't just click a link and read it:

Metabunk thread

Oct 19, 2014 #10
Just a few observations on this thread.

First of all NIST says that the trusses sagged 47" which using trig and/or geometry is needed to create the triangle that would be created to enable the outer walls to be pulled inwards by the distance observed. NIST also must postulate that every truss must sag by that same amount around the entire building - and at the same time - and very rapidly.

That is in direct conflict with the reports by Kevin Ryan who was privy to the results of actual trials in a furnace where he worked. He says that despite double the load and double the time being applied to the test that trusses actually sagged only 4". You will recall that he was concerned that NIST was using incorrect figures in their analysis and was disturbed that his protests via his own company were not being heeded. After going directly to NIST he was silenced by losing his job. We must accept that a 4" possible sag is insufficient to demonstrate the large inward bowing seen.

Secondly, an alternative reason for the observations must be considered. The main contender is that the core of the building was attacked in some way causing it to move downwards in isolation to the outer walls. A direct indication that this occured is the way that the antenna on WTC1 is seen to be move down before any inward bowing of walls is seen. As the antenna was sat on top of the hat truss which itself was sat on top of the core, then it would indeed seem that the core moves down before any inward bowing of walls is observed. That is not sagging trusses causing inward bowing but is rather one of intact trusses being pulled downwards from the central core connections and the outer ends of those trusses causing outer walls to bow inwards.

As all trusses are connected to that inner core complex it follows that if the core moves downwards it would also pull every truss downwards with it. If all trusses are pulled downwards simultaneously that would cause every wall panel attached to them to be drawn inwards. As observed.

The combination of a fraudulent claim of 47" sagging - the need for all trusses to sag 47" instantly - and to do that simultaneously - makes that contention less attractive that the alternative of a dropping core which explains more elegantly what is seen. Ockams razor at work.

edit on 7-2-2020 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: MoonMine
a reply to: neutronflux

Should we believe people who were actually in the building?

Remember that.



No, of course we shouldn't believe people who were there. We should believe Neutron Flux because he has pictures. They don't prove anything, but he has pictures.



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Sigh

The counter argument



Jeffrey Orling

www.metabunk.org...

can only partially agree with hitstirrer. He is correct that it is absurd to accept that all trusses experience even heating and failed simultaneously. And correct that the initiation was core centric... But incorrect to assume that only some sort of placed devices used on the 47 core columns explains the observations.

The core most likely experienced a period of progressive loss of capacity driven by heat and the initial mechanical damage from the plane strike. Heat not only lowers the strength of steel but it also deforms it... causes it to expand. I suspect it is the latter - expansion which led to warping and lateral movement and ultimately mis alignment of columns ends leading to web and flange crippling and column failure from buckling. This process was occurring mostly at the core in the floors of the plane strike and above. As it progressed a failed column above would go from a compression member to one in tension hanging from the hat truss above. Or more likely when it changed from compression to tension the column to column and column to hat truss parted/failed. And with it the floor area around the failed column line in tension dropped.

This did a few things.... slowly gutted the core and removed the axial support that these columns provided for the hat truss, allowed voids which facilitated the movement of other columns into that gap. Eventually over time the hat truss was like a bridge spanning the top of the tower and that bridge losing support as the columns at the core's perimeter failed from warping and lateral displacement dropped below service capacity and the core sides of the OOS floors all plunged inward like material at the perimeter of a widening sink hole does.

In the final instant the remaining facade also saw a spike over capacity via the hat truss and it buckled, translated laterally because of the slight assymetry of the above process and dropped. ROOSD began in those final moments as the floors tumbled down outside the core and the displaced misaligned facade dropped and severed the remaining OOS to facade connections.

Without suppressing the heat this would be the inevitable out come... gutting of the core below service capacity... or whittling away of FOS to below 1.



Then...


By econ41
www.metabunk.org...

A word of caution in connection with Inwards Bowing ("IB") and the causality of floor joist sag.

There has been much controversy based on the geometry of the presumption that floor joist sagging must cause all the observed inwards bowing.

Not so. all that the joist sag needs to do is to start the inwards bowing and reach the critical point where the misalignment of the column cause it to self buckle under the applied axial load. From that point the IB will progress of its own volition due to axial load. The floor joists may sag further but the extra joist sagging caused by the IB not vice versa.

That is one of those "bleedingly obvious" facts than many - including engineers - have not recognised.

The issue is usually labelled "p Delta" - how much out of line (delta) a column needs to be given an applied axial load (p) so that it will buckle under that axial load.

The alleged need for all trusses to sag instantly is a chicken and egg red herring. If sufficient sagging trusses cause the inwards bowing of some perimeter columns then the stiffness of the column and spandrels combination will tend to make all bow inwardly. And that bowing will ensure that all floor joists sag the corresponding amount.

So reversed causality for some columns/joists. Chicken and egg as I said.



Now. Where is there quoted evidence of explosions cutting steel columns.

Where is your cited proof the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated on other floors than the ones most damaged by jet impacts and ensuing fires?



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You know what, this whole Metabunk thread is an interesting exploration into denialistic mindset that is debunkers.

Hitstirrer (Post #10 author)
In following writes at post#197:


Jan 3, 2015 #197

@econ41 You said " Just a couple of explanations of your key points."

You explained nothing. Lets look again at your 'explanations'.

#1 First you said - " Most members' and all of my posts are addressing valid component parts of the relevant physics."

#2 Then - "...and put into the full context. So stop the innuendo that there is something wrong with examining parts of the whole and their assembly into the whole."

#3 And - "We are not discussing NIST. So your points are moot whether or not they are true."

#4 Followed by - "You are repeating known aspects of the facts. If you disagree with them say so and drop the inference that there is something wrong."

#5 And - " Multiple "missing the point" assertions which have already been addressed in recent discussion. Plus a couple of implied falsehoods."

#6 Then - " All three assertions are false. The stage of collapse being discussed was a cascade failure which initiated global collapse. The cascade failure involved several different types of mechanism. And multiple instances in a sequential "cascade". There is no requirement for those mechanisms to be identical replicates of a single mechanism which is the false premise in all three of your assertions. AND it is a strawman (times three) because no one posting in this discussion has postulated that requirement for identical replications of a single model."

#7 Lastly - "Even that bit is wrong. It is an inadequate word. Has been for a long time. So "starts" is falsified. "We" have known it for a long time."

Now I have carefully considered your 'explanations' a few times and find that they explain nothing. #1 is your opinion only. #2 just restates your refusal to consider the interaction of all elements at play and seek to just focus on one tiny detail at a time. #3 The NIST input is not relevent ? #4 Is this meant to be an 'explanation' too ? #5 a bare assertion #6 the nearest that you got to an 'explanation' - but on close examination once again fails. #7 Point scoring only.

If you would like to try again to 'explain' feel free. But seriously, this thread is becoming like a bunch of ancient theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. My original post was intended to start a real debate that considered the interaction of every part of the building and not just focus on each tiny part in isolation.

But you decided to attack this approach whilst claiming that you would 'explain' it to me. You even found it necessary to take issue when I expanded on how inadequate the word 'complicated' was - which incidentally did tend to give away your intentions in your post.

My own thoughts on the demise of the twin towers and WTC7 have been covered in other threads but of course can't be discussed here without contravening the rules on off topic discussions. At risk of censure I will just say that 'core drop' would cause all attached trusses and girders to pull the outer walls inwards as observed. And as the first observable movement at collapse of WTC1 was the antenna - sat on top of the core - then until that possibility is examined as part of the later inward bowing sightings, then I see no merit in endless debates going in circles whilst ignoring the possibility of core drop as a cause of bowing.


Next post#198 by the almighty ignorance priest Mick West:


This thread is about bowing before the collapse.


Response follows post#201:

But my contention is that the 'bowing' is not before the collapse but during the collapse. Collapse was already in course once the core was compromised, and one observed effect of that was inward bowing.


I love this guy!



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo
Ok?

Funny you don’t include the ensuing responses to Hitstirrer that counter the individuals post. You jumped from post twelve to 197?

And quote where Hitstirrer posts or claims explosive devices or thermite?




Hitstirrer
Post 12

www.metabunk.org...

I was careful NOT to say that I assumed the placing of devices. I specifically said " the core of the building was attacked in some way". It is you who has assumed that I said devices.



The context of my argument for the collapse of the twin towers.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

So what mechanism should I find more credible than the below?

WTC 2.

The jet hit the tower. The jet took out outer and at least 7 core columns. The jet cut services such as firewater mains and electrical. The jet removed insulation. The WTC was know to have deficient fire insulation throughout the buildings. The jet impact resulted in fires throughout the tower.

The fires resulted in heating up the floor system and trusts stripped of fire insulation. The floor trusses still boxed in at the inner and out columns could not expand in length. That resulted in them bowing downward. When they cooled. They contracted. They pulled on the outer columns to cause bowing on the floors hit by the jet.



Once the bowing was great enough, the load of the upper 20 floors was no longer transmitted to the foundation. The load was “caught” in the bowing, and initiated collapse with no signs of explosions or balls of plasma by buckling the columns. No indication of nukes setting off.

The upper part of the building fell into the building below. The falling mass bent or sheared floor connections. The building surrounding WTC 2 were not damaged by “ejected” columns, but long segments of columns toppling outward,



Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

Summary

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.



The falling mass stripped the floor systems from the vertical columns.



The columns fell last, and only toppled in the wake of the floor system once the vertical columns lost lateral support.

The columns were not cut. The towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance as Richard Gage Claims.

In reply to NWOwned statement.


"Nothing left."


Not sure what your ranting about? The American Welding Society documented the recover and examination of thinner metal objects like floor connections.

The tower columns were numbered and identified by those numbers. What columns were not recovered?

Any building collapse makes lots of dust


Building collapse initiated by hydraulics to prove what was whiteness at WTC 2 was not driven by explosives. Just WTC 2 crushing itself and air being pushed out by the falling mass of the upper structure.


edit on 7-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 7-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

What is your list again?

Now. Where is there quoted evidence of explosions cutting steel columns.

Where is your cited proof the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated on other floors than the ones most damaged by jet impacts and ensuing fires?


For the twin towers.

You can show how the video/ audio evidence is more supportive of a conspiracy fantasy?

Vs cooling and contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they bowed inward and buckled at the areas of jet impacts. Making it impossible planted charges initiated collapse. The stories above the bowing and buckling fell into the building below

New.

Please quote where Hitstirrer makes any claims of explosives cutting steel columns, or provides any evidence of explosives cutting steel columns.

Please quote where Hitstirrer negates any of my points On what caused the collapse of the WTC 1 or WTC 2.

Unfortunately, the human body is susceptible to damage from the pressure transient of explosives cutting steel columns (rupture ear drums, collapsed lungs, and tissue damage). Unfortunately the human body is a good retainer of shrapnel from explosives splintering steel. Why is there no published truth movement calculations on the amount of explosives it would take to make a single cut in a steel column, the resultant pressure wave that would be indicative of an explosive cutting a steel column, and the physical damage it would cause in the survivors, injured, and recovered bodies? And where bodily and property damage exhibited the effects of such a transient pressure wave?
edit on 7-2-2020 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux





Funny you don’t include the ensuing responses to Hitstirrer the counter the individuals post. You dick from post twelve to 197?

And quote where Hitstirrer post or claims explosive devices or thermite

Nowhere. Being very careful not to cross that line you debunkers can't.

Post#12
Let us read it, in whole, -as is-:

I was careful NOT to say that I assumed the placing of devices. I specifically said " the core of the building was attacked in some way". It is you who has assumed that I said devices.

Interestingly, you agree that the core downward movement would seem to be the likely culprit for the observed inward bowing, by every truss attached to that core pulling downwards and inwards. Unfortunately you now also disagree with NIST who specifically claim that it was trusses sagging 47" that caused the outer walls to bow inwards and that initiated the collapse. You will be aware that NIST's investigation also ceased at that point. They say that trusses sagged 47" -pulled walls inwards and that total collapse was then inevitable. End of. And the world must be satisfied with that. It would seem that you disagree with NIST and have postulated a different theory. You could be right. For certain you are MORE right than NIST.



This was in 2014.

Now in 2020, with more knowledge, what do our eardrums vibrate to:

youtu.be...



edit on 7-2-2020 by democracydemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: democracydemo

Wtf? What does that have to do with the whole context of my argument?

a reply to: democracydemo
Ok?

Funny you don’t include the ensuing responses to Hitstirrer that counter the individuals post. You jumped from post twelve to 197?

And quote where Hitstirrer posts or claims explosive devices or thermite?




Hitstirrer
Post 12

www.metabunk.org...

I was careful NOT to say that I assumed the placing of devices. I specifically said " the core of the building was attacked in some way". It is you who has assumed that I said devices.



Can you cite evidence of columns cut by explosives?

edit on 7-2-2020 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Feb, 7 2020 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux





WTF?


Other than the answers i gave you. I have no capable response for you neutron as you are, once again, in flux. (making nor sense nor point)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join