Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, they did, at Fresh Kills. I gave you the link above.

Give me the name of the organization that tested the steel for explosives residues and where they published their results.

You missed this, also linked to above

Typical "debunking" that doesn't actually debunk anything at all. Paint chips do not explode with more energy than conventional thermite, however these samples did.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Well, thiers all this talk now, that supopsedly the chinese militray orchestrated 9/11. Since they own well over 80% of the US on paper, thanks to corporations, and have flooded our markets wtih thier toxic toys and cloths, that is someting to DEF consider, before its too late for us.

Some suspect it was the Canadians:

www.revisionism.nl... ;-)

Originally posted by Jezus
Explosions are evidence for explosives...

Pretending that they don't exist doesn't explain anything...

I don't understand why jthomas would ask "What explosions?" in the first place. For one thing he never objected to me repeatedly mentioning them before, and for another thing it's been fairly common knowledge for years (at least for anyone who has looked into 9/11 at all) that scores of witnesses reported explosions, and some were even recorded with audio equipment. And damage caused by them was recorded by the Naudet brothers and others as well.

If jthomas still is unaware that there were explosions in all 3 buildings that day, he has a lot more research to do.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
What explosions?

Like the one that blew out the lobby of WTC1.

Yup. No evidence of explosives were found in that debris.

No one has ever shown what caused this explosion.

Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that. Since jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts and the smell of it was heavy in the air, that is a likely and plausible candidate.

There has only been a lot of blind speculation, which is totally unacceptable given the significance of this happening when and where it did.

Since no explosives were found, nor needed, it really does not matter. That's not hard to understand.

You still don't realize that the collapses have been explained without the need to introduce "explosives"

Well I keep asking you to back this up but you never can. So I don't think it's me who isn't realizing something.

It doesn't matter if I refer you to the NIST investigation or others who spell out quite clearly why evidence of explosives wasn't there, why explosives were not needed, what demolition experts have said, as well as chemists, structural engineers, physicists, and architects, all of whose material is just as available to you - you'll just say its "speculation" and that "there is no evidence," am I not correct? You just reject it all.

In the meantime you have presented nothing but your own claims that, somehow, are supposed to convince someone of the need for another investigation.

lol@the canadians being capable of doing such a thing. rediculous. IM not saying nothing bad about them, but they are way more relaxed and laid back than we are. Thats crazy to even have the conciet to suspect them.
The whole moral of this is all, is for the guilty ones to be bought to justice and dealt with as the law sttes, be it execution or life imprisonment. Persoanlly, i totaly opt for execution the old fashioned way..gas chamber or public hanging. If thier is any truthful jsutice left in our system, may it be unleashed on those responsable ffor 9/11, otherise, even the jsutice system itself, is as flawed as a crooked cop.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, they did, at Fresh Kills. I gave you the link above.

Give me the name of the organization that tested the steel for explosives residues and where they published their results.

Give me solid evidence for explosives and your sources. You have to defend your claims that there is a reason for another investigation. It's time for you to support your claims.

Originally posted by bsbray11
[
I don't understand why jthomas would ask "What explosions?" in the first place.

Based on "explosives" and not just on "explosive" sounds, you forgot to mention.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
lol@the canadians being capable of doing such a thing. rediculous. IM not saying nothing bad about them, but they are way more relaxed and laid back than we are. Thats crazy to even have the conciet to suspect them.

Don't worry, it's a parody.

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that. Since jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts and the smell of it was heavy in the air, that is a likely and plausible candidate.

Do you know what an explosion is?

What makes you think that an explosion is "jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts" ?

You know an explosion isn't just a fire right?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that. Since jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts and the smell of it was heavy in the air, that is a likely and plausible candidate.

Do you know what an explosion is?

Yup.

What makes you think that an explosion is "jet fuel spilled down the elevator shafts" ?

When it ignites?

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that.

Was evidence of explosives EVER looked for by any investigations? If so please elaborate, then 'we can eliminate that'.

Thanks in advance.

On topic, I don't think any new investigation would be helpful to either side of this fight.

Which ever side came out on top, the other would simply cry foul.

Suffice to say I will live my life as best I can and be wary of anything that doesn't pass the smell test IMO.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, they did, at Fresh Kills. I gave you the link above.

Give me the name of the organization that tested the steel for explosives residues and where they published their results.

Give me solid evidence for explosives and your sources. You have to defend your claims that there is a reason for another investigation. It's time for you to support your claims.

Wow. I ask you for the details to support your claim that people tested the steel for explosives residues, and you respond by telling me to give a reason for a new investigation, while not supporting your own claim at all.

No other comment on this. Just going to point out the obvious and let the irony sink in nice and deep.

Originally posted by jthomas

No one has ever shown what caused this explosion.

Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that.

Already you've conveniently forgotten that no one even looked in the first place. I guess your reasoning is that if we don't look for something, it must not exist. That is not very good reasoning.

Also see above: me asking you to support your claim that people tested the steel at the landfill for explosives residues, and you utterly failing to support that claim. Because no one actually did and you know that.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't understand why jthomas would ask "What explosions?" in the first place.

Based on "explosives" and not just on "explosive" sounds

Um, an explosion is an "explosive sound."

An explosion is evidence of explosives. It's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence.

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that.

Was evidence of explosives EVER looked for by any investigations?

Yes, several. The first, in October 2001, was done by NYC. They wanted to determine what the chemical composition of the dust from ground zero outward to understand what the dust was composed of. This was a top priority because they needed to understand first and foremost what were the health risks for the first responders and workers at ground zero. Use Google Scholar to find the paper.

There were several subsequent studies done by medical groups that found no traces of explosives.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by jthomas
Since no evidence of explosives was EVER found, we can eliminate that.

Was evidence of explosives EVER looked for by any investigations?

Yes, several. The first, in October 2001, was done by NYC. They wanted to determine what the chemical composition of the dust from ground zero outward to understand what the dust was composed of. This was a top priority because they needed to understand first and foremost what were the health risks for the first responders and workers at ground zero. Use Google Scholar to find the paper.

There were several subsequent studies done by medical groups that found no traces of explosives.

Why can't you offer links to these studies? You have been asked more than once already. Is there a reason for that?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't understand why jthomas would ask "What explosions?" in the first place.

Based on "explosives" and not just on "explosive" sounds

Um, an explosion is an "explosive sound."

An "explosive" sound is not necessarily from explosives. You do know that, I trust. Since no evidence of "explosives" was ever found anywhere in or around the WTC towers, the sounds were not from explosives.

Ask the NYFD. They were there. They can tell you what their experience told them.

An explosion is evidence of explosives.

Explosions of fuel tanks, oil refineries, propane tanks are not evidence of explosives.

You still haven't come up with a valid reason why we need another investigation.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Why can't you offer links to these studies? You have been asked more than once already. Is there a reason for that?

Sure. I gathered those links at least six years ago while this subject was beat to death and settled. I don't have them on my computer anymore.

I trust that you all spend lots of time doing research and know how to use Google Scholar. You can easily find it yourself, correct?

Originally posted by jthomas

Sure. I gathered those links at least six years ago while this subject was beat to death and settled. I don't have them on my computer anymore.

I trust that you all spend lots of time doing research and know how to use Google Scholar. You can easily find it yourself, correct?

Yeah, I did not think they existed either. Lying in two threads at the same time, you are going to give some of your colleagues here are run for their money.

If you have no links to back up your BS, it is worthless ranting.

depends on what kind of new investigation is run.

if its backed y the same people who ran nist/commission report, it wouldn't solve anything...

although a true transparent investigation that's independent from the feds, and has subpoena power... would defiantly solve something!