There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.

Typical answer....

Since there is more proof that leads to the planes NOT taking the towers completely straight down,

the only thing people who believe the "official story" say is exactly what you have....So good job

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_

---

There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.

And exactly which facts are those? "Signs" of explosives and incendiaries? Since when was that declared a "fact"? Molten steel? Is that now a fact?

Signs are in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. In fact, I could just as easily say that there were no signs of explosives or incendiaries and of course, no signs of molten steel.

Were you there? Did you view the debris first hand?

Yes, you can state anything, which in fact you have, this however does not make it true.

If you have proof that these firefighters are lying, please provide it

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ParkerCramer

---

Were you there? Did you view the debris first hand?

Where was the molten steel, besides on the internet?

So? You have seen proof of the molten steel, and YOU were not there?

Yes, you can state anything, which in fact you have, this however does not make it true.

Which is exactly my point, relative to the declared facts about signs of explosives and molten steel.

These quotes are coming from First responders, do you have proof they are not being honest?? Why, would you object to an independent inspection/testing of the debris?

If you have proof that these firefighters are lying, please provide it

I would be glad to! First, please identify the firefighter that is claiming that he/she found explosives.

This is laughable, You have proof and will provide it, but you need to know who they are first??? How can you possibly have proof of anothers intent to decieve, if you don't know who the person is??

Parker

edit on 26-5-2011 by ParkerCramer because: (no reason given)

So? You have seen proof of the molten steel, and YOU were not there?

These quotes are coming from First responders, do you have proof they are not being honest?? Why, would you object to an independent inspection/testing of the debris?

This is laughable, You have proof and will provide it, but you need to know who they are first??? How can you possibly have proof of anothers intent to decieve, if you don't know who the person is??

All he is asking is for the proper proceedures to be followed.

My buddy tells me, "Great guy and one hell of a fire fighter but that shift has been drinking the conspiracy cool aid from one of their officers."


Not worth anymore effort here.
Let this thread die.

GO AWAY! Your conspiracy nonsense is not wanted here. Go back to your conspiracy wackjob websites.

Next month's topic at the meeting is folding aluminum foil hats...do we need Reynolds Wrap or will generic foil work?

Go to Section 2.4, on about page 63 of the pdf....

wtc.nist.gov...

A bunch of facts produced by engineers based on laws of physics that takes all of your bullsh1t and flushes it down the toilet where it belongs.

Take your website and stick it.
__________________
Thomas Anthony, PE
Structures Specialist PA-TF1

Head peon Adamsburg VFD (and I like it that way)

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by _BoneZ_

---

There were signs of explosives and incendiaries being used at the WTC and none of those were tested for. The forensic testing should have been done to determine what caused the explosions and molten steel found at the WTC. And there really is no logical way around this fact.

And exactly which facts are those? "Signs" of explosives and incendiaries? Since when was that declared a "fact"? Molten steel? Is that now a fact?

Signs are in the eye of the beholder, I'm afraid. In fact, I could just as easily say that there were no signs of explosives or incendiaries and of course, no signs of molten steel.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by FDNY343

---

It doesn't surprise me at all. What seems odd is that Truthers assume that silence on an issue equates to agreement with the people who are shouting the loudest.