Your supposed to know 9/11 is a inside job, they would have done a better job if you were not supposed to know. They would not have put it in movies and they would have said that terrorist planted charges.
Just like the JFK assignation, they told you the bullet came from behind even though his head flu back because they wanted you to know "DONT SCREW WITH US WE WILL BLOW YOUR HEAD OFF OR FRAME YOU AS A TERRORIST"

Originally posted by hdutton


And Finally : U explain

Simple to do.

Truthers are argueing from a point of incredulity and nothing else when they use this video as evidence that 9/11 was an inside jerb..

It's really evidence that engineering, and specifically fire science and its engineering, is a mature industry and that they do a pretty good job of protecting buildings from fires.

As a matter of fact, the very existence of fire science and the amount of money spent on understanding how fire will attack a steel building disproves truther's incredulity to anyone rational.

Truthers remain unmoved, so what does that tell you about them?

the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

Originally posted by tyson45
the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

This was a hotel in Madrid. It burned - "slap - damn - up" !

Why did it not melt enough for "the top floors" to fall ???

Originally posted by dillweed
What does that tell me about you?

Why don't you explain to me how this video is based on a scientific facts and evidence, and NOT an appeal to incredulity?

Cuz I see none, nor does any rational person.

So I guess that should tell you that I'm a rational person that follows the science, and not any incredulity that videos like this try to inspire in the gullible

Originally posted by hdutton

Originally posted by tyson45
the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

This was a hotel in Madrid. It burned - "slap - damn - up" !

Why did it not melt enough for "the top floors" to fall ???

because metal will conduct heat like a heat sink. A fact those evil bastards don't want you to remember. They would rather verbally assault the person behind the comment (like calling them truthers as if it were a malady or something) than address the information... when the information can't be explained they will steer the conversation into one of defend yourself rather than draw attention to the content.

One other interesting aspect they don't want you to consider is how come a blow torch doesn't melt? Or the pot on your stove? Nope, they would rather have you believe the obvious lie than see logic.

As liars, they always get caught because this lie is so big not everyone is on the same page and doesn't know what to say..

Here is an example of how easy they get caught lying...

Google Video Link

The truth needs no explanation yet the shills/trolls/gatekeeprs/disinfo/cointelpro agents always put the truth on trial in the court of public opinion rather than explain the lunacy behind the theory they promote.

Justice is the best money can buy... unless you are God. The time is coming when all dues will be paid

Originally posted by tyson45
the first building has a fire on the top floors of the building not the bottom, hense why it only partially collapsed. wtc7 had fires on the bottom of the building, hense why it totally collapsed. i watched, considered, and just explained.

I read I considered and I laugh.

In a forest fire when flames burn a tree from bottom to top does the tree fall into its own roots?

well why not? The wood burns completely and it only has gravity acting on it?

That is what you are saying except with steel the fall would be even more lopsided not uniformly straight down. You guys must really think we are all idiots and I for one resent asinine remarks like you make with the implication that you got it all right and the entire world is wrong.

Further, tiny bone fragments of what was once thousands of people rained down on NY and yet you have no conscience or moral outrage over that apparently.

Get help...

Originally posted by hdutton

I show a llink to a video comparing two buildings which have been distroyed.

And I pointed out that the video is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity.

There is zero science behind it.

Do you care to comment on the very existance of fire science and engineering that attempt to mitigate the effects of fire on buildings? Cuz to the rational, their very existance is proof positive that fires are a danger to buildings.

Originally posted by Saltarello

so they cant discuss, just smear.

Care to discuss the science in the video?

Cuz the rational see nothing but an appeal to incredulity.