Why Wait an Hour to Blow the Buildings ?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

Air from a air conditioner duct...



No melted steel there - hint, you cannot pick up melted steel with a excavator... you obviously do not even know how they work!

a reply to: hellobruce

Did you look at the source for both these videos ?
A couple of wack job Youtubers.
One has 1000 subscribers the other 3000.
Neither has the balls to give their names.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Salander
Did you know that about 15 years ago they replaced "wired" with "wireless"? Technology marches on,

As we all know wireless is not reliable working through steel buildings, and no trace of any receivers was found in the wreckage.... nor were there any reports or effects of explosives before the buildings fell.

But as we can see you know nothing about explosives or their effects.

I know more about explosives and their effects than you are comfortable with.

originally posted by: Salander
I know more about explosives and their effects than you are comfortable with.

Wrong again, one just has to look at your posts here to see you know nothing about them!

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: firerescue

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

This a totally stupid way to begin any investigation.

By your reasoning, it could be argued the Zionists were responsible for WW2 because the Jews finally got their own homeland.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

And yet, this is the level of your argument...

originally posted by: spy66

Text

Text

a reply to: firerescue



Because energy always take the easiest way With least resistance.

You mean electricity. Not "energy".

A mass, once in motion, will continue in its original direction unless acted upon by a force strong enough to make it change direction.

The typical claim that the buildings couldn't of fallen straight down, but should of toppled off the side can only be made by a complete and utter moron.

That claim is the same as saying that dropping a bowling ball onto your head will result in little effect cuz the ball will seek out the path of least resistance, which would be to deflect off your head with little to no impact imparted onto your skull.

Sounds stupid, but this is just how clueless and moronic the claim is, and can only be believed by a clueless moron.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent

It's not rocket science, just manipulation of human perception and behavior.

It's a proven fact that those that believe in conspiracy theories have a predisposition to believe in them, thus making them susceptible to the very manipulation that you speak of.

IOW, it is the conspiracy believers that have been duped, by other conspiracy believers....

originally posted by: Salander



There was plenty of blast effect of those non-silent explosives. People heard them and reported them. Huge pieces were blown hundreds of feet away.

No, there were no blast effects.

People heard explosions, which are common in large fires. You may choose to educate yourself (but most likely won't) and do a simple google search of news reports with certain key words included, like "explosions", etc. This proves that these witness reports are normal and expected.

There were zero "huge" pieces of steel that were "blown" several hundred feet. What can easily be seen, by any honest researcher, is the exterior column pieces tipping outwards - peeling away, so to speak. There has never been any motion analysis of any video presented by any conspiracy believer that shows "huge pieces of steel" being "blown" anywhere by explosives. This would be simple to do if the claim was true, and in fact would be solid evidence of the claim. But it's never been done in the nearly 15 years since 9/11.

If conspiracy believers want to make the outlandish claim about how "huge pieces of steel were blown several hundred feet", then they must present some firm evidence. A motion capture analysis would meet that criteria. But since there is no evidence of that claim, it can be dismissed without discussion.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander




Nanothermite can be made to explode or to melt.

No form of thermite can be made to explode.

An explosion is characterized by a very rapid release of gas. A highly pressurized container can rupture, causing a very rapid release of gas that can be called an explosion. Or, a chemical reaction - like in nitrate based explosives - can produce that same result.

The chemical reaction of all forms of thermite produces zero gas. This is a proven, empirical fact. It is not up for debate.

If you disagree with that statement, you made the claim that " nanothermite can be made to explode". Provide evidence that this is true, or like some of the other claims made here, it can be dismissed without discussion.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Such a sweet oversimplification!

Who has proven these 'facts' you speak of?

So here's my conundrum, using your specious standards--for a number of years I believed the official story, then became educated in the subject matter and discovered I had been wrong. So was I duped when I believed the official story, or was I duped when I realized I had been duped before?

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: firerescue

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

This a totally stupid way to begin any investigation.

By your reasoning, it could be argued the Zionists were responsible for WW2 because the Jews finally got their own homeland.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

And yet, this is the level of your argument...

There were zero "huge" pieces of steel that were "blown" several hundred feet. What can easily be seen, by any honest researcher, is the exterior column pieces tipping outwards - peeling away, so to speak. There has never been any motion analysis of any video presented by any conspiracy believer that shows "huge pieces of steel" being "blown" anywhere by explosives. This would be simple to do if the claim was true, and in fact would be solid evidence of the claim. But it's never been done in the nearly 15 years since 9/11.

You don't have a clue do you, yes there were.....

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

That's drawing a conclusion before investigating the facts.
This ain't a tv detective show.

originally posted by: wildb

There were zero "huge" pieces of steel that were "blown" several hundred feet. What can easily be seen, by any honest researcher, is the exterior column pieces tipping outwards - peeling away, so to speak. There has never been any motion analysis of any video presented by any conspiracy believer that shows "huge pieces of steel" being "blown" anywhere by explosives. This would be simple to do if the claim was true, and in fact would be solid evidence of the claim. But it's never been done in the nearly 15 years since 9/11.

You don't have a clue do you, yes there were.....

As I pointed out, it would be a simple exercise to do a motion analysis of whatever particular " huge piece of steel " you choose to select as your evidence. Yet no one has done that.

Conspiracy believers have started with ext column pieces ending up several hundred feet away, and have made the leap of faith - for belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories is a religious, and not fact based series of beliefs - and state that explosives are the only way that could of happened.

Unfortunately for conspiracy believers, there is an alternative explanation that doesn't rely on outlandish claims.

And of course, you can win me and others to your side of the argument with that aforementioned motion analysis.

But that's not gonna happen now, is it?

Therefore, your claim is dismissed.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: firerescue

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

This a totally stupid way to begin any investigation.

By your reasoning, it could be argued the Zionists were responsible for WW2 because the Jews finally got their own homeland.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

And yet, this is the level of your argument...

Are you just realizing this now?

The cui bono argument is the lamest.

This is why evidence leads an investigation.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430

Such a sweet oversimplification!

Simple explanations are usually correct

Who has proven these 'facts' you speak of?

Psychologists

-for a number of years I believed the official story,

I don't believe you.

then became educated in the subject matter

Nope

youve been duped by others that share the same broken thought processes

originally posted by: samkent

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

That's drawing a conclusion before investigating the facts.
This ain't a tv detective show.

The only "facts" on 9/11 were that planes hit buildings and they fell down. Occams razor drew the conclusionls of who did it and how before any investigation and it was wrong. A million people dead wrong.

Yes it was a TV investigation. "Facts" from a lying government administration sold 2 wars through television. And television backed up those "facts" with TV experts And TV programs were aired specifically to help people understand how it all happened. All that before the Commission came out with any investigated facts.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
a reply to: firerescue

I think that in terms of investigations, "who profited from this" comes before "occams razor".

This a totally stupid way to begin any investigation.

By your reasoning, it could be argued the Zionists were responsible for WW2 because the Jews finally got their own homeland.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

And yet, this is the level of your argument...

Are you just realizing this now?

The cui bono argument is the lamest.

This is why evidence leads an investigation.

Go sit down.

Adults are talking...

a reply to: MrBig2430

Of course you don't believe me. It is easier to trick a man than it is to explain to him how he was tricked. I get it, human behavior is my hobby.

Once tricked, some folks just never find out they've been tricked, the mind does not like to admit it was fooled.

As I pointed out, it would be a simple exercise to do a motion analysis of whatever particular " huge piece of steel " you choose to select as your evidence. Yet no one has done that.

Yes it has been done, and you would know by who if you had a clue, but you don't.

If you going to debate 911 you need to learn much. To understand the events of 911 takes years...