rydher wrote: Go do some actual research and not just on the outcome you want to have. Because everything single thing you have regurgitated I have laid out sources and showed that there are numerous causes to everything you have put in your post. I can't argue the same dumb shit time and time again.
I have seen your research and I have already proven you wrong
..after that you haven’t mentioned anything about thermite being debunked ..now you just seem to focus on trolling
rydher wrote: how much anyone counters these absurd theories, you will always come to the same conclusion.
Then counter the issues!!! ..stop talking about nonsense and calling people nut-jobs … and counter the issues!! ..i’m more than willing to talk about them, but it is you who stopped talking about them when I showed you your knowledge and research to be quite off of facts
..remember that “aluminum-oxide and barium nitrate & Thermite” discussion we had few weeks ago? ..the talk that you left behind, only to arrive to run your mouth again little later
You’re shown to be nothing but a loud mouth troll, who can’t admit the mistakes in his own research and knowledge about the subject
remember that “aluminum-oxide and barium nitrate & Thermite” discussion we had few weeks ago?
Yeah I do remember, that's why I disengaged with you. You did absolutely zero research, on your own behind the results of the studies. Which, according to you if I recall correctly. That well, no one really tested for oxide's but that just shows that they have something to hide or some such nonsense.
Those nanothermite chips you keep posting about. I did rebuttal those and if you did look at any of them and take the time to read it, you would see the 'facts' you put all faith into aren't facts at all. The idea that you expect me to believe you went back and read all the postings I did on the subject, is laughable. Because, every single thing I posted, took less than an hour of searching on each subject. I'm not talking about just finding a web site, read the first few lines of something that you agree with, then copy/pasting. I'm saying, after you find something. Dig a little more on the subject when it's talked about outside of the 9/11 argument. Look up the people behind the paper, check into their background and motivations.
If your evidence of explosives was so lock solid and proven. That would be front page news and lead every internet and television news outlet worldwide. Instead, it's pushed back to irrelevant wackos that take your money so they can publish books and get paid to do speaking seminars. This has had over 10 years and the explosive theory has absolutley nothing but a few small pieces of evidence that could be something, on their own. But these scientists fail to include the rest of the picture. It's a freaking joke. Whenever something is disproven, someone finds something else that it has to be. Remember when it was Thermate? Then Thermite, then nano-thermite, there were no planes, it was small nuclear explosions, it is some super secret unknown military technology, ad nauseum...
Were these ridiculous conspiracy theories would make an awesome science fiction movie they do not refelct what actually took place. By ignoring the true perpetrators of 911 (Muslim terrorists), conspiracy theorists downplay the threat of Islam and the radicals it too often creates. This in turn increases the likelihood that we won’t be prepared to stop future terrorist events by Islamists.
History repeats itself when we do not learn from it. It certainly cannot be learned from if people refuse to accept it as reality! Instead they have traded it for some nutty beliefs that have taken on religious cult-like aspects and single-minded devotion from millions of believers.
rydher wrote:Yeah I do remember, that's why I disengaged with you.
Yes you did, after I showed you being completetly out of it
rydher wrote:Those nanothermite chips you keep posting about. I did rebuttal those and if you did look at any of them and take the time to read it, you would see the 'facts' you put all faith into aren't facts at all.
I didn’t go through any of your old post, and I told you right away that I’m not gonna go trough them, cause you can quite easily to bring the material forwards ..which you didn’t
.. you can’t even get the basic facts right, which you could have verified to be wrong with a little effort but you didn’t ..and this just shows everyone how bad your research skills are.
Like i’m gonna bother to read your old post, when the first thing you write is totally wrong
rydher wrote:You did absolutely zero research, on your own behind the results of the studies. Which, according to you if I recall correctly. That well, no one really tested for oxide's but that just shows that they have something to hide or some such nonsense.
I actually showed you statement from USGS themselves, it most certainly was no 9/11-Truther study, but USGS web pages
..that is a governmental agency and they tell us that they only list base elements of the metals, not their oxide or other forms. This does not mean they didn’t study the whole profiles, this only means they only list just the base elements
..see I don’t have to make stuff up, I just show you what the US gov agencies like USGS and NIST and others tell to the public.
rydher wrote:Look up the people behind the paper, check into their background and motivations.
How does that work on pictorial and video evidence?
Who’s backround should I check when WTC 7 fell 2.25 seconds and/or 32 meteres in literal FREE FALL ..which is also admitted by NIST
..if there is a orange-glowing burst/explosion on the perimeter wall of South Tower ..who’s backround should I check in these kinds of cases?!
If I can see, with my own eyes, explosive ejections, detonation waves and columns being cut in half on news footage about the destructions of the WTC buildings, there’s no one’s back round to be researched in the first place ..get it?
rydher wrote:If your evidence of explosives was so lock solid and proven. That would be front page news and lead every internet and television news outlet worldwide.
World mainstream media is privately owned ..and owned by the very same people who most like played a part in the 9/11-false flag
..and if this is so, why would they promote evidence that is against their own criminal activity and things that might get them jail-time?
rydher wrote:Remember when it was Thermate? Then Thermite, then nano-thermite, there were no planes, it was small nuclear explosions, it is some super secret unknown military technology, ad nauseum...
At first, when Steven Jones et al. started talking about the thermite-hyphothesis, back in 2006 (was it?) ..they still didn’t have any dust samples to test and study
..they only had information about the persistent heat of the WTC rubble piles, reports of molten metal ..video footage of the molten metal ..and they had seen the micro-spheres of iron in some wtc-material samples ..but they didn’t have the WTC dust at the time
So ofcourse thing evolve in time when you can gather more and more material ..but their basic-hypothesis hasn’t changed at all
But now they have even the nano-thermite composite to show as proof.
And neither I, nor the ‘Arichitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’-people (Steven Jones and these guys) talk about nukes in the WTC buildings they, and I, only talk about stuff we can prove
..so in reality the AE911Truth-people and I are not “conspiracy theorists” ..cause what we talk about is BEYOND theory ..it is a ‘hypothesis’, cause as you state yourself ..this suggestion has some evidence to back it up
..while a ‘theory’ is just a suggestion of pure speculation, with no concrete evidence to back it up at all.
AE911Truth-people, nor I, are not these “No plane”-people ..Steven Jones et al. focus on the nano-thermite and the behavior of the collapsing WTC buildings ..they don’t even cover the Pentagon-issue that much/at all ..they mainly focus on the WTC buildings ..and so do I ..i very rarely even talk about the Pentagon-issues or the Pennsylvania-issues
..i focus on the WTC buildings, nano-thermite and controlled demolition cause these can be easily shown to people ..and this is why I keep posting the “same thing over and over again” ..and if you have noticed no one seems to be able to show these things to be wrong that I talk about ..not you and no one else either
..and I’m more than willing to look at the problems you have with this material that I post ..but no one seems to be willing to talk about it
Think I’m done with you. unless you want to talk about the WTC-issues
pateriot wrote: Take note, this is what a collapsing building looks like after a jet flies into it creating a weakened section, and then millions of tons of the top collapses onto the floors beneath it. No controlled demolition, no thermite, just an almost inconceivable amount of weight and inertia resulting in this very chaotic collapse.
Too bad that the top portion of this WTC Tower seeks to be disintegrating before it can destroy the floors below the impact zone (…see the first linked video below)
..and when this is the fact of the matter, how could this disintegrating top destroy the floors below it ..it couldn’t = Laws of Physics
Also the top accelerates through the collision-point with the lower floors without any ‘deceleration’ or jolt, which also violates Laws of Nature ..so the lower floors had to be destroyed by an “outside force” =demolition charges in this case
Videos going into …“Laws of Physics, the actual collapse events and NIST report”
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
“The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of its weight. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. A complete analysis has been published in the article entitled "Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics," Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol 28, Feb 2010: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... OfWTC1.pdf (Some calculus and basic physics required.)”
Jonathan Cole - 9/11: Collapse vs Demolition
Jonathan Cole - 9/11: NEWTON vs NIST
By the way… no government involvement "red flag" event to justify going into Iraq, only evil terrorists motivated by a deranged religious ideology who slipped through because we weren't vigilant, competent, and prepared enough, and because they were just plain lucky.
No foul play in the case of Iraq, huh?
..how about those Niger yellow cake-uranium documents, which were apparently forged by Italian intelligence
They also tried to tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and GW Bush even laughed about it later that one of the toughest jobs during his presidency was trying to convince people that Hussein was involved in 9/11
..so along with these few “red flags”, I’m sure there are not that many more.
Did you know or realize that the official version, that Osama bin Laden’s group was behind 9/11 ..is a ‘conspiracy theory’
What makes it a conspiracy theory is the fact that FBI has NO PROOF against Osama bin Laden in the case of 9/11 ..and this is why he was never indicted with 9/11
Here’s the actual FBI-page for Osama bin Laden
Murder of U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Attack on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death
USAMA BIN LADEN
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
See, nothing about 9/11 or about crimes on US soil ..nothing!!! ..because they had no evidence against him!
..it was only the White House and Pentagon who said he was guilty ..but still no arrest warrant or indictment by FBI or anyone else in US judicial system
If you believe the White House-version of 9/11 ..you’re a “conspiracy theorist” ..LOL
For those that want to know the back ground the thermite theory (which, we could perhaps call the "dynamite" theory as it's just as incapable of causing the destruction - and ongoing effects - as dynamite is), please study this blog:
(posted earlier in this thread). If people want to know about groups like AE911 truth - and what their purpose is, also see the same blog or download/watch material posted here - free:
Heck, the video is almost 3 years old now!
Also, no one is mentioning this: or this:
Yep - Hurricane Erin closest to NYC at about 8am on 911 - moved away the next day. And that's thermite is it? Or coincidence? You decide.
Why am I not surprised?
Andrew Johnson, UK
cee420 wrote:komakino wrote:
CEE = 3 4 4 = 11. 420 = 4+2 = 6....mmm...talking about dis info agent? and whats your number?
E is the 5th alphabet around here
So try again ...i'm sure you'll get it right this time
If you still have trouble with it ..then drop the chewing gum and try again
Eeh ok...i think i'm awake now...i think
rydher wrote:I could post video after video and paper after paper telling you the exact opposite of what you just posted. But where does that get us? No where, you and people that have thought like you for the last 10 years will continue to do so. Why the need to have these theories of explosives is beyond my understanding.
Have at it, prove cee420 wrong.
And I am serious, I'm not running on bias here.
If you can prove the information cee420 is sharing with us to be false I'll be the first one running out on a backyard and light fireworks.
- Related topics
- Last post