Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
No evidence for explosives was recorded on the structure of the steel, so no need
To do any residue tests.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
No evidence for explosives was recorded on the structure of the steel, so no need
To do any residue tests.
Your statement contradicts your claims.
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
The doctors that treated the patients burned in the lobby say it was jet fuel.
Are you saying that doctors that specialise in burn cases don't know the difference between burns and blast injuries.
Wow. That's a lot of research.
The statements made in the video don't match the oral history.
Statements made immediately after an event are often, if not always, more accurate than statements made months later.
I give more weight to what was said on 9/11, then what was said afterwards.
You are wasting time here, since you refuse to provide real, verifiable proof of the things you are quoting ( verifiable means you can show how experiments were performed, prove claimed results, have same verified by professionals in the field and published in an accepted, peer reviewed journal of good or better reputation.) .
You're right. They would not have missed signs of explosives. You know why? It's because they did not test for them.
What did they find? You can't find something if you don't test for it.
Lots of evidence was ignored.
They didn't have to lie. If you say you didn't test for explosives, and you didn't, there is no lie.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Once again, you ignore obvious evidence. I'm the OP. How can I hijack my own thread?
waypastvne
Muse
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 539
Of course you think that.
Let me post the statement from James Duffy again.
"Oh, no. I didn't know what it was when we were inside. I didn't know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off. That's why I really didn't know until after."
Cool, I give more weight to stories that are backed up by a lot of people who were around and in a proper location to verify how things/what things happened. If what was said was said by only one person when there were others around who should easily have noticed and remembered but no one but that person says it I tend to think it really did not happen.....
* and for that you need to check research on that very topic and report back to us if it verifies that claim.
No one saw explosives used on 9/11. You have no evidence for explosives. Have you told the FBI you know it was explosives, the silent no blast effects ones?
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Well considering I'm aware of the fact:
I'd have to say yes.
Now answer my question.
How do you know how much explosive material would have been needed? Wouldn't it vary based on how strong the explosive was? Wouldn't it also vary on how strong or weak the connections were? If the connections were weakened by one method, would the quantity of explosives be less than normal? Wouldn't the quantity also vary based on how they wanted to bring the building down?
I will address this issue soon. So far no one has provided the data I have asked for.
You should learn what propaganda is before you post stuff like this. What saddens me most is that this propaganda is being posted by what used to be a credible organization.
This just brings me back to my main point: Newton's Laws of Motion are useless for studying the WHY of a progressive collapse!
They are useful for understanding the motions observed during the collapse. Newton could care less what the caused the collapse.
The emphasis was added by me. It does not appear in the original post.
The word "identical" does not have an identical definition to the word "similar". In fact, the definitions are not even remotely similar.
Cole's experiment is about similar accelerations, similar directions of net forces, and similar sequences of the directions of net forces. He does not use the word "identical" to describe his experiment.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
and, if one had he would have barely but moreso unlikely at all have survived and he would have lost several functions!!!!! Did he???
If not, nothing "threw him " up two stories.
Don't forget. The "explosion" also would've blown Micheal Hess up two stories as well - strangely enough, he doesn't seem to include that element into his account of the events.
His experiments are attempts to replicate the motions observed during the collapses of the twin towers. That is why this is a 9/11 thread.
Where do they test for explosives. Perhaps you could link to the reports that show this. At the very least, link to the time in the video where you claim testing for explosives has occurred.