I found the missing Jolt.

[ProBonoShill]

I have already answered this in other threads.

Well humour me, answer again. As you know I enjoy the free comedy.

 

[jaydeehess]

...should be a major part of any investigation into the collapse of any building.

So an earthquake occurs... test for explosives?

 

[jaydeehess]

1. Zero audio evidence for demolition explosions

2. Zero video evidence for demolition explosions

3. Zero seismic data evidence for demolition explosions

4. Zero demolition hardware evidence within the rubble of the WTC buildings

5. Zero evidence the WTC buildings were structurally pre-weakened.

.

But,, but,, but,, that's why FF wants a new investigation. To find out how they managed to hide all that evidence.

 

[Myriad]

You might want to ask an expert.

I'm asking the person who is insisting that investigators should have tested for explosives.

If you're not expert enough to know how they should have done so, you are not expert enough to conclude, let alone declare, that they didn't.

It's very simple. Given your own proud admission you are not knowledgeable enough to understand or evaluate the investigations that have been done, your calls for a new investigation are easily recognizable as being based on ignorance. This is yet another reason (apart from the terms of the investigation you're calling for being constitutionally impossible) they shall continue to be disregarded.

 

[FalseFlag]

Were the explosions low explosive fuel air blasts, or ear splitting high explosives?

I don't know. A real investigation could answer your questions.

 

[FalseFlag]

He adds nothing to anyone's understanding of building collapses.

You won't listen to me? Is it because I'm not an expert? This is awesome. You should never let non-experts add to your understanding of building collapses. Doing so would be extremely foolish.

I'm happy for you. You have taken your first step towards seeing the truth.

Now, take the next step, and stop listening to frauds.

 

[FalseFlag]

I can safely say your so-called "peeps" had nothing to do with explosives.

You're right; they had nothing to do with explosives. Instead, they were just innocent people witnessing the mass murder of almost 3000 others.

 

[TJM]

So an earthquake occurs... test for explosives?

Yes.

 

[FalseFlag]

To you, but not to Mr. Realty, demolition experts, architects, structural engineers and yes, even firefighters, who are on the record for stating that no CD was responsible.

Mr. Reality?

Wait for it...

 

[FalseFlag]

No one heard explosions that were attributed to explosives.

What makes you qualified to make this claim?

Did anyone test for explosives?

 

[TJM]

 

[FalseFlag]

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock.

This might be true. There are some truthers who are nutjobs. They do more harm than good.

I like how the author of the article you posted cherry-picks the claims made by the nutjobs.

What? You didn't honestly think I would miss that, did you?

 

[FalseFlag]

In fact, and you know this to be true, NIST did investigate the sounds on recordings

They made an arbitrary determination that a hypothetical explosive would make a sound with a certain volume. How do you know what explosives were used if you don't test for them?

This is garbage science at its lowest.

 

[FalseFlag]

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/Trollgif.gif[/qimg]

Very nice.

Steamboat Troll-y.

 

[FalseFlag]

So an earthquake occurs... test for explosives?

Is an earthquake an act of extremism?

Show me a terrorist (other than Lex Luthor or an oil company) that can create an earthquake, and then I will consider your argument.

ETA: I'm still pissed at all the money I lost buying timeshares at Playa del Lex.

 

[FalseFlag]

Except everyone with a functioning brain knows how the fires started that day, two huge jumbo jets full of fuel slammed into buildings at 500mph. No need to test for explosives.

How hard would it have been to test for explosives?

 

[FalseFlag]

they managed to hide all that evidence.

The problem is that they didn't hide it. Everyone can see it. You simply choose to deny what you see (and hear).

 

[FalseFlag]

If you're not expert enough to know how they should have done so, you are not expert enough to conclude, let alone declare, that they didn't.

This is wrong. NIST has admitted that they did not test for explosives.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is wrong. NIST has admitted that they did not test for explosives.

How could NIST test for explosive, no residues, shrapnel, Monrue's effect, or credible witness account of high explosives were present on 9/11/2001.

 

[ProBonoShill]

How hard would it have been to test for explosives?

About as hard as it would be to test for Salmonella, why don't you think they tested for that?