Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

mortimer said:
So was the steel examined or not? First you say it isn't, then you say it is.

And you still think CD explosives are dropped from the outside of the buildings, right?
Click to expand...

The steel should have been kept. In the other video I posted an investigator says that normally the steel would be examined piece by piece where it fell.
 
jessicarabbit said:
While you're at it gravy you can watch this video. It contradicts your reasoning for the fires being unfought in 7.

It also contradicts itself saying that the steel was removed quick from 7 to find bodies even though the building had been evacuated.

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9999&med=0&ord=Name&strt=50&vid=58&epi=0&typ=0
Click to expand...

Watch the History Channel contradict themselves when they say nobody was killed when WTC7 collapsed because they had plenty of time to evacuate beforehand, but then the remains couldn't be examined because it had to be removed quickly to rescue survivors.
Click to expand...
to get all technical, this isnt a contradiction, no one was killed, but they had to rescue survivors, just to clear things up, survivors arent killed

but the main point is just because the building was evacuated doesnt mean they know 100% no one was in or near it when it came down, they werent taking any chances

ETA: the video says the debris was removed with the debris from the other collapsed buildings (including towers 1 and 2) so the idea of looking for survivors is certainly plausible
 
Gravy said:
And have you contacted the others? I gave you the address yesterday.

Jessica, you said you know why the Bazant & Greening papers are wrong. As you know, these papers are often cited in the "debunking" community.

Why won't you tell us why they're wrong? Wouldn't that be quite a coup for you? You would force the entire debunking community to reevaluate what it's doing. Please explain. I'm truly baffled. :confused:
Click to expand...

What is the point if you don't understand the papers? Will you make an effort to understand them before you cite them again?

Im also baffled. You clearly know 9/11 was an inside job, so your tenacious "debunkings" are even more bizarre.
 
jessicarabbit said:
The steel should have been kept. In the other video I posted an investigator says that normally the steel would be examined piece by piece where it fell.
Click to expand...

So was your statement that the steel was not inspected a lie? Was it inspected, or was it not?
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
While you're at it gravy you can watch this video. It contradicts your reasoning for the fires being unfought in 7.

It also contradicts itself saying that the steel was removed quick from 7 to find bodies even though the building had been evacuated.

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9999&med=0&ord=Name&strt=50&vid=58&epi=0&typ=0
Click to expand...

My reasons, jessica? Or the reasons given by all the members of the FDNY? I have a copy of the whole documentary, as I do with the previous videos you posted. And you can read the FDNY comments in my WTC 7 paper, which is linked in my signature. You said you had read it, but if so, you didn't understand it. Try reading it more slowly.

Remember your comment yesterday about trusting people who only watch videos, jessica?
 
jessicarabbit said:
The steel should have been kept. In the other video I posted an investigator says that normally the steel would be examined piece by piece where it fell.
Click to expand...

do you have some evidence or just this junk

any evidence of explosives?

I have zero, but then a gravity collapse and the fires and the impact account for everything including your squids

only dolts would think air escaping is a squid, but then you mean RDX, or do you mean Thermite,

Thermite or RDX?

what did they use Jessica never going to answer the junk you start docker
 
jessicarabbit said:
The steel should have been kept. In the other video I posted an investigator says that normally the steel would be examined piece by piece where it fell.
Click to expand...
Of course, you wouldn't want to move it for such trivial reasons as looking for survivors or anything...
 
WildCat said:
A clear video will make it all moot. But CTists avoid clear video like a *vampire avoids garlic.








*disclaimer for the stupid: use of the word "vampire" is simply for the use of a literary tool known as an "analogy" and should not be construed to make it appear that I believe in vampires.
Click to expand...

Thanks from the vamps.


PS we love garlic
 
jessicarabbit said:
The steel should have been kept. In the other video I posted an investigator says that normally the steel would be examined piece by piece where it fell.
Click to expand...

Remember the 2749 victims? They where somewhere amongst the debris. And possibly some survivors.
 
mortimer said:
You are now discredited, because you lied.
Click to expand...

docker aka wabbit, is just making fun of how many posts the wabbit can waste saying nothing, presenting nothing

ask the wabbit what this thread is,

the evidence is not there, jessica will not find anything new
 
WildCat said:
Of course, you wouldn't want to move it for such trivial reasons as looking for survivors or anything...
Click to expand...

How many survivors do you expect in a totally evacuated building? Even if unevacuated what do you estimate the survival chances of someon that has 47 storeys fall on them?
 
jessicarabbit said:
How many survivors do you expect in a totally evacuated building? Even if unevacuated what do you estimate the survival chances of someon that has 47 storeys fall on them?
Click to expand...

Strawman wabbit, we were talking about WTC 1 & 2 (remember the video you linked to?). Totally evacuated? LOL! And how many people where pulled from the rubble?
 
jessicarabbit said:
How many survivors do you expect in a totally evacuated building? Even if unevacuated what do you estimate the survival chances of someon that has 47 storeys fall on them?
Click to expand...

Your daily post average is starting to rival the recent form of Damien Martyns batting average in the ICC champs cup! Go you aussies!
 
jessicarabbit said:
I have it in front of me. Its not my work I might add but its a good job. I will present it when gravy understands the papers he keeps dump-linking in here.
Click to expand...
You are lieing, and thus discredited. Again. But you are funny!

BTW, I noticed that you did not make any of the videos you link to... next time you must submit your own.
:dl:
 
hellaeon said:
Your daily post average is starting to rival the recent form of Damien Martyns batting average in the ICC champs cup! Go you aussies!
Click to expand...

Its dropping actually, the craig bartmer thread did most of the damage, But thanks for checking it and thanks for such a valuable contribution to this explosives conversation.
 
jessicarabbit said:
What is the point if you don't understand the papers? Will you make an effort to understand them before you cite them again?
Click to expand...
Do you think we're having a private conversation here? This is for everyone to learn. I cannot disprove the calculations in the papers. You say you can.

Is there any reason that we should believe you're not lying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom