• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I will abandon CD hypothesis if...

beachnut said:
Cool, columns are vertical, there is no on top of, thermite goes down, not horizontal, your idea fails. Failure. Jones made up thermite, are you trying to defend his lies?

So you have all the evidence for 9/11 truth? No, you don't have evidence, and 9/11 truth has only lies, false information, and fantasy.

Why is 9/11 truth void of evidence to support their ideas? Over 6 years and not a single shred of evidence from 9/11 truth.
Click to expand...

See now, even though you might contradict yourself a little, I can understand some of your technical commentary, but the above is just total gibberish, I'm afraid. Do you want to wipe the froth from your mouth, and try and tell me why the dreaded thermate could not just be placed on a horizontal girder, allowing gravity to finish it's job?
 
Ragnarok said:
See now, even though you might contradict yourself a little, I can understand some of your technical commentary, but the above is just total gibberish, I'm afraid. Do you want to wipe the froth from your mouth, and try and tell me why the dreaded thermate could not just be placed on a horizontal girder, allowing gravity to finish it's job?
Click to expand...

I would guess there is no room, unless you want to argue people went in and cracked open large chunks of the floor in order to lay bare the girders or beams or what have you in order to demolish a building that had no effect on either the Afghanistan war or whatever it is you crazy people spout.

How would you apply the apparently needed 100 pounds of thermite?
 
Ragnarok said:
See now, even though you might contradict yourself a little, I can understand some of your technical commentary, but the above is just total gibberish, I'm afraid. Do you want to wipe the froth from your mouth, and try and tell me why the dreaded thermate could not just be placed on a horizontal girder, allowing gravity to finish it's job?
Click to expand...
The columns are vertical. Failure!

Thermite was made up by Jones. If you want to support his fantasy idea, it will be with talk only, you have zero evidence to support him, and thermite.


I did not contradict myself, you have no idea Jones is making up lies to push his thermite idea he made up in September 2005. You also can not explain where or how you will place the thermite to destroy any columns. Show us how you and Jones make this happen.
 
Last edited:
mrbaracuda said:
I would guess there is no room, unless you want to argue people went in and cracked open large chunks of the floor in order to lay bare the girders or beams or what have you in order to demolish a building that had no effect on either the Afghanistan war or whatever it is you crazy people spout.

How would you apply the apparently needed 100 pounds of thermite?
Click to expand...

Don't ask me. I'm not an expert in that field; I'm just suggesting it for smarter minds to enquire. But, you could fit 100lbs of anything into a decent sports holdall.
 
Ragnarok said:
and try and tell me why the dreaded thermate could not just be placed on a horizontal girder, allowing gravity to finish it's job?
Click to expand...

Lets imagine for a moment that this is what happened, and ignore - for now - the problems of timing and position.

We'd have a situation where therm*te was used to cause the support for a floor to fail, causing that floor to collapse. This, in turn, would presumably then cause sequential failure of additional floors.

This begs the question then...what does this explanation offer to make it preferable to NISTs? Both say that failure of horizontal load-bearing is ultimately what led to collapse. What factors make therm*te a preferable hypothesis?

What demonstrably significant factors does it explain that NISTs explanation fails to do?

If the answer is along the lines of "none - but its not impossible", then one has to ask why the scenario should be given weight. Should we consider every possibility - no matter how far-fetched - for reasons why horizontal load-bearing failed, just because its not accepted as impossible?
 
Ragnarok said:
Don't ask me. I'm not an expert in that field; I'm just suggesting it for smarter minds to enquire.
Click to expand...

Those at NIST aren't experts or smarter minds? What field are you an expert in that would be relevant to anything relating to the collapse of any tower?

But, you could fit 100lbs of anything into a decent sports holdall.
Click to expand...

Like chillzero, I honestly doubt that. And even if: Why do it anyway when you got the 'main act' done already? Why do it 7 hours afterwards?

beachnut said:
You also can not explain where or how you will place the thermite to destroy any columns. Show us how you and Jones make this happen.
Click to expand...

I second that.
 
It might help those who want to abandon the "CD hypothesis" if someone (who can explain it better than me) explained the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Don't you hate when people try to discredit a theory by just saying "it's only a theory" and not understand what that means?
 
"They" must have used *"Super-duper-nano-thermate-laced-napalm™", and that is how they got it to stick to the column. :rolleyes:

*Super-duper-nano-thermate-laced-napalm™ Trademarked by the NWO, a division of Bush-Co©.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know: What CD hypothesis? I have never heard/read a single plausible scenario for how any of the buildings were demolished. Every one I have heard of invokes magic (or something akin to magic) somewhere in the explanation.
 
CptColumbo said:
It might help those who want to abandon the "CD hypothesis" if someone (who can explain it better than me) explained the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.
Click to expand...


http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhatTheory.HTM

Don't you hate when people try to discredit a theory by just saying "it's only a theory" and not understand what that means?
Click to expand...

I'd be skeptical as to how many of them are indicating ignorance, as opposed to those who are merely pretending it.
 
TheRedWorm said:
I'd like to know: What CD hypothesis? I have never heard/read a single plausible scenario for how any of the buildings were demolished. Every one I have heard of invokes magic (or something akin to magic) somewhere in the explanation.
Click to expand...

It was David Copperfield all along! I KNEW it! :eek:
 
I have a feeling we are going to experience a series of thread hijackings for the next few months. That is ok. I guess we are all a little excited about 7's release.:)
 
Ragnarok said:
Maybe. Let's say 2 decent rucksacks instead, then. We don't want a handle snapping, and all our therm*te spilling on the floor in the main foyer.
Click to expand...

Your assertion that you can fit 100lbs of anything into a single bag, or even 2 rucksacks, says a lot for your understanding of basic physics.
 
chillzero said:
Your assertion that you can fit 100lbs of anything into a single bag, or even 2 rucksacks, says a lot for your understanding of basic physics.
Click to expand...

Okay, a suitcase then! FFS, do you want me to ferret out a couple of 'corpse-in-a-suitcase' links, to prove my point?
 
Sizzler said:
With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.
Click to expand...

I can settle that right here and now: it's not about you.
 
bonkey said:
Woah. freaky.

In my original draft of the post I asked if we should consider people with some sort of invisible-field (like from Star Trek: Insurrection), using Star-Trek-style phasers tuned to be invisible.

I tuned it to be invisible to your human eyes, obviously ;)
Click to expand...

The girders, THEY HAVE ADAPTED!

- Worf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom