You keep repeating the same questions and making the same false statements. You don't know what can be done with nano-thermite.
False. The argument against the fires is that fires cannot cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns. A fire induced collapse would take a long time like the Windsor Tower.
But of course it wasn’t just fire induced collapse was it. It had an airliner plunge into it full of fuel also.
We all know here on Jref that a common tactic of any denier (whether consciously acknowledged or not) is to pick a small point and then make sweeping claims from it. When that’s debunked they move onto the next one.
I think Tony Z, though obviously has some ability has got carried away with his own hypothesis. He thought he found a significant issue, probably spent some time analyzing his theory and put together a "paper" which he is obviously proud of. Lots of back slapping by TM boys and girls later, the paper gets examined by other qualified peeps who then, much to Tony Z's distaste pull it apart. He's been trying to defend it ever since.
And, as has been presented time and time and time again, after lengthy debunking discussions we still note the following:
1. CD/inside job, there was no reason to do it and I don’t believe the US gov would commit mass murder to get a war. They went into Iraq over what now appears to be questionable circumstances. If they could pull off 9/11 they certainly could have planted a few WMD in Iraq.
2. No explosive noises. I've watched CD and they are noisy.
3. The collapse started where the plane impacts occured, Rather convenient, and not to mention that any CD primed and ready would have been knocked out by the impact at that point. Including thermite etc.
4. CD takes alot of prep work, a building that size would take months to ensure complete collapse (unless progressive collapse is possible, but we know this anyway right.) It would have to be well wired as well because imagine if the CD didnt work and the towers remained standing. The evidence would be all over the place.
5. Why blow up ALL the buildings. One would have been more than enough and much less risky.
6. Why have the planes hit, and then also blow them up? For whatever the TMer's have for motive, I think a plane hitting both towers would be more than enough.
7. No evidence of CD found anywhere at ground zero.
8. The collapse does not look like a CD anyway, when you really look at it. Also, I would think getting the building to "topple" would be easier from a CD point of view and would create more collateral damage.
9. Im an atheist but if I believed in a hell, Mr Gage would be going there. He's directly profiting from the deaths of thousands of innocent people who died. Very bad man. And being dumb doesnt make up for it either. Its not like he hasnt been told many times.
You need to face it TZ and C7, you didnt just lose the argument, you never really had any argument to start with. Sorry but I’m afraid its all true and one day your going wake up and realize what a complete knob-head you have been. We are just trying to get you there quicker.
