Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Other people not only practice denial, but flood threads with one-liner posts containing zero thread-related substance,
so they can serve the valuable function of burying 'difficult' posts.
Thermitic residue clearly exists in the WTC dust and is evidence of a demolition material that should not have existed at WTC.
... for nano thermite to be painted on steel and become a high explosive when dry. (didnt even happen in the Jesse Ventura experiment, so Jones was rather amusingly unintentionally disproved right after he said it. )
... for nano thermite to be painted on steel and become a high explosive when dry AND ALSO quietly intensely propel heavy steel around.
... for ANY explosive to be so intense it can propel steel hundreds of feet and yet be quiet so it isnt picked up on video or cause blast injuries.
According to Richard Gage, the explosives were both quiet + intense at the same time. I think I mentioned that before."
Because it didn't happen on the Jesse Ventura Show? So that is your idea of conclusive proof?
And you also argue that heavy steel cannot be propelled quietly or we would have heard it in the video recordings.
Seems reasonable.
But wait. On 9/11 at the WTC, there were explosive forces "so intense it can propel steel hundreds of feet and yet be quiet so it isnt picked up on video".
Multi-ton pieces of steel were propelled great distances with many of them found embedded in the surrounding office buildings.
Other people not only practice denial, but flood threads with one-liner posts containing zero thread-related substance,
so they can serve the valuable function of burying 'difficult' posts.
Thermitic residue clearly exists in the WTC dust and is evidence of a demolition material that should not have existed at WTC.
You can believe whatever you want. Since there is no agreeing on this obscure internet forum, the only way to convince people like me is if you can convince the experts. Until the statement above is supported by a respected engineering, scientific, academic, judicial, or law enforcement organization, I'm not going to believe you.
Like it or not, consider it off topic if you want, I CANNOT say this enough. And like it or not, I represent "the rest of the world". Deal with it.
You can believe whatever you want. Since there is no agreeing on this obscure internet forum, the only way to convince people like me is if you can convince the experts. Until the statement above is supported by a respected engineering, scientific, academic, judicial, or law enforcement organization, I'm not going to believe you.
Like it or not, consider it off topic if you want, I CANNOT say this enough. And like it or not, I represent "the rest of the world". Deal with it.
Oh, so... the reason there's been no serious investigation from truthers is because they're expecting all the financial backing to come from their opponents?
Anyway... Talk to cmatrix. He apparently has $10,000 that he's willing to throw away on an ill-conceived challenge. Personally, I think it would be better spent funding your desired investigation. What do you think?
That's a good one. You know, if there REALLY was a need for a new investigation, and the evidence that something was fishy was as strong as you think it is, you'd think that somebody--anybody--who could actually DO something about it other than whining on obscure internet forums would be championing your cause by now and getting that investigation rolling.
You can opine all you want about the reasons that hasn't happened.
That's a good one. You know, if there REALLY was a need for a new investigation, and the evidence that something was fishy was as strong as you think it is, you'd think that somebody--anybody--who could actually DO something about it other than whining on obscure internet forums would be championing your cause by now and getting that investigation rolling.
You can opine all you want about the reasons that hasn't happened.
I can also opine as to why, if there is really nothing fishy, or strong, why so many people on an obscure internet forum
are championing the Official Story and are so actively engaged in discouraging any further 9/11 investigations.
I can also opine as to why, if there is really nothing fishy, or strong, why so many people on an obscure internet forum
are championing the Official Story and are so actively engaged in discouraging any further 9/11 investigations.
I can also opine as to why, if there is really nothing fishy, or strong, why so many people on an obscure internet forum
are championing the Official Story and are so actively engaged in discouraging any further 9/11 investigations.
I can also opine as to why, if there is really nothing fishy, or strong, why so many people on an obscure internet forum
are championing the Official Story and are so actively engaged in discouraging any further 9/11 investigations.
I can also opine as to why, if there is really nothing fishy, or strong, why so many people on an obscure internet forum
are championing the Official Story and are so actively engaged in discouraging any further 9/11 investigations.
So because it didnt happen in Jesse Venturas show that was trying to prove Steven Jone's theories right, that means you have evidence that Jones is right? Is it not just a little bit inconvienet that nano thermite painted on a steel beam didnt explode in any fashion?
What evidence do you have that nano thermite, when painted into steel and dries, becomes a "high explosive". You do know what a high explosive is right? Maybe you are being very liberal with the definition.
Why not actually show us some evidence rather than apparently trying to argue that lack of evidence is evidence.
And you also argue that heavy steel cannot be propelled quietly or we would have heard it in the video recordings.
But wait. On 9/11 at the WTC, there were explosive forces "so intense it can propel steel hundreds of feet and yet be quiet so it isnt picked up on video".
Multi-ton pieces of steel were propelled great distances with many of them found embedded in the surrounding office buildings.
Apparently it happened so quietly it wasnt picked up by seismographs or any video despite several cameras being practically beneath the towers. Why is that?
Real demolitions such as this one are extremely loud and unmistakable.
"Apparently it happened so quietly it wasnt picked up by seismographs or any video despite several cameras being practically beneath the towers. Why is that?"
The point is, the background noise was such a cacophony that the sounds of those massive columns being blown free were unheard in the mix.
They were blown a great a distance even if you don't agree with what caused it.
The fact that those distinct sounds, which had to exist, were not distinguishable in available recordings, means that the unheard force that caused them to be blown could very well have been an explosion.
Unless you believe multi-ton steel columns can be ripped free and blown great distances very quietly?
Then you disagree with Gage because he clearly says that they used thermite/thermate because it was quiet as a response to someone saying that these explosions would have been clearly heard everywhere in the area.
And he is right that thermite is quiet. But Gage also says heavy steel was flung around. That's always going to be extraordinarily loud. You cant have it both ways.
Its kinda like if you're a thief and use shoes that make no sound on any surface, so you can easily creep around someones house but then also carry a vuvuzela and constantly blast it the entire time. When your teammates tell you that the vuvuzela will make a lot of noise, you tell them no thats why you're going to use those special shoes because they are quiet
Here is the video of Richard Gage again, maybe if I embed it you will notice:
The point is, the background noise was such a cacophony that the sounds of those massive columns being blown free were unheard in the mix.
We have video of people talking through practically the entire video of the collapse taken essentially beneath the building. If you watch real demolitions such as the Landmark implosion the explosions are clearly audible.They do distort the microphone when they occur but when a microphone distorts you cant hear ANYTHING else.
It also means that the explosions at the top of the building would have had to have been so loud it immediately distorted all of these microphones at the base of the building for the entire duration to the point where all you hear is consistent distortion. This is sort of conceivable but that is not what actually what happened and we have no recordings that sound like that.
Once again go listen to the Landmark implosion videos:
One is far away and the other is close and the other is a little further away than that, notice how loud they are. These are only powerful enough to cut critical supports in the building. You are claiming that many times that intensity was used on 911 in order to propel heavy steel hundreds of feet. That, I'm afraid, would be unmistakable and pound the ear drums of everyone in the area into their skulls.
Since you have said that it would be loud, you need to justify why we dont have any audio evidence of that.
I work in audio so this its quite fun watching truthers try and come up with explanations for this.
Unless you believe multi-ton steel columns can be ripped free and blown great distances very quietly?
No that's Richard Gage's claim. Remember? He says they wouldn't have wanted to use loud explosives or that would give away their project, thats why they used thermite/thermate... because its quiet.
Do you agree that Gage is wrong or not? Why cant you just admit Gage is talking nonsense? You're even arguing against him in this very post and apparently don't even notice. Gage says it was quiet and that was because they used thermite but you are saying it was in fact loud.
Here's what actually happened:
If you watch Verinage collapses you can see debris being pushed out the sides of the collapse front in exactly the same way as with the twin towers on 911. Also, with the towers the perimeter columns were around the sides so they were sheared off when the top block crushes it. Since it has a lot further to travel than 30 or so floors of course its going to travel far. But what I find funny is you'll now reply saying you find this unlikely despite easily being able to watch essentially the same thing happen on a small scale with Verinage yet try and claim that enormous explosives were propelling steel hundreds of feet that was either so loud it immediately distorted all microphones 100% for the duration (which didnt happen and is a completely ignorant understanding of how microphones work) or somehow that you think it didnt really need to be that loud.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
