Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. You can search it if you'd like.



This is completely incoherent. Please try harder.

Do these "2 women" have a name?

The official story just says the melted steel is inconsequential. Explosives would not melt steel and thermite is not explosive. So if said melted steel is from the sub-basement which is what twoofers insinuate then twoofers cannot account for it either. They also insinuate that said melted steel is proof of thermite. So using a thermite claim then it would have to come from an upper floor(s). Since there is no evidence of thermite and no way to account for melted steel and what floor it was from the twoofer theory fails to account for it again.

Sounds coherent to me, since there's no evidence that iron oxide (rust) is "explosive".

 

[leftysergeant]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. You can search it if you'd like.

So freaking what? The explosions in the basement were clearly a "backdraft" from the jet fuel that came down the elevator and utilitiy shafts. Google "backdraft." I it is essential to undersrtanding why half of ther crap that lame brains like Griffin and MacQueen spew is crap. The subway runs through the basement.

Get a sense of what the structure looked like before you attach incorrect meanings to the little things that ignorant people think are big.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So freaking what? The explosions in the basement were clearly a "backdraft" from the jet fuel that came down the elevator and utilitiy shafts. Google "backdraft." I it is essential to undersrtanding why half of ther crap that lame brains like Griffin and MacQueen spew is crap. The subway runs through the basement.

Get a sense of what the structure looked like before you attach incorrect meanings to the little things that ignorant people think are big.

That's right Lefty, you tell that crackpot (Tempesta29) off!

 

[triforcharity]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. You can search it if you'd like.

hilited the important word for you. We don't know what it was, as there is no CONTEXT.

This is completely incoherent. Please try harder.

Pull your head from your ass and it won't sound so muffled.

 

[Thunder]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. You can search it if you'd like.

Please....please tell us you know the difference between inexperienced civilians thinking they heard a bomb, and KNOWING there was a bomb.

please. cause if you truly, really don't, then I think JREF may be way over your head.

 

[kerikiwi]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. You can search it if you'd like.



This is completely incoherent. Please try harder.

No, it's not incoherent. There is one poorly structured sentence and some missing commas.
To dismiss it as incoherent is just a pathetic excuse to fail to address the content.
The two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. Nobody is denying that. But all the evidence points to their being mistaken.

 

[WildCat]

No, it wasn't. People thought the subway was exploding. Many people were knocked off their feet--to the ground. This was... wait, what are you claiming? It was kerosene that leaked down and knocked people off their feet?

Are any of your eyewitnesses truthers?

Besides "Lyin' Willie" Rodriquez of course?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Truthers have a problem with reading complete sentences. They not only mistake witnesses words, but they love to find keywords "hidden" in their statements.

Such as:

Bombs
Boom
Secondary Explosions
Incediaries

And many others which I can't think of.

The important thing is, Truthers quote mine the hell out of the witness statements. And they know they're doing it on purpose!

 

[Dragon37]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway. You can search it if you'd like.

To use your weak comeback "Please try harder"

This is completely incoherent. Please try harder.

That's because you don't understand the English language. Let me put it in point form:

-melted steel, if it actually existed, means nothing (basically the official stand)
-CTer's claim that melted steel proves:

a) that there were bombs in the (sub-)basement level(s)
b) existence of thermite being used to collapse the towers

- melted steel is not proof of a) because explosives will not melt steel
- melted steel is not proof of b) because thermite was not present in WTC
-melted steel can be accounted by previous heating and accretion forces, as well as an trapped flammables and the inability to get water on the trapped hotspots.

 

[WildCat]

The guy Green Bay Packers fan in the video below is Matthew Naus confronting Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin).

ftfy

 

[WildCat]

In the last witness video I posted, two women described what they thought were bombs in the subway.

Are these women truthers?

 

[fess]

Sure: explosives coupled with some type of thermite.

I’m sure you have been asked this before, but I would like to repeat the question; you do have evidence of this… right?
Of all the evidence collected at GZ, no evidence of explosives or thermite (ate) was discovered. As with your brief foray into the field of aviation, you once again fail.

 

[Craig4]

Sure: explosives coupled with some type of thermite.

Which, if that happened would have left evidence. Got any of that?

 

[tempesta29]

I’m sure you have been asked this before, but I would like to repeat the question; you do have evidence of this… right?
Of all the evidence collected at GZ, no evidence of explosives or thermite (ate) was discovered. As with your brief foray into the field of aviation, you once again fail.

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

 

[Craig4]

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

So you have evidence then that the molten material existed and was steel and was steel from the structures supporting the building? Now then do you have evidence that any type of incendiary device was used on this steel. Here's a hint, such a thing would leave trace evidence.

 

[Thunder]

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

or it could just be evidence of steel getting very hot.

sometimes the easiest solution..is the correct one.

I know, I know....conspiracy theory thinking believes the most complicated and rediculous solution is the correct one.

 

[WildCat]

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

It is? Can you explain this?

When was your molten steel allegedly spotted again?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

Nope. Slag is. Molten steel weeks after the fact is evidence of a sustained source of heat. Thermite reactions burn themselves out very quickly. They don't explain sustained heat.

 

[Dragon37]

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

Neither of which there was any evidence whatsoever of at GZ.

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by fess
I’m sure you have been asked this before, but I would like to repeat the question; you do have evidence of this… right?
Of all the evidence collected at GZ, no evidence of explosives or thermite (ate) was discovered. As with your brief foray into the field of aviation, you once again fail.

Molten steel is evidence of thermite, or some other high-energy incendiary.

I asked for evidence, not another one of your inane statements.