High energy explosvies and tertiary blast waves

[A W Smith]

This is what i am dealing with.... No there was MASSIVE destruction just like in the video i posted, did you see all that dust on the floor? talk about MASSIVE destruction!. The first tower did NO damage, the second tower wouldn't do any damage either, the lobby cant get totaly destroyed by something falling on the building. As i said before, the plane impact did no damge to the lobby in the towers besides the jet fuel, and multiple posters in the thread pointed out that the lobby in WTC 1-2 got destroyed when the building collapsed, am i talking to ten year olds or what?, just incredible. Obisouly my point is that when something hit the building on the outside, it will not cause any destruction so far below and inside the lobby, you have no credible explanation of how this would happen. And you ignore the reports of explosvies.

Im out, goodbye...

 

[triforcharity]

And you are wrong about Al-qaida. Its a intelligence asset for the CIA and has been suported by the Saudis, NATO, and other countries intelligence agencies for decades, even long after 911. What this network did leading up to 911 and all the details of the actions of the CIA etc, you apparently know nothing about, since it appears as if you think everything is explained already... That you dont accept my logical explanation, shows why you trust the official story while ignoring so many facts. I said "Why would i for example ask someone if high energy explosives can cause windows far away to explode or cause shockwaves that rip through the building, i already know the answer to these questions..." You cant argue against this, i am correct, there is no need to ask any experts if this is a sign of explosvies or not, it is..

Go and get your rest now buddy, thanks....

However, it is also caused by other things too.

Not that it matters, because according to your assbackwards logic, it can ONLY be caused by EXPLOSIVES.

Do you happen to know how many things go BOOOOOOMMMMMMM in a fire?

 

[Edx]

No there was MASSIVE destruction just like in the video i posted, .

So all the firefighters that said there was massive damage were lying?

 

[Justin39640]

It's pretty hopeless sometimes, huh?

 

[triforcharity]

Liberty,

Thanks for the Stundie Material.

Cheers!

~Tri

This is what i am dealing with.... No there was MASSIVE destruction just like in the video i posted, did you see all that dust on the floor? talk about MASSIVE destruction!. The first tower did NO damage, the second tower wouldn't do any damage either, the lobby cant get totaly destroyed by something falling on the building. .

 

[332nd]

And you are wrong about Al-qaida. Its a intelligence asset for the CIA and has been suported by the Saudis, NATO, and other countries intelligence agencies for decades, even long after 911. What this network did leading up to 911 and all the details of the actions of the CIA etc, you apparently know nothing about, since it appears as if you think everything is explained already... That you dont accept my logical explanation, shows why you trust the official story while ignoring so many facts. I said "Why would i for example ask someone if high energy explosives can cause windows far away to explode or cause shockwaves that rip through the building, i already know the answer to these questions..." You cant argue against this, i am correct, there is no need to ask any experts if this is a sign of explosvies or not, it is..

Go and get your rest now buddy, thanks....

LoL!

You don't realize you just admitted you're wrong about 9/11 do you?

Anyway, I ( and others) can (and have) argued against just that. Its quite clear you are afraid to ask the experts ( that you insisted we listen to) because you are afraid of their answer.

Eta: You also asked the wrong question... or are you of the Truther kind that believes the only thing that explodes are high explosives?

 

[R.Mackey]

For general interest, here is an old post discussing "shockwaves" at WTC 7. There were none. This is another term often bandied about without comprehension, much like "pyroclastic flows" and "free-fall speed."

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Some will say that they dont think any explosives were involved, and some will say that explosvies could have been involved, they key word here is "think" and "opinion" witnesses alone is not necessarily evidence of explosives.

An audio recording of a deafening boom-boom-boom immediately preceding the collapse of the building would be really good evidence...too bad it's so good that without it you ain't got ****.

And you ain't got.

 

[Corsair 115]

Haft isn't a word.

Sure it is! It's what you call half a raft.

 

[ozeco41]

...For the love of God, it's have. What you have to do. Haft isn't a word.

Illiteracy - pretended or genuine - seems to be a common trolling technique intended to irritate.

 

[R.Mackey]

We really should do something to keep out the rift-raft.

 

[Oystein]

For the love of God, it's have. What you have to do. Haft isn't a word.

Could be Swedish, even though "haft" is past tense, as in "Jeg har haft en lille grå kanin" = "I have had a little gray rabbit"

 

[R.Mackey]

Could be indeed... His choice to pester SECRAB with irrelevant questions is an odd one. They're a bit obscure, unless you happen to be in Sweden.

Maybe it's somebody who hangs around with Heiwa?

 

[uke2se]

Could be Swedish, even though "haft" is past tense, as in "Jeg har haft en lille grå kanin" = "I have had a little gray rabbit"

That's not Swedish

Looks more like Danish to me.

Here's Swedish: Jag har haft en liten grå kanin.

ETA: If Liberty is Swedish, I'd like to apologize to y'all on behalf of the rest of us Swedes.

 

[000063]

Its bacis stuff, there exit no bigger expert then me, i got the same knowledge as anyone else who has a basic understanding of explosives, no one can make the laws of physics disappear just because they say so.

Then you know that an explosive shockwave would have been a)supersonic b)extremely loud c)incredibly close to thousands of people, at least, across Manhattan, meaning they would see, hear, and feel it?

EDIT: Oh, he left. What a shame.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I dont think you understand how to study a subject like 911. It doesnt matter what any explosvie experts opinion is on the reports of explosions. Some will say that they dont think any explosives were involved, and some will say that explosvies could have been involved, they key word here is "think" and "opinion" witnesses alone is not necessarily evidence of explosives. And someones opinion doesn't interest me much, especially when it's basic stuff that i already know. Why would i for example ask someone if high energy explosives can cause windows far away to explode or cause shockwaves that rip through the building, i already know the answer to these questions...

Because all the evidence was destroyed, you haft to focus more on the politics of 911 then the collapse etc. When you look at the players involved, you get many motives to why they would plant explosvies, and then you look at the facts regaring military units in New york illegally before 911, the companies with ties to war elites and globalists that hired the mafia for the clean up etc, and put all the facts together, like the 9/11 Commission never did.

So you are saying you have no proof because there is no proof so what you believe happened, must have happened?????

Just when you think twoofers cannot get any crazier...

 

[ergo]

Illiteracy - pretended or genuine - seems to be a common trolling technique intended to irritate.

So are spelling flames.

 

[TheRedWorm]

As is off-topic posting. Speaking of: Wouldn't nukes be classified as incendiaries? /Wildly OT random question mode

 

[Oystein]

That's not Swedish

Looks more like Danish to me.

Here's Swedish: Jag har haft en liten grå kanin.

ETA: If Liberty is Swedish, I'd like to apologize to y'all on behalf of the rest of us Swedes.

Oops hehe I used Google Translate
But anyway I got the "haft" right to make my point correctly.

I had asked a Dane several days ago if "haft" could be Danish, suspecting that Liberty might be close (or even identical ) to Niels Harrit. But I was advised that "haft" is not Danish but might be Swedish.

 

[uke2se]

Oops hehe I used Google Translate
But anyway I got the "haft" right to make my point correctly.

I had asked a Dane several days ago if "haft" could be Danish, suspecting that Liberty might be close (or even identical ) to Niels Harrit. But I was advised that "haft" is not Danish but might be Swedish.

Easy enough to get the two languages mixed. In Sweden we see Swedish as the Northern tounge, and Norwegian and Danish as Swedish spoken with a mouth-full of porridge.