I found the missing Jolt.

HotRodDeluxe said:
With a lack of physical evidence to support the idea of CD, a new investigation is somewhat futile.
Click to expand...
No. If the first investigation was flawed then the conclusions are flawed. If the conclusions are flawed, then we don't know what caused WTC7 to collapse. That is why we need a new investigation.


Why can't 9/11 truth disprove the NIST report thus supplying the necessity for a new investigation?
Click to expand...

Newton already did (figuratively speaking). You just ignore this.
 
skyeagle409 said:
It is all very simple and experts; firefighters, architects, structural engineers, and even demolition experts, have confirmed that CD was not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...
Really? Can you show me the report? I would love to see this.
 
FalseFlag said:
Are you really claiming an expert can't look at a video and tell that a building was brought down by CD?
Click to expand...

Since there was no sound of explosions on video and the fact that no shock signals were received by seismic monitors, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the WTC buildings had nothing to do with CD explosives.
 
FalseFlag said:
Really? Can you show me the report? I would love to see this.
Click to expand...


It is apparent that you have not been paying attention to what I have been posting over the past few days. Now, what reports have I posted over the past few days that address your current question?

You would have known the answer had you been paying attention to my post.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
AJM8125 said:
I tend to disregard statements of those clearly affected by explosions which there isn't a shred of evidence of.
Click to expand...
https://youtu.be/c2cViy34b1A?t=268

Like him?
Click to expand...

lolff.jpg


Yes. Excellent example. From his non-existent injuries, his ability to hear and speak clearly and right down to to his immaculate blue shirt, this is someone who clearly wasn't subjected to the effects of explosives.

Thank you.
 
FalseFlag said:
No. If the first investigation was flawed then the conclusions are flawed. If the conclusions are flawed, then we don't know what caused WTC7 to collapse. That is why we need a new investigation.
Click to expand...

But no-one has demonstrated that the NIST investigation was flawed, so back to square one. Your ball truther.


Newton already did (figuratively speaking). You just ignore this.
Click to expand...

Derp. I didn't really expect a reasonable and honest answer.
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/lolff.jpg[/qimg]

Yes. Excellent example. From his non-existent injuries, his ability to hear and speak clearly and right down to to his immaculate blue shirt, this is someone who clearly wasn't subjected to the effects of explosives.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Wow. Thanks. I now have a textbook example of denial I can post whenever someone brings up the issue.
 
FalseFlag said:
No. If the first investigation was flawed then the conclusions are flawed. If the conclusions are flawed, then we don't know what caused WTC7 to collapse. That is why we need a new investigation.
Click to expand...
Popper just rolled over in his grave.



Newton already did (figuratively speaking). You just ignore this.
Click to expand...
,,,and now Newton is spinning too.
 
FalseFlag said:
Really? Can you show me the report? I would love to see this.
Click to expand...


Let's listen to one of the world's top demolition expert.


An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Undicisettembre: Talking about the three collapses that occurred on 9/11, are conspiracy theories that claim they were controlled demolitions even vaguely reliable?

Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews. My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs.

We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites. Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.

This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html
 
HotRodDeluxe said:
I'm sure they produced many computer models. Your lazy and flippant response does not prove the NIST report is flawed.
Click to expand...
What really happend and whether the NIST report is correct are two separate issues.

If the NIST report had said 'Nothing collapsed at WTC on 9/11' it wouldn't make it true.


...tho I've advocated that outcome of truther logic and its converse.

Get NIST to write a report that says 'WTC Did Not Collapse' - and all is restored.


...so much for "truther logic"

...Yes I know - it is an oxymoron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom