No excuse for not testing for explosives

[dommyboysinjapan]

Loss Leader,

"Let's go to war with Iraq."
-"But, Iraq hasn't really done anything. The people won't go for it."
"Easily fixed. We'll stage a false attack against our own country."
-"So, we'll claim Iraq attacked us?"
"Oh, no. We'll claim it was mostly Saudis and nobody from Iraq."
-"So, we're going to war with Saudi Arabia, too?"
"No, they're our best friends."
-"Then, how do we use Saudis without blaming Saubi Arabia."
"We say that they're a fringe group of fundamentalists."
-"And those are the kind of fundamentalists they have in Iraq?"
"Not at all! In fact, when those fundamentalists sought help from Iraq, Saddam Hussein turned them down flat. He may be the only person who hates fundamintalist Muslims more than we do."
-"Then how is this going to convince anyone to go to war with Iraq."
"Because we'll tell them to."
-"And why would they believe us?"
"Because it's on TV."
-"Not yet."

Sounds kind of funny when you put it that way however it worked just fine.

 

[NutCracker]

Whether or not you find them convincing is your problem. From this thread, the things that you do find convincing are quite mad.

And more importantly, without one iota of supporting evidence.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Werebeavers. They're like werewolves, but they use your bones to make dams.

LOL.

 

[BigAl]

R.Mackey



I posted a link that showed a list of people with varying degrees of demolition experience that clearly disagree with your conspiracy theory. OK, so how is that a lie?

A quick scan finds that none of them explain in relevant technical terms why and how man-made demolition was done in a way that fits the eyewitness accounts and the video and forensic record.

That's called an hypothesis. A proper one can be tested.

 

[CORed]

[qimg]http://i39.tinypic.com/fkmee8.jpg[/qimg]

ing magnets, how do they work?

ing gravity, how does it work?

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

Kent1,

I would suggest debunking websites which counter the claims that they have given.
I would suggest
http://911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
http://www.debunking911.com/

I have been interested in this topic for well over 6 years and joined the 9/11 truth movement after carefully looking at everything on both sides and all the debunking (on both sides) for a period of about three years. I have read through the info on all the sites that you linked me to.

 

[Oystein]

That's kind of the same thing if you think about it. This is why:

1. Like I said, Bazant's work demonstrates that regardless of how the structural compromise occurs, once it's underway, it goes all the way to completion. Period.
2. The initiating failures started in the impact/fire zones.
3. Steel was recovered from those zones in the main towers. None of those pieces show any signs of being affected by either explosives or thermite.

Ergo, the collapse started without any assistance and would have completed to the ground. Therefore, to present a reasonable alternative argument, a competing thesis must:

1. Either refute Bazant and demonstrate that the collapse wouldn't have completed, thus requiring explosives to continue and rendering irrelevant the steel recovered from the collapse initiation zone
2. Or, accept Bazant's conclusions, acknowledge that the steel from the collapse initiation zone was unaffected by explosives/incendiaries, and then explain why explosives would have been needed given that the collapse would've proceeded to completion anyway.
3. Or, show that the recovered steel was in fact affected by explosives.

In any case, the explanation involves the recovered steel rather intimately. He has to confront that in the course of making an argument stand. Otherwise, NCSTAR 1-3C in conjunction with Bazant's work refutes any and every intentional demolitions proposal that's out there.

Hmm ok, you are a couple of steps ahead already.

It is not up to us to refute necessary elements of a hypothesis before that hypothesis is even stated.

You are right, once Dommy has graced us with a hypothesis, we know a whole bunch of observations that this hypothesis must satisfactorily explain.

But first, let's solicit a hypothesis.



@ Dommy: Since you want testing for explosives - what is the hypothesis that such tests would verify or falsify?

 

[R.Mackey]

R.Mackey



I posted a link that showed a list of people with varying degrees of demolition experience that clearly disagree with your conspiracy theory. OK, so how is that a lie?

Because you were asked to provide demolition experts who disagree with the official story. Out of that list there is not a single individual who has ever demolished a multi-story building with explosives, and some of them -- Torin Wolf, for starters -- are complete BS artists.

And that's not the only lie. Your claim that nanothermite + explosives is quieter, that's a lie. Your claim that the nanothermite paper was independently confirmed, that's a lie. There's plenty more.

Again, are you aware of what you're doing? Or is this some kind of mental illness?

 

[NutCracker]

Loss Leader,



Sounds kind of funny when you put it that way however it worked just fine.

http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/11/the_hopeless_st.html

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Please tell me any other aircraft crash scene that involved burying the crash site in a million tons of burning rubble.

There have been afew out at sea that were not recovered, IIRC.

 

[NWOisBunk]

Anyone, you say?

Can you account for YOUR whereabouts on or around 9/11/2001?

Oh god! Thanks for the laugh! That was awesome.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Besides which, your logic is poor: The real elements to isolate and consider for the collapse are the effects of fire on steel structures, and there are many tests telling engineers how steel reacts,

I've always liked some of these pdf's. Some awesome test results of how fast various steel beams heat up.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/References/defaultSteel.htm

 

[Kent1]

Kent1,



I have been interested in this topic for well over 6 years and joined the 9/11 truth movement after carefully looking at everything on both sides and all the debunking (on both sides) for a period of about three years. I have read through the info on all the sites that you linked me to.

You simply couldn't have. So much of what you already stated has been clearly proven incorrect or misleading. Bin Laden no hard evidence, Flight 93 box etc etc....

You know, these sites often update information as well.
Judging by your posts it seems like you came from a 2006 time warp.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Wow, Torin Wolf!

LOL Torin Wolf

LOL LOL LOL

what a blast from the past.

 

[DGM]

R.Mackey



I posted a link that showed a list of people with varying degrees of demolition experience that clearly disagree with your conspiracy theory. OK, so how is that a lie?

It would help if you acknowledge the other factual mistakes you made in this threads. Do you admit you have made a few?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Kent1,



I read a report by Bazant and a couple of other reports too that supported the traditional views about the building collapses. I did not find them convincing.

You lack the math background, huh?

 

[Baylor]

Again, are you aware of what you're doing? Or is this some kind of mental illness?

Or a Christophera reincarnation. If he bumps his thread 2,500 times, we got ourselves a sockpuppet.

 

[tsig]

twinstead,

Being scientific means being thorough and looking at all possibilities not satisfying the majority.

Just like your forum says:

Welcome to Canadian Truth Movement forums.

On this forum, it is widely accepted that the official story of September 11th 2001 is a lie and cover up of something far more sinister. We come here to discuss the events of 9/11 and what it means in this world and also to just connect as like minded individuals.

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

3bodyproblem,

Why fly planes into the most complex CD ever created? You run a risk of the planes making the explosives ineffective in the process. That's stupid. It's like doing a celebratory break dance around your newly erected house of cards.

The airplane hijack scenario would presumeably be believed by everyone automatically (except it wasn't as accepted as was intended). If it had been just a CD without planes then a more comprehensive investigation may have been launched. There were already a lot of people who were skeptical about the 93 bombing. Many alternative theorists have already concluded that the FBI furnished the explosives.

And why wait?

The waiting period between the aircraft hitting the buildings and them collapsing may have been to provide enough time for as many people to escape as possible. The idea would be a false flag terorist act that would incite rage to start wars with as few American casualties as possible. Hindsight is 20/20. It may have been planned or predicted that almost all of the occupants of the Towers would have enough time to evacuate the buildings.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have been interested in this topic for well over 6 years and joined the 9/11 truth movement after carefully looking at everything on both sides and all the debunking (on both sides) for a period of about three years. I have read through the info on all the sites that you linked me to.

Clearly, you did it wrong.