Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

[WildCat]

If Bazant is a structural engineer he is a poor one. But I will not discuss this with people who dont understand the papers

P.S. I have reported the new thread to the admin as I specifically requested it not be started.

Good luck with that!

 

[Housefly]

I have reported the new thread to the admin as I specifically requested it not be started.

Why did you specifically request that you not be given a chance to present your data?

Perhaps I'm overestimating the importance of this. I mean, if I thought the American government staged a terrorist attack I would think it was huge. Don't you?

Imagine if aliens were planning to wipe out the human race, and you had the scientific data which proved it. Would you post smugly on internet forums about it? That's how you'd save the world?

 

[Kent1]

Bah ha ha ha.....Yea he's a real loser.

That must be why he won the Prager in 97
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html

I think I'm done for a while until someone else comes along.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Who here advocates a star wars weapon as a reason for the towers destruction? I think it was plain old bombs, so does russell.

Truthseeker1234 did so in post 7 of this thread.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They made plenty of noise ask the witnesses. They were not invisible, that video just showed some.

Witness testimony, by nature, is subjective. Unless there is objective evidence that supports the witness testimony, it must remain anecdotal.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

He has a point. I would like to see your analysis of the total collapse after initiation please gravy.

Neither that, nor requesting Mortimer provide sources is relevant to this discussion.

 

[jessicarabbit]

Heres some more evidence. A professoe examines steel from ground zero and points to an area of steel dented by "explosive material"

http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=9999&med=0&ord=Name&strt=110&vid=69&epi=227&typ=0&form=1

 

[Class]

Heres some more evidence. A professoe examines steel from ground zero and points to an area of steel dented by "explosive material"

http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=9999&med=0&ord=Name&strt=110&vid=69&epi=227&typ=0&form=1

Didn't he say that was from the floor where the plane hit?

 

[Bell]

Heres some more evidence. A professoe examines steel from ground zero and points to an area of steel dented by "explosive material"

http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=9999&med=0&ord=Name&strt=110&vid=69&epi=227&typ=0&form=1

I think thousands of pounds of jetfuel exploding qualifies as explosive material

 

[jessicarabbit]

Didn't he say that was from the floor where the plane hit?

He was guessing but he said explosive material. If we could look at all the steel there would be lots of evidence.

 

[Gravy]

Didn't he say that was from the floor where the plane hit?

What is it with you and your petty details? Bringing up things like "The plane went in and exploded" is not a very "Class" act.

 

[beachnut]

Heres some good evidence. 23:00 in this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3805038057112194446&q=911+duration:long

not a thing

zero evidence, forget this video as a sorce

this is the most doltish movie I have seen on 9/11

remember those who died before you present this shallow cheap junk

 

[beachnut]

Heres some good evidence. 23:00 in this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3805038057112194446&q=911+duration:long

however it did show that WTC7 took over 15 seconds to fall.

not exactly the 6 seconds all the CTers say

 

[Gravy]

As evidence that the steel wasn't examined for evidence of explosions, jessica presents a video of an engineer examining the steel for evidence of explosions. Fascinating.

 

[beachnut]

He was guessing but he said explosive material. If we could look at all the steel there would be lots of evidence.

real engineers did look at the steel

 

[Bell]

real engineers did look at the steel

Gummit: We want you to tell the world that no traces of explosives where found on the steel of the WTC.
Engineer: But no traces of explosives where found on the steel of the WTC.
Gummit: That's right. You got it.
Engineer: ???

 

[jessicarabbit]

As evidence that the steel wasn't examined for evidence of explosions, jessica presents a video of an engineer examining the steel for evidence of explosions. Fascinating.

If you listen to the clip you will hear the narrator say that he is one of the few that get to view the steel before its destroyed. Not as smart as you think are you.

 

[jessicarabbit]

While you're at it gravy you can watch this video. It contradicts your reasoning for the fires being unfought in 7.

It also contradicts itself saying that the steel was removed quick from 7 to find bodies even though the building had been evacuated.

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=9999&med=0&ord=Name&strt=50&vid=58&epi=0&typ=0

 

[mortimer]

If you listen to the clip you will hear the narrator say that he is one of the few that get to view the steel before its destroyed. Not as smart as you think are you.

So was the steel examined or not? First you say it isn't, then you say it is.

And you still think CD explosives are dropped from the outside of the buildings, right?

 

[Gravy]

If you listen to the clip you will hear the narrator say that he is one of the few that get to view the steel before its destroyed. Not as smart as you think are you.

And have you contacted the others? I gave you the address yesterday.

Jessica, you said you know why the Bazant & Greening papers are wrong. As you know, these papers are often cited in the "debunking" community.

Why won't you tell us why they're wrong? Wouldn't that be quite a coup for you? You would force the entire debunking community to reevaluate what it's doing. Please explain. I'm truly baffled.