9/11 Poll

He stated what is normally done. Then he stated that they were unable to do 'that' in the case of WTC 7; clearly, he was referring to the things he'd just mentioned. It's best to hear the video clip, I think it can help to hear the way you can hear his dissapointment and not being able to do a proper investigation. The reasons given for destroying all the steel were quite lame; I can't remember them right now though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, he stated what normally would be done then states he wasn't able to do that.
this in no way means WTC 7 wasn't investigated.
it's a shame he didn't state what he did or didn't do in regards to 7.
by the way, the video cuts immediately after his statement and implies he DID state what was done but the makers of the video didn't want that part known.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
Care to provide us with a link to a controlled demolition where someone claimed the cloud of dust was pyroclastic?

.
Where has there been a controlled demolition where dust was 3 inches thick for blocks around the site?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once again, when actually challenged to explain one of your assertions (that the mundane explanations ‘don’t hold water’), you make excuses about insults because you can’t respond.

No I am asking you to explain why you said something!

Just explain why you think so. Don’t pretend that it is hard.

People have refuted your evidence and you have run away from their refutations.

Regarding what? You are asking vague time wasting questions to try and divert away from you inability to back up anything you say.

That is ridiculous.

What do you mean by explored?

As usual you ignore the majority of my post to claim that I missed one question in yours.

Record rates? That is the kind of puerile exaggeration that headspin accuses me of.

What do you think they should have done?

What evidence?!

The experts who had the steel, analysed it and wrote peer reviewed papers (actual peer review) on it disagree with you. Basically there are more likely explanations than the thermate one. You don’t want to see this.

You have not presented any evidence to actually support your fu^%$ng claim. You claim thermate is responsible yet you produce no evidence for this. You can’t refute that there are likely mundane possibilities so you dodge and make excuses. You make the claim that there was a cover up but produce no evidence. Your source of information is the work of Barnett and his team who actually conclude that sulfur was responsible! Then you challenge me to produce evidence to counter your claims! Read the work of Barnett and his team!

 

Which has possible explanations not involving magic thermite.

He did not find evaporated steel. With that comment he was referring to the steel which had experienced some erosion.

 

I'm not the one claiming it can cut steel. Especially when by Harrit/Jones' own calculations it released very little energy when heated. But then, I'm talking about paint here, not nanothermite.

It's 2009 and we have still not seen it in action. Which allows nutjobs like yourself to say what you will about it.

LOL!

Tony... I always found you at least somewhat sensible as far as conspiracy nuts go... but that is just fucking insane, LOL!

Well first you will have to tell me what you think pyroclastic means when talking about the dust. For me, it looks no different to the dustclouds you would see in any demolition/building collapse except there was more of it since the buildings were larger.

If you weren't so dense, you would realize that most demolitions typically involve small buildings. The amount of dust generated by those buildings can't compare to that of 267 floors in pretty much the same location. That's why there was a lot of dust.

Regardless of whether they were demolitished or collapsed due to fire, there would be more or less the same amount of dust.

Why don't truthers understand this?

 

Leopold, I believe I have told you before that there was no basement in WTC 7 other than a couple of small areas for fuel tanks.

I think I also provided a link showing how the foundation was constructed. It was quite extensive and went down to bedrock. The building was not sitting on a slab on top of gravel.

 

How would you have any idea how much could have been made available to powerful people?

It would not have been like building a nuclear weapon for the first time.

 

I really couldn't care less if something called nanothermite existed prior to 9/11. It proves nothing. There was no nanothermite found at ground zero. What Harrit and Jones found was paint which is why it burned at 1/20th that the energy of paper.

You have no evidence of it being used in large quantities or even used outiside of a science lab. You have no evidence that it can be manufactured by the ton or that it can cut steel.

 

Sure you did eight years ago on Sept. 11, 2001. Besides how would you know where it has or hasn't been used?

I would bet that you have no idea that a dart weapon was developed at Ft. Detrick to deliver a dissolving paralyzing dart for several reasons. One was for guard dogs. There were three different delivery methods: a large pen, a pistol, and an umbrella. Do you even know there was a guy with an open umbrella to the right front of John Kennedy as his limousine passed by? Kennedy had a 5cm wound in his throat and the darts were 3/16" diameter. There is no way the small diameter throat wound is an exit wound from the back and it is unlikely to be a bullet wound from the front at that size. The umbrella man is caught on video and photos of Dealey plaza during and after the assassination. Think about a guy with an open umbrella on a sunny day.

I have learned not to call things insane that I know nothing about until I checked on it myself.