Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

So sneakily, no actually, transparently incoherent, Omni. You excel at this. The "great conspiracy theory" is the US government conspiracy theory, the one that you, no one has provided a lick of evidence for. 

Prove it, after you address taxme's issue and the 6 easy Yes/No questions.

How many people, how much det cord? Go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Omni said:

How many people, how much det cord? Go ahead.

This meme of yours illustrates just how ignorant you are on these issues. It is nanothermite. There are no det cords. It's a whole new ballgame. Scientists outside of the government circle don't even know how it is made. This is just typical, Omni, your hatred of science and the scientific process. Science is about honesty and you are the farthest thing from that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how WTC7 came down, a classic controlled demolition.

Quote

The case of WTC 7 The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds. 

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

This meme of yours illustrates just how ignorant you are on these issues. It is nanothermite. There are no det cords. It's a whole new ballgame. Scientists outside of the government circle don't even know how it is made. This is just typical, Omni, your hatred of science and the scientific process. Science is about honesty and you are the farthest thing from that. 

No det cords eh. This magical explosive you have wired into the towers just went off at the right time because???Oh yeah Bush willed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Address the lie you advanced about taxme. 

And here are some easy questions for you to illustrate how important science is to you.

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust?

3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust?

4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

I answered that. I said I don't know. Do you know? 

Have you ever stood in the middle of a pile of rubble and seen with your own eyes the evidence of the controlled explosion that created it?

Quote

 

We both know they got it in there because there was nanothermite and the by products of nanothermite in WTC dust. 

Do you deny that there was nanothermite and the by products of nanothermite in WTC dust?

 

Do you actually know precisely how this stuff got into the dust?

There's zero evidence of any priming cord so why should anyone be compelled to believe it got there via controlled explosions?

And for the nth time...where are the whistleblowers and guilt-ridden death-bed confessions?

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do you actually know precisely how this stuff got into the dust?

 

What's "this stuff"?

Are you too afraid to read the scientific literature describing all "this stuff"? 

From the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust. There is no other explanation for this US proprietary, non-commercially available explosive being there. Do you deny nanothermite exists? Do you deny it was found in WTC dust? 

What do you believe could have caused the huge volumes of molten and vaporized steel? 

I don't know or understand how a human being can so deny reality, so deny they myriad impossibilities of the US official conspiracy theory. 

A top forensic engineering professor, after a two year study, says NIST's report of WTC7 has a zero chance of being true.

There are thousands of architects, engineers, physicists who describe how NIST's conclusions about all three towers are impossible. 

1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s?

2. How did those unreacted nanothermite particles get into WTC dust?

3.  How did those by-products of thermitic reactions that were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust actually get there?

4. How did the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see, come to be at WTC?

5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 

6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum?

What POSSIBLY could have caused the molten steel of WTCs 1, 2 & 7?

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Have

How do you account for NIST's John Gross categorically denying molten steel when there are so many witnesses to it, so many instances of it, eyeball? 

Here's John Gross touching the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/column, "in the steelyards,"

Yet this same John Gross is recorded as saying, paraphrased,

I know of nobody, no eyewitnesses have said so, nobody's produced it, I was on site, I was in the steelyards, ... . 

911truthgrosswtc7beam.jpg

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, hot enough said:

How do you account for NIST's John Gross categorically denying molten steel

Because what he is touching was HOT steel that was deformed because HOT steel looses it;s strength to a great degree, them it bends and allows floors to collapse into lower floors. Bye bye building. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

Because what he is touching was HOT steel that was deformed because HOT steel looses it;s strength to a great degree, them it bends and allows floors to collapse into lower floors. Bye bye building. 

If steel didn't lose a lot of strength with heat, it would be impossible to forge.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Because what he is touching was HOT steel that was deformed because HOT steel looses it;s strength to a great degree, them it bends and allows floors to collapse into lower floors. Bye bye building. 

 

Indeed. There are at least four stable allotropes of iron that vary by temperature and pressure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

If steel didn't lose a lot of strength with heat, it would be impossible to forge.

 

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

If steel didn't lose a lot of strength with heat, it would be impossible to forge.

Anybody who grew up on a farm that had a blacksmith shop knows that. I still have one of those horseshoes nailed over a door in my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Omni said:

 

Anybody who grew up on a farm that had a blacksmith shop knows that. I still have one of those horseshoes nailed over a door in my house.

Sure, the beams themselves were manufactured by heating steel to a point where it could be extruded or forged into their final shape.

We had horses for around 15 years. Gave a lot of money to farriers when my daughter was eventing and we had to keep them shod instead of just trimmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Wilber said:

If steel didn't lose a lot of strength with heat, it would be impossible to forge.

Wilber, Omni, DoP: Why didn't any of the raging fires shown in Post ID 84 in all those buildings, some totally engulfed in flame, cause them to collapse, while the normal office fires of WTC7, pictured in the bottom right corner, caused it to free fall?

Why no comment on these impossibilities from the "science" gang?

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still no proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory. While there is volumes of evidence that shows it to be a complete farce, a criminal conspiracy, a murder of thousands of people. 

And still the science deniers/anti-truthers trot out their lame excuses that they can't even describe in any scientific fashion themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, hot enough said:

the normal office fires of WTC7

Out of control office fires you should have said due to lack of water supply to the sprinkler system. Different construction technique, plus the shrapnel damage from wtc1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...