John Pilger on 9/11, LIHOP and its role in the new cold war

reply to post by pteridine

Bring the evidence forward. The "I heard a loud noise it must be CD" witnesses are not evidence. Show remains of cutter charges, beams cut by said charges, residua from detcord, blasting machines, paper trails, confessions from perpetrators, secret orders, or other actual evidence.

You behave as if this is the first time you been on ATS and you never seen any 911 threads discussing many of these issues. Go to all the 911 threads if you want evidences there is plenty, if you can’t find it then it’s because you don’t want to find it. Perhaps, your just here to play your circular logical games.

reply to post by impressme


I see you are dodging the issue, once again. You can't seem to admit that there is no physical evidence nor was there the sequence of sharp explosions that would indicate a controlled demolition.

There is no evidence of controlled demolition.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You demonstrate believing obvious nonsense perfectly.

I didn't say anything about the color of the paint. I haven't seen much red paint used in office buildings. Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic? Like I said, can't see the obvious.

psik

Can you explain "Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic?" If you look at the pieces of the WTC that were saved as monuments, you will see that they are covered with red paint.

You need the obvious explained to you? LOL The RED CHIPS that they are claiming to be explosives are so small they require microscopes to be seen. Do you actually think the paint tested for deformation by heat was that small?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You demonstrate believing obvious nonsense perfectly.

I didn't say anything about the color of the paint. I haven't seen much red paint used in office buildings. Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic? Like I said, can't see the obvious.

psik

Can you explain "Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic?" If you look at the pieces of the WTC that were saved as monuments, you will see that they are covered with red paint.

You need the obvious explained to you? LOL The RED CHIPS that they are claiming to be explosives are so small they require microscopes to be seen. Do you actually think the paint tested for deformation by heat was that small?

psik

I see you are LOLing again. My question pertained to the red paint claimed to be thermite. You somehow assumed that I meant the same samples Jones had examined even after I explained that the red paint was on the steel structure from the time the buildings were constructed.

Originally posted by pteridineI see you are LOLing again. My question pertained to the red paint claimed to be thermite. You somehow assumed that I meant the same samples Jones had examined even after I explained that the red paint was on the steel structure from the time the buildings were constructed.

Am I supposed to assume you examined these red chips yourself and determined that they were paint and not thermite?

I was able to build a model myself and demonstrate how ridiculous the crush down concept is:

www.youtube.com...

That means I don't need to take other people's word for things. So if an airliner could not bring the north tower down then obviously something else had to. I am not claiming to know what that something was so arguing about thermite with someone that did not test the stuff himself is a waste of my time.

How does the support mass have to be distributed in a tall man made structure?



So why are we arguing about this NINE YEARS later without having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete up the towers from official sources?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Do not assume that I tested the red chips. I used Jones' data to show that he has not proved anything.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Do not assume that I tested the red chips. I used Jones' data to show that he has not proved anything.

You could tell from data HE PUBLISHED that he was talking about RED PAINT instead of thermite?

Damn, he must be REALLY STUPID, unless...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Use his data to show that he did not prove thermite. Stupidity is your conclusion.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

I see you are dodging the issue, once again. You can't seem to admit that there is no physical evidence nor was there the sequence of sharp explosions that would indicate a controlled demolition.

There is no evidence of controlled demolition.

Was any evidence sought for explosives of any kind in the first instance, for any of the buildings?

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


As many here have said . . . it seems ridiculous to assume the Gov let 911 happen rather than being directly complicit.
Indeed, that would mean the miraculous events surrounding the way the buildings fell has no significant.

Pilger's ideas are not thought out too logically

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Bring the evidence forward. The "I heard a loud noise it must be CD" witnesses are not evidence. Show remains of cutter charges, beams cut by said charges, residua from detcord, blasting machines, paper trails, confessions from perpetrators, secret orders, or other actual evidence.

You behave as if this is the first time you been on ATS and you never seen any 911 threads discussing many of these issues. Go to all the 911 threads if you want evidences there is plenty, if you can’t find it then it’s because you don’t want to find it. Perhaps, your just here to play your circular logical games.

What's pteridine talking about "confessions from perps", "Witnesses are not evidence" Is there something I missed? that's crazy. Even more crazy is that the 911 commission itself hints at prior intelligence about 'planes being used in a attack on WTC by outside sources... but the big kicker is that those 'planes would have been packed with high explosives, whaah? the disclaimer is that there was "no evidence" that the intelligence was a reality, on the other hand the 911 commision felt the need to include that bit of info. It's time for all to reread the 911 commission report,
govinfo.library.unt.edu...