How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Yet, you cannot make a credible argument on proof of CD at the towers? Even from the video and audio? And you are repeating the falsehood the towers’ rubble was not treated as a crime seen, not saved, not sorted, and not examined? All the while ignoring the hand shifting of WTC rubble recovered about 19,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube. Human remains never recovered with demolitions shrapnel. Rubble that held no indication/evidence of demolitions. Steel that showed no metallurgical evidence of being worked on by demolitions.

Remember, the truth movement’s claim was the rubble and steel was not examined at all? If there is absolute proof of CD, why does the truth movement need to use any falsehoods?

None of the evidence was tested for that.

What about your falsehood that the OS is proven? It is an accepted theory. Thats it.

Please define “tested for that”?

One, please cite from the video and audio evidence that would trigger focusing for looking into the remains of detonation devices? No booms and no indication of explosives making shrapnel. Ever little puff of smoke/dust the truth movement labels a squid should be accompanied with shrapnel.

Two. Is this a false statement. Concerning testing for explosives usually centers around the recovered fragments of a bomb. Hand searching the WTC rubble showed no signs of bomb fragments to test for explosive residue. What would randomly testing over a million tons of rubble for explosives exposed to fire, stewing in toxic soup of chemicals, and sprayed with water to keep cool prove?

Three, is it false NIST studied the metallurgy of the WTC steel? Want me to reference the research when I have more time?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Ok, quote where I lied?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Yet, you cannot make a credible argument on proof of CD at the towers? Even from the video and audio? And you are repeating the falsehood the towers’ rubble was not treated as a crime seen, not saved, not sorted, and not examined? All the while ignoring the hand shifting of WTC rubble recovered about 19,000 pieces of human remains. 6,000 that could fit in a test tube. Human remains never recovered with demolitions shrapnel. Rubble that held no indication/evidence of demolitions. Steel that showed no metallurgical evidence of being worked on by demolitions.

Remember, the truth movement’s claim was the rubble and steel was not examined at all? If there is absolute proof of CD, why does the truth movement need to use any falsehoods?

None of the evidence was tested for that.

What about your falsehood that the OS is proven? It is an accepted theory. Thats it.

Please define “tested for that”?

One, please cite from the video and audio evidence that would trigger focusing for looking into the remains of detonation devices? No booms and no indication of explosives making shrapnel. Ever little puff of smoke/dust the truth movement labels a squid should be accompanied with shrapnel.

Two. Is this a false statement. Concerning testing for explosives usually centers around the recovered fragments of a bomb. Hand searching the WTC rubble showed no signs of bomb fragments to test for explosive residue. What would randomly testing over a million tons of rubble exsposed to fire, stewing in toxic soup of chemicals, and sprayed with water to keep cool for explosives prove?

Three, is it false NIST studied the metallurgy of the WTC steel? Want me to reference the research when I have more time?

I have read the entire NIST report. It was a private sector contract paid for by a government that required a 1 particular conclusion in order to not be accused of war crimes. I would go so far as to ASSUME that the NIST report was a mattet of national security.

NIST made up as-builts to make their fire model react the way they needed to in order to "prove" its preconceived conclusion. That is the opposite of science. They lied.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

So? Then provide a more credible theory to supersede that impact damage / fire related damage / thermal stress damage is not the root cause to why the towers collapse?

Please state a theory to supersede the floor trusses still boxed in by intacted columns heated up and tired to expand. The boxed in floor trusses bowed down because of the resistance encounter at each end and the load upon them. Upon cooling, the floor trusses in an isolated area in relation to the jet impacts pulled on the remaining vertical columns. The floor trusses pulled causing the vertical columns to bow to the point of buckling. This occurs in near silence, with no audio of explosions with the power to cut steel columns, with nothing at the point of buckling exploding outward, all motion is into the towers, and there is no evidence of cutting to induce the buckling of the outer vertical columns along the circumference of the towers to initiate collapse.

The bowing of the vertical columns leading to buckling and initiating collapse is seen in the video contained in the thread below. Note, nothing about NIST. Just a reference to the video and audio evidence.....

www.metabunk.org...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

Now argue what truth movement theory I should find more credible?

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

So? Then provide a more credible theory to supersede that impact damage / fire related damage / thermal stress damage is not the root cause to why the towers collapse?

Please state a theory to supersede the floor trusses still boxed in by intacted columns heated up and tired to expand. The boxed in floor trusses bowed down because of the resistance encounter at each end and the load upon them. Upon cooling, the floor trusses in an isolated area in relation to the jet impacts pulled on the remaining vertical columns. The floor trusses pulled causing the vertical columns to bow to the point of buckling. This occurs in near silence, with no audio of explosions with the power to cut steel columns, with nothing at the point of buckling exploding outward, all motion is into the towers, and there is no evidence of cutting to induce the buckling of the outer vertical columns along the circumference of the towers to initiate collapse.

The bowing of the vertical columns leading to buckling and initiating collapse is seen in the video contained in the thread below. Note, nothing about NIST. Just a reference to the video and audio evidence.....

www.metabunk.org...

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

Now argue what truth movement theory I should find more credible?

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

So you admit, all you have is a theory and you want someone to come up with a theory that is backed bu someone as equally credible as NIST amd the US government?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Not sure what you mean. I just stated what is supported by the video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence. Can you argue a more credible theory that is backed by the video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence? You have some secret theory?

Bottom line, there is zero credible evidence of CD for the towers. Unless you have some secret evidence?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the alternative provided by the truth movement? The best the truth movement has to offer after 16 years plus.

Now, which one do you find credible.

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Not sure what you mean. I just stated what is supported by the video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence. Can you argue a more credible theory that is backed by the video, audio, seismic, and physical evidence? You have some secret theory?

Bottom line, there is zero credible evidence of CD for the towers. Unless you have some secret evidence?

Thank you. You admitted that you are pushing a theory.

Twenty years from now there is zero chance
the official story ends up being the truth

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the alternative provided by the truth movement? The best the truth movement has to offer after 16 years plus.

Now, which one do you find credible.

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

Since nothing can change recorded history, there is no point in supporting any other theory. That doesnt mean that i have to support the official theory either. It is my choice and you can insult brow-beat me all you want. I dont believe your theory and i dont support anyone elses theory.

That will confuse you im sure. Your just going to come back and demand that I support SOMEONES theory. Watch...

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Twenty years from now there is zero chance
the official story ends up being the truth

Yes it will.

For all intent and purpose...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the alternative provided by the truth movement? The best the truth movement has to offer after 16 years plus.

Now, which one do you find credible.

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

Since nothing can change recorded history, there is no point in supporting any other theory. That doesnt mean that i have to support the official theory either. It is my choice and you can insult brow-beat me all you want. I dont believe your theory and i dont support anyone elses theory.

That will confuse you im sure. Your just going to come back and demand that I support SOMEONES theory. Watch...

I am not confusion by the fact there is no truth movement theory you are willing to stand on. But its ironic you want to believe in something other than the most credible explanation for the towers that has the most proof. And then not provide an argument to the root cause of the twin towers’ collapse was impact / fire / thermal stress damage. Barring structural defects, it is fact the towers root cause of collapse was impact / fire / thermal stress damage. Video also proves the buckling of the vertical columns as captured on video initiated the collapse of the towers, is that false. Not the cutting of vertical columns.

It is also true there is no proof of detonations at the towers with the energy to cut steel columns. Is that false.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

What is theory the vertical columns buckeled to initiate the collapse of the towers? Then what did initiate the collapse of the towers?

If you missed it, here is the initiate of WTC 2’s in the video contained in the link below.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the alternative provided by the truth movement? The best the truth movement has to offer after 16 years plus.

Now, which one do you find credible.

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

Since nothing can change recorded history, there is no point in supporting any other theory. That doesnt mean that i have to support the official theory either. It is my choice and you can insult brow-beat me all you want. I dont believe your theory and i dont support anyone elses theory.

That will confuse you im sure. Your just going to come back and demand that I support SOMEONES theory. Watch...

So what are you posting here for if you don't have any ideas or support any ideas put forth about 9/11?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The only thing that is theory is what caused the vertical columns in the areas of the jet impacts to bow inward then buckle. Is that false?

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the alternative provided by the truth movement? The best the truth movement has to offer after 16 years plus.

Now, which one do you find credible.

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

Since nothing can change recorded history, there is no point in supporting any other theory. That doesnt mean that i have to support the official theory either. It is my choice and you can insult brow-beat me all you want. I dont believe your theory and i dont support anyone elses theory.

That will confuse you im sure. Your just going to come back and demand that I support SOMEONES theory. Watch...

So what are you posting here for if you don't have any ideas or support any ideas put forth about 9/11?

To remind people that what is being pushed by bullies that supporr the OS is merely a theory and its ok to think for themselves.

Is that a problem for you?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

pushed by bullies that supporr the OS is merely a theory

We are still waiting for a unified theory that explains everything we saw that day from the truther community.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: MALBOSIA

pushed by bullies that supporr the OS is merely a theory

We are still waiting for a unified theory that explains everything we saw that day from the truther community.

That must be agonizing...

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MALBOSIA

This is the alternative provided by the truth movement? The best the truth movement has to offer after 16 years plus.

Now, which one do you find credible.

Richard Gage’s mythical fizzle no flash explosives and the lie the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance?

Jones’ and his debunked thermite study and his fraudulent peer review paper?

Dr Wood and impossible Dustification?

Holograms with missiles and lasers?

Self destructing buildings/Rebar covered in C-4?

Since nothing can change recorded history, there is no point in supporting any other theory. That doesnt mean that i have to support the official theory either. It is my choice and you can insult brow-beat me all you want. I dont believe your theory and i dont support anyone elses theory.

That will confuse you im sure. Your just going to come back and demand that I support SOMEONES theory. Watch...

So what are you posting here for if you don't have any ideas or support any ideas put forth about 9/11?

To remind people that what is being pushed by bullies that supporr the OS is merely a theory and its ok to think for themselves.

Is that a problem for you?

Being able to argue on a stance based on actual physical evidence, video evidence, audio evidence, seismic evidence and then asked to be proven wrong is bullying?

Who has had a comment removed from this thread and you want to play the bully card?

Again, the buckling of the vertical columns to initiate the collapse of the towers is not theory. It is an actual event caught on video from different angles. Is that false?