Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

Follow the money?

It is a clearer path out of this madness once you have the fundamentals that things do not add up.

a reply to: kwakakev

Instances like the below are why trillions were lost over years.....

Navy Audit Uncovered $126M in Aircraft Parts 'We Didn't Even Know Existed'

www.military.com...

The money wasn’t stolen in the context your pushing. It literally was lost and mismanaged.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Follow the money?

It is a clearer path out of this madness once you have the fundamentals that things do not add up.

Then provide credible evidence and arguments. Not, I got a youtube video.

Is it crapy defense contractors make money of suffering? They do that every day without an 9/11 event.

If those in control were so in control to supposedly pull off 9/11, they were already in control. Making 9/11 a moot point in your arguments.

You wanted to talk thermite?

Again....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

When it comes to Harrit:

One. People have tried to confirm his results. Individuals have failed at replicating his results.

Two. Harrit has never completed the discovery process by releasing his samples to an independent lab for confirmation on his findings

Three. The composition of the chips are closer or dead on for industrial coatings. Not thermite.

Four. Just in case you missed it.

2 of the sample released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of this universe. This data alone disproves unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe2O3)
They claim to have found elemental Aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT dind free aluminium in any of the material that they igited and claimed to be or contain thermite
They compared the exothermic behaviour of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed that the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figure 19 with figure 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100°C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science. (Note too how in figure 29 they only repeat the lowest of the 4 peaks from fig. 19 to make it not quite so apparent that their samples

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Five. Harrit never released any results from an analysis that shows his dust could support a thermite reaction like trying to ignite the chips in an inert atmosphere.


Again, if you want to talk planted pyrotechnics? Then provide some actual evidence. NoT a random picture out of context showcasing what you don’t understand.

The testimony of Richard Andrew Grove is worth checking out for some of the financial dealings going on within the WCT buildings. I have provided a few other names that I have found to help build a cohesive picture to some of the other money matters around this.

originally posted by: kwakakev
The testimony of Richard Andrew Grove is worth checking out for some of the financial dealings going on within the WCT buildings. I have provided a few other names that I have found to help build a cohesive picture to some of the other money matters around this.

From one that thinks thermite is credible? Without you providing an actual logical argument supported with cited evidence?

Do you have proof of thermite.

Do you have proof the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics?

Do you understand the truth movement is a group that pushes mythology for personal gain. In many regards, they are no more honest than big government. And they make a living pushing mythology.

a reply to: kwakakev

The closer one looks at details, the more obvious it becomes that the official narrative regarding 911 is absurdly impossible.

We were all fooled. Some understand that, some still buy into the myth.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: kwakakev

The closer one looks at details, the more obvious it becomes that the official narrative regarding 911 is absurdly impossible.

We were all fooled. Some understand that, some still buy into the myth.

How’s that evidence of nukes at the WTC coming along? Or exploiting the illnesses of WTC first responders as false evidence of radiation and radioactive contamination.

a reply to: neutronflux

Exploiting who ecatly, some first responder?


"Avenge us" echous.

a reply to: democracydemo

I think the 9/11 first responders should get as good health as the state senators.

As for as what the video evidence of what? I couldn’t get past the first six seconds.

The video shows this image of what?



A column cut by thermal lance at cleanup up?

www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/
www.metabunk.org...

Is the photo of the cut column proven to have been cut during cleanup the strongest evidence the video has of controlled demolition?

What do you not understand there is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

The video itself shows the truth movement will used falsehoods to create a fictitious mythology for a target audience.

a reply to: democracydemo

This picture shows, and it’s use to this very day, why the truth movement failed.


The truth movement embraced any BS it thought was a “smoking gun”.

a reply to: neutronflux

six seconds

Zerosixseconds. Do you know the first responder presenting by name?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

six seconds

Zerosixseconds. Do you know the first responder presententing by name?

Why would I watch a video that killed its credibility in six seconds by posting this blatant falsehoods of controlled demolition.


And you will not answer if the debunked picture was the video’s strongest evidence for controlled demolition.

a reply to: democracydemo

What’s the video’s strongest evidence for controlled demolition? Or is it classic truth movement innuendo and insults? I skipped around in the video? I am a sheep cause I followed up on the picture below.


And learned the truth movement was using it falsely as evidence of thermite?

a reply to: neutronflux

You viewed all of it didn't you? Not just Zerosixseconds of some first responder?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

You viewed all of it didn't you? Not just Zerosixseconds of some first responder?

What do you not understand in that you are reinforcing a stereotype.

The video, with no warning by you, used an imagine that is a widely used as bogus evidence of thermite.


How can I take a video as credible when it uses false thermite evidence in its first six seconds. How can I take you serous if you cannot discern false evidence? Or you are not willing to call a video out for using false evidence. Or how can I take any of this seriously, than the very real need to support first responders, if you cannot cite credible evidence of CD from the video?

a reply to: neutronflux

Zerosixsecond attention span, the video presenter never mentions thermite.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Zerosixsecond attention span, the video presenter never mentions thermite.

Then why post this picture in the first 6 seconds?

a reply to: democracydemo

Powerful video and accurate description of the situation. A hard truth to handle, thanks.

9/11 was an inside job.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: democracydemo

Powerful video and accurate description of the situation. A hard truth to handle, thanks.

9/11 was an inside job.

Then the video provided evidence you can quote regarding an inside job?