PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by K J Gunderson


KJ, I have been patient with your incredulity.

In order to respond to your initial question, I had to first off, correct an erronious statement that was based on faulty information, or incorrect information. In this case that there was a "script" for WTC7 and that two news casters "slipped up" in their reporting on WTC7's imminent collapse. I pointed out with facts that there were many erronious reports, or mistakes.

You then proceeded to make ANOTHER assumption that these two particular news stations were lying, and therefore, since when have other two news stations have been caught "lying" like this before. Again I had to correct your wild accusations and assumptions. Since your question was based on a faulty idea, you are looking for an answer to a question that is not factual or realistic. You based your questions on assumptions that were wrong. Ergo, YOU ARE WRONG. Get the picture? I corrected you. Yet you ignore and continue to be wrong and insist you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

Oh you asked for examples of news people being wrong about certain reports? I gave you a whole list of them. On the same day as 9/11. You ignored them. TWICE. I will not repost them because I have done my part. If you are too lazy to read them or even look into them, that is not my fault. I led you to the stream, its up to you if you want to drink or die of thirst. So far I can see you are forcing yourself to thirst. So be it.

And now for all my efforts to correct your faulty assumptions and answering your questions, you want to ignore me? Hell youve already been doing a good job of that so far. Go back and re-read my posts. and I woudl also reccomend some classes or practice in reading comprehension and critical thinking. I read your posts. I answered them and even correct them. Just because you do not understand, its not my fault. that is your problem.

but since you are too lazy, and I can see that you are not going to do it on your own, here is one my previous posts, which answered your question about how newscasters can make errors in reporting:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you continue to insist I never gave you an answer, then you are no longer interested in facts, but trolling.

reply to post by pteridine


??

www.thefreedictionary.com...

"Which? The abysmal Bentham paper or the fact that molten metal weeks later does not mean thermite."

Both.

Thanks,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


Also, if we're really gonna split hairs, I believe the word you were looking for is as follows, something like this, only cause we're speaking english though:

gra·tu·i·tous

[edit on 24-2-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Check my previous posts for the Bentham mess. Many are on the "Yep, it's thermite..." thread. If you have specific questions, just ask.

For the molten metal weeks later question, you need to understand how thermite works. It is a reaction between aluminum, a reductant that is oxidized, and a metal oxide, commonly iron, the oxidizer that is reduced. The net reaction is aluminum metal plus a metal oxide that react to make aluminum oxide plus the metal. Because of the thermodynamics of the reaction, the energy release produces molten metal.
Once the reaction is started it goes quickly. It does not take weeks to react and when completed, it cools like any other metal. Hot metal underground, weeks later, does not mean thermite, it means an underground heat source.
Since you like to split hairs, we are not speaking English; we are writing. I occasionally make typos cause, like, I just don't always, like hit all the, like, right keys, dude.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

Don't crease your brow over all that nasty chemistry stuff that you don't understand; none of the other people on the truther sites understand it either.
There is no evidence for explosives. There is no evidence for thermite.

reply to post by pteridine


You've posted nothing to back that up and you never will.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


See my posts showing the many failings of the Jones paper. No one has been able to rebut and support the Jones paper, technically. You could be the first to stand up for the Professor and teach me a lesson.

reply to post by pteridine


These are voracious points you've made:

"Nope, it's not been proven to be thermite."

That's powerful stuff.

How many more opinions do you have?

Originally posted by pteridine
Hot metal underground, weeks later, does not mean thermite, it means an underground heat source.

What exactly was that underground heat source?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Where is your evidence that there was thermite present? Are you ready to fiercely defend the Jones paper?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The underground heat source was fire, likely fueled by the contents of the collapsed buildings.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The underground heat source was fire, likely fueled by the contents of the collapsed buildings.

This fire became hot enough to melt the steel? How exactly was that achieved?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The heat from underground fires is not readily dissipated. Underground fires burned in the WTC wreckage for at least three months. See www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by K J Gunderson

This fire became hot enough to melt the steel?

Nope.

Typical "TM" tactic.....to them, 'Molten Metal" becomes "Molten Steel"....

OTHER METALS can melt, and at different temteratues than steel melts.

EVERY photo I ever saw, of the recovery from digging out the WTC site, post 9/11, showed HOT METAL....glowing, but NOT MOLTEN!!!!

Do you understand what molten' implies???

There is a HUGE difference between HOT, malleable metal, in that heated stage, and MOLTEN metal!!!!!

Too bad, so sad that this continuing misundertanding tends to be perpetuated.....

Most people are smarter than that!!!!

(I would hope).....

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The heat from underground fires is not readily dissipated. Underground fires burned in the WTC wreckage for at least three months. See www.cbsnews.com...

That does not answer the question even a little bit. You are just saying things. Are you reading what I am writing? Can you address what I asked you? I am trying to learn something from you and you are now just spitting irrelevant talking points at me.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

This fire became hot enough to melt the steel?

Nope.

Typical "TM" tactic.....to them, 'Molten Metal" becomes "Molten Steel"....

OTHER METALS can melt, and at different temteratues than steel melts.

EVERY photo I ever saw, of the recovery from digging out the WTC site, post 9/11, showed HOT METAL....glowing, but NOT MOLTEN!!!!

Do you understand what molten' implies???

There is a HUGE difference between HOT, malleable metal, in that heated stage, and MOLTEN metal!!!!!

Too bad, so sad that this continuing misundertanding tends to be perpetuated.....

Most people are smarter than that!!!!

(I would hope).....

If you feel that you have made some kind of point here, then you are obviously not following the conversation at all. Between General Radek constantly asking me why I do not care about yet another off topic different thing altogether, and you just saying random things, I am really beginning to get a chuckle from this thread. My first thought was to put you both on ignore but then I realized that I will probably never have my very own dancing monkey, let alone two.

I am not sure what you think you are pointing out but I can say this.

Dance! Dance!

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

KJ, I have been patient with your incredulity.

In order to respond to your initial question, I had to first off, correct an erronious statement that was based on faulty information, or incorrect information. In this case that there was a "script" for WTC7 and that two news casters "slipped up" in their reporting on WTC7's imminent collapse. I pointed out with facts that there were many erronious reports, or mistakes.

You then proceeded to make ANOTHER assumption that these two particular news stations were lying, and therefore, since when have other two news stations have been caught "lying" like this before.

You will be on my ignore list very soon if this is really all you have. The only assumptions being made here are yours. You assume that I assumed anything. Try using my own words against me and see where this line of reasoning falls apart on you. When you get it, U2U me and I will see about taking you off ignore for constantly jumping in to try and draw my eye onto something completely different. I do not fall for it when David Blaine does it and he is at least mildly entertaining. You need some work. Bye.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Did you, or did you NOT type, in a post, the very line I quoted, about "melted steel"???

The 'dancing' reference is ironic, thank you for that.

Title of THIS thread is referenced to WTC 7....so please stay on target.

Thank you, in advance.

Title of this thread is "Proof that Building 7 was demolished with expolisives!"

Care to provide evidence to support this OP????

Care to explain WHY 'Building 7' was left standing, but ABANDONED,,,meaning NO ONE WAS IN OR OUT, except for NYFD personnel, who attempted to fight the raging fires??? ALL DAY????

Care to expalin HOW this alleged "controlled demoliton" was placed, wired, instigated, ALL without anyone haveing seen it taking place????

Let's think on this, for a moment, shall we?

A great number of "conspiracy" sites talk about the alleged "shut-down" in the Twin Towers, and allege that THAT was the time when the "explosives" were "planted"....

SO, WHEN was 'Building 7' "shut-down", for the SAME 'planting' of explosives'????

Please, tell everyone the time schedule of those events.

AND, then, explain WHY 'Building 7' didn't come down, as "pre-planned", according to the "best' conspiracy theories, at the same time as the Towers?

AND, WHY did the Towers collapse in opposite times of impact????

Please, give everyone a firm, scientific explanation to answer ALL of those queries.

We want YOUR 'truth'....please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, I know....THIS is supposed to be about WTC 7 (AKA 'Building 7) but I HAD to include the last bits, about the WTC 1 and WTC 2, for context....







[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Listen, if you feel that discussing hot underground metal is a trap because it is off topic, then do not jump in when I am asking Pteridine to clarify his off topic statement. Admonish him for going off topic if you feel it is truly necessary to blame someone else for the fact that you jumped into a conversation you were not having.

Basically you just post a list of things you want me to prove for you and at least half of it is erronious assumption so there is nothing for me to prove for you. Since you are so concerned with the subject of the OP, how about you just disprove it instead of setting up your own sub-OP for me to prove to you. After all, you are the one that is so worried about the OP.

If you do not want to discuss a certain subject other people are talking about, do not butt in.

This is simple.

P.S. If you do insist on sticking your nose where it was not invited, you do not retain the privileged of complaining that you were "roped in."

[edit on 25-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]