Why did we need to waste money on NIST investigation ?

reply to post by SimontheMagus



LOL!!!!

SOMETHING was used on the WTC to pulverize the steel, and it caused superheating.

"SOMETHING" ???


Oh, man....sorry for laughing but.....when it gets this desperate?

Well.....

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Are you seriously suggesting these secret thermite charges were planted in the Deutschebank building too? Or are you saying when the north tower collapsed it spread its own secret thermite charges to other buildings like a virus?

Of course there were no "secret thermite charges" in the DBB. SOMETHING was used on the WTC to pulverize the steel, and it caused superheating. This is obvious just from watching the pyroclastic-type cloud form in collapse videos as they're coming down. Whatever it was caused the beam in the DBB to get severed from super high heat just from being contacted by the falling debris from the south tower. I don't know what it was, maybe ULF technology, some kind of SDI stuff. I know the Pentagon has this in black ops. It's what they used on the Minneapolis Bridge collapse. This would explain the toasted cars, and the molten pools, and the pulverization of the towers. The bottom line? It wasn't jet fuel, and the Boogeyman Bin Laden didn't do it... the CIA did it.

You are basing this statement upon a number of false assertions. False assertion #1 is that the steel wasn't pulverized. Ground zero workers spent months clearing out this wreckage and I've shown you several examples recovered from the the site, so "dustification of steel" is yet another trutherism invesnted by tht con artist Judy Wood. False assertion #2 is if this "superheating of the DBB steel" was transferred from the WTC to the DBB like some structural venereal disease, it would irrefutably have been caused by the wreckage from WTC impacting the DBB. Look at the photo I posted again- there it is, the wreckage from the WTC hanging off the side of the DBB like laundry. I don't see any signs of superheating on the chunk of WTC wreckage hanging off of the DBB. Do you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ground zero workers spent months clearing out this wreckage and I've shown you several examples recovered from the the site, so "dustification of steel" is yet another trutherism invesnted by tht con artist Judy Wood.

Dustification does not mean 100% of the steel was dustified. There were 100,000 tons in each tower.

The dustification can be seen in the "partial collapse" of The Spire.

Go back to dropping bowling balls on balloons. At least that was entertaining.

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave

That has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest thing I've seen you say. I already posted the eyewitness account of deputy fire chief Peter Hayden who was physically there at WTC 7 and he specifically said he knew from the damage the fires were causing that WTC 7 was going to collapse. I know you've seen it.

And I know you remember that we discussed Chief Hayden and every other firemen who were at ground zero and specifically said that 7 was damaged and in danger of collapsing.. And I know that you remember what my opinion is regarding this.
But I must admit that this isn't the "most intellectually dishonest" thing I've seen you say. This would be the third time in this thread that I will point out to you that the firemen in this video are NOT talking about WTC 7.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

..and what do you mean by "your own eyes". Were you there? I've talked to people who worked in the south tower so they WERE there, and they say you conspiracy people are full of it. Why should I believe your eyes over their eyes?

I work with people that were there and they say that you are the conspiracy theorists and you are full of it. And yes I was there not during the collapse but few days after it. And yes I believe what the firemen say. And No they didn't say that what happened to WTC 7 was what they expected to happen.

I believe my own eyes when I look at any news footage and I see Exploding buildings. I don't need anybody to show it to me because it's that obvious.

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

LOL!!!!

SOMETHING was used on the WTC to pulverize the steel, and it caused superheating.

"SOMETHING" ???


Oh, man....sorry for laughing but.....when it gets this desperate?

Well.....

Oh that's funny to you because he doesn't know exactly what it was, i get it... because anybody except SimontheMagus could figure out what is exploding inside a building just by watching a video,,

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Ground zero workers spent months clearing out this wreckage and I've shown you several examples recovered from the the site, so "dustification of steel" is yet another trutherism invesnted by tht con artist Judy Wood.

Dustification does not mean 100% of the steel was dustified. There were 100,000 tons in each tower.

The dustification can be seen in the "partial collapse" of The Spire.

Go back to dropping bowling balls on balloons. At least that was entertaining.

psik

According to THIS LINK, 165,000 tons of steel was removed directly from Ground Zero, and an additional 35,000 was removed afterward. That equals 200,000 if I'm not mistaken. They processed 1,460,000 tons of debris, and they screened 806,000 tons of it.

Seriously, dustification is pure bull. Only idiots believe it.

Originally posted by Varemia
Seriously, dustification is pure bull. Only idiots believe it.

edit on 13-6-2012 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

I believe my own eyes. The towers were turned to dust. Your numbers are irrelevant.

It takes a real genius to believe it was jet fuel.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Bad logic- you're making an unsupported assumption and then basing a question on the assuption as if it were true. It's like my asking you "why do you think unicorn farts cannot be used to cut steel columns". It makes the assumption that unicorn farts are actually a legitimate point of argument in the discussion.

Show me that unicorn farts can cut steel and then we can theorize if that's what was used.

This whole "thermite" bit was introduced by that truther Steven Jones, and peer review has shown the thermite he found was actually paint so that should have been the end of it. I find it odd that you question the rationale behind the NIST investigation and yet you're willing to pursue this nonstop debate on the findings of another investigation that has irrefutably been shown to be false. Do as I say and not as I do, anyone?

NIST would never admit that it found any traces of anything unapproved by the White House. and I explained how I arrived to this opinion. (it's only my opinion) based on who was controlling NIST at the time of the investigation.

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

LOL!!!!

SOMETHING was used on the WTC to pulverize the steel, and it caused superheating.

"SOMETHING" ???


Oh, man....sorry for laughing but.....when it gets this desperate?

Well.....

So why don't you explain to us how jet fuel pulverizes steel when you're done cackling?

reply to post by Varemia

Seriously, dustification is pure bull. Only idiots believe it.

Exactly who are you calling idiots?

reply to post by maxella1


There's quite a big difference between "there was a lot of dust" and "everything turned to dust".

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1

 

There's quite a big difference between "there was a lot of dust" and "everything turned to dust".

Didn't you hear that large portions were pulverized? Tell us "idiots" what pulverized it. Or this guy is a truther and made it up?

reply to post by maxella1


THINK about this.....in regards to the mass of the WTC buildings and ALL of their contents..OK??:

HERE is a representation of EVERY Human Being (all seven billion of us) IF we were amassed into a solid "Ball of meat":



This, above ^ ^ ^ is a visual image to show, against a well-known back-drop (Washington, D.C.) the actual MASS of every Human Being on this planet, who is alive right now.....

So.....after a collapse of something as insignificant as ONE building....can you really stand there and ""wonder" at the resulting debris??

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by maxella1

 

THINK about this.....in regards to the mass of the WTC buildings and ALL of their contents..OK??:

HERE is a representation of EVERY Human Being (all seven billion of us) IF we were amassed into a solid "Ball of meat":

This, above ^ ^ ^ is a visual image to show, against a well-known back-drop (Washington, D.C.) the actual MASS of every Human Being on this planet, who is alive right now.....

So.....after a collapse of something as insignificant as ONE building....can you really stand there and ""wonder" at the resulting debris??

Brilliant presentation of absolutely nothing. Did you come up with it all by yourself or did anybody help you?

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by maxella1

 

There's quite a big difference between "there was a lot of dust" and "everything turned to dust".

Didn't you hear that large portions were pulverized? Tell us "idiots" what pulverized it. Or this guy is a truther and made it up?

I agree with him. There's a lot of stuff in that building that, upon collapse, was pulverised. I imagine that what led to this was the collapse of a massive building.

Put it this way, it's on you to show that there was something suspicious about the amount of dust. Can you?

reply to post by maxella1


___________________________________________________________________________

Brilliant presentation of absolutely nothing. Did you come up with it all by yourself or did anybody help you?

How RUDE !!

Ya know....there are OTHER threads on ATS.

The "issue" here was about the collapse of WTC buildings, and the resulting debris mass....and, per ANOTHER interesting ATS thread that happened to show the ENTIRE mass of ALL Humans, if they could be imagined to be rolled up into a sphere....it seemed appropriate to explain the false impressions that SO MANY people have REGARDING the "expected" mass of a collapsed building, such as either WTC1 or WTC2.

It goes DIRECTLY to that failed assumption..


So.....showing ignorance again?

Well-Played.....Well-Played!! Kudos!! /sarcasm.

reply to post by maxella1

Brilliant presentation of absolutely nothing. Did you come up with it all by yourself or did anybody help you?

How RUDE !!

Ya know....there are OTHER threads on ATS.

The "issue" here was about the collapse of WTC buildings, and the resulting debris mass....and, per ANOTHER interesting ATS thread that happened to show the ENTIRE mass of ALL Humans, if they could be imagined to be rolled up into a sphere....it seemed appropriate to explain the false impressions that SO MANY people have REGARDING the "expected" mass of a collapsed building, such as either WTC1 or WTC2.

It goes DIRECTLY to that failed assumption..


So.....showing ignorance again?

Well-Played.....Well-Played!! Kudos!! /sarcasm.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Put it this way, it's on you to show that there was something suspicious about the amount of dust. Can you?

Yes..... THE AMOUNT OF DUST.

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by maxella1

 

Brilliant presentation of absolutely nothing. Did you come up with it all by yourself or did anybody help you?

How RUDE !!

Ya know....there are OTHER threads on ATS.

The "issue" here was about the collapse of WTC buildings, and the resulting debris mass....and, per ANOTHER interesting ATS thread that happened to show the ENTIRE mass of ALL Humans, if they could be imagined to be rolled up into a sphere....it seemed appropriate to explain the false impressions that SO MANY people have REGARDING the "expected" mass of a collapsed building, such as either WTC1 or WTC2.

It goes DIRECTLY to that failed assumption..


So.....showing ignorance again?

Well-Played.....Well-Played!! Kudos!! /sarcasm.

edit on 13-6-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)

I didn't mean to be rude, I just have no idea what you are trying to prove. Sorry

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Put it this way, it's on you to show that there was something suspicious about the amount of dust. Can you?

Yes..... THE AMOUNT OF DUST.

And the amount of dust was ____________?
And the appropriate amount of dust is _________?
And this is based on the following calculations ____________________________.