Why did we need to waste money on NIST investigation ?

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
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 is deserving of another thread. I am really looking forward to this one.

The bottom line? It wasn't jet fuel, and the Boogeyman Bin Laden didn't do it... the CIA did it.

Dont forget all the others that were in on it as well. NYPD, fire department, the president and his cabinet, dozens members of congress, major American corporations, the USAF, thousands upon thousands of lessor role players and even members of ATS and countless others that space does not allow me to add.

Originally posted by hooper

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 ____________________________.

I don't know.
Can you show that gravitational building collapse is capable of pulverizing large portions of building structure material?

My non-expert opinion is that it cannot.

reply to post by Classified Info

Dont forget all the others that were in on it as well. NYPD, fire department, the president and his cabinet, dozens members of congress, major American corporations, the USAF, thousands upon thousands of lessor role players and even members of ATS and countless others that space does not allow me to add.

Why would they be in on it?

Are witnesses of a crime that are afraid to come forward for whatever reason in on the crime as well?

You guys are in need to come up with some new material. This no longer works. Sorry.

Originally posted by hooper

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 ____________________________.

Mount Saint Helen's - Massive Energy Release




Nuclear Blast in Nevada Desert - Massive Energy Release




World Trade Center - Massive Energy Release

Originally posted by maxella1


You guys are in need to come up with some new material. This no longer works. Sorry.

edit on 13-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Just in the last week on these very same forums I have read "truthers" implicating each and every one that I listed above of being part of the "inside job".

If you do not like it then it is not me that needs to come up with some new material for I am only repeating what I have read on here.

Sorry.

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by maxella1


You guys are in need to come up with some new material. This no longer works. Sorry.

edit on 13-6-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Just in the last week on these very same forums I have read "truthers" implicating each and every one that I listed above of being part of the "inside job".

If you do not like it then it is not me that needs to come up with some new material for I am only repeating what I have read on here.

Sorry.

I would like to read it, can you post a link please?

reply to post by maxella1


Your joking right? I mean really.

Close your eyes and pick a thread at random on this forum. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Is there not a thread where one of the above is not accused of being part of this massive diabolical plot?

C'mon now be serious.

Sometimes it is right there in the threads title.

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 normally you would expect...

let me guess? Less dust?

What leads you to think that there is an abnormally - indeed suspiciously - large amount of dust for such a building in disorganised collapse? Is it your experience and an underlying knowledge of building properties, destruction dynamics and the materials of the WTC?

Or is it more just a finger in the air, scratching your head sort of "well, that sure looks like a LOT of dust"?

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper

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 ____________________________.

I don't know.
Can you show that gravitational building collapse is capable of pulverizing large portions of building structure material?

My non-expert opinion is that it cannot.

Why are you changing the subject?

Originally posted by Classified Info


Sometimes it is right there in the threads title.

You are too subtle, He is not going to get it.

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't know.
Can you show that gravitational building collapse is capable of pulverizing large portions of building structure material?

My non-expert opinion is that it cannot.

There you have it. You don't even know how much dust would be appropriate.

The simple fact is that every inch of the 200,000 tons of steel in the two towers combined was covered in a powdery fireproofing, and the gypsum board fireproofing crumbles real nice when it is subjected to force. That is an awful lot of stuff that can turn into dust. Sprinkle some crushed concrete into the mix, and the cloud makes sense.

But you don't want to imagine a realistic situation. You want to make up a situation that fits your version of the conspiracy.

Originally posted by Classified Info
reply to post by maxella1

 

Your joking right? I mean really.

Close your eyes and pick a thread at random on this forum. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Is there not a thread where one of the above is not accused of being part of this massive diabolical plot?

C'mon now be serious.

Sometimes it is right there in the threads title.

I have never seen a thread title that FDNY NYPD or thousands and thousands of people are in on it, have you?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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 normally you would expect...

let me guess? Less dust?

What leads you to think that there is an abnormally - indeed suspiciously - large amount of dust for such a building in disorganised collapse? Is it your experience and an underlying knowledge of building properties, destruction dynamics and the materials of the WTC?

Or is it more just a finger in the air, scratching your head sort of "well, that sure looks like a LOT of dust"?

Something about pulverized large portions of structural steel seems a little strange to me. Unless there were explosives attached to those portions of steel. I'm no expert though, maybe you can explain it to me?

Originally posted by maxella1
I have never seen a thread title that FDNY NYPD or thousands and thousands of people are in on it, have you?

At least two common posters here posit that victims of 911 were faked, that the MSM was involved in cover ups (including the BBC) and many support Kevin McPadden or say that 'pull it' refers to explosive demolition.

These views implicate FDNY or NYPD, and involve thousands of people as a matter of course. Yes it's rare to get a truther to admit it, but you won't even admit that you have a theory despite it being visible between every line you write.

Something about pulverized large portions of structural steel seems a little strange to me. Unless there were explosives attached to those portions of steel. I'm no expert though, maybe you can explain it to me?

I would love to have a serious discussion with you about the evidence available, but you'd have to agree to some preconditions like not calling photographs or evidence faked unless you have reliable information.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
I don't know.
Can you show that gravitational building collapse is capable of pulverizing large portions of building structure material?

My non-expert opinion is that it cannot.

There you have it. You don't even know how much dust would be appropriate.

The simple fact is that every inch of the 200,000 tons of steel in the two towers combined was covered in a powdery fireproofing, and the gypsum board fireproofing crumbles real nice when it is subjected to force. That is an awful lot of stuff that can turn into dust. Sprinkle some crushed concrete into the mix, and the cloud makes sense.

But you don't want to imagine a realistic situation. You want to make up a situation that fits your version of the conspiracy.

Do you know how much dust is appropriate? How did the steel get pulverized? I have seen buildings collapse in real life, never heard that steel was pulverized though.. Was it the jet fuel that pulverized it, or was it gravity? Or am I making the whole thing up again?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper

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 ____________________________.

I don't know.
Can you show that gravitational building collapse is capable of pulverizing large portions of building structure material?

My non-expert opinion is that it cannot.

Why are you changing the subject?

Changing the subject?

Originally posted by maxella1
Do you know how much dust is appropriate? How did the steel get pulverized? I have seen buildings collapse in real life, never heard that steel was pulverized though.. Was it the jet fuel that pulverized it, or was it gravity? Or am I making the whole thing up again?

Nobody knew how much dust was appropriate. Buildings this size have never collapsed.

The complaint that's being levied is that it looks too dusty is not evidence of anything. For a start you have no alternate cause for the dust that would make any sense. It's not even been established with any reliability that there was too much dust.

I could say that I think there was exactly the right amount of dust, but it wouldn't hold any weight, because it's pure opinion.

If you have any evidence that there was too much dust then it would be worth presenting, but in reality these claims have been largely abandoned by the researchers working on them. Dr Jones for example made a fairly unequivocal statement about the dust. There are many many innocuous sources and there is no plausible alternative.

Originally posted by maxella1


Do you know how much dust is appropriate?

Just looking at the fireproofing alone the volume of dust should be at least four times the volume of the steel.

reply to post by exponent

At least two common posters here posit that victims of 911 were faked,

I personally don't like these types of theories very much.

that the MSM was involved in cover ups (including the BBC) and many support Kevin McPadden or say that 'pull it' refers to explosive demolition

I agree that MSM is not on the side of the truth, they spin all kinds of things all the time.
Pull it means pull with cables. I assure you that when firefighters are ordered to evacuate, they do not say 'Pull it" Firefighters don't consider other firefighters as objects. And Larry Silverstien wouldn't be asked by FDNY if it was okay to evacuate WTC 7. Whoever he was talking to did not ask him if they should save the lives of FDNY firefighters.

These views implicate FDNY or NYPD, and involve thousands of people as a matter of course. Yes it's rare to get a truther to admit it, but you won't even admit that you have a theory despite it being visible between every line you write.

I do have a theory and when I post it you always implicate FDNY and NYPD, i never do. My theory is that your theory which is the mainstream theory is false and based on lies, and used to cover up crimes against the FDNY, NYPD, PANYNJ, private EMS workers, and ordinary innocent civilians. And many of the first responders are very sick and some are dead because they believed the government that the air was safe at ground zero, but even if the government did not lie about the air the first responders would still be there. None of them are in on it, all of them are victims of it.

I would love to have a serious discussion with you about the evidence available, but you'd have to agree to some preconditions like not calling photographs or evidence faked unless you have reliable information.

What possible photograph can you show me to change my mind ? The story is a complete lie and no photograph is going to change that fact.

No excuse for why the attack was allowed is going to change the fact that nobody except the innocent paid for it.

reply to post by exponent

The complaint that's being levied is that it looks too dusty is not evidence of anything. For a start you have no alternate cause for the dust that would make any sense. It's not even been established with any reliability that there was too much dust.

The "complaint that's being levied" is not that it looks too dusty, it's what pulverized the steel and other solid material if it was a purely gravitational building collapse? unless you are saying that it wasn't pulverized at all?