Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

What in the paper do you not "believe"?

perhaps this is the problem, that you allow your "beliefs" to dictate your reality, rather than evidence based research. This is a science forum, is it not? your "beliefs" have no weight in this discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you ever figured out what you intend to do with the "information" you pretend to seek? The real engineers, from whom you are incapable of learning anything, think you're blowing smoke.

AGAIN--What do you know that they don't know, and how did you learn it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No "high tech nanothermite" was discovered in WTC dust. You are either lying, deluded, or both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

where? the only thing you posted about this is a video describing this as chips and these chips were found in two separate apartments.
to my knowledge you have posted no names of the people that found the chips.

 

frankly this discussion is moot.
why weren't these chips discovered in the pile?
don't hand me the dust crap headspin.

 

He must think you are not credible because all you have to go by are your beliefs and a few people who played no part in the actual investigation. Credibility plays a role in everything.

I already posted a few times that both building collapses contradict the remotest possibility of a deliberate demolition, no one can or has disputed that. One person here made a feeble attempt but i think he now sees how ridiculous his beliefs were. And i am not reposting it for a third time so dont ask me to

The collapses could not be done with explosives and any possibility of using them would have made them collapse in an entirely different way. The buildings would have come down in larger parts, realistically it would have been dozens of floors at a time.

You know that the steel was weakened to minimum 50% strength so basicall what you have left are building standing with half the capabilities they were designed with. The result is the pancaking collapse we see on the video (evidence).

This is why people call in your and the others credibility or your just capacity to understand what happened.

 

can you show where the paper is incorrect?
Acting like a cheap lawyer by simply attacking me doesn't push this forward any.
do you have anything that contradicts the paper and its conclusions?

 

yes, THE EVIDENCE TRAIL HEAD SPIN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
why wasn't these chips found at the pile?

 

isnt that what he is doing? this is a discussion forum, i dont see you being attacked but lets not avoid the subject.

he has not even gotten to that point. afa dust or chips, the people who did the actual investigation would know about that and what to look for. at this point it may be a saving face attempt...:shrug:

 

not to mention the cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, and investigators that was on the pile.
especially after hearing the phrase" it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions" uttered by dan rather.

 

why don't you read the paper, it is documented there.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

it is clear you are not searching for information, if you were, you would have at least read the paper by now. what are you scared of?

these chips were found in dust samples next to the pile and near the pile. if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.

 

okay headspin don't ask me to read that link again.
it IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ABOVE LINK WHO FOUND THESE CHIPS.

furthermore it isn't stated they were found at the pile.
anyone could have submitted any old thing and said anything they wanted.

 

there is no map at the link you have provided.

names headspin. until then your posts will be ignored by me.

 

yeah. and all collapses 'almost' look like controlled demos.

 

have you read the actual paper?
do you see the green button that says "Download"?
click it and read the document that pops up.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

no one seems to know what the big green download button means.

 

apparently nobody knows what "evidence trail" means either.

 

apparantly you two are just trolls.
you are both on ignore until christmas.

 

Headspin, it is obvious now that Leopold is playing a stonewall with questions game with you. He refuses to accept any evidence of the authenticity of the dust unless it was found ON THE PILE!

Apparently he thinks it is okay to simply dismiss that the paper gives the bonifides of when, where, and by whom the dust was found and collected and why it is certain that it was from the towers and/or WTC 7, and that affidavits were signed about the circumstances when it was handed over to researchers.

In one case it was collected 10 minutes after the fall of the second twin tower on the Brooklyn bridge, so that one is strictly tower dust.

He drove me to the point of putting him on Ignore with this type of inanity. I also think John99 and Leopold99 are trolls of some sort, with the objective of wasting the time of serious people and keeping the waters muddied.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wonder if they are assigned specific information bridges to cover. It would seem a massive crime like 911 would have had contingencies for protecting the cover-up, with trolls of this sort being one of several methods employed to keep the masses at bay.

 

trolls disputing weak claims? that is a new one.