0
   

9/11 conspiracy or terrorists?

 
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 10:43 am
@BillRM,
Bill, you whine about internet sources then you quote some nutty anonymous website.

Aren't you being hypocritical?

Why didn't you quote the FEMA Appendix C article? They are US government appointed scientists and they have documented molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.

And what about this molten steel, flowing from a window on WTC2 just minutes before it was blown up? National Geographic video evidence of molten steel.

9/11: Stabilized WTC2 molten metal (CameraPlanet & National Geographic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxXdI4hLWkE
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 10:49 am
@camlok,
Lot of melted metals in the remains of those buildings but there was not a gram of melted steel.

Nonsense is nonsense an this is my last posting on the subject as life is too short to deal with conspiracy lovers be it on the moon landings or the twin towers or even the flat earth people for that matter.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 10:55 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Lot of melted metals in the remains of those buildings but there was not a gram of melted steel.


You are ignoring the FEMA study documenting molten/vaporized WTC structural steel. You are ignoring John Gross's gross lies.

Why, Bill?

Here is voluminous evidence of the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.

Jonathan Cole 9/11 Experiments The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwd2VSrFlKI&list=PLYI8318YYdkCd5PFj99WTLZoblgqkLRdk&index=3

The first minute describes what can't be denied, molten/vaporized WTC structural steel
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 10:57 am
@BillRM,
You have been given multiple scientific sources documenting the molten/vaporized WTC steel, with still pictures and videos.

You can see it with your own eyes, Bill.

0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:13 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Thanks for confirming my opinion that no amount of logic, facts or common sense are of any use when dealing with people living in an alternate reality an it is a complete waste of time to employ such tools when dealing with them.


Well, your respons only shows that you are more interested in keeping your world view in tact, then looking for any truth.

So is the state , sadly, of most people on this planet.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:18 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Nonsense is nonsense an this is my last posting on the subject as life is too short to deal with conspiracy lovers be it on the moon landings or the twin towers or even the flat earth people for that matter.


Well, you haven't researched much now, have you? The flat earth nonsense is purposely injected into the other , real, conspiracies, to ridicule conspiracy theories in general. Just keep discerning. This world is, at the moment, ruled by conspiracies! we are drowning in them!

Just one question. do you have any clue at all where the term, and it's negative associatins come from?



O and then thee is this:

https://www.memorymuseum.net/quotes/truth-quotes/truth-quotes-9.jpg
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:20 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

Quote:
Lot of melted metals in the remains of those buildings but there was not a gram of melted steel.


You are ignoring the FEMA study documenting molten/vaporized WTC structural steel. You are ignoring John Gross's gross lies.

Why, Bill?

Here is voluminous evidence of the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.

Jonathan Cole 9/11 Experiments The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwd2VSrFlKI&list=PLYI8318YYdkCd5PFj99WTLZoblgqkLRdk&index=3

The first minute describes what can't be denied, molten/vaporized WTC structural steel


Yes a youtube link should be ground to overrule logic, common sense ,an army of engineers or so with thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies.

Sorry but it all nonsense.

Hell that is the problem with conspiracy theories in the number of people who must be in on the cover up for decades for no known reason an without any logical reason why anyone would would both fly planes into buildings at the same time as setting off charges to bring the buildings down.
Disregarding little problems of secretly being able to bring tons of explosives and other material and wire them all up without anyone outside of the conspiracy taking note to it and the need to have god know how many people afterward not taking note of drill holes and wires and other indications of such work.

Hell this is in the same boat as successful faking moon landings where it would take hundreds of time more efforts to fake landings then to just ahead and land on the moon.
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:23 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Yes a youtube link should be ground to overrule logic, common sense ,an army of engineers or so with thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies.


why can't these people THINK??!!

https://lailayuile.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/truth.jpg
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:24 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Yes a youtube link should be ground to overrule logic, common sense ,an army of engineers or so with thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies.


Why do you continue to deny reality? NIST actually made use of these videos as evidence in their "studies", Bill, specifically the one that showed the molten steel flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

You can see the molten steel with your own eyes.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:27 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Yes a youtube link should be ground to overrule logic, common sense ,an army of engineers or so with thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies.


Like the FEMA Appendix C report, right?

The one that has a picture of the molten/vaporized WTC steel, right?

A report that describes this same molten/vaporized WTC steel, right?

The molten/vaporized WTC steel that you are denying, right?

And the huge picture you saw of John the gross liar Gross of NIST touching the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel beam, right?
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 01:31 pm
@BillRM,
well, let's check, will we?

Quote:
Hell that is the problem with conspiracy theories in the number of people who must be in on the cover up for decades for no known reason an without any logical reason why anyone would would both fly planes into buildings at the same time as setting off charges to bring the buildings down.


First of all, mentioned earlier, not anyone has to be in the conspiracy.
That is very simply NOT the way these things work, hence, this reply of yours is nothing more then a red herring, hence worthless as an argument.

Furthermore, about the planes, I am into the theory there were no planes at all!
And yes there were explosions.

Quote:
Disregarding little problems of secretly being able to bring tons of explosives and other material and wire them all up without anyone outside of the conspiracy taking note to it


No problem at all. You assume it had to be done in a week, a month or whatever. What you seem to overlook is the possibility that the whole damned thing was getting filled with explosives when it was build!
You see , when it was build their 'destination' was already clear to the people
'behind the scenes". Simple, eh?!

Quote:
Hell this is in the same boat as successful faking moon landings where it would take hundreds of time more efforts to fake landings then to just ahead and land on the moon.


You seem not to be very original or creative in your thinking eh?
This 'argument' is used so many times, I lost count.
Don't you see how circular it is?
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2018 04:50 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Yes a youtube link should be ground to overrule logic, common sense ,an army of engineers or so with thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies.


There were "no armies of engineers or so" but there were thousands upon thousands of pages of engineering reports and studies. The NIST study, thousands of pages, had multiple lies in it. NIST lied outright, as I have already proven to you about the molten/vaporized WTC steel.

You were able to see John the gross liar Gross categorically denying its existence even though the US government agency, FEMA wrote a report on it.

Even though there are multiple other sources for the molten/vaporized WTC steel.

You saw the molten steel in the video. That is reality. Reality denied by someone, anyone means that person/those people cannot be trusted in anything they say or do.

You also saw the same John the gross liar Gross touching a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/girder. That right there sinks the USGOCT for at least two reasons; one, it means there were no hijackers, another fact which, by itself, sinks the official story, two; molten/vaporized WTC structural steel is impossible following the scenario of the USGOCT.

Which brings us to your contention that serious scientific investigation was done by government scientists. It was NOT. Again, I point you to the lies of Gross and NIST.

Neither mentioned the reality of molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.

That is scientific fraud, that is criminal fraud.

NIST never mentioned the free fall of WTC7 until it was pointed out by a high school physics teacher. It was pointed out that such a measurement was a high school physics level.

NIST purposefully left out molten/vaporized WTC structural steel and WTC7 free fall because, like you, Bill, they know the implications of those two things.

The failure of NIST to not note WTC7 free fall is also scientific fraud and criminal fraud.

NIST did discuss the molten steel flowing from WTC2, but they lamely professed it to be aluminum, knowing full well that aluminum is silver in daylight. NIST was urged to do experiments to verify their drivel but no experiments were performed. Why? Because NIST, like you, Bill, knows the implications of the flowing molten steel.

The failure of NIST to not note the flowing molten steel is also scientific fraud and criminal fraud.

There are many other lies NIST advanced in its "study" of the collapse of WTC7. Notably they lied about roughly ten different specifications that were on the construction blueprints of WTC7. They did this to try to make their theory about Column 79 being the weak feature that caused the collapse.

All lies. A Univ of Alaska, Fairbanks study by a professor of forensic engineering [30 years] has found that the likelihood of the chance there was for NIST study being an accurate representation of the collapse of WTC7 was summed up in one word - ZERO.

Here is NIST's computer simulation of the collapse of WTC7. Tell me if you think it matches reality.

Reality, and a sense of reality is fundamental to science. Things that don't match reality can be eliminated. People who deny reality can also be summarily dismissed as charlatans and frauds.

Actual video of WTC 7 destruction undermines NIST computer simulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001 - Discussion by trying2learn
Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero - Discussion by Phoenix32890
9/11/01: Mary Pope and Eurodiva - Discussion by Miller
Lights over Manhattan. - Discussion by Frank Apisa
The truth about what really happened in the USA - Discussion by reasoning logic
9/11 - Discussion by Brandon9000
America At War - Question by blueveinedthrobber
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/14/2020 at 10:24:36