Posted:
#451
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Care to respond Hutch? You wanted 1 structural engineer. We just gave you 1300+
Yeah, 1300+ petition signers. 
0
September 11, 2001 (long read)
Posted:
#455
I'll let Flash dive into the thermite explanations, as he has much more knowledge of the claims than I do
I can't argue or debate about something that I've only glanced at. My claims are free-fall speed and fake cell phone calls. If either of my claims are true, you have to admitt there was a conspiracy/cover-up
Thermite is just another claim amongst the many, and I'm not denying that I believe it's authenticity. But I simply haven't researched it as much as I should to give you a proper explanation
0
Posted:
#457
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I'll let Flash dive into the thermite explanations, as he has much more knowledge of the claims than I do
I can't argue or debate about something that I've only glanced at. My claims are free-fall speed and fake cell phone calls. If either of my claims are true, you have to admitt there was a conspiracy/cover-up
Thermite is just another claim amongst the many, and I'm not denying that I believe it's authenticity. But I simply haven't researched it as much as I should to give you a proper explanation
More evidence that you believe what you want to believe. If you were objective and actually looked at that BS website that Flash posted, then you would know for a FACT that not one engineer said that thermite was involved....that it was just a group of petition signers. You didn't even bother to look at it and evaluate it because you are so caught up in what you THINK happened.
0
Posted:
#458
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
More evidence that you believe what you want to believe. If you were objective and actually looked at that BS website that Flash posted, then you would know for a FACT that not one engineer said that thermite was involved....that it was just a group of petition signers. You didn't even bother to look at it and evaluate it because you are so caught up in what you THINK happened.
Just because his website doesn't say what he thought means that it isn't true?
I'll get back to you.
0
Posted:
#459
And the CEO of the world trade towers overhearing and admitting to a reporter that they in charge said to go ahead and "pull it " when referring to the building before it came down. Hmmm isnt there a time when a term like pull it is used... Thats right. the command that demolition crews use when confirming to ignite a demoliton
____________
FN Moron
https://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Completely explains everything. Jackass.
0
Posted:
#460
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Just because his website doesn't say what he thought means that it isn't true?
I'll get back to you.
Brings us back to my original question. Just who me ONE qualified engineer who says thermite brought the buildings down. Surely if this were the case, ONE engineer would believe it.
I can't prove that people don't live on Pluto, but I'm pretty sure that is the case....and I can't find one qualified person who tells me differently.
0
Posted:
#461
Interesting. They needed to be sure that building 6 came down in a “controlled” way. But wait a second: the video clip that Alex Jones presents – the clip that’s shown on all the conspiracist websites –ends abruptly at this point. Huh? Where’s the money shot? Why’d they cut it there?
Here’s why:
Because the following scene shows how building 6 was “pulled”: with cables attached to the hydraulic arms of four excavators, not with explosive charges.
_____________
Perfectly logical explanation for using the "term pull it" along with a video to prove it. As well as evidence that conspiracy jackasses only look at information that seems to support their views.
Some people just can't be helped. 
I'll expect more crickets from people on this as well.
0
Posted:
#462
I've argued 2 main points in this thread, Hutch. And you haven't adressed either of them.
1.) Both the South and North tower, as well as Tower #7, fell in exactly freefall speed. 9.2 seconds. Please refute?
2.) Cell phone calls made above 20,000 feet have a .0001 probability of lasting more than 3 seconds. Cell phone calls made above 30,000 feet have a .0000001 probability of lasting more than 5 seconds.
On 9/11/2001, 13 cell phone calls were made above 20,000 feet, ranging from 2 minutes to 7 minutes in talk time.
Only the first 2 or 3 sentences of these phone calls were ever released to the public. The remaining approximately 75% were never heard by anyone other than the "victims" families.
Please refute.
0
Posted:
#463
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I've argued 2 main points in this thread, Hutch. And you haven't adressed either of them.
1.) Both the South and North tower, as well as Tower #7, fell in exactly freefall speed. 9.2 seconds. Please refute?
2.) Cell phone calls made above 20,000 feet have a .0001 probability of lasting more than 3 seconds. Cell phone calls made above 30,000 feet have a .0000001 probability of lasting more than 5 seconds.
On 9/11/2001, 13 cell phone calls were made above 20,000 feet, ranging from 2 minutes to 7 minutes in talk time.
Only the first 2 or 3 sentences of these phone calls were ever released to the public. The remaining approximately 75% were never heard by anyone other than the "victims" families.
Please refute.
Tower #7 was slightly over 6 seconds*
0
Posted:
#464
smdio-
Feel free to read up on some FACTS re. thermite.
https://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
The BS you post re. free fall and cell phones has already been refuted by another person in this thread. No need to re-visit.
0
Posted:
#465
Free fall BS explained in completely scientific manner.
https://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
But I'm sure you don't care.
Funny, I can refute everything you say, but you can't provide me with any evidence that I ask for.
0
Posted:
#467
(Last post got fucked up, sorry)
It has? I must have missed that part.
A simply google search produced this document:
From there:
A nine-member international team of chemists, physicists, and others published a paper in early 2009 entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe” (hereinafter, the nano-thermite paper).
Hutch: Are chemists and physicists not enough to prove that nano-thermite was found at the WTC?
0
Posted:
#468
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
Free fall BS explained in completely scientific manner.
https://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
But I'm sure you don't care.
Funny, I can refute everything you say, but you can't provide me with any evidence that I ask for.
Interesting video. I'll read and watch the whole thing tonight and respond then.
0
Posted:
#472
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
(Last post got fucked up, sorry)
It has? I must have missed that part.
A simply google search produced this document:
From there:
A nine-member international team of chemists, physicists, and others published a paper in early 2009 entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe” (hereinafter, the nano-thermite paper).
Hutch: Are chemists and physicists not enough to prove that nano-thermite was found at the WTC?
The report this guy uses in this article was spearheaded by that quack Jones and has holes ALL OVER IT....if you care to read the FACTS:
https://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=60
0
Posted:
#473
Hutch: Are chemists and physicists not enough to prove that nano-thermite was found at the WTC?
_________________Not chemists and physists who are quacks are the ones doing the research.
When studied closely, there is no verifiable evidence that thermite played ANY SIGNIFICANT role in the destruction of the WTC. (It MAY have been used in cutting some of small amounts of remaining steel in the clean up operation). If it were truly significant, why didn’t Jones and his team submit his research in their legal challenges to NIST (see below).
The jackass didn't even submit his OWN research in their legal challenges to the NIST....because it was bullshit.
That takes care of that. Next question?
0
Posted:
#474
Re. your scary cell phone "evidence."
People chiming in from all over that they have gotten signals in the air. And FYI, most of the calls were made from air phones.
https://ask.metafilter.com/77504/How-were-cell-phone-calls-completed-from-hijacked-planes-on-911
0
Posted:
#475
More re. cell phones.
This is too easy.
https://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
0
Hot Forum Topics
