Quote:
I don't know about this, but this can just as easily be turned back on you. Why weren't any traces of actual explosive found at ground zero? Unless you think that thermite alone can somehow bring down a building.
Did I say thermite was the only contributing factor? No. But it is a known chemical reaction that cuts through steal like butter. No traces of explosives were openly admitted, which is a lot different to, discovered. Besides they illegally took as much evidence as they could away from the scene. Loaded perfectly cut chucks on metal onto the demolition companies truck and shipped it right out of the country.
Quote:
Strange, I can quite clearly see concrete here . Keep in mind that large chunks of concrete would have been the first things removed from the wreckage.
yeah, the bottom of it. I don't think you understand how much powder there was, and things that would usually not be reduced to powder. Such as all the contents of the floors on each building. Including computers, furniture and other things that can't completely burn just from a little bit of jet fuel.
Quote:
explosives to pulverise all the concrete in the building would have been plainly obvious.
It is plainly obvious. That's why it's a demolition of the towers.
Quote:
What, you mean the bursts of air caused by the floors pancaking as it collapsed. Those were not squibs, as they behaved differently. Explosives sprays start powerful and peter off. These increased as time went on, just as they would with a rush of air. Also, only a few 'squibs' were seen at seemingly random floors. This is inconsistent with real demolitions where many squibs are used.
As you a demolition expert? Because I have talked to one and he has already explain all this to me from the video, and what they were. You are distorting things, they are not rushes of air what I am referring too. It is not inconsistent with demolition you are making fantasies.
Quote:
That is not proven. Show me evidence of explosives or indeed anything conclusive in that regard. Given that the towers collapsed from the impact site down, explosives in the basement would have accomplished nothing.
ah, The explosion in the basement happened. That is enough cause for concern. Also power downs in the building leading up to the event are suspicious. The dust and thermite reaction. The way the building collapsed. As metal only weakens at certain temperature. The way it was designed in general does not allow for accidental collapse. All this is cause to believe in evidence of a controlled demolition. As nothing else is even possible. You have no option. Nothing else is physically possible.
Funnily enough, there was some little pieces of wreckage. Just no mark on the ground from an airplane crash. The problem with the wreckage is it was not identified as the same plane. So it doesn't count. Not only do you have little evidence of wreckage. The wreckage you do have. Is not the same aircraft. Someone placed a different wreckage there. So that's even worse. There is a photo of them taking something out from the pentagon. but it's wrapped in a big blue tarp material. So why the mystery?
Quote:
As for the hole, there were two hole, one caused by the plane going through and having its wings sheared off in the process. The other one was due to landing gear. A plane hit the pentagon these people agree. Unless they were bought off too?
Yes most people you reference will be lairs. Where is this second hole? What are you talking about. I only have a photo of one hole. That's all there was. One missile like clean circular hole, and that's all. No photo of the plane. Since there is no picture of the plane flying into it. That's pretty funny that you think you can argue if you have no evidence of the plane's presence. I think with the security of the pentagon. One picture would be available. That's if you believe they were unable to react and shoot the plane down. But it doesn't exist so there was only a picture of the missile going into it.
Quote:
You're misinterpreting me. I said a controlled demolition took a lot of effort. Obviously a building could be brought down by enough damage and structrual weakening, but that would be uncontrolled. The demolition of the towers was uncontrolled, as evidenced to the damage done to the surrounding buildings.
No only building 7 was somehow magically damaged to the point of collapse. It was not uncontrolled because structural weakening is not possible just from 1 plane.
Quote:
Maybe because the effects of the plane crash were slightly worse in the second impact. Also, I could ask the sae thing of you. If it was a demolition why did they demolish the second tower first when that would implicate a conspiracy.
Very unlikely since both impacts were similar in nature. Your right about something. I think they made the mistakes so obvious, that they want us to know they are hiding something. Which in itself is disturbing enough.
Quote:
You mean where "a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure." (Associated Press, 22 August 2002.). That is hardly the same situation as 9/11.
NO. That is not the military terrorism drill I am talking about. That has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
I guess the conspiracy grows. Now you are implicating the British government, the contracters who did the exercise and many more. This makes it even less believeable.
No actually one of the contractors went on television and told us what happened. That is how I knew about the exercise. And it only demonstrates that false flag operations are common.
Quote:
Don't lie. He said "pull it" not "pull the building". And as I said, in demolition terms to 'pull' means to literally pull with cables, which did not happen here.
when he said decided to "pull it" it's obvious he was referring to the building. If you doubt this in any case don't worry you still have plenty more things you can't explain. If you look it up "pull" has nothing to do with any cables. It's a demolition term to bring down a building.
