in a scene as well picked-over as the rubble from ground zero was at least alleged to have been, the concept of missing even a recognizable bit of a flight recorder is very slim, unless: A: the flight recorder didn't exist in the first place because the flights are a lie. B: the action of the "collapse" of the towers was so violent as to make little tiny pieces out of any flight recorder present, so as to make it unrecognizable. Given that some firearms were recovered in a damaged but recognizable form, why shouldn't there be at least an identifiable bit of a flight recorder?
You mean the experiment where Mr Cole drops a chunk of solid ice on a chunk of solid ice? Then claims that this proves that the towers could not have collapsed as they did because his ice didn't? Are you seriously going to stand there and tell me you think a steel framed building would behave the same as a solid chunk of ice?
he proved how loony the posers theory that 1/2" thick steel I beam corroded to nothing due sitting in a mixture of gypsum for a few days. LMAO
Excuse please... where did you come up with this? "Despite no fuel to cause this rise in temperature the fire does it anyway and melts the steel and column 79 fails. Then, at the exact same moment, ALL OF THE OTHER STEEL CONNECTIONS HOLDING TOGETHER THE STEEL FRAME of THE ENITRE BUILDING also all fail simultaneously, causing the building to collapse instantly, falling straight down in perfect symmetry into its own footprint." As I understand it the govt never claimed that steel melted. They claimed the the heat caused a connection to column 79 failed which caused a floor to collapse which caused more failures and more floors to collapse which caused column 79 to fail then columns 80 and 81 failed. If you bother to watch a video of WTC 7 that has a view of the penthouse structures (there were two) you can quite clearly see the first one collapse several seconds prior to the second one. T
It wouldn't matter if radio/wireless/bluetooth/ whatever "detonators" were used as they are only the initiation devices and the actual detonators would be explosives and the evidence of such would not simply wash off. And just for the record anyone who believes they were should do some experimentation with their cell phones. Grab a second phone and dial away. Time the response between hitting the send button and the dialed phone ringing do this several times and notice the different times. Right there is your evidence that the sort of wireless devices you are thinking about wouldn't be used. I could easily set a shot up to use a wireless initiation device all day every day but after that initiation device everything down the line would be det cord connected or non electric blasting cap connections or even the old school way of electric blasting cap connections all of which would result in lots and lots and lots of wires or det cord or non electric blasting cap tubes strung all over the shot. Anyone claiming otherwise had better invite me to see his shot where he doesn't have all that mess on top of it and show me.
doesnt matter if it washed off, they never checked for it because they had their story already scripted. you are kidding right? a cell phone to time a demolition? Do you think everyone here are fools? damn. Again? no you can use anything you want and rf all the way if you got the money to afford it. this is starting to smell like posin to me.
So.. you apparently do believe that steel framed buildings would behave the same as a solid chunk of ice... well.. that solves that issue.
its not my argument. This is my argument: he proved how loony the posers theory that 1/2" thick steel I beam corroded to nothing due sitting in a mixture of gypsum for a few days. LMAO Do you believe that laying in a pile of wet gypsum could cause the equivalent of 10,000 years of salt water corrosion on this steel?
That is even funnier. You think that is 10,000 years of corrosion? Really? You seem to be going further into the realm of the absurd.
If there were nothing to the doubts, they would have faded over time. Instead, the doubts have only grown over time, the questions have multiplied, and the evidence has mounted that the official story can't be true. Those who believe in the official story tend to focus on ridiculing their opponents and/or ignoring important questions/points.
NO evidence has been 'mounted' that you and your troofer cult are anywhere close to disputing the truth. Just a lot of supposition backed by increduliy
The sad thing is that most of the time, debates on 9/11 are reduced to both sides saying how wrong the other side is, and very little time is spent on actually using evidence to back up their positions...
The 'doubts' are based upon ignorance. Most questions originate from ignorance, incredulity and bias. There is little unanswered and many ignore that out of choice because the evidence is there for all who wish to look. There is no 'official story' and the term is ridiculous in itself. There is the 'accepted version' and then there is the irrational like controlled demolition, no-planes and nukes etc. Why don't those who support 9/11 truth ask the truther gurus to finally produce a case for a new investigation? Gage will take an income of $500,000 per annum from truthers who 'donate' to his non-profit organisation (AE911T), and he claims he has all the evidence in the world, so why has not a case been presented? Some have posited that no lawyer would touch it, but the rational know that is untrue. Others state that the courts wouldn't allow it, but again, that is a ridiculous statement. Don't you guys ever question this arrangement? Where are the papers? If AE911T is so full of academics, why have they NOT produced a single paper in 14 years? If they have the evidence, where is the case they've been saying they want for the last 14 years? These are the real questions.
Some of us have been doing this since 2008. I spent years going down truther rabbit holes and disproving the canards with evidence, irrefutable evidence, but the truthers would resurface the following week and present the same canard again. I've done this on multiple sites before I arrived here and I refuse to go down truther rabbit holes anymore because most of them have nothing to do with CD or any other claim. It's groundhog day for me these days and 9/11 truth isn't saying anything new, just the same old canards I've been through time and time again. Take the Jennings timeline canard for 7WTC. Clearly, his timeline is out when compared to other testimony and the known facts, but 9/11 truth bring him up every few weeks and one has to go through the whole thing again and again. Clearly Jennings's memory is not up to scratch, but there are those that take it as gospel and argue for it as proof of a CD. This is an irrational stance and one I've had to address repeatedly. So, you can understand that some of this can get quite old for some, and admittedly, I'm almost over 9/11. There is nothing new from 9/11 truth and those who are left aren't willing to listen. Furthermore, some things just aren't worth arguing like no-planes, nukes and flying orbs or thermite cutters. These are just irrational stories by irrational people, and you have to acknowledge that 9/11 truth attracts some of the more unstable elements in our society.
