Thoughtless WTC Conclusions

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Mar 2, 2019.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you believe explosives are not used to demolish steel framed buildings then? It's an "imaginary" idea?

    Damned if there's one official forensics expert on this planet who even tried to find any. But please name one official forensics expert that did and provide the link if you know of one. Last I checked NIST, the ONLY "experts" who were mandated to conduct the investigation by Congress admitted they didn't bother to look for explosives or incendiaries or evidence of any under false pretext that violated their own published NFPA guidelines. No one can find anything if one doesn't look for it.
     
  2. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were looking for gnomes
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,092
    Likes Received:
    785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The craters that you cant show me because they just happened to slip their minds on the 'original' building plans.
    yeh morrelli and the firefighters, you know the people that were actually there that got hit in the face with debris being blasted off the wall and thrown across the room and had to go to the hospital for their injuries.
     
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Delete
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You failed to read the paper I linked just a few posts ago eh Koko? I suggest you read it.

    You mean the "rumblings" William described on the day of 9/11? And the fireball that came DOWN the elevator shaft that William described a year later? Or all his supposed corroborating witnesses that he DIDN'T use as proof of his claimed demolition in the lawsuit against the government?

    Again, William embellished his story. It's a fact.
     
    l4zarus and Derideo_Te like this.
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bobby,

    You whine and complain when people take your posts out of context yet turn around and do the same thing. Go back and read my quote. It says exactly what I meant it to mean.

    Glad you admit there is no evidence of explosives.
     
    l4zarus and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [QUOTE="Gamolon, post: 1070327963, member: 64231”]Glad you admit there is no evidence of explosives.[/QUOTE]

    Talk about taking things out of context. I admitted no such thing. The evidence of explosions caused by explosives is overwhelming. What is missing is an official detailed forensic investigation that never took place that would physically confirm the type of substance(s) used.
     
  8. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are still just making stuff up.

    That is an admission of guilt.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    '
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's great Bobby.

    Now please provide the evidence you speak of that proves the explosions were CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES.

    This is great.

    You claim above there is overwhelming evidence that proves explosions BY EXPLOSIVES yet in the next sentence, you say there is no forensic evidence to confirm what TYPE of explosives were used. This makes no sense.
     
    l4zarus and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You say that as though some does make sense.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My point being if there was physical evidence of explosives, you would know what type.

    There is more evidence that a jet fuel fireball came down the elevator shaft than there is of demolition charges or thermite.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  13. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,809
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct, and common sense.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The irony is a die hard OCT defender asking for proof of anything when the OCT is accepted as fact yet there is not a stitch of proof. Face it you would not accept anything that contradicts the OCT. I posted my position on the destruction of the WTC towers and that nothing I posted is proof. Yet the evidence of controlled demolition is still overwhelming by deductive reasoning supported by a ton of evidence and could never be accomplished without explosives. You should be asking for proof of the OCT but you never did and never will.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And you're the same way with conspiracy theories Bobby. Funny isn't it? You have no proof whatsoever that the buildings were demolished due to demolition charges yet you blindly believe. Just like you accuse the "OCT defenders" of doing.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Based on the overwhelming evidence one can only reach a logical conclusion. There’s nothing “blind” about it.

    Based on the overwhelming evidence that the OCT is a massive fraud and the lack of evidence supporting the official fairy tale one can only blindly believe it.
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Right. A huge jet fuel fireball came down the elevator shaft. There are a myriad of other things that explode in fire are can sound like explosions. This in itself puts the claim of demolition charges in jeopardy because you have no physical/forensic proof to single out demolition charges.

    Just like your belief in some conspiracy theory. Look in the mirror Bobby.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The Bentham Paper alleges to have done exactly that. Unless you're admitting Steven Jones, et al. knowingly perpetrated fraud when they claimed to have confirmed thermite was in the WTC dust....

    In the real world, the only explosive worth considering for CD is RDX. And we know Jones and company didn't find anything or they would have shouted it from the rooftops.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    17,092
    Likes Received:
    785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    of course we do, you mean you of all people dont know that? you dont know how it can be easily proven?
    No it didnt, that is impossible, there are 2 reasons it is impossible, want to take a wild guess?
    Not like high explosive explosions. Only one thing can sound like high explosive explosions, I am surprised you even posted that long dead rhetoric.
    actually it validates it.
     
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No, you don't.

    How about you provide your evidence instead of playing guessing games.

    You have no proof to differentiate a "high explosive explosion" from other types of explosions present at the buildings otherwise you would provide it.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Actually, it doesn't.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet explosives always cause explosions when they work as advertised. So what you’re doing is exactly what NiST did. Make a claim for the least likely cause and deny the most likely cause. Next.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yet another post without any proof that shows demolition explosives caused the explosions.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,958
    Likes Received:
    1,439
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet another post without any proof that shows all these claims of explosions were caused by other than explosives. I’m not interested in proof from you nor am I interested in proving anything to you. For me the evidence is overwhelming, for you there is and never will be any evidence that contradicts the OCT. And that’s quite fine with me. Neither you or your beliefs are relevant. The same is true for me. What is relevant are the facts. What is also relevant is the current ongoing grand jury petition supported by a mountain of evidence. That will not change no matter what you or I post, despite your obvious desperation.
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No desperation on my end Bobby.

    I'm just using the same logic you are and you don't like it.

    I'm giving you alternative, realistic options for the explosions. As long as these alternative options/explanations exist and there is no positive forensic evidence for demolition charges, your claims of some type of demolition charges were used to bring the towers down means absolutely nothing. I have more evidence of a jet fuel fireball causing the explosions than there is for demolition charges.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page