Anti-Neocons

As I've said before, it's largely conjectural. there's really nothing in the way of solid proof, since most (if not all) the physical evidence was so quickly disposed of.

Phys, the calculations themselves are flawed, as they are based on presumptions and are almost entirely hypothetical. The buildings were pulverized to the ground, and however much you want to counter the demolition theory, the fact remains that it is still a more plausible theory than the truss or pancake theories.

The calculations arent flawed.

They are based on facts apart from the evidence of the buildings.

For example, the mass of thermite and the amount that would be needed for x building so large is a value you can calculate w/o needing debrie from the buildings.

All the demolitionists I've talked to in Georgia said it looked like controlled demolition. The idea of the building burning and collapsing on itself was humorous to them. It was basically "so why does my job exist?"

Seems like this opinion is common among demolitionists outside my state too. Maybe you can just write it up as, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." but i don't think so.

_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?

"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux

How can you draw a conclusion on the amount of thermate, when almost all the evidence was destroyed!

Let's say that the amount of thermate was indeed not sufficient, how then is it possible that in every sample of the dust of WTC, thermate has been found?

What is the probability of that, considering that nearly all the evidence was either shipped to another country or destroyed.

It's not a strong argument at all. Resting on pure speculation.

_________________

Which is why they are flawed - because they have no evidence of the buildings, and therefore, they are largely conjectural and hypothetical.



But this presumes that only thermite and/or thermate were used and nothing else. They would've only been used (as they often are) to cut steel. In this case, it would be the steel columns.

Also note the unmistakable evidence of linear shaped charges on the steel columns at the WTC ruins:



So, at the very least, high velocity explosive detonations were used on the WTC, which is what thermite and/or thermate are used for.

That's the picture!!!!!!!!! Look at that. How can the world see that and not think something's wrong?!?!? Look at the angle cut and MELTED STEEL DRIPPINGS!!!!! Does anyone know any details of that shot? When it was taken, and where?

Those pictures are the nail in the coffin.

If fire does that, then i'm gonna start a new company that demolishes buildings with fire. Anyone want to invest?

_________________

One more time:

Calculate the amount of thermite needed for any, any building at all you pick it. Then calculate how much that would weigh. ANY BUILDING

Not sure how we need evidence for that.

Leds wrote:
All the demolitionists I've talked to in Georgia said it looked like controlled demolition.

All the experts I talk to said it wasnt.