The Great Thermate Debate

[immune]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=player_embedded

[zappaman]

1. *sigh*

[SDuderstadt]

2. Kinda ironic for someone who...

was just yammering on and on about "misinformation", huh...

[Bonobo]

3. What were your problems with the video?

Try to be as clear and specific as possible.

And please, let's try to keep this one as a discussion where we can respect each other, ok?

Because if you make fun of people who are searching for the truth, you are doing a disservice to all.

In my opinion, the creator of the video, the man who does these experiments, is deserving of enormous respect for the time he put into the experiments and for his methodology.

Can you offer some fair critiques?

[SDuderstadt]

4. Start with the claims of...

"molten steel". We've been over this repeatedly. No one can determine that something is "molten steel" merely by looking at it.

And, I am not making fun of people who are "searching for the truth". I am taking people to task for repeatedly advancing the same repeatedly debunked goofy CT bullshit and people not using critical thinking skills.

Did it ever occur to you that if "truthers" presented actual evidence of their claims, they might easily convert us to believers? They could start down that path by demonstrating they have even bothered to read the reports of the incredibly detailed investigations we've already undertaken, let alone comprehend them.

P.S. why would you think we would accord "truthers" even a modicum of respect given how they constantly malign our motivation?

[Bonobo]

5. Okay, let's start with the 'molten steel' then, I guess.

I accept your statement that it is impossible to determine it is is molten steel by the looks, but by that I mean only that it is not 100% undeniably possible to identify.

So we agree.

Having said that, the question still must be asked and an attempt to shed some light on the issue is fair.

In this video, such an attempt was at least briefly discussed.

In other words, the claim was made that aluminum will not mix with steel, not can additional materials mix molten aluminum to provide the yellow color that is easily witnessed in the videos.

So we can agree that molten steel cannot be 100% recognized, but by the same token, you must also agree that it cannot be 10% denied.

Therefore the possibility that it was molten steel must remain open.

Can we agree on this small point?


P.S. I think the problem with the label "truthers" is that it puts anyone asking questions into a single monolithic group that you are then freely able to dehumanize and express contempt for. It is best to treat each person (and their motives) individually without carrying prejudgments into each discussion. I do not question your motives out of hand and I would appreciate the same.

"They could start down that path by demonstrating they have even bothered to read the reports of the incredibly detailed investigations we've already undertaken, let alone comprehend them."

The only problem with this is that IF the report was deigned and written to obscure the truth and then you force every conversation on the subject into the confines of the report and steer it that way, there is no possibility of further exploration. I hope you can see that point.

[SDuderstadt]

6. No, I can't see your point about the...

reports. You're assuming the conclusion that the reports/investigations were not good faith efforts. It also ignores the immense investment of time and resources in the investigations.

Sorry.

[Bonobo]

9. No, I don't think their intentions are at all a part of my statement.

Look, even if you accept -out-of-hand- that questions of explosives are ludicrous -which I think you probably do...

The point I am making is that, since the report made no full attempt to look into the possibility of explosives, then that particular possibility cannot be explored by reading the report.

I still have not seen much critique from you about this video.

At the bare minimum, the video demonstrates at least the potential that an thermite device was used. It showed how it could be done and asked some very good questions.

[SDuderstadt]

11. Dude...

let's agree to disagree. I don't think rehashing a potpourri of previously debunked "truther" claims is productive.

[Bonobo]

12. A lot of effort was put into this video and the experiment.

Why do you even post on this thread if you have no substantive critique of the content of the video?

Did you even watch it?

How can you legitimately claim to have an open mind and why do you feel the need to belittle people so quickly?

Why did you have to pull out the insulting "Dude" thing?

[SDuderstadt]

13. Dude...

Yes, I watched the video. The problem is you don't see the logical flaws in it. For example, take any example of the filmmaker's "successful" devices. Where's the discussion of how any of these devices could have possibly been deployed without being detected?

That's part of what makes this video so laughable, yet you buy it. Sorry, dude.

[Bonobo]

14. I don't think you deserve a response.

You are a closed minded person who has perfected the art of self-deception.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Can you explain how the "devices" were deployed?

No, you can't. Can you explain why it would be necessary to fly airplanes into the building if you were just going to demo it with "thermite"? No, you can't.

Being open-minded does not mean you just buy goofy CT bullshit without evidence. Do you honestly believe that ASCE sorted through the structural steel and ignored pieces that would show evidence of this goofy CT bullshit? Not one person on the team would have sounded alarm bells?

Who's practicing self-deception, dude?

[deconstruct911]

16. Come on

The point of the planes is to blame it on Bin Laden. Duh

[SDuderstadt]

17. Really?

Planes weren't used in '93. Why couldn't the thermate/thermite devices be similarly blamed on Islamic radicals? If planes were used, why would the other devices be needed? Do you think Americans would just say, "Oh, they just flew planes into buildings, but the towers didn't collapse, so no harm, no foul"?


Do you guys ever think things through?

[deconstruct911]

18. Speak for yourself

If Bin Laden wanted to do something this sophisticated why would he kill 3000 people when in 93 he apparently wanted to kill 100,000+? Your scenarios demonstrate your lack of knowledge on 9 11. You can't even get the 93 plot together properly.

[SDuderstadt]

19. WTF...

are you babbling about now? Did I say anything about the number of casualties? The subset of people who believe that bin Laden and al Qaeda didn't attack us on 9/11 is almost as small as those who insist "no-planers" were used in the attacks.

[deconstruct911]

21. fact check please

"The subset of people who believe that bin Laden and al Qaeda didn't attack us on 9/11 is almost as small as those who insist "no-planers" were used in the attacks."

Another statement pulled out of your ass.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Oh, brother...

do you understand derision when you hear it?? Go "fact-check" it yourself.

Hint: I wasn't presenting it as a "fact", dude.

[zappaman]

20. what are you talking about?

your post makes no sense.

[deconstruct911]

22. It makes about as much sense

as the shit posted ahead of it. Seriously though, did it never occur to sdude that maybe they wanted to ensure the collapse of the buildings? And my point about 93 is that once again, the official story is another fairytale.

[SDuderstadt]

24. I think Zappa was referring to...

how incoherent your writing is. What language do you normally converse in?

[zappaman]

7. Videos are fun

This one doesn't have any ominous music though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do&feature=player_embedded#!

[immune]

25. You've probably read this before, but

"The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

On a number of columns damaged by the aircraft? Thermate wouldn't work on any other columns? Sure worked like a charm in this video without a solitary aircraft in the vicinity.

Many thousands of pounds? The video handily debunked that official claim.

An unlikely substance? Why didn't they simply test the "molten material" to discover whether it was aluminum or steel or melted office furniture, and also test for the "substance" like the guy in the video did to prove their stated negative? Maybe we didn't pay them enough to do a few silly scientific tests.

But I was most impressed with that burned out bolt hole. Neat as a pin.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Cool...

except, of course, that neither immune nor anyone else seems capable of explaining how a single one of the filmmaker's "successful" devices could possibly have been deployed at either one of the towers, especially without having been detected.

I mean, do they seriously expect us to believe that walls and floors were ripped up on multiple floors in the days before 9/11 and not a SINGLE person recalled it later?

[immune]

27. This film

has nothing to do with deployment, it demonstrates the actions of thermate and yeah, it is pretty cool (hot) stuff. Are you a science denier?

If you want to talk about possible deployment, maybe we could refresh the thread where you tore into the witness to the power down the weekend before 911. Remember her? The gal who ended up getting banished after losing her temper with you? I just can't figure out why somebody might lose their temper like that.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Of course...

I'm a "science denier" for pointing out the simple fact that deploying the "successful" devices would have been nothing short of an impossibility.

As for the power down "witness", it can easily be seen by anyone revisiting that thread that this "witness" had no direct knowledge of any such "power down".

Too funny.

[immune]

29. So I take it you aren't denying

the actions of the thermate as demonstrated in the video, or the fact that it doesn't take thousands of pounds of the stuff to cut through a steel beam.

Baby steps.

NYCCAN apparently thought her story worthy of consideration since it corroborates other such witness accounts. Fortunately, NYCCAN's deliberations and determinations don't have to depend on your sense of humor to reach their conclusions.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Of course...

"immune" omits the fact that the "other such witness accounts" consists of exactly one such person, Scott Forbes. Anyone reading Forbes' claim can easily see that it is full of holes.

As far as the efficacy of the filmmaker's devices, I'd love to see anyone provide the calculations of how many such devices would had to be deployed and, thus, the actual amount of thermite/thermate. Beyond that, I'd love someone to explain how members of ASCE and others sorted through the structural steel for NIST's steel inventory, yet didn't identify a single piece displaying the telltale signs of any such device having been used in it. Unless, if course, the conspiracists expect us to believe they were all "in on it" too.

[immune]

31. Didn't you say just yesterday that

a type of metal can't be determined by just "eyeballing" it? Maybe it wasn't you ... you all tend to run together after awhile. But "sorting through" doesn't indicate a scientific examination of the metal to determine exactly WHAT they were taking inventory OF.

Short of testing for thermate, they wouldn't have found any. And they didn't test for it since it would have taken thousands of pounds of the stuff to cut through a single column. Oh yeah. We can sure see that.

What did you think of that amazing bolt hole? Flash, bang, gone. Like magic.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Of course...

what I actually said was "molten steel" cannot be identified merely by looking at it. How in the world can someone confuse an inventory of structural steel pieces with molten steel? And, of course, "immune" omits the battery of tests NIST subjected the steel inventory to. In fact, I'm relatively certain that "immune" hasn't bothered to read the NIST reports at all, let alone the sections involving the steel inventory nor the tests it was subjected to.

Pretty strange behavior for someone supposedly committed to "uncovering the truth", wouldn't you say?

[immune]

35. Was the "steel"

subjected to thermite/thermade/nanothermite testing in that "battery of tests"? Rhetorical question. How many tons of melted steel did they inventory? Another rhetorical question.

I just posted a snippet from the NIST report to show that the claim of needing thousands of pounds of thermite/thermate to cut through a steel beam falls flat on its face in the OP video. What else are we not to believe?

[SDuderstadt]

36. Of course...

"immune" is too lazy to read the NIST reports for himself, or he wouldn't ask such stupid questions like, "how many tons of melted steel did they analyze?". And, of course, "immune" dodges the question about why none of the steel inventory exhibits any of the telltale signs the filmmaker's devices would influx, not to mention completely dodging the question of how many devices would have had to be deployed and, thus, how much thermite/thermate.

What would we do for laughs without "immune's" unintentional comedy act?

[zappaman]

33. Like magic"

Would explain it all, wouldn't it?
Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence explaining how the towers collapsed instead of suppositions, thermate and magic.
Thanks for explaining that Houdini.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Not to mention that...

ASCE/NIST didn't recover a single piece of structural steel that exhibits anything like what "immune" claims.

Funny how he keeps leaving that out, huh...

[immune]

37. The "magic" of thermate

can't hold a candle to the folks who pulled the illusive Bin Laden out of their hat.

So what did you think of the way the thermate chewed through that bolt?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Ever wonder why "immune" does not...

calculate the number of bolts that would have to be "chewed through" and thus calculate the amount of thermite/thermate required, let alone how it would have been deployed?

Hint: because it destroys his "argument". Too funny.

[immune]

39. I do wonder why you insist

on putting immune in quotes. What's the point of that?

I found that disappearing bolt very interesting. Did you like the vertical and lateral cuts through the beams better, is that your point? If so, its pretty silly.

Just to remind you, this is not a thread about "deployment", it is about the actions of thermate, which are damned impressive if you're looking to demolish something.

[SDuderstadt]

40. I wouldn't expect "immune" to understand what...

"irony quote marks" are, but I would expect him to understand why supposed capability without the possibility of deployment makes his "argument" absurd.

Too funny.

[immune]

41. Ah, I get it now

Its an insult. Just one of the many things immune is immune to. Its all you've got. Sad.

[SDuderstadt]

42. I also wouldn't expect "immune" to understand that..

"irony quote marks" are not an insult, especially in a thread where he keeps ducking questions and asking all manner of stupid questions of his own.

Too funny.

[zappaman]

44. "Just one of the many things immune is immune to"

You can add logic, rational thinking, and science to that list as well.

[SDuderstadt]

45. That was...

assumed.

[immune]

46. Your belief

is proof of nothing. But then you have never been long on proof to back up your beliefs. Read the bible, he says, over and over and over, its all in there and anything that isn't in there is a lie.

Now that's ironic.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Another stupid...

strawman argument from "immune".

That's actually NOT ironic.

[immune]

48. Long on insults

short on anything remotely resembling a substantive debunking of the science demonstrated on the film. I suppose that's because you can't. It must be frustrating.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Why does "immune" keep ducking...

valid questions? All I am asking him to do is calculate how much thermite/thermate would have been required using any of these "devices", then explain how they could have possibly been deployed, especially given the fact that walls and floors would have had to have been torn out and why such activity was not reported by a single witness.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it??

[zappaman]

50. "Makes you wonder, doesn't it??"

Not really.
He can't answer so deflects.
Funny to watch...

[SDuderstadt]

51. I know...

but the comedic value is priceless.

[immune]

52. Here's an idea!!!

Why don't you contact Jonathan Cole, PE and ask him your detailed questions about his scientific experiments and conclusions? Be sure to report back on what he says. Thanks in advance.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Here's a better idea...

since "immune" is such a fan and "immune" can't answer simple questions, why doesn't "immune" ask Coles for a "lifeline"?

[immune]

55. Why on earth

would I go to the trouble of asking him YOUR questions? Did you think I owed you a favor or something? Thinking may not your strong suit, after all.

Remember that PM you sent me a while back telling me to NEVER AGAIN call you a .... fill in the blank ....? I probably wouldn't have needed to say the dreaded word and get the whole post deleted, anyway, since you proudly display it daily for the world to see. Kind of an unwritten rule of thumb.

Edit to add ... and I never actually called you a ...fill in the blank ... , to begin with.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Since it's "immune's" claim...

he should be the one that asks for help with questions he can't answer.

Pretty simple, actually.

[immune]

58. the only claims

up for debate here are Jonathan Cole's: "I guess it does". But you don't want to go there, do you? Its safer to set immune up as a convenient strawman to "knock down" to avoid discussing the success of Cole's experiments. Transparent as glass.

[SDuderstadt]

59. And "immune" once again...

ignores the fact that capability without chance of deployment means absolutely zero.

Too funny.

[zappaman]

54. Here's an idea!

How about you answer the question posed to you regarding your assertions?

[zappaman]

43. "Ever wonder why "immune" does not..."

calculate the number of bolts that would have to be "chewed through" and thus calculate the amount of thermite/thermate required, let alone how it would have been deployed?"
I'm guessing he doesn't count all of them because he doesn't have enough fingers?

[zappaman]

8. the internets have lots of info!

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg121450.html

Not to mention you would need about 100 lbs for each column.

[Bonobo]

10. Actually, that was thoroughly debunked in this video,

You should probably at least watch it if you are going to participate in a discussion of it (which is the purpose of this particular thread).

[PufPuf23]

57. Interesting video especially considering

this was one guy doing the experiment in his shop with readily obtained materials readily debunked NIST and the National Geographic Channel in amount and ability of using cheap homemade thermate to cut steel.

The US military has thermetic incendiaries; for example thermetic grenades used to disable artillery that must be abandoned.

Nano-thermics exist.

So compare what this fellow did essentially in his backyard and shop alone with the research ability and might of the US military and the types and efficacy of designed thermetic charges.

One could think that the existence of remnant nano-thermics in the dust would suggest something more than planes, fuel, and resulting fire brought down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

Are there videos of other steel framed structures that burned that had molten metal flowing and that retained high temperatures for weeks in the rubble?

[LARED]

64. You want me to address your post

Ok

Your post boils down to this statement.

One could think that the existence of remnant nano-thermics in the dust would suggest something more than planes, fuel, and resulting fire brought down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7

The existence of nano-thermics suggests lots of things other than your posit. First and foremost the existence of remnant nano-thermics is not an established fact. There are many thermic materials in existence and I would suggest that there were many materials used in the construction of the WTC having compounds that could be associated with thermic materials.

It also just makes no sense. Why would the perpetrators fly planes into to WTC, and use sophisticated materials (materials that may not of even existed in usable forms in 2001) to then demo the buildings?

[immune]

66. It didn't exist prior to 2001?

Thermite reactions can be used to purify metal ores. Uranium was purified in this manner as part of the Manhattan Project during World War II.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2081916_make-thermite.html

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

Thermate is used in incendiary hand grenades.

http://how2dostuff.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-thermite.html

[LARED]

67. Reading comprehension problem, or

typical truther sophistry?

I addressed your question about nano-thermic materials. You respond by giving me an unneeded lesson in the uses of Thermite.

Try to at least follow your own argument.

[immune]

68. What do you know about

false flag operations? They've only been going on forever. So you asked why the perpetrators would fly planes into to WTC, and use sophisticated materials (materials that may not of even existed in usable forms in 2001) to then demo the buildings.


Encyclopedia

False flag operations are covert operations. Covert operation is a military, intelligence or law enforcement operation that is carried clandestinely and, often, outside of official channels... which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/False_flag


Speaking of sophistry.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Fucking unbelievable...

Serious question: is there ANYTHING that doesn't totally go over "immune's" head?

Lared asks a perfectly valid question about overkill and "immune" responds with a primer on "false flag operations".

And people wonder why the "truth movement" isn't going anywhere. It reminds me of something from the great "Yoga Berra: "We're lost, but we're making great time!".

[immune]

70. Hate to burst your bubble, dude

But we ARE lost, and we ARE making great time.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Like I asked before...

is there ANYTHING that doesn't go over "immune's" head?

Too funny.

[LARED]

73. This may be absolutely brilliant.

immune has caused me to think of something I never considered. It could provide an explanation of why planes and demolition was used. The planes were indeed flown into the building as planned by UBL, but by a huge stroke of luck Bushco was also planning a false flag operation to demo the buildings at exactly the same time as a way to blame Iraq and start a war.

This thinking like a truther is fun. All imagination and no critical thinking skills to spoil the fun.

[PufPuf23]

72. Thank you. I will answer your question first.

The planes strikes followed by total destruction of the WTC was shock and awe show time imprinted in many minds on 9/11/2001. The first plane hit then then millions watched a second plane hit and the buildings fall. Marketing. "The New Pearl Harbor". The symbols of western capitalism blown to dust before a rapt audience. Great job Bin Laden.

Planes alone would have killed far more if the strikes were later in the day and lower in the towers. Surprise demolition alone would have killed far more and the millions watching would not have the sequential horror of a 2nd plane and two towers literally exploding on live TV. All the video footage shot by news crews and others would not exist and neither would viewers on TV and real life have the same drawn out experience.

Flying planes into the towers high and early in the day minimized the death totals and gave time for the evacuation of most people. A terrorist wanting the greatest loss of lives would have hit the towers as low as possible to minimize evacuation and to increase the probability of building collapse.

If a nano-thermic was used (and evidence found), the perps are cutting edge scientifically sophisticated as nano-materials are engineered not simply mixed (as the thermate used by the experimenter in the video or a diesel-fertilizer truck bomb). An engineered nano-thermic would be far more effective than a non-nano thermic explosive. Certainly there is scientific research and technology available to the military not of common knowledge (like Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns). Note I said "If".

The backyard researcher absolutely debunked the amount of thermate necessary and ability to cut steel claimed by NIST and National Geographic.

I asked another set of questions too.

Where is there a video example of a burning steel framed structure flowing molten metal and when was there such a structure that held heat for such a long period of time after burning or exploding (even when bombed in conventional aerial warfare)?

[deconstruct911]

81. Looks like the OCT wont answer

I think you nailed both points. Knowing they could never use planes again why would they hit the first target 10 floors from the top so early? Could Atta have predicted that they would tell the south tower occupants to remain on the upper floors? Anyway in hindsight of the FBI involvement in the 93 bombing that's exactly why they didn't come down.

[PufPuf23]

83. Thanks. I thought my posts in this thread were sound in logic too.

Supporters of the OCT do not like to answer when I post here (and never have posted anywhere else about 9-11).

The video and research was thought provoking and readily debunked NIST and National Geographic.

I like the format of "deconstructing" the events of 9-11 into questions that do not make sense to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. ?

On the first point, simply arranging for any two or more very bad things to happen at the Twin Towers more than a few minutes apart would probably have guaranteed a large audience for the second and subsequent ones. In fact, arranging for one very bad thing to happen would have guaranteed a large and horrified audience for the aftermath. The emotional impact of two different kinds of things may have been greater, but that isn't so obvious.

Flying planes into the towers high and early in the day minimized the death totals and gave time for the evacuation of most people. A terrorist wanting the greatest loss of lives would have hit the towers as low as possible to minimize evacuation and to increase the probability of building collapse.

Are you suggesting that The Powers That Be gave themselves away by choreographing the attacks to minimize the death totals? Even a few days later, I haven't figured out what to say about that. They were trying to maximize the drama while limiting the casualties? Why? Who would have made the determination that around about 3,000 was about right, and how?

Have you ever been anywhere near lower Manhattan? Can you imagine a reason why a terrorist might not try to hit, say, the 20th floor?

The backyard researcher absolutely debunked the amount of thermate necessary and ability to cut steel claimed by NIST and National Geographic.

That is far from obvious. How much thermate does the backyard researcher think would have been necessary?

Where is there a video example of a burning steel framed structure flowing molten metal and when was there such a structure that held heat for such a long period of time after burning or exploding (even when bombed in conventional aerial warfare)?

(1) Why does that even matter? If indeed the metal was aluminum alloys from the planes, then what other video examples would we expect? Even if you don't think it was aluminum alloys from the planes, the question stands.

(2) A "structure that held heat"? Are you referring to Ground Zero after the collapses? Hardly a "structure" at that point.

[LARED]

60. I have a hard time trying to decide

if this debate, or the debate I had with my neighbor about the best time to plant grass seed, is more important. I say November, and he is firm about December being the best time.

What say you?

[zappaman]

61. grass seed

cuz that's a real debate and not some fantasy "what if" debate...

[mrarundale]

62. It's better to use indigenous ground covers

Do people still plant lawns?

[LARED]

65. Well, I'm not really planting a lawn

I am reseeding a lawn badly damaged by the dry hot summer.

[mrarundale]

82. yeah, but it's just going to happen again

so why bother?

[PufPuf23]

63. Why don't you address my post?

I am fixing the lawn this Fall too. I'm waiting for leaves to fall.

[wildbilln864]

74. great stuff man! thanks.. nt:

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

75. Good, Bill...

Maybe you can answer the question no other "truther" will address:

How many of Cole's "successful" devices would have been required to bring down the Towers and how could they have been deployed without being noticed?

[wildbilln864]

76. those questions are for the investigation to find out...

You assume too much as usual sdude! :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

77. Dude...

did it ever occur to you that if such devices had been used, evidence of them would have been found? Do you just assume that everyone who sorted through the structural steel was "in on it"? Don't you think that you guys would have to, at least, provide some kind of preliminary evidence in order to initiate an investigation? How would this "investigation" be different than the extensive investigations NIST has already conducted? And, if, for whatever reason, such an investigation is actually conducted and they arrive at the same conclusions NIST and others have already arrived at, will you guys quit babbling about 9/11 being an "inside job"?

[PufPuf23]

78. Hey Dude. How about addressing my posts 57 and 72?

Can we agree the backyard researcher easily debunked NIST and National Geographic channel about the amount and ability of thermate to cut steel?

[wildbilln864]

79. never...

ass/u/me anything sdude!

[PufPuf23]

80. kick for anyone that is willing to answer my posts. nt

[wildbilln864]

85. kick! nt

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

86. and kick again! nt