Weaver wrote:Provide proof of the existence of thermite. Provide proof of the existence of explosives, of detonators, of det cord, of wiring, of initiators, of triggers. PROOF - not simply stupid allegations.

To a layperson without any familiarity to these devices, det cord, wires and triggers look innocent enough. Any reason to believe why the average person would be alarmed seeing bits and pieces of wires, cables and plastic, especially if these are buried together among tons and tons of dust and debris?

You're focusing on wires. How about the tons of explosives?

Do explosives look the same after they've exploded as they do before?

Asking for a friend.

Do explosives which didn't detonate look the same as they did before they didn't detonate?

Asking for your friend ...

Weaver wrote:You're focusing on wires. How about the tons of explosives?

What does thermite look like? Sand? Soil? Dust?
If so, then I am sure it looks suspicious lying around among all that dust and debris.

Thermite is not an explosive. And no, it doesn't look like sand, soil or dust.

22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Weaver wrote:Thermite is not an explosive. And no, it doesn't look like sand, soil or dust.

It can be an explosive material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk

10:30

You should watch the movie Weaver. Every second of it. Your Santa-pants will drop from the loads of shit that are falling.

That clip does not show thermite (or any other material) exploding.

Thermite is not explosive.

You should learn something about thermite, and about explosives, fro a real, reputable source. Arguments from Youtube aren't helping you - they're just exposing your ignorance and/or mendacity.

Weaver wrote:That clip does not show thermite (or any other material) exploding.

Thermite is not explosive.

You should learn something about thermite, and about explosives, fro a real, reputable source. Arguments from Youtube aren't helping you - they're just exposing your ignorance and/or mendacity.

What material was it then? Unicorn shit?
Have you watched the video from beginning till the end?

The material was not exploding. It was burning energetically, and occasionally tossing out clumps of sparks - but that is not an explosion, and more than it is when wood burns and tosses out clumps of sparks.

None of these were found.



Case closed!

Newstein wrote:No they didnt look for explosives!!!
Look it up. Read it in the NIST report

What else did they not look for? Is there a list?

NuclMan wrote:

Newstein wrote:No they didnt look for explosives!!!
Look it up. Read it in the NIST report

What else did they not look for? Is there a list?

Idiotic comment.
They did not look for dildos
They did not look for horseshit
...
do I go on?

OK, let's give you another chance.

What precise explosives were used in the controlled demolition of the WTC - and how do you know this?
What physical residue remains of these explosives and associated components proving that they were used?
What is the quantity of the explosives used in the controlled demo of the WTC - and how do you know this?

Weaver wrote:OK, let's give you another chance.

What precise explosives were used in the controlled demolition of the WTC - and how do you know this?
What physical residue remains of these explosives and associated components proving that they were used?
What is the quantity of the explosives used in the controlled demo of the WTC - and how do you know this?

There was thermite found in the wtc dust.
Ask the engineer in the 911 thermite movie for specific amounts.

This is a really disturbing question. You are the biggest ignorant freemason of all your buddies here.

Jfk wasnt shot down. Proof it to me.
What speed had the bullet? What metal was it made?
How many ml blood has he lost?

OK, so we're back to slanderous personal attacks.

False ones, at that.

Enjoy your next vacation - maybe when you learn to converse politely we can continue this.

Newstein wrote:This is proof that a building can come down without flying a Boeing into it!



This collapse is due to SOME column that failed and then the whole building came down in its footprint.
btw, those people you see were just chasing some pokemons..

debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory one at a time

Such Brilliance!!!

Was that a STEEL FRAME "building" or was it MASONRY?

Steel has a tendency to BEND instead of break up like masonry.

What percentage of the building was above the break point compared to the percentage below?

With the north tower it was less than 14% above the break point.

Your example looks like 50% above and 50% below minus the gape taken out in the middle so that would take Newton's equal and opposite reaction rule into account. So how does 14% destroy 86%? And notice how you can actually see the upper portion hitting the lower portion in your video. Do you see that in the 9/11 videos or do you just see a cloud of dust?

psik

psikeyhackr wrote:

Newstein wrote:This is proof that a building can come down without flying a Boeing into it!



This collapse is due to SOME column that failed and then the whole building came down in its footprint.
btw, those people you see were just chasing some pokemons..

debunking every single 9/11 conspiracy theory one at a time

Such Brilliance!!!

Was that a STEEL FRAME "building" or was it MASONRY?

Steel has a tendency to BEND instead of break up like masonry.

What percentage of the building was above the break point compared to the percentage below?

With the north tower it was less than 14% above the break point.

Your example looks like 50% above and 50% below minus the gape taken out in the middle so that would take Newton's equal and opposite reaction rule into account. So how does 14% destroy 86%? And notice how you can actually see the upper portion hitting the lower portion in your video. Do you see that in the 9/11 videos or do you just see a cloud of dust?

psik

Dude, my post was sarcastic.

Weaver wrote:OK, so we're back to slanderous personal attacks.

False ones, at that.

Enjoy your next vacation - maybe when you learn to converse politely we can continue this.

That's not a personal attack. You're just being ignorant to what I'm saying.
Do you feel insulted if I tell you you are not reading my posts?