Reality Fighter wrote:
> "Disneygeek"
hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1554db26-e8f2-47e1-82f3-8815d4d08f61@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 15, 3:44 pm, "Reality Fighter" once.net> wrote:>> "Disneygeek"
hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:452c7864-197e-4e9d-b8b7-d265e49a2f86@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 14, 2:57 pm, "Reality Fighter" once.net> wrote:>>> This was all explained in the original post, which you apparently didn't
>>> bother to read before you responded here. Before responding further, read
>>> up
>>> about explosives - low order and high order. Some of the phenomena of the
>>> 9/11 INSIDE JOB false-flag attacks clearly required HIGH explosives and
>>> thermate (an incendiary used in controlled demolition to cut through steel
>>> columns) to produce.
That is not possible. There was no thermate or thermite used. There
were no high explosives used. They are neither invisible nor silent
nor odorless. They were not present on 9/11. Controlled demolition is
a physical impossibility as a result of this.
>> Says who? Where are the experts claiming that the explosions of the
>> planes could not have caused the damage generated? What are there
>> creditials?
>
> Get some college-level training in physics and chemistry and become your own
> expert.
> Education does wonderful things, like enabling people to THINK FOR
> THEMSELVES.
You should try it, instead of guzzling kookspew without question!
> That's why the fascists couldn't care less if the public is undereducated or
> miseducated.
That describes truthers to a T. Educated people reject the phony
physically impossible controlled demolition kooker nonsense.
>> If HIGH EXPLOSIVES were used to instigate the collapse,
>> why weren't explosions heard DURING the onset of the collapse as has
>> been shown in every other _real_ controlled demolition?
>
> There is testimony that such explosions WERE heard…
No there isn’t. You are improperly attributing witnesses who heard
loud noises and explosions with “controlled demolition” explosions. A
car blowing up in a parking lot is not a controlled demolition high
explosive going off inside a building. Big concrete and steel beams
falling down and making o=loud noises do not constitute controlled
demolition explosions.
> including one in the basement area just BEFORE the plane hit.
That is a flat out lie.
> Seismographic recordings likewise
> show spikes of energy immediately BEFORE the collapses began.
No they don’t.
>> And if
>> thermate was used, why wasn't the amount of thermate necessary to
>> cause this much damage visually obvious to everyone around?
>
> The surrounding structure concealed the burning thermate from view…
You cannot conceal a thermate reaction, honey. It would have burned
through the building. It also emits brilliant light and acrid
yellowish smoke. None of this happened on any of the floors, let alone
the flows below the impact zones where thermate reactions would have
been plainly visible had they occurred.
> but
> there exist photos showing MOLTEN IRON (a product of thermate combustion)
> cascading from one of the towers as it collapses.
That’s a flat out lie.
> Huge pools of such molten
> iron were found under all three collapsed buildings, with no other possible
> source than the thermate used.
That’s a flat out lie. Nothing of the sort happened or was observed
under ANY of the buildings let alone all three. And even if it had,
thermate would not possibly be a cause. Read up on it, Reality
Fighter.
>> For that
>> matter WHERE have you ever seen or heard of thermate being used in
>> controlled demolition jobs?
>
> Easy to find information, if you bother to look for it.
Then why don’t you? Because it contradicts you.
