Hi guys, stef here, this is my first time so please be gentle. (Page 48): funny how the NIST people are the perps when they use a lot of third party investigators & scientists to draw...

emarine

[quote=payne1000]

emarine wrote:

I have posted that info source at least 10 times now... same as the fact you just ask for sources after providing no rebuttal... maybe you should read the NIST report... Read the NIST report? NIST is an agent of the perpetrators. Since you endorse them, that makes you an agent of the perpetrators as well. If thermite cuts so fast why did the tower stand so long... If the perpetrators had cut the columns immediately after the airliners struck, they could not have blamed the collapse on fire. The perps had to detonate the South Tower early because firemen had reached the 78th floor and reported the fires to be almost out. Infrared readings only take a few seconds to provide info... Why is it you always deflect to WTC7 when you have no rebuttal?... WTC7 was not a diversion. I brought up WTC7 because you were claiming the airliners were the cause of the tower collapses. WTC7 is a perfect rebuttal to that false claim. you troofers can't focus on one issue at a time... in reality a no name nobody can easily challenge you and your expert troofers with nothing but simple logic & basic physics... you only answer questions with Photoshop stupidity ....answer this... if you want to deflect to WTC 7 then why does your Photoshop stupidly directly compare the WTC towers to the midget Windsor tower... The reason I use the Windsor Tower is because no other steel-framed skyscraper in history has had even a partial collapse from fire. The Windsor is the only one, and it did not have fireproofing on the steel as all three WTC towers had. Many steel-framed skyscrapers have had much greater fires which burned much longer than at WTC. None of them even threatened to fall. you own this stupidity lock stock and barrel... you created it... If you can't refute the events of the WTC towers and want to move on to WTC 7 that's fine but you have not proved anything of your WTC conspiracy tower claims to date except your ability to deceive, lie and deflect... so If you cant refute a no name nobody you're not doing so well with your argument...Denial is your MO. You'll never admit you've been defeated even when all the respectable experts totally disagree with you and agree with me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANYMXwFK0C8

I have posted that info source at least 10 times n... (show quote)

funny how the NIST people are the perps when they use a lot of third party investigators & scientists to draw a conclusion when your so called experts say really stupid things like if the towers were never hit by jet planes... All your arguments are flawed to the point of stupidity... making it necessary for you to post conspiracy theory's to back your conspiracy theory's... this fact alone proves the weakness of your arguments... Occam's Razor is not about the most complicated explanation possible... the basis of your many theory's ... it's interesting how conspiracy people think or don't think & imagine

emarine

[quote=payne1000]

emarine wrote:

I have posted that info source at least 10 times now... same as the fact you just ask for sources after providing no rebuttal... maybe you should read the NIST report... Read the NIST report? NIST is an agent of the perpetrators. Since you endorse them, that makes you an agent of the perpetrators as well. If thermite cuts so fast why did the tower stand so long... If the perpetrators had cut the columns immediately after the airliners struck, they could not have blamed the collapse on fire. The perps had to detonate the South Tower early because firemen had reached the 78th floor and reported the fires to be almost out. Infrared readings only take a few seconds to provide info... Why is it you always deflect to WTC7 when you have no rebuttal?... WTC7 was not a diversion. I brought up WTC7 because you were claiming the airliners were the cause of the tower collapses. WTC7 is a perfect rebuttal to that false claim. you troofers can't focus on one issue at a time... in reality a no name nobody can easily challenge you and your expert troofers with nothing but simple logic & basic physics... you only answer questions with Photoshop stupidity ....answer this... if you want to deflect to WTC 7 then why does your Photoshop stupidly directly compare the WTC towers to the midget Windsor tower... The reason I use the Windsor Tower is because no other steel-framed skyscraper in history has had even a partial collapse from fire. The Windsor is the only one, and it did not have fireproofing on the steel as all three WTC towers had. Many steel-framed skyscrapers have had much greater fires which burned much longer than at WTC. None of them even threatened to fall. you own this stupidity lock stock and barrel... you created it... If you can't refute the events of the WTC towers and want to move on to WTC 7 that's fine but you have not proved anything of your WTC conspiracy tower claims to date except your ability to deceive, lie and deflect... so If you cant refute a no name nobody you're not doing so well with your argument...Denial is your MO. You'll never admit you've been defeated even when all the respectable experts totally disagree with you and agree with me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANYMXwFK0C8

I have posted that info source at least 10 times n... (show quote)

This guy knows a little about heat... he proves the math but is easy to understand...http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/the-thermodynamics-of-9-11/

payne1000

emarine wrote:

funny how the NIST people are the perps when they ... (show quote)

You accuse me of posting conspiracy theories when the truth is . . . what I am really saying is that the Bush Administration conspiracy theory, which you defend so zealously, is all lies.
Here is the proof:

payne1000

emarine wrote:

This guy knows a little about heat... he proves the math but is easy to understand...http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/the-thermodynamics-of-9-11/

Here's what you failed to post about your author:

"With the case of Manuel Garcia, and his three recent, rapid-fire articles in Counterpunch, we appear to have another opportunity to examine the phenomenon of Bush science. Here we see a fully educated scientist making strong supportive statements of the Bush Administration’s 9/11 theories, despite the fact that he must know those theories are based on false or unsubstantiated claims. For our own understanding, let’s take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his efforts.

Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there.(1) At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don’t exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?"

Read more . . . http://911blogger.com/node/5272/

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

Here's what you failed to post about your author: ... (show quote)

Cheap shot... you're saying that the people smart enough to invent this thermite don't understand it as well as you troofers... you never refute the material at hand... just the messenger... you discredit everyone who disagrees with your conjecture theory's & provides the science to disprove you... a good part of 911 relates to heat & this guy is on the cutting edge of this subject & peer reviewed all over the world... you have no rebuttal just bullshit

payne1000

[quote=emarine]Cheap shot... you're saying that the people smart enough to invent this thermite don't understand it as well as you troofers... No, I didn't say that. The 9/11blogger article shows why Garcia had a motive to lie about what brought the towers down. you never refute the material at hand... just the messenger... Garcia's article is so long and full of bullshit, it would take a month to refute it. Why should I do that when the photos and videos refute everything he says? Garcia does not explain the physics of how normal office fires which don't burn hot enough to weaken fire-proofed steel could cause WTC7 to fall at free-fall speed. you discredit everyone who disagrees with your conjecture theory's & provides the science to disprove you... a good part of 911 relates to heat & this guy is on the cutting edge of this subject & peer reviewed all over the world... you have no rebuttal just bullshit Garcia is one person who has a motive to cover up the truth. I can show you thousands of highly accomplished professionals who don't agree with Garcia: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

emarine

[quote=payne1000]

emarine wrote:

Cheap shot... you're saying that the people smart ... (show quote)

I chose this article because the author was good enough to write in easy language light on the math... There are few on earth who can challenge his work... you & the author of the blog you posted have provided no argument on any of Garcia's work... maybe if you fools read more science you would not be so foolish... like I have stated in the past you are clueless about heat & once again I have provided the materials for you to learn something but you still choose to remain ignorant... try and argue the science not the bullshit that you create ...

payne1000

emarine wrote:

I chose this article because the author was good e... (show quote)

You or your liar du jour have not explained how WTC7 could fall at free-fall speed from normal office fires which were not hot enough to even weaken fire-proofed steel.
It took a lot of thermite to bring WTC7 down that fast. You need to read this again: "Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia’s employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there. At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don’t exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?" http://911blogger.com/node/5272/

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

You or your liar du jour have not explained how WT... (show quote)

So you basically have once again another conspiracy theory for us readers ... We definitely see a pattern here...

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

Here we are 15 years later and the unaccounted for money at the Pentagon has risen to $6.5 trillion.
Does this mean we can expect another false flag operation much bigger than 9/11--maybe nuclear this time?
Or does it just mean it's costing a lot more to cover up the first one than they had anticipated?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/us-army-audit-accounting-errors/

How can that mush money go missing when they did not even get that much money for their budget. It just means that we have the same conspiracy theory just with more unsubstantiated theories. I bet you did not watch the special on TV about the twin towers. They showed very slow motion of the collapse where no explosions were seen. Just dust and debris created by the above floors falling onto one floor at a time. But you will say just another paid show by the Jews. Go figure.

payne1000

emarine wrote:

So you basically have once again another conspiracy theory for us readers ... We definitely see a pattern here...

The pattern which has developed here is that you will not answer the tough questions.
Why can't you and Garcia explain what caused WTC7 to collapse at such high speed?
Isn't it interesting that the company Garcia works for has developed a thermite material which can turn concrete to dust?

payne1000

Louie27 wrote:

How can that mush money go missing when they did not even get that much money for their budget. It just means that we have the same conspiracy theory just with more unsubstantiated theories. I bet you did not watch the special on TV about the twin towers. They showed very slow motion of the collapse where no explosions were seen. Just dust and debris created by the above floors falling onto one floor at a time. But you will say just another paid show by the Jews. Go figure.

I'd rather watch the news videos which were censored by whoever made the propaganda video you watched.
This video talks about HUGE explosions: https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU

emarine

payne1000 wrote:

The pattern which has developed here is that you will not answer the tough questions.
Why can't you and Garcia explain what caused WTC7 to collapse at such high speed?
Isn't it interesting that the company Garcia works for has developed a thermite material which can turn concrete to dust?

The pattern here seems that you refuse to read and learn the materials provided by readers so that you can make sound decisions... If you chose to read Garcia's link you will learn & answer many of your own questions ... they say that ignorance is bliss... I say ignorance is payne's problem... now just how many other conspiracy theory's do you need to support your main theory... when the time comes we will list them all and prove once and for all how foolish the information you provide is in reality... maybe we can have other readers pitch in on solid information they provided that you just write off and ignore... conspiracy theory's only seem valid if you can fool others into revising science & history using deceptive and repetitive tactics... I say 911 was 19 Muslim hijackers crashing two jets that exploded and burned causing heat related failures of several structures at the WTC complex...it was investigated and 4.6 billion was paid in damage claims ... now that's one sentence that abides to Occam's Razor with no conjecture or hearsay... just many eye witlessness and the vast majority of experts... just like Jeff Fager & Rupert Murdoch are not Jewish... just because you read it somewhere they were... that was not the best evidence available to make a sound decision...

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

payne1000 wrote:

I'd rather watch the news videos which were censored by whoever made the propaganda video you watched.
This video talks about HUGE explosions: https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU

One person saying it was an explosion does not make it so. Has the person been around explosions before? I believe not. Just his observation of the tower collapse. He did not say multiple explosions. There was only continuous noise with the collapse of the tower that I heard on that video.

payne1000

emarine wrote:

The pattern here seems that you refuse to read and... (show quote)

Throwing out your usual rant of convoluted gobbledygook to avoid answering the question again?
As I said, you refuse to explain how WTC7 can collapse at free fall speed from "normal office fires" which don't get hot enough to even weaken fire-proofed steel.
I went to Garcia's link and got a message that the page doesn't exist.
So maybe Garcia wasn't able to explain it either because if he did he'd have to admit that explosives were used.