@342roblox It is hard to tell what it was on was not. :) No one has scientifically proven that is was not a demolition. All that "debunkers" have is plausible explanations.
Plausible explanation is part of science but you still have to prove that explanation to be true. NIST has only plausible explanations for things they looked at. But has no explanations for things that they ignored.
Research info about fire investigation standards in connection with 9/11 and firefighters.
EUROPE DIRECT. Demonstrating that all sciences are the conspiracy against the disease.
Je m'appelle Claude Valette. Je suis un physicien (supraconductivité, puis acoustique musicale, puis astrophysique), retraité, anciennement Directeur de Recherche au CNRS.
WTC physique rumeur - Physique de l’effondrement des tours du World Trade Center, WTC2, WTC1, WTC7, analyse de la rumeur, 50 pages en pdf par Claude Valette.
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion . com/video/x2l5k9_effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_news
Hello! put wrong in Portuguese. I will delete this and put some in English. Delete your after. my mistake. Sorry. was the thrill of finding evidence against the A & E.
@KBendix No.. no it doesn't make a shred of sense. The amount of people you need to hurl under the bus for it to make sense is not credible in anyway shape or form.
CD techs were already at B7 when it collapsed. They watched it. So rule that out. Not credible in the least.
Thermite is not a substance that ANY professional in CD would even consider using. A thoroughly ridiculous story from the start.
This is all nonsense dude. And the FDNY were fully expecting 7 to collapse.
"Yeah. Why should you use demolition device that would leave hard-to-find evidence behind (like thermite). If you want to convince peoples that it collapsed due to planes and jet fuel then you should use conventional demolition devices that makes indistinguishable explosions and leave behind evidence for demolition devices.
That would be rule #1 for deceptive demolition: Always use devices that leaves evidence behind. Never hide evidence!"
@roquefortfiles I think that would be deceptive action if it was and inside job. You could get my point if you would want it. :p
It is still IF... that is what you have when you investigate something. And you can dismiss some theory only when you have 100% proof to be able to do legitimate dismissing. And you personally don't have. Yet you dismiss it. And that is based on bias.
You have locked mind. Whenever someone will present you evidence, you will twist it in order to be able to dismiss it.
@KBendix LOL. Do you realize what a silly statement this is? let me assure you, Its ridiculous. There is nothing quiet or deceptive about a CD. This is not a subtle event in any way shape or form. Its not done with quiet bunch of Thermite (Absolutely ridiculous!!). It requires high velocity explosives and I am sorry!! but that doesn't take place in a nice hushed quiet environment.
Its not a matter of locking my mind. Its a matter of knowing what I am talking about.
@roquefortfiles And you don't know what you are talking about. You never researched, never did thinking and never will be able to prove a thing you say. :) Your behavior is based on rage and fear from bad government that you want to delete from your reality. I don't let you delete it, so you are angry at me and peoples like me. If you would not be angry, you would not be here. :p
@KBendix No. Its based on real life first hand experience my friend. It has nothing to do with rage or fear or any of that crap. And it has nothing to do with any "official" story.
The reason I am here is that I am sick of listening to the idiots who post this crap and have no clue what they are saying and work daily to diminish what happened to innocent people. I am tired of listening to it. If these people think they're getting a pass with me?
@roquefortfiles I tied you to chair and made you watch video.
9/11 investigation is scientific thing that is way more complicated than one mans experience.
It is all based on scientific evidence that no one was able to debunk. Only things that can be done is to twist it, call it lie or imply ignore it.
And as usually you are mentioning INNOCENT peoples that died. Yes they did, but it is not about how terrible that was... it is about who did it and could do it again if desire.
@KBendix These are shaped charges going off in a city setting. If explosives were in the WTC this is what everyone in lower Manhattan would be hearing. Without question. And there is no getting around this or explaining it away. No way!! Been there and I know what I am talking about.
watch?v=obJe66QHx_Y&feature=related
Tell you what? You show me ONE video of the WTC collapse with this kind of audio going on and I'll shut the hell up OK!!
@roquefortfiles I don't understand what is that you don't get? If it was planned as a deceptive demolition there is no way they would use loud explosives. Thermite isn't used in conventional demolitions because it is not practical. But that doesn't mean that you could not use it to weaken the structure. Watch Jonathan Cole video.
After all you expect that structure was weak enough to collapse only because of planes and fire. Why are you expecting to need lots of loud explosives to bring it down?
I don't if you realize just what a ridiculous statement that is. But let me assure you. IT IS.
Why are you expecting to need lots of loud explosives to bring it down?
Because that is what is required. This is not done with slow burning incendiaries. There is no professional anywhere who would even begin to entertain using this.
Go and ring up a demo company and ask them. See how long it takes them to laugh you out the door!!
@roquefortfiles OK. I see that you have not done any real research. Go and watch Jonathan Cole videos and video interviews with experts in AE911truth channel or watch their movie "Expert speak out". You will be able to hear demolition experts opinion on that.
Also Jonathan Cole made excellent experiments (unlike NIST or any so called debunkers) to show how you can cut steel columns with small amounts of thermite. And reaction is not slow. It is fast and effective.
@KBendix You already did multiple times? Where? A jonathon cole video? And just exactly WHERE are these little contraptions he invented in the debris of the WTC??
Oh yeah like no where!!
Would you care to point out to me on close up video of the WTC 2 collapsing just exactly where this giant Thermite reaction is happening? 60 columns across that side of the building. 3 floors splayed wide open.
Show me where these giant spewing plasma thermite reactions are going on. ??
@roquefortfiles There is multiple ways how you can destroy casings.
David Chandler has some videos where he actually is shoving you evidence for explosives. Also there is video where you can see possible thermite reaction smokes.
But all of that you would find if you actually would research a bit. :)
@KBendix I'll say this once more to you. Buildings are not imploded with slow burning incendiaries. You're on glue if you think they are. The WTC does not even fall in a manner of a CD. The collapse would look entirely different if explosives were involved. That you don't understand the reason for that speaks volumes in itself.
@roquefortfiles That doesn't make any difference if they were there.
Anyway... this will end as always. You will keep your stubborn attempts to trick me with false logic and eventually you will give it up like all anti-truthers did. You will not be able to provide any real evidence or explanation. You will just keep giving pointless hollow statements.
Go watch "Experts speak out" and also listen to psychologists that gave their opinion on behavior like yours.
@WhyAskQuestions It doesn't matter where are you from. 9/11 is attack on humanity and anyone that has some sense understands that we should no separate ourselves from others only because they look, talk and live in different place.
I guess that lots of peoples aren't from Iran... Right? Yet they call for U.S. invasion in Iran to stop the nukes while you don't have any proof for nukes there. But that wouldn't be the 1st time when western arrogance kills 100 thousands peoples for nothing.
WAQ 'O' is a troll. do not feed, you will cause it to morph into many troll sock puppet accounts.Ask him to prove he's a fireman, he is NOT unless he can prove it. He is known as the fluffer from the firehouse and can not be believed about anything!
WAQ 'O' is a troll. do not feed, you will cause it to morph into many troll sock puppet accounts.Ask him to prove he's a fireman, he is NOT unless he can prove it. He is known as the fluffer from the firehouse and can not be believed about anything!
@CARSONB43 Well... looks like you are right. He can't explain a thing, while he is only repeating "give me proof, give me proof, give me proof...". When i give him proof, he just ignores it.
As i said before somewhere... while it is close to be useless to explain something to peoples like he, this is public place and may be someone else will get something good from my explanations. :)
I'm wondering why you haven't blocked me from posting on this video. You haven't proven me anything nor shown me anything. All you do is rant and rave like a loon. I guess you you think that 9/11 was something funny because you feel incapable of human emotion. You'd rather sit there typing up excuses from every Truther website and video you can think of and yet can't show me evidence.
@WhyAskQuestions You would like to see me blocking you, wouldn't you? :p Not my style, sorry.
May be i don't understand what you mean with 'evidence'. :)
I don' t have evidence where Bush talk about planing of 9/11 on video or audio. But that would be naive to expect that kind of evidence. In most crimes you don' t have that good evidence.
One good evidence you can get from Steven Jones or other scientists that works with dust samples. Go and see for yourself. I can't give you dusts in comments.
@WhyAskQuestions If there will not be any better candidates than you and Mandarke ill make sure that you both face the facts LIVE. :D Something like: "Internet trolls face hard facts!"
Somehow i have feeling that you will try to avoid it. :p
@WhyAskQuestions Nano thermite. Go and see for yourself. I don't have it with me, but even if i would have you still would need to come to me and look at it. I don't think you understand what you want when you ask for evidence. You will not get admitting readable evidence from government. It is dumb to expect it. That is why they hide videos from pentagon. And readable scientific paper you just dismiss. So i can't give you anything that will please you. :)
@WhyAskQuestions Nano-thermite, free fall, wtc7, G.W. Bush brother, elevator upgrades before 9/11, small hole in pentagon, impossible maneuvers by total amateur "pilot", many unreleased videos of pentagon plane(?) impact... and many, many more evidence that in other cases would be enough to start extended investigation.
I said you that you can find evidence elsewhere and all i would do is to repeat it to you here in comments... and that is pointless. However, i did it anyway. :)
Somehow this thermite/nano-thermite isn't looking so good for you. It's a wonder why a thin steel wire coated with thermite doesn't melt, of course you an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. If you're suggesting that sparklers are the cause, then you're more of an idiot than I am.
@WhyAskQuestions Thermite is not nano thermite. Nano thermite explodes because it is made of nano particles and has much faster reaction and it is explosive. In this case we have organic materials in it too, so it has fast expanding gas reaction that enhances explosion. This explosion then lets that little amount of nano thermite weaken steel structures by using most of energy very fast. For instance. Explosives will do more damage than wood pile with equal energy potential.
@WhyAskQuestions "Nano-thermite, free fall, wtc7, G.W. Bush brother, elevator upgrades before 9/11, small hole in pentagon, impossible maneuvers by total amateur "pilot", many unreleased videos of pentagon plane(?) impact... and many, many more evidence..."
You have short memory or you ignore evidence in order to stay in your illusion of nice world where government is bad but not THAT bad. :)
Government IS BAD and there will be time when it will cut of your balls to control birth rates.
"or you ignore evidence in order to stay in your illusion"
You haven't given me any evidence at all. All you do give me is excuses why you can't show me a source from outside the A&E for 9/11 Truth or YouTube videos to prove your case.
"Government IS BAD and there will be time when it will cut of your balls to control birth rates."
Taking responsibility for your actions is the grown-up thing to do. Admitting your failures and accepting that you are not perfect may be hard to swallow. But, as you stop making excuses for yourself, you will soon realize how emotionally freeing your life can be. I know it is cliché - but "Honesty is the best policy."
Be honest with yourself, you know that you don't have evidence for what you're saying. Admit that you don't & just get on with your life.
@WhyAskQuestions What you try to achieve with this? Describe yourself? I just mentioned some evidence. You just keep saying that i didn't. Red it.
Small hole in pentagon is 100% evidence. Not releasing all videos of pentagon is 100% evidence. Elevator upgrades before 9/11 is proof of way to plant what ever needed to plant in that building. And so on. No debunker has debunked these and most of evidences. All we have is debunkers fabrication of debunking. For instance RKOwens4 channel.
@WhyAskQuestions You are human just like me and right now i see that you live in bubble of illusions and you come here to defend it with offense. In some way that may hurt my feelings, because i care about others. If i wouldn't, i wouldn't respond here to your comments.
Some peoples hear truth about 9/11 and simply deny it and then live his life as usual. Some peoples looks at it and starts to investigate with opened mind and then understands the truth. Some peoples do offensive defense.
Dude, I'm just pissed off that you would lie to me and tell me that you have evidence that 9/11 was an "Inside Job" then constantly beat around the bush as to why you won't show it or make up some damn excuses. 10 years of that shit and I'm sick of it.
@WhyAskQuestions We have enough evidence to start new investigation.
Just look at other investigations in everyday life that police does. You don't need super evidence to start investigation. It is enough to have suspicion. Why? Because police will not take any risks. They work with simple - "What if...?".
Somehow in 9/11 FEMA, NIST, debunkers etc. want to ignore the risks and isn't following official standards.
"Beh, beh... that was an act of war! So no standards in 9/11." Another excuse.
@WhyAskQuestions There is official guidelines/standards for investigation. In this case big par of it was fire and non of them followed even close to fire investigation guidelines.
Basically most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true and is evidence and is at least suspicion, that is enough to start new investigation. I can't provide nothing more or new. Can't accept it? I can't help you then.
There will come day, when you will have to face that and more... like it or not.
@WhyAskQuestions There is official guidelines/standards for investigation. In this case big par of it was fire and non of them followed even close to fire investigation guidelines.
Basically most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true and is evidence and is at least suspicion, that is enough to start new investigation. I can't provide nothing more or new. Can't accept it? I can't help you then.
There will come day, when you will have to face that and more... like it or not.
@WhyAskQuestions There is official guidelines/standards for investigation. In this case big par of it was fire and non of them followed even close to fire investigation guidelines.
Basically most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true and is evidence and is at least suspicion, that is enough to start new investigation. I can't provide nothing more or new. Can't accept it? I can't help you then.
There will come day, when you will have to face that and more... like it or not.
"There is official guidelines/standards for investigation."
That would be evidence!
"most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true"
After asking for evidence for 10 years straight, I have yet to have a Truther show me a source of this evidence for which they speak of. All I ever get is 10 years worth of excuses why there isn't one. Just like you're doing now.
"There will come day, when you will have to face that and more"
Do you have anything else besides YouTube videos? Like a Government source or a link showing acutal declassified documents proving that 9/11 was a "false flag"?!
@WhyAskQuestions Will you stop this nonsense? Why the hell government should show evidence that could be used against them? You think what you write or you just write 1st thing that comes to your mind?
And why the hell you debunkers whine about you tube and internet? It doesn't matter in what form and where you get the information. If i will write 9/11 research results in book and put it in some old royal library, will it then be better for you?
Uh, what nonsense? Atleast the government showed evidence, what have you done lately? Actually what goes through my mind when I log on the internet is laughing at the sheer stupidity of people who can't prove anything they say or claim because I know it's hard for them to prove it without evidence.
We don't "whine" about anything. We just like to show how you Truthers make asses out of yourselves, all we do is press your buttons & prestow. It does matter where the info is.
Actually non of us have to prove something to peoples like you. It is close to impossible anyway, since you ignore all evidence we show to you... like that obvious nano-thermite evidence. We will prove it in court when the time will come. Most of us truth seekers are ready to go to court, while guys like you just want to silence everything that challenges your nice reality of illusions.
No matter what KBendix or any Truther says, they'll never have evidence to prove their claims, they'll continue to lie, make up stories and excuses why they have no evidence then turn their aggression, anger and rants on everyone else but themselves.
And if KBendix reads this, fuck you and piss off. You've got NOTHING but excuses and that's all you have.
@WhyAskQuestions Yes. As you said. No matter what we say, you will never see proof and evidence. Good for you. I have nothing against you and you can live in that bubble of illusions if you like. But if you will get in my way with that, then there will be a problem... and i will have to deal with that problem.
Thanks to blind peoples like you in mid east million have died. You accepted governments lies and provided support for illegal wars against non-existing threat - Terrorism.
"Thanks to blind peoples like you in mid east million have died."
Thanks to you Truthers 3,000 people got killed on 9/11 because of your incompetence and ignorance.
"You accepted governments lies and provided support for illegal wars against non-existing threat - Terrorism."
Well atleast I'm not a Truther who's trying to hide the fact that the Terrorist did plan 9/11 nor am I going around covering up their crime w/ conspiracy theories saying "people in caves can't do that"
You're a yellow-bellied, spineless, bigoted, quivering, drunken, insomniatic, paranoid, disgusting, perverted, voyeuristic, little obscene boy. That's what you are. I don't need your fear and your stupidity. You just don't get it. Terrorism is real, just like you or I. You can deny they exist, then you are supporting terrorism through denial. You accuse people of trolling, but yet when we show you who is the real troll is you get upset and throw a temper tantrum.
You have to believe in yourself to get out of a mess that you created. If you can't believe in yourself then you have no hope of getting out. You believe what Truthers tell you or show you, despite them not showing you evidence. You believe without seeing the real scope of reality, that is why you will fail time and again.
@WhyAskQuestions I'm against bombings, chemical, bacterial etc attacks. But what really is terrorism and can you defeat it by using war and killing civilians? All i see is that those wars has created more hate towards U.S. and rest of western world. Of course you don't want to see that.
Of course you don't want to see that you're an angry litlte man who has no future. You pretend to deny the existence of a group of people (terrorists) who planned for years to take down the WTCs'. They failed in 1993 but succeeded in 2001.
You're just a dead beat anti-war boy. You never really wanted to support this country, that's why you won't commit to anything. Instead you sit at yor computer, typing up how fucking miserable your life is and why did it go all so wrong. Was it the Governments fault? No, it wasn't their fault, it was your own. You make up all kinds of excuses to blame the Government for your own stupidity. Did the Government make you live that way? No, they didn't.
@KBendix You keep sounding off about demolitions and then use failed demolitions that don't have anything to do with anything and then you punt and say "but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said!"
@KBendix You keep sounding off about demolitions and then use failed demolitions that don't have anything to do with anything and then you punt and say "but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said!"
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as mush a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as mush a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as mush a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as much a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
@LanteanKnight They are just peoples. Yet they think that they are something more.
Many times in history scientist has been proven as very biased peoples, who get things right only in cases, when it doesn't touch their BELIEFS (and not knowledge). They can make micro processor, because it doesn't violate scientists illusion of world they like. But they get biased evidence (very refined) to back up evolution theory. Just like in 9/11 official theory.
They are just people, but they have a lot more knowledge on their specific scientific area than the rest of the population: they committed their lives to studying their field of expertise.
There is no such thing as biased evidence, god...
Evidence is not intrinsically for or against a specific case.
No that's what conspiracy and religious nutjobs do.
Scientists start with an observation, then they make a hypothesis which is then tested.
@LanteanKnight Sounds nice. It should be like that. But is it?
I have observed many phenomena that conflicts with evolution theory. It is not that evolution didn't happen at all, but in same period or at start of it there happened some kind of creation.
Not only accepting unproven evidence is bad, but also ignoring of other facts. In evolution theory it is done a lot, and reason is this desire to keep their world view intact.
They are scientists... they try very hard to convince themselves.
Okay, that's it; you don't know what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as unproven evidence...
Evidence is by definition proven.
You are clearly not a scientist and you try to convince yourself you're not all that ignorant by just closing your eyes to science and living in your own little imaginary world.
@Mandrake662 We can't understand each other. I don't speak trollish. Sorry...
This video is what i have in my mind right now, no one has changed that. Architects and engineers only has approved that. If you can show in video why it should not stop and/or fall over then do it.
All you need is windows Paint and Movie maker. Was enough for me to make this.
I will be happy to watch it and understand your point of view.
@KBendix So far, like an idiot, you compare ACTUAL controlled demolitions to WTC 7, which wasn't a controlled demolition and then are arguing: "this is what should have happened." A&E hasn't proven anything. Richard Gage actually tried to compare the Twin Towers to cardboard boxes. LOL!!! "All you need is windows paint and moviemaker."
Yeah, that's what the experts in all of the relevant fields used. LOL!!! As I said originally: thanks for showing why the truth movement is so laughable.
@Mandrake662 Are you a mole? Or just a schmuck? Only a schmuck could still believe that WTC 7 was brought down because column 79 experienced "thermal expansion." (can't even say it without laughing). Thermal expansion.
Oh, and what experts are you referring to? I've researched 9/11 for 5 years and can find NO experts to support the official theory. That is, no experts not PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. I'd like you to refer to ONE EXPERT.
@LazlosPlane What experts am I referring to? You mean other than the more than 200,000 A&E who were practicing in just calender year 2009 alone ? Experts besides many academic institutes like Columbia University, Purdue university, MIT and the great bulk of demolition experts? I have researched 9/11 for about the same amount of time as you have and have not had a single "truth"er disprove the original conclusions determined by the investigations into that day.
@LazlosPlane <-------- Moron, free fall is meaningless and wasn't even in effect, but for a segment of one building during a segment of its collapse on that day. Add to that, the fact that the buildings fell and their debris was scattered around and into other surrounding buildings, further disproves the lame symmetry/freefall claims. Nice try.
@LazlosPlane To be honest with you, I don't think I can think of a time where I had a more ignorant moron reply to me with such a vast non-response, filled with such glaring and profound stupidity.
@Mandrake662 What have you got against growing up? Is it the puberty part? The "loss of innocence," part? What? You are either a mole or a fool. Or both. But clearly, you pound butt and are in denial of the truth.
@Mandrake662 Data... data. I don't think you personally fully understand that data. And if you do, then make You Tube video and explain it. Probably you think, that if scientists agrees with that, then it is true. But you are forgetting big force of acceptionalism. Scientists still live under humans psychology laws. Acceptionalists will accept first theory that pleases them. 9/11 inside job theory simply can't please anyone. So it takes some guts to look in to these kind of theories.
@KBendix Why would I upload a video to YouTube, when there are already videos uploaded that explain it? LOL!!! When one has to infuse 'psychology' into their retorts, that is one of the giveaways that you don't have an argument. As far as looking into the theories that claim that 9/11 was an inside job, I have explored all explanations and have found that they are ALL wanting in substance.
@Mandrake662 Why would you comment, if there already is comments like this?
And psychology affects every human being (including "god-like" scientists). You too. Yep... me too.
When you watch debunker videos, you accept it. When you watch "9/11 inside job" videos, you deny it. It is natural. Only problem is, when someone goes too far and get stuck in that state. "Truthers" tend to do that as well.
You can't fully understand world if you don't use human psychology also to analyze it.
@KBendix More stupidity! I don't go by feelings. I observe the facts. The facts simply are not in the corner of the "inside job" crowd! And, again, when you have to resort to infusing revisionist psychology into your retorts, it is the main giveaway you don't have an argument and you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
@Mandrake662 I understand, if you don't like what i am saying. Everybody wants to be perfect and when someone shows that he is not... then we simply can't expect good behavior.
I talk about psychology because that can make peoples look only to things they want to see. And most of peoples don't want to see that "9/11 was an inside job". Watch AE911 "Expert speak out". In last segment they explain that too.
One of ignored proof is nanotherimte in dust. Made out of nanoparticles. Not a paint. :)
How can you prove that there were "massive amounts of nano-thermite" if you have to use a microscope to prove such a silly theory? Wouldn't it be best to use a shovel of "unreacted nano-thermite" instead of a microscope?
If you have to use a microscope to prove something, that usually means there's very little to prove. Sorry but that's the facts, don't like it then please show everyone a shovel full of nano-thermite.
Yeah, and that's why you have a hard time shelling out evidence to prove your claims/theories. You wanna waste 10 more years of your life from those retarded conspiracy theories from the Not-Truth Movement?
@WhyAskQuestions There is no proof in this video. The proofs you can find in other videos and scientists work/papers. It is been ignored, because it proves and debunkers will admit it only after being defeated totally.
But no matter what, is still think that there is a chance of coincidences that made it look like inside job. It is just my nature to have probabilities of things. And what i can do is manage risks. "Inside job" involves more risks. Therefore should be eliminated 100% or verified.
@WhyAskQuestions Looks like all you been watching is low level truther videos. While they talk about real issues, they are not the most scientifically made. Just like my videos.
If that is true, that means you have false knowledge about so called truth movement.
For me the top research info you can get from AE911truth and every other source that is made by scientists, engineers and architects.
"low level truther videos", "they are not the most scientifically made"
Can I quote you on that?
AE911Truth just made themselves look like a bunch of idiots when Richard Gage played with cardboard boxes. Which scientists, engineers or architects have ever played with carboard boxes (other than Gage)?
@WhyAskQuestions You deliberately do not get the point i'm trying to make or Gage or anyone else that is talking about things you don't like. I can't help you right now because non of your comments is even close to science. Total demagogy.
You just told me that: "they are not the most scientifically made. Just like my videos." So how can it be "evidence" when there's no science involved?!
@WhyAskQuestions My video is not the evidence. It is short intro with basic info. It is like statement without evidence that fire is hot.
Evidences you can find in other videos and scientist made papers. Purpose of this video is to explain to peoples basics of these theories without making them watch long videos or read long papers, because long explanation can be problem sometimes for peoples that for some reason can not spend that much time on this.
@WhyAskQuestions My video is not the evidence. It is short intro with basic info. It is like statement without evidence that fire is hot.
Evidences you can find in other videos and scientist made papers. Purpose of this video is to explain to peoples basics of these theories without making them watch long videos or read long papers, because long explanation can be problem sometimes for peoples that for some reason can not spend that much time on this.
@WhyAskQuestions My video is not the evidence. It is short intro with basic info. It is like statement without evidence that fire is hot.
Evidences you can find in other videos and scientist made papers. Purpose of this video is to explain to peoples basics of these theories without making them watch long videos or read long papers, because long explanation can be problem sometimes for peoples that for some reason can not spend that much time on this.
So what you're saying is that Truthers don't like a long scientifically explained paper because they're illiterate and don't understand physics and common sense explanations that have valid evidence?
@WhyAskQuestions Look at yourself. All you been doing is trying to find some hole in opponents words and don't even try to get the point. Your behavior has nothing to do with proof, evidence or science.
I made this video for peoples that don't know about "unexplained" things in 9/11. Short intro for them. Because they are sometime busy and can't read or watch long info... and they need short intro. So i mad it.
I look at myself and say: "Thank God I'm not a retarded Truther." The point is stupid is that there's no evidence what-so-ever to prove that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". Don't give me a gossip of you saying you got evidence because I know you don't have any.
Unexplained things? Oh you mean the quote-mined witness statements, pointing the finger @ the 9/11 Families for being "in on it", or blaming the FDNY for "purposely blowing up 3 buildings"?!
@KBendix Your non-responses are some of the most stupid I have ever come across. Resorting to infusing psychology into a scientific discussion is one of the most retarded things a person could do. Obviously, if psychology makes people what they want to see, then you're a huge example of that. Paint chips are not "nano-thermite." Nice try.
@Mandrake662 Why you don't get the simple fact that psychology affects any human? And why you don't get that those are not paint chips? Just read or watch reports about them.
You are ignoring things you don't like or just trying to warp them and the same thing you are trying to do with psychology.
And don't ask for comparison for thermite demolition. There is no need for it in everyday demolitions. Now you will say that lack of comparison is ultimate proof of non-inside job?
@KBendix Why don't you get the simple fact that 2+2= 4, no matter how you feel about it? Why do you make paint chips out to be some substance that wasn't even available for use at the time? Psychology is irrelevant to the evidence. You are the one making random, arbitrary claims about thermite or "nano-thermite." And, lack of proof of thermite demolitions, is proof that there was none used for demolishing the WTC buildings that day.
@Mandrake662 Your psychology doesn't let you see the evidence. You can read a lot about this kind of psychological effect and reasons they exist. And this kind of effects is very important when peoples face certain facts.
That is the reason why i talk about psychology. I can't convince you if you have this effect preventing you from understanding.
Those chips are made out of nano particles. Paint simply don't need to be made out of nano particles and it is very hard to manufacture them.
@Mandrake662 And at that time this thermite technology was invented + in military you have stuff ready for use ~50 years before "small" peoples even starts to know about it. That is simply due to enormous arrogance that military peoples and big part of scientists have.
If you would watch and read carefully and with "opened eyes" those 9/11 research info sources, then you would not be here and writing this stuff that is nothing more but attempts to convince yourself that world is fine. It isn't!
@Mandrake662 And judging by your playlist in channel i can tell that you watch only those videos that is already de-debunked a long time ago and that is made in very demagogic and shallow way in order to feed peoples like you with false debunks. RKOwens4 that is.
Looking only at on side of opinions is very unscientific.
@KBendix Also, I have devoted more time to researching the conspiracy claims surrounding 9/11, then on the debunking side. LOL!!! I have to say, I have never had anyone resort to infusing the videos I have favorited as a talking point.
@KBendix LOL!!! That guy was debunked a long time ago and is a proven liar. Why can't you idiots present an actual, credible case? It's been ten years and supposedly, you have all of this evidence.
@KBendix This is not a debate, as you haven't presented anything factual in response to the facts. Steven Jones is debunked by virtue of the fact that his claims are inconsistent with the found evidence and resulting facts. Add to that, the fact that he had to go to a blog site and tell his cult followers how to cover for his fraudulent claims and publications. We ask for proof and in response, you morons don't offer any proof. Simple as that.
@Mandrake662 Independent, separate scientists have found red/gray chips in multiple dust samples from different places around ground zero. These chips was tested to see if that is paint. It isn't. It reacts with sudden release of energy. Paint don't do that. Paint has lesser energy output and it releases it slower. They looked at it closer and found out that it is made out of nano particles. It's harder and more expensive to make those nano particles. Paint don't need to be nano and isn't.
@KBendix Red and gray paint chips are not indicative of anything other than the fact that paint was used in the construction of the building. The paint used to coat the steel at the world trade center was actually more of a ceramic coating used to offer some protection to the steel. Particles in substances is not unusual.
@Mandrake662 If you repeat something will not make it truth.
For instance. Plastic explosive may look like clay. But it reacts in different way. Right?
Why i have to explain it to you like you are child? You just blatantly lie here and say that it is paint to attempt to dismiss this undebunkable evidence. But i have scientists that made this experiment and can prove it.
Don't believe me! Go to Jones or other scientists and see for yourself.
@KBendix Jones' "research" didn't produce any results. He and Harrit didn't do any of the tests they demand that anyone else do. Like I said: paint chips are not "nano-thermite." Also, can you please show me a patent on "nano-thermite?"
@Mandrake662 You don't need patent to use it in deceptive event. Non of that will be obvious. When peoples do crime, they hide stuff, so the investigators can't find out things. Yet you debunkers expect to see obvious controlled demolitions, cutting charges left behind and so on. And the best part is, that in some cases it is obvious. But then it is just coincidence or lie, like in nano-thermite case.
You don't want to see the truth, so leave 9/11 case and never come back. We will deal with it.
it wasn't a demolition
342roblox 2 months ago
@342roblox It is hard to tell what it was on was not. :) No one has scientifically proven that is was not a demolition. All that "debunkers" have is plausible explanations.
Plausible explanation is part of science but you still have to prove that explanation to be true. NIST has only plausible explanations for things they looked at. But has no explanations for things that they ignored.
Research info about fire investigation standards in connection with 9/11 and firefighters.
KBendix 2 months ago
@342roblox It certainly was a demolition. Pyroclastic clouds were formed.
Xendrius 2 months ago
i really got confused how Wtc 7 collapse········
342roblox 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More than one university against the conspiracy of 9 / 11
School of Engineering and Electronics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JN, UK
How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory
A.S. Usmani Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Y.C. Chung, J.L. Torero
w w w . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii /S0379711202000346
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The British newspaper, The Guardian, announces what is true of the towers. With the help of Purdue University and National Geographic.
The Guardian home
Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat
National Geographic has a fascinating simulation of why the US World Trade Center towers collapsed after the planes hit them on September 11 2001.
w w w . guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/sep/10/9-11-towers-simulation-engineering
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Electronic Magazine. 3 engineering associations. The CIA bought them all?
Structure Magazine - A Join Publication of NCSEA / CASE / SEI
How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7 - Ramon Gilsanz, PE, SE, Willa Ng
w w w . structuremag . org / article . aspx?articleID = 284
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest
Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics - Magazine bought by the CIA?
w w w . popularmechanics . com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EUROPE DIRECT. Demonstrating that all sciences are the conspiracy against the disease.
Je m'appelle Claude Valette. Je suis un physicien (supraconductivité, puis acoustique musicale, puis astrophysique), retraité, anciennement Directeur de Recherche au CNRS.
WTC physique rumeur - Physique de l’effondrement des tours du World Trade Center, WTC2, WTC1, WTC7, analyse de la rumeur, 50 pages en pdf par Claude Valette.
aczjbr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
URGENT - FRAUD "A & E TRUTH."
Effondrement des tours jumelles
The analysis of the explosives expert Jowenko was used by conspiracy theorists to show that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. In the same interview, he explains that the controlled demolition of the twin towers is impossible. Dynamite would have exploded right away, and it would have taken a year to put everything in place. in English.
w w w . dailymotion . com/video/x2l5k9_effondrement-des-tours-jumelles_news
aczjbr 3 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 3 months ago
@aczjbr Those links doesn't work for me..
KBendix 3 months ago
@KBendix
Hello! put wrong in Portuguese. I will delete this and put some in English. Delete your after. my mistake. Sorry. was the thrill of finding evidence against the A & E.
aczjbr 3 months ago
@KBendix Please join to access the link. already test and OK
aczjbr 3 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 3 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 3 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 3 months ago
Comment removed
aczjbr 3 months ago
Um dude? these are MASONRY buildings your showing here. They share NOTHING in common with the structure of B7.
Your example is useless and pointless.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles Try to look at it from multiple sides. It will make sense. :)
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix No.. no it doesn't make a shred of sense. The amount of people you need to hurl under the bus for it to make sense is not credible in anyway shape or form.
CD techs were already at B7 when it collapsed. They watched it. So rule that out. Not credible in the least.
Thermite is not a substance that ANY professional in CD would even consider using. A thoroughly ridiculous story from the start.
This is all nonsense dude. And the FDNY were fully expecting 7 to collapse.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles Trolling in - trolling out.
"Yeah. Why should you use demolition device that would leave hard-to-find evidence behind (like thermite). If you want to convince peoples that it collapsed due to planes and jet fuel then you should use conventional demolition devices that makes indistinguishable explosions and leave behind evidence for demolition devices.
That would be rule #1 for deceptive demolition: Always use devices that leaves evidence behind. Never hide evidence!"
Sorry! :p
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix LOL!! Deceptive demolition? Another new term coined by the "TM"
You people are nuts.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles I think that would be deceptive action if it was and inside job. You could get my point if you would want it. :p
It is still IF... that is what you have when you investigate something. And you can dismiss some theory only when you have 100% proof to be able to do legitimate dismissing. And you personally don't have. Yet you dismiss it. And that is based on bias.
You have locked mind. Whenever someone will present you evidence, you will twist it in order to be able to dismiss it.
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix LOL. Do you realize what a silly statement this is? let me assure you, Its ridiculous. There is nothing quiet or deceptive about a CD. This is not a subtle event in any way shape or form. Its not done with quiet bunch of Thermite (Absolutely ridiculous!!). It requires high velocity explosives and I am sorry!! but that doesn't take place in a nice hushed quiet environment.
Its not a matter of locking my mind. Its a matter of knowing what I am talking about.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles And you don't know what you are talking about. You never researched, never did thinking and never will be able to prove a thing you say. :) Your behavior is based on rage and fear from bad government that you want to delete from your reality. I don't let you delete it, so you are angry at me and peoples like me. If you would not be angry, you would not be here. :p
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix No. Its based on real life first hand experience my friend. It has nothing to do with rage or fear or any of that crap. And it has nothing to do with any "official" story.
The reason I am here is that I am sick of listening to the idiots who post this crap and have no clue what they are saying and work daily to diminish what happened to innocent people. I am tired of listening to it. If these people think they're getting a pass with me?
No. I am their fly in the ointment!!
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles I tied you to chair and made you watch video.
9/11 investigation is scientific thing that is way more complicated than one mans experience.
It is all based on scientific evidence that no one was able to debunk. Only things that can be done is to twist it, call it lie or imply ignore it.
And as usually you are mentioning INNOCENT peoples that died. Yes they did, but it is not about how terrible that was... it is about who did it and could do it again if desire.
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix These are shaped charges going off in a city setting. If explosives were in the WTC this is what everyone in lower Manhattan would be hearing. Without question. And there is no getting around this or explaining it away. No way!! Been there and I know what I am talking about.
watch?v=obJe66QHx_Y&feature=related
Tell you what? You show me ONE video of the WTC collapse with this kind of audio going on and I'll shut the hell up OK!!
But you won't. Because it doesn't exist
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles I don't understand what is that you don't get? If it was planned as a deceptive demolition there is no way they would use loud explosives. Thermite isn't used in conventional demolitions because it is not practical. But that doesn't mean that you could not use it to weaken the structure. Watch Jonathan Cole video.
After all you expect that structure was weak enough to collapse only because of planes and fire. Why are you expecting to need lots of loud explosives to bring it down?
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix Deceptive demolition???????? LOL!!
I don't if you realize just what a ridiculous statement that is. But let me assure you. IT IS.
Why are you expecting to need lots of loud explosives to bring it down?
Because that is what is required. This is not done with slow burning incendiaries. There is no professional anywhere who would even begin to entertain using this.
Go and ring up a demo company and ask them. See how long it takes them to laugh you out the door!!
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles OK. I see that you have not done any real research. Go and watch Jonathan Cole videos and video interviews with experts in AE911truth channel or watch their movie "Expert speak out". You will be able to hear demolition experts opinion on that.
Also Jonathan Cole made excellent experiments (unlike NIST or any so called debunkers) to show how you can cut steel columns with small amounts of thermite. And reaction is not slow. It is fast and effective.
Come back when you are done. :)
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix I'll let you in on a little secret that anyone who works in CD already knows. Jonathon Cole's videos are silly nonsense.
Cutting steel with a small amount of Thermite? LOL. With his his little strapped on device of Terror? LOL. Silly silly stuff dude!!.
And where are these contraptions to be found on the steel at any of the buildings??
Oh yeah that little problem!!
Stupid stuff.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles You should look at yourself for a moment. Sad, sad situation. :/ 0% evidence, 0% proof from you. Only some attempts of trolling.
As I said before, you are not and will not be able to prove anything you say. Simply because you are wrong.
But I will be able to prove everything I say and I already did it multiple times. :)
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix You already did multiple times? Where? A jonathon cole video? And just exactly WHERE are these little contraptions he invented in the debris of the WTC??
Oh yeah like no where!!
Would you care to point out to me on close up video of the WTC 2 collapsing just exactly where this giant Thermite reaction is happening? 60 columns across that side of the building. 3 floors splayed wide open.
Show me where these giant spewing plasma thermite reactions are going on. ??
!!!!
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles There is multiple ways how you can destroy casings.
David Chandler has some videos where he actually is shoving you evidence for explosives. Also there is video where you can see possible thermite reaction smokes.
But all of that you would find if you actually would research a bit. :)
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix I'll say this once more to you. Buildings are not imploded with slow burning incendiaries. You're on glue if you think they are. The WTC does not even fall in a manner of a CD. The collapse would look entirely different if explosives were involved. That you don't understand the reason for that speaks volumes in itself.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@KBendix Demolition experts opinion? LOL!!! More like ROFL!
Dude!! a team of demolition experts were already at building 7 when it collapsed.
I don't need to hold your hand through the rest of the absolute common sense or logic fail of the rest of what that means.
Unless you're an idiot of course.
roquefortfiles 4 months ago
@roquefortfiles That doesn't make any difference if they were there.
Anyway... this will end as always. You will keep your stubborn attempts to trick me with false logic and eventually you will give it up like all anti-truthers did. You will not be able to provide any real evidence or explanation. You will just keep giving pointless hollow statements.
Go watch "Experts speak out" and also listen to psychologists that gave their opinion on behavior like yours.
KBendix 4 months ago
Carson is from Canada and doesn't know shit about 9/11 cause he's not American.
WhyAskQuestions 4 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions It doesn't matter where are you from. 9/11 is attack on humanity and anyone that has some sense understands that we should no separate ourselves from others only because they look, talk and live in different place.
I guess that lots of peoples aren't from Iran... Right? Yet they call for U.S. invasion in Iran to stop the nukes while you don't have any proof for nukes there. But that wouldn't be the 1st time when western arrogance kills 100 thousands peoples for nothing.
KBendix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KBendix
Why are you still talking to me? You know that I know that you have nothing. Go away!
WhyAskQuestions 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAQ 'O' is a troll. do not feed, you will cause it to morph into many troll sock puppet accounts.Ask him to prove he's a fireman, he is NOT unless he can prove it. He is known as the fluffer from the firehouse and can not be believed about anything!
CARSONB43 5 months ago 10
WAQ 'O' is a troll. do not feed, you will cause it to morph into many troll sock puppet accounts.Ask him to prove he's a fireman, he is NOT unless he can prove it. He is known as the fluffer from the firehouse and can not be believed about anything!
CARSONB43 5 months ago 5
@CARSONB43 Well... looks like you are right. He can't explain a thing, while he is only repeating "give me proof, give me proof, give me proof...". When i give him proof, he just ignores it.
As i said before somewhere... while it is close to be useless to explain something to peoples like he, this is public place and may be someone else will get something good from my explanations. :)
KBendix 4 months ago
@KBendix you are so right!
CARSONB43 4 months ago
I'm wondering why you haven't blocked me from posting on this video. You haven't proven me anything nor shown me anything. All you do is rant and rave like a loon. I guess you you think that 9/11 was something funny because you feel incapable of human emotion. You'd rather sit there typing up excuses from every Truther website and video you can think of and yet can't show me evidence.
You are a fucking tool!
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions You would like to see me blocking you, wouldn't you? :p Not my style, sorry.
May be i don't understand what you mean with 'evidence'. :)
I don' t have evidence where Bush talk about planing of 9/11 on video or audio. But that would be naive to expect that kind of evidence. In most crimes you don' t have that good evidence.
One good evidence you can get from Steven Jones or other scientists that works with dust samples. Go and see for yourself. I can't give you dusts in comments.
KBendix 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions watch?v=c3jnFtSElH4
KBendix 5 months ago
Here fishy fishy fishy!
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions If there will not be any better candidates than you and Mandarke ill make sure that you both face the facts LIVE. :D Something like: "Internet trolls face hard facts!"
Somehow i have feeling that you will try to avoid it. :p
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Yeah, if you have "facts" you'd better provide evidence for those facts. No excuses!
Oh, like you avoid the fact that you have nothing to offer Mandrake or I as far as evidence is concerned?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Nano thermite. Go and see for yourself. I don't have it with me, but even if i would have you still would need to come to me and look at it. I don't think you understand what you want when you ask for evidence. You will not get admitting readable evidence from government. It is dumb to expect it. That is why they hide videos from pentagon. And readable scientific paper you just dismiss. So i can't give you anything that will please you. :)
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
What did I say? I said I wanted evidence, NOT EXCUSES. Can't you read????
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Nano-thermite, free fall, wtc7, G.W. Bush brother, elevator upgrades before 9/11, small hole in pentagon, impossible maneuvers by total amateur "pilot", many unreleased videos of pentagon plane(?) impact... and many, many more evidence that in other cases would be enough to start extended investigation.
I said you that you can find evidence elsewhere and all i would do is to repeat it to you here in comments... and that is pointless. However, i did it anyway. :)
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Somehow this thermite/nano-thermite isn't looking so good for you. It's a wonder why a thin steel wire coated with thermite doesn't melt, of course you an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. If you're suggesting that sparklers are the cause, then you're more of an idiot than I am.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Thermite is not nano thermite. Nano thermite explodes because it is made of nano particles and has much faster reaction and it is explosive. In this case we have organic materials in it too, so it has fast expanding gas reaction that enhances explosion. This explosion then lets that little amount of nano thermite weaken steel structures by using most of energy very fast. For instance. Explosives will do more damage than wood pile with equal energy potential.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
You continue to spew excuses why you can't show evidence that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". Man, you're pathetic!
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions "Nano-thermite, free fall, wtc7, G.W. Bush brother, elevator upgrades before 9/11, small hole in pentagon, impossible maneuvers by total amateur "pilot", many unreleased videos of pentagon plane(?) impact... and many, many more evidence..."
You have short memory or you ignore evidence in order to stay in your illusion of nice world where government is bad but not THAT bad. :)
Government IS BAD and there will be time when it will cut of your balls to control birth rates.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"or you ignore evidence in order to stay in your illusion"
You haven't given me any evidence at all. All you do give me is excuses why you can't show me a source from outside the A&E for 9/11 Truth or YouTube videos to prove your case.
"Government IS BAD and there will be time when it will cut of your balls to control birth rates."
And this has relevence to 9/11 because....?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix
Taking responsibility for your actions is the grown-up thing to do. Admitting your failures and accepting that you are not perfect may be hard to swallow. But, as you stop making excuses for yourself, you will soon realize how emotionally freeing your life can be. I know it is cliché - but "Honesty is the best policy."
Be honest with yourself, you know that you don't have evidence for what you're saying. Admit that you don't & just get on with your life.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions What you try to achieve with this? Describe yourself? I just mentioned some evidence. You just keep saying that i didn't. Red it.
Small hole in pentagon is 100% evidence. Not releasing all videos of pentagon is 100% evidence. Elevator upgrades before 9/11 is proof of way to plant what ever needed to plant in that building. And so on. No debunker has debunked these and most of evidences. All we have is debunkers fabrication of debunking. For instance RKOwens4 channel.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
You never sourced your info, so you're lying, again!
You don't know ballistics. You ignore photos. Renovations doesn't prove anything. There isn't any evidence. No evidence of "debunker fabrication".
You know, I could spend the next 10 years telling you that you're a fucking asshole who can't prove shit. But you already know you are.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
Awe, did I hurt KBendix feelings yesterday? Well you reap what you sow.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions You are human just like me and right now i see that you live in bubble of illusions and you come here to defend it with offense. In some way that may hurt my feelings, because i care about others. If i wouldn't, i wouldn't respond here to your comments.
Some peoples hear truth about 9/11 and simply deny it and then live his life as usual. Some peoples looks at it and starts to investigate with opened mind and then understands the truth. Some peoples do offensive defense.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Dude, I'm just pissed off that you would lie to me and tell me that you have evidence that 9/11 was an "Inside Job" then constantly beat around the bush as to why you won't show it or make up some damn excuses. 10 years of that shit and I'm sick of it.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions We have enough evidence to start new investigation.
Just look at other investigations in everyday life that police does. You don't need super evidence to start investigation. It is enough to have suspicion. Why? Because police will not take any risks. They work with simple - "What if...?".
Somehow in 9/11 FEMA, NIST, debunkers etc. want to ignore the risks and isn't following official standards.
"Beh, beh... that was an act of war! So no standards in 9/11." Another excuse.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"We have enough evidence to start new investigation."
No, you don't! If you do, please SHOW IT.
"following official standards."
There are no "official standards", sorry!
And your excuse is another excuse?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions There is official guidelines/standards for investigation. In this case big par of it was fire and non of them followed even close to fire investigation guidelines.
Basically most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true and is evidence and is at least suspicion, that is enough to start new investigation. I can't provide nothing more or new. Can't accept it? I can't help you then.
There will come day, when you will have to face that and more... like it or not.
KBendix 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions There is official guidelines/standards for investigation. In this case big par of it was fire and non of them followed even close to fire investigation guidelines.
Basically most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true and is evidence and is at least suspicion, that is enough to start new investigation. I can't provide nothing more or new. Can't accept it? I can't help you then.
There will come day, when you will have to face that and more... like it or not.
KBendix 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions There is official guidelines/standards for investigation. In this case big par of it was fire and non of them followed even close to fire investigation guidelines.
Basically most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true and is evidence and is at least suspicion, that is enough to start new investigation. I can't provide nothing more or new. Can't accept it? I can't help you then.
There will come day, when you will have to face that and more... like it or not.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"There is official guidelines/standards for investigation."
That would be evidence!
"most of evidence that you can find in 9/11 truth movement is true"
After asking for evidence for 10 years straight, I have yet to have a Truther show me a source of this evidence for which they speak of. All I ever get is 10 years worth of excuses why there isn't one. Just like you're doing now.
"There will come day, when you will have to face that and more"
Face what again?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions About that guidelines. watch?v=TULmLtqRXZ4
You should not forget, that guidelines is not there just for fun.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Do you have anything else besides YouTube videos? Like a Government source or a link showing acutal declassified documents proving that 9/11 was a "false flag"?!
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Will you stop this nonsense? Why the hell government should show evidence that could be used against them? You think what you write or you just write 1st thing that comes to your mind?
And why the hell you debunkers whine about you tube and internet? It doesn't matter in what form and where you get the information. If i will write 9/11 research results in book and put it in some old royal library, will it then be better for you?
+ YOU are IN You Tube right now as well...
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Uh, what nonsense? Atleast the government showed evidence, what have you done lately? Actually what goes through my mind when I log on the internet is laughing at the sheer stupidity of people who can't prove anything they say or claim because I know it's hard for them to prove it without evidence.
We don't "whine" about anything. We just like to show how you Truthers make asses out of yourselves, all we do is press your buttons & prestow. It does matter where the info is.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Still nonsense. :)
Actually non of us have to prove something to peoples like you. It is close to impossible anyway, since you ignore all evidence we show to you... like that obvious nano-thermite evidence. We will prove it in court when the time will come. Most of us truth seekers are ready to go to court, while guys like you just want to silence everything that challenges your nice reality of illusions.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"Actually non of us have to prove something to peoples like you."
Thanks for admitting that you can't provide evidence for your claims.
"since you ignore all evidence we show to you"
What evidence is that again? Government source please, thanks!
"while guys like you just want to silence everything that challenges your nice reality of illusions."
Such childish insults. Didn't your parents pay attention to you?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
No matter what KBendix or any Truther says, they'll never have evidence to prove their claims, they'll continue to lie, make up stories and excuses why they have no evidence then turn their aggression, anger and rants on everyone else but themselves.
And if KBendix reads this, fuck you and piss off. You've got NOTHING but excuses and that's all you have.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Yes. As you said. No matter what we say, you will never see proof and evidence. Good for you. I have nothing against you and you can live in that bubble of illusions if you like. But if you will get in my way with that, then there will be a problem... and i will have to deal with that problem.
Thanks to blind peoples like you in mid east million have died. You accepted governments lies and provided support for illegal wars against non-existing threat - Terrorism.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"Thanks to blind peoples like you in mid east million have died."
Thanks to you Truthers 3,000 people got killed on 9/11 because of your incompetence and ignorance.
"You accepted governments lies and provided support for illegal wars against non-existing threat - Terrorism."
Well atleast I'm not a Truther who's trying to hide the fact that the Terrorist did plan 9/11 nor am I going around covering up their crime w/ conspiracy theories saying "people in caves can't do that"
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Mandrake662 at least sound like grown man, but you...
What you are talking about? There was 9/11 truthers before 9/11? :D
Terrorism is ghostly thing that you can not defeat by killing innocent peoples in mid east or elsewhere.
Bah... i don't even know why i am explaining this to you. May be random reader will get something good from this.
Multiple peoples said to me to not respond to peoples like you and Mandrake662. May be they are right. This is nothing but internet troling.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
You're a yellow-bellied, spineless, bigoted, quivering, drunken, insomniatic, paranoid, disgusting, perverted, voyeuristic, little obscene boy. That's what you are. I don't need your fear and your stupidity. You just don't get it. Terrorism is real, just like you or I. You can deny they exist, then you are supporting terrorism through denial. You accuse people of trolling, but yet when we show you who is the real troll is you get upset and throw a temper tantrum.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix
You have to believe in yourself to get out of a mess that you created. If you can't believe in yourself then you have no hope of getting out. You believe what Truthers tell you or show you, despite them not showing you evidence. You believe without seeing the real scope of reality, that is why you will fail time and again.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix
"non-existing threat - Terrorism."
So, with that remark you declare that you support terrorism, despite that you would also lie and say that you don't.
Either terrorism exist or you support them by denying their existence. Can't have it both ways.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions I'm against bombings, chemical, bacterial etc attacks. But what really is terrorism and can you defeat it by using war and killing civilians? All i see is that those wars has created more hate towards U.S. and rest of western world. Of course you don't want to see that.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Of course you don't want to see that you're an angry litlte man who has no future. You pretend to deny the existence of a group of people (terrorists) who planned for years to take down the WTCs'. They failed in 1993 but succeeded in 2001.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix
You're just a dead beat anti-war boy. You never really wanted to support this country, that's why you won't commit to anything. Instead you sit at yor computer, typing up how fucking miserable your life is and why did it go all so wrong. Was it the Governments fault? No, it wasn't their fault, it was your own. You make up all kinds of excuses to blame the Government for your own stupidity. Did the Government make you live that way? No, they didn't.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix You keep sounding off about demolitions and then use failed demolitions that don't have anything to do with anything and then you punt and say "but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said!"
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@KBendix You keep sounding off about demolitions and then use failed demolitions that don't have anything to do with anything and then you punt and say "but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said, but Steven Jones said!"
Mandrake662 5 months ago
7 hours of uncontrolled fire...
First the inner steel structure collapsed, then the outer unsupported walls.
Nuff said...
Stop being such a tinfoil hat lunatic and look the actual science up...
LanteanKnight 6 months ago
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as mush a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
Similar biasing is very possible in 9/11 case.
Sorry if my statement enrage you.
KBendix 6 months ago
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as mush a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
Similar biasing is very possible in 9/11 case.
Sorry if my statement enrages you.
KBendix 6 months ago
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as mush a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
Similar biasing is very possible in 9/11 case.
Sorry if my statement enrages you.
KBendix 6 months ago
@LanteanKnight Plausible theory, but not proven. And stop calling names, peoples.
Science has big chance of being biased. One of most biased theories is evolution theory, that is fed by scientists desire to be the 1st and the only one smart being on this planet and in universe. So they polish that theory as much a they can and they are very good at it, because the 1st person they have to convince is themselves.
Similar biasing is very possible in 9/11 case.
Sorry if my statement enrages you.
KBendix 6 months ago
@KBendix
Yes, it has been proven.
Your statement doesn't enrage me, it makes me laugh :P
Evolution is a fact, it's been scientifically proven.
There's loads of DNA-evidence, fossil evidence and experimental evidence to support the theory.
Scientists do not desire to be the smartest person on the planet, they desire knowledge.
Actual real-world knowledge.
LanteanKnight 6 months ago
@LanteanKnight They are just peoples. Yet they think that they are something more.
Many times in history scientist has been proven as very biased peoples, who get things right only in cases, when it doesn't touch their BELIEFS (and not knowledge). They can make micro processor, because it doesn't violate scientists illusion of world they like. But they get biased evidence (very refined) to back up evolution theory. Just like in 9/11 official theory.
They do: conclusion->find evidence.
KBendix 6 months ago
@KBendix
They are just people, but they have a lot more knowledge on their specific scientific area than the rest of the population: they committed their lives to studying their field of expertise.
There is no such thing as biased evidence, god...
Evidence is not intrinsically for or against a specific case.
No that's what conspiracy and religious nutjobs do.
Scientists start with an observation, then they make a hypothesis which is then tested.
If there's enough evidence, it becomes a theory.
LanteanKnight 6 months ago
@LanteanKnight Sounds nice. It should be like that. But is it?
I have observed many phenomena that conflicts with evolution theory. It is not that evolution didn't happen at all, but in same period or at start of it there happened some kind of creation.
Not only accepting unproven evidence is bad, but also ignoring of other facts. In evolution theory it is done a lot, and reason is this desire to keep their world view intact.
They are scientists... they try very hard to convince themselves.
KBendix 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KBendix
No, there is no evidence for any creation event.
Okay, that's it; you don't know what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as unproven evidence...
Evidence is by definition proven.
You are clearly not a scientist and you try to convince yourself you're not all that ignorant by just closing your eyes to science and living in your own little imaginary world.
LanteanKnight 6 months ago
And again: you're postulating what ifs. As even you admitted to.
Mandrake662 8 months ago
@Mandrake662 What is wrong with what ifs?
KBendix 8 months ago
@KBendix "What is wrong with what ifs?"
They're not factual. LOL!!!
Mandrake662 8 months ago
@Mandrake662 It's risk management.
KBendix 8 months ago
@KBendix It's pure, blatant, stupidity.
Mandrake662 8 months ago
@Mandrake662 Risk management is stupidity?
KBendix 8 months ago
@KBendix Your comments and lack of factual data is stupidity. You're not exercising risk management at all. LOL!!!
Mandrake662 8 months ago
@Mandrake662 We can't understand each other. I don't speak trollish. Sorry...
This video is what i have in my mind right now, no one has changed that. Architects and engineers only has approved that. If you can show in video why it should not stop and/or fall over then do it.
All you need is windows Paint and Movie maker. Was enough for me to make this.
I will be happy to watch it and understand your point of view.
KBendix 8 months ago
@KBendix So far, like an idiot, you compare ACTUAL controlled demolitions to WTC 7, which wasn't a controlled demolition and then are arguing: "this is what should have happened." A&E hasn't proven anything. Richard Gage actually tried to compare the Twin Towers to cardboard boxes. LOL!!! "All you need is windows paint and moviemaker."
Yeah, that's what the experts in all of the relevant fields used. LOL!!! As I said originally: thanks for showing why the truth movement is so laughable.
Mandrake662 8 months ago
@Mandrake662 Are you a mole? Or just a schmuck? Only a schmuck could still believe that WTC 7 was brought down because column 79 experienced "thermal expansion." (can't even say it without laughing). Thermal expansion.
Oh, and what experts are you referring to? I've researched 9/11 for 5 years and can find NO experts to support the official theory. That is, no experts not PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT. I'd like you to refer to ONE EXPERT.
So, what the hell are you?
LazlosPlane 6 months ago
@LazlosPlane What experts am I referring to? You mean other than the more than 200,000 A&E who were practicing in just calender year 2009 alone ? Experts besides many academic institutes like Columbia University, Purdue university, MIT and the great bulk of demolition experts? I have researched 9/11 for about the same amount of time as you have and have not had a single "truth"er disprove the original conclusions determined by the investigations into that day.
Mandrake662 6 months ago
@Mandrake662 @KBendix
Dear Idiot, Here's a simple equation the even a simpleton can understand: FREE-FALL plus SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE equals EXPLOSIVES. PERIOD.
Back to your mole hole now.
LazlosPlane 6 months ago
@LazlosPlane <-------- Moron, free fall is meaningless and wasn't even in effect, but for a segment of one building during a segment of its collapse on that day. Add to that, the fact that the buildings fell and their debris was scattered around and into other surrounding buildings, further disproves the lame symmetry/freefall claims. Nice try.
Mandrake662 6 months ago
@LazlosPlane To be honest with you, I don't think I can think of a time where I had a more ignorant moron reply to me with such a vast non-response, filled with such glaring and profound stupidity.
Mandrake662 6 months ago
@Mandrake662 What have you got against growing up? Is it the puberty part? The "loss of innocence," part? What? You are either a mole or a fool. Or both. But clearly, you pound butt and are in denial of the truth.
LazlosPlane 6 months ago
@LazlosPlane This is the kind of stupid come back you have when confronted with factual data? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 Data... data. I don't think you personally fully understand that data. And if you do, then make You Tube video and explain it. Probably you think, that if scientists agrees with that, then it is true. But you are forgetting big force of acceptionalism. Scientists still live under humans psychology laws. Acceptionalists will accept first theory that pleases them. 9/11 inside job theory simply can't please anyone. So it takes some guts to look in to these kind of theories.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix Why would I upload a video to YouTube, when there are already videos uploaded that explain it? LOL!!! When one has to infuse 'psychology' into their retorts, that is one of the giveaways that you don't have an argument. As far as looking into the theories that claim that 9/11 was an inside job, I have explored all explanations and have found that they are ALL wanting in substance.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 Why would you comment, if there already is comments like this?
And psychology affects every human being (including "god-like" scientists). You too. Yep... me too.
When you watch debunker videos, you accept it. When you watch "9/11 inside job" videos, you deny it. It is natural. Only problem is, when someone goes too far and get stuck in that state. "Truthers" tend to do that as well.
You can't fully understand world if you don't use human psychology also to analyze it.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix More stupidity! I don't go by feelings. I observe the facts. The facts simply are not in the corner of the "inside job" crowd! And, again, when you have to resort to infusing revisionist psychology into your retorts, it is the main giveaway you don't have an argument and you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 I understand, if you don't like what i am saying. Everybody wants to be perfect and when someone shows that he is not... then we simply can't expect good behavior.
I talk about psychology because that can make peoples look only to things they want to see. And most of peoples don't want to see that "9/11 was an inside job". Watch AE911 "Expert speak out". In last segment they explain that too.
One of ignored proof is nanotherimte in dust. Made out of nanoparticles. Not a paint. :)
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
How can you prove that there were "massive amounts of nano-thermite" if you have to use a microscope to prove such a silly theory? Wouldn't it be best to use a shovel of "unreacted nano-thermite" instead of a microscope?
If you have to use a microscope to prove something, that usually means there's very little to prove. Sorry but that's the facts, don't like it then please show everyone a shovel full of nano-thermite.
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions It's even hard to replay to such a shallow comment.
If there is unreacted nano thermite, then in was an inside job. No matter how much it is there.
Why you want shovels of unreacted themrite, when most of it should be reacted and left behind iron spheres?
And call it silly? Why?
And use of microscope is bad now? :D I guess then crime investigators is silly peoples too when they use microscopes to investigate crimes.
I thought i have heard from debunkers crazy stuff, but this...
KBendix 5 months ago
Comment removed
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix
Yeah, and that's why you have a hard time shelling out evidence to prove your claims/theories. You wanna waste 10 more years of your life from those retarded conspiracy theories from the Not-Truth Movement?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions There is no proof in this video. The proofs you can find in other videos and scientists work/papers. It is been ignored, because it proves and debunkers will admit it only after being defeated totally.
But no matter what, is still think that there is a chance of coincidences that made it look like inside job. It is just my nature to have probabilities of things. And what i can do is manage risks. "Inside job" involves more risks. Therefore should be eliminated 100% or verified.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"The proofs you can find in other videos and scientists work/papers"
LOL @ that. You really think that editted Truther videos are somehow the "truth"?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Looks like all you been watching is low level truther videos. While they talk about real issues, they are not the most scientifically made. Just like my videos.
If that is true, that means you have false knowledge about so called truth movement.
For me the top research info you can get from AE911truth and every other source that is made by scientists, engineers and architects.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
"low level truther videos", "they are not the most scientifically made"
Can I quote you on that?
AE911Truth just made themselves look like a bunch of idiots when Richard Gage played with cardboard boxes. Which scientists, engineers or architects have ever played with carboard boxes (other than Gage)?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions You deliberately do not get the point i'm trying to make or Gage or anyone else that is talking about things you don't like. I can't help you right now because non of your comments is even close to science. Total demagogy.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
Fuck you and your Goddamn excuses why you don't have evidence to prove that 9/11 was an "Inside Job".
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions I can point to evidence, but as you can read in my video description all of this is only my own thoughts about it.
AE911truth. Watch "blueprint for truth" and new "experts speak out". You will see and understand... if you will want to.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix "I can point to evidence"
You just told me that: "they are not the most scientifically made. Just like my videos." So how can it be "evidence" when there's no science involved?!
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions My video is not the evidence. It is short intro with basic info. It is like statement without evidence that fire is hot.
Evidences you can find in other videos and scientist made papers. Purpose of this video is to explain to peoples basics of these theories without making them watch long videos or read long papers, because long explanation can be problem sometimes for peoples that for some reason can not spend that much time on this.
KBendix 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions My video is not the evidence. It is short intro with basic info. It is like statement without evidence that fire is hot.
Evidences you can find in other videos and scientist made papers. Purpose of this video is to explain to peoples basics of these theories without making them watch long videos or read long papers, because long explanation can be problem sometimes for peoples that for some reason can not spend that much time on this.
KBendix 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions My video is not the evidence. It is short intro with basic info. It is like statement without evidence that fire is hot.
Evidences you can find in other videos and scientist made papers. Purpose of this video is to explain to peoples basics of these theories without making them watch long videos or read long papers, because long explanation can be problem sometimes for peoples that for some reason can not spend that much time on this.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
So what you're saying is that Truthers don't like a long scientifically explained paper because they're illiterate and don't understand physics and common sense explanations that have valid evidence?
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@WhyAskQuestions Look at yourself. All you been doing is trying to find some hole in opponents words and don't even try to get the point. Your behavior has nothing to do with proof, evidence or science.
I made this video for peoples that don't know about "unexplained" things in 9/11. Short intro for them. Because they are sometime busy and can't read or watch long info... and they need short intro. So i mad it.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix
I look at myself and say: "Thank God I'm not a retarded Truther." The point is stupid is that there's no evidence what-so-ever to prove that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". Don't give me a gossip of you saying you got evidence because I know you don't have any.
Unexplained things? Oh you mean the quote-mined witness statements, pointing the finger @ the 9/11 Families for being "in on it", or blaming the FDNY for "purposely blowing up 3 buildings"?!
WhyAskQuestions 5 months ago
@KBendix Your non-responses are some of the most stupid I have ever come across. Resorting to infusing psychology into a scientific discussion is one of the most retarded things a person could do. Obviously, if psychology makes people what they want to see, then you're a huge example of that. Paint chips are not "nano-thermite." Nice try.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@KBendix Also, can you show us a side-by-side comparison of a "nano-thermite" demolition? Thanks.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 Why you don't get the simple fact that psychology affects any human? And why you don't get that those are not paint chips? Just read or watch reports about them.
You are ignoring things you don't like or just trying to warp them and the same thing you are trying to do with psychology.
And don't ask for comparison for thermite demolition. There is no need for it in everyday demolitions. Now you will say that lack of comparison is ultimate proof of non-inside job?
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix Why don't you get the simple fact that 2+2= 4, no matter how you feel about it? Why do you make paint chips out to be some substance that wasn't even available for use at the time? Psychology is irrelevant to the evidence. You are the one making random, arbitrary claims about thermite or "nano-thermite." And, lack of proof of thermite demolitions, is proof that there was none used for demolishing the WTC buildings that day.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 Your psychology doesn't let you see the evidence. You can read a lot about this kind of psychological effect and reasons they exist. And this kind of effects is very important when peoples face certain facts.
That is the reason why i talk about psychology. I can't convince you if you have this effect preventing you from understanding.
Those chips are made out of nano particles. Paint simply don't need to be made out of nano particles and it is very hard to manufacture them.
KBendix 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 And at that time this thermite technology was invented + in military you have stuff ready for use ~50 years before "small" peoples even starts to know about it. That is simply due to enormous arrogance that military peoples and big part of scientists have.
If you would watch and read carefully and with "opened eyes" those 9/11 research info sources, then you would not be here and writing this stuff that is nothing more but attempts to convince yourself that world is fine. It isn't!
KBendix 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 And judging by your playlist in channel i can tell that you watch only those videos that is already de-debunked a long time ago and that is made in very demagogic and shallow way in order to feed peoples like you with false debunks. RKOwens4 that is.
Looking only at on side of opinions is very unscientific.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix Also, I have devoted more time to researching the conspiracy claims surrounding 9/11, then on the debunking side. LOL!!! I have to say, I have never had anyone resort to infusing the videos I have favorited as a talking point.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 watch?v=trfCyvLAQd8 for instance. :)
KBendix 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 watch?v=2vBdM3xHeqc
And if that is not enough for you then i have no choice but to understand the psychological reasons of your behavior.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix LOL!!! That guy was debunked a long time ago and is a proven liar. Why can't you idiots present an actual, credible case? It's been ten years and supposedly, you have all of this evidence.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 Steven Jones? Well... now YOU have to prove that. Looks like you just invented that in order to stay in this... debate.
If you can show evidence that Steven Jones is debunked and is a liar then show it here.
It is weird. 1st guys like you ask for proof. Now when proof is shown you just blatantly call if false, lie, debunked etc.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix This is not a debate, as you haven't presented anything factual in response to the facts. Steven Jones is debunked by virtue of the fact that his claims are inconsistent with the found evidence and resulting facts. Add to that, the fact that he had to go to a blog site and tell his cult followers how to cover for his fraudulent claims and publications. We ask for proof and in response, you morons don't offer any proof. Simple as that.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 Independent, separate scientists have found red/gray chips in multiple dust samples from different places around ground zero. These chips was tested to see if that is paint. It isn't. It reacts with sudden release of energy. Paint don't do that. Paint has lesser energy output and it releases it slower. They looked at it closer and found out that it is made out of nano particles. It's harder and more expensive to make those nano particles. Paint don't need to be nano and isn't.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix Red and gray paint chips are not indicative of anything other than the fact that paint was used in the construction of the building. The paint used to coat the steel at the world trade center was actually more of a ceramic coating used to offer some protection to the steel. Particles in substances is not unusual.
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 You just don't want to get it. I just explained to you why it isn't paint. You simply ignore it.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix It can't get any simpler: paint is not "nano-thermite."
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 If you repeat something will not make it truth.
For instance. Plastic explosive may look like clay. But it reacts in different way. Right?
Why i have to explain it to you like you are child? You just blatantly lie here and say that it is paint to attempt to dismiss this undebunkable evidence. But i have scientists that made this experiment and can prove it.
Don't believe me! Go to Jones or other scientists and see for yourself.
KBendix 5 months ago
@KBendix Jones' "research" didn't produce any results. He and Harrit didn't do any of the tests they demand that anyone else do. Like I said: paint chips are not "nano-thermite." Also, can you please show me a patent on "nano-thermite?"
Mandrake662 5 months ago
@Mandrake662 You don't need patent to use it in deceptive event. Non of that will be obvious. When peoples do crime, they hide stuff, so the investigators can't find out things. Yet you debunkers expect to see obvious controlled demolitions, cutting charges left behind and so on. And the best part is, that in some cases it is obvious. But then it is just coincidence or lie, like in nano-thermite case.
You don't want to see the truth, so leave 9/11 case and never come back. We will deal with it.
KBendix 5 months ago