Nano-thermite took down the WTC?

Could the most audacious terrorist attack in history be a sophisticated masterpiece of demolition?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• terrorist
• attack
• USA
• government
• терроризм
• нападение
• США
• правительство
• 9/11
• WTC

[eatwoodman]

@Sandberg1972

It's okay, you obviously haven't even taken a college level science class. You probably haven't even graduated high school yet, it's okay bro. I love how so many conspiracy theorists are in high school and think they know more than professionals who have studied for many years.

[Sandberg1972]

@eatwoodman Wow, impressive language dude! Big round of applause for urself.

I like the "there's no such thing as "proof" in science", that one makes u look real good, real smart. ;)

[eatwoodman]

@Sandberg1972

The fact that a building fell due to fire is "proof" (the proper term here is evidence, but whatever) that it is possible for a building to fall due to fire. Like I said, only a nutjob would argue this.

[eatwoodman]

@Sandberg1972

There is no such thing as "proof" in science. That term does not exist. You fail at grammar, science and terminology. Go back to school, kid. Come back to me when you take a high school level science class at least.

[Sandberg1972]

@eatwoodman "What is there to prove?" he asks.

U're not too clever, are u?

"Obviously" a negligible amount of structural strength was present.

Yes this was very obvious indeed! Hurrah for ur powers of observation.

Now all u need to do is PROVE how a barely damaged steel skyscraper that had some fires on a few floors managed to lose virtually all of it's structural strength, not to mention losing it from one moment to the next.

U have no idea how science works, do u?

[eatwoodman]

@Sandberg1972

What is there to prove? Watch the WTC7 video. Obviously a negligible amount of structural strength was present. That's evidence right there. Unless you're a looney conspiracy theorists. People who don't wear tin foil hats tend to not believe everything Alex Jones says.

[Sandberg1972]

@eatwoodman OK, so all you & NIST have got to do now is prove that "a negligible amount of structure would have to be present", across the entire floorarea of the first 8 floors. Notice the word "negligible" here.

Good luck with that mate! LOL!

[eatwoodman]

@Sandberg1972

For the WTC7 to fall at free fall, a negligible amount of structure would have to be present. This does not contradict any physics. If it fell faster than free fall, it would have. Contradicting physics is saying CD knocked the building down when it collapsed to silently. Yeah, silent bombs don't exist.