Donald Trump running for president

[HIT4ME]

Im about to step out so Ill try to make this quick and clarify.

Scientists found nano-thermite at the wtc site, and that NIST the official government agency claimed they never even bothered checking for explosives at the crime scene. This needs to be accounted for. Is it smoking gun? I have no clue to be honest other than its one of many pieces of evidence. The smoking gun I have claimed was the overall collapse of the WTC7 building, Im in firm believe that the NIST's explanation of its freefall collapse came from fires is impossible, but there was a controlled demolition of some sorts. How they did it specifically I dunno. My direct energy weapons I fear not bring that up, but its a possibility, but surely further from smoking gun evidence. I hope you dont cling to that as the primary backbone of my entire 9/11 truth message but just something I have thrown out there to ponder about.

What Im trying to say about molten steel is if jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees and there was alot of molten metal, why question is why? Was it the nano-thermite? Something else? I dunno. Im skeptical that it didnt happen from other man-made causes.

I know I go over the top when I do some trolling (its all meant out of my own honesty and to make a point) but I think there are an astronomical amount of legitimate questions about 9/11 vs. the official story.

Do we know all the answers as to who, what, when or why? No, but we can see for certain the official story is full of lies all across the board.

But metal often melts at 1300 degrees, nano-thermite burns at 1000 and jet fuel burns at over 2200. So I am not sure that at all helps the case that it was nano-thermite caused. The molten metal itself suggests it was not nano-thermite and very likely jet fuel. Not a lot of man-made materials will burn above 1500 degrees, at least not to my knowledge.

And the fact that they did not test for explosives may be indicative of how obvious it was to a trained eye that it was not explosive based destruction.

Explosives also tend to, well, explode - not implode - so using them as an explanation for the building collapse creates even more issues than the one we have.

And I know you are over the top. Thats why we all love ya and buy our tinfoil from you solely.

 

[ax1]

there really isn't ANY media outlet that i trust to give me the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...and in all honesty there hasn't been for quite some time.

Well you have to go independent thats for sure, and even then you have to be careful...and even good ones get stuff wrong but that doesnt discredit alot of other things they got right. I have several very low key places I go to to get info that have been pretty reliable over the years.

 

[ax1]

But there WAS NO NANO-THERMITE. It was never proven, tested, and confirmed by peer reviewed science. It never happened other than youtube videos and fans who cling to pseudo-science.

Read here and learn.

Invalid Link Removed

So any storyline that uses nanothermite is garbage should never be repeated.

Read here and learn

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

• April 2009
• Invalid Link Removed 2(1)

DOI: Invalid Link Removed
Authors:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

• Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

• Invalid Link Removed

Abstract and Figures
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approxi-mately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms oc-curring at approximately 43C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Full study text with full references available for download:
Invalid Link Removed


Map showing collection locations of dust samples analyzed in this study with respect to the location of the WTC complex (marked area near location 1). 1: MacKinlay (113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St); 2: Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge); 3: Intermont (16 Hudson St); 4: White (1 Hudson St). (Base map courtesy of http://www.openstreetmap.org; copyright terms at Invalid Link Removed by-sa/2.0/).

Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).

A series of images of the same group of particles extracted by magnet from sample 2. The color photomicrograph in (a), obtained by VLM, locates and identifies the red/gray particles. An SE image (b) acquired by SEM gives a better indication of size and shape of the particles , and a BSE image (c) shows, by grayscale intensity, the difference in average atomic number between the red layer, gray layer and other dust particles.

BSE images of cross sections of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The cross sections from sample 2 (b) and 4 (d) also show the adhering gray layer.

 

[thebigt]

Well you have to go independent thats for sure, and even then you have to be careful...and even good ones get stuff wrong but that doesnt discredit alot of other things they got right. I have several very low key places I go to to get info that have been pretty reliable over the years.

once upon a time news networks had a huge budget to investigate stories and didn't have to rely on unsubstantiated 'sources'. the problem with sources is obvious-they have a agenda and often times there is no way to verify. too many times news networks run a story with the heading--'unidentified sources say', this covers their ass but many times either the story is just plain false or slanted to give more 'sensation' to the story.....the days of extensive investigating like shows such as 60 MINUTES and reporters that truly dig for the whole/true story like MIKE WALLACE are long gone...MIKE WALLACE's son chris wallace is a prime example of this, it's not hard to see chris wallace leans far left and is far from balanced...i watched 60 minutes for many years and never noticed mike wallace being left or right leaning.

 

[ax1]

But metal often melts at 1300 degrees, nano-thermite burns at 1000 and jet fuel burns at over 2200. So I am not sure that at all helps the case that it was nano-thermite caused. The molten metal itself suggests it was not nano-thermite and very likely jet fuel. Not a lot of man-made materials will burn above 1500 degrees, at least not to my knowledge.

And the fact that they did not test for explosives may be indicative of how obvious it was to a trained eye that it was not explosive based destruction.

Explosives also tend to, well, explode - not implode - so using them as an explanation for the building collapse creates even more issues than the one we have.

And I know you are over the top. Thats why we all love ya and buy our tinfoil from you solely.

On the official government satellite data that day, they did not even detect tempuratures hot enough to melt the building. You add sulfur to the nanothermite it becomes a different version called thermate. It melts steel at much lower temperatures. As a science engineer puts it, "its like putting salt on ice." Not sure where you got your jetfuel number but I have it as much lower.

You have countless witnesses including NYC's building emergency coordinator who was the last person out of WTC7 and he said explosions went off that building for hours. This is a major terrorist event and when you investigate a building that collapsed which would by nature be impossible destruct at free fall speed in its own footprint from so claimed 'by fire," it just doesnt work that way. They didnt bother checking the most obvious cause, which is something that causes explosions. Trained eyes my azz....more like trained Goebbels.

Here is the AE911truth side of things, the video is strictly dedicated to molten metal and even includes a materials science engineer, chemical engineer and others. Experts are involved with AE911truth, unlike some people think the group is affiliated with basement nerds.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

Un-related to the lastest favorite topic of discussing an obvious inside job, this is a fascinating video I just ran into.

Atomic Veterans Were Silenced for 50 Years. Now, They're Talking.

After more than four decades of forced silence, some of the last surviving atomic soldiers share their unfathomable experiences of the atomic bomb tests in the 1950s. Read more: Invalid Link Removed "The Atomic Soldiers" was directed by Morgan Knibbe. It is a part of The Atlantic Selects, an online showcase of short documentaries from independent creators, curated by The Atlantic.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[BamBam54]

Read here and learn

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

• April 2009
• Invalid Link Removed 2(1)

DOI: Invalid Link Removed
Authors:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

• Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

• Invalid Link Removed

Abstract and Figures
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approxi-mately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms oc-curring at approximately 43C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Full study text with full references available for download:
Invalid Link Removed


Map showing collection locations of dust samples analyzed in this study with respect to the location of the WTC complex (marked area near location 1). 1: MacKinlay (113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St); 2: Delessio/Breidenbach (Brooklyn Bridge); 3: Intermont (16 Hudson St); 4: White (1 Hudson St). (Base map courtesy of http://www.openstreetmap.org; copyright terms at Invalid Link Removed by-sa/2.0/).
View attachment 202177

Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
View attachment 202178

A series of images of the same group of particles extracted by magnet from sample 2. The color photomicrograph in (a), obtained by VLM, locates and identifies the red/gray particles. An SE image (b) acquired by SEM gives a better indication of size and shape of the particles , and a BSE image (c) shows, by grayscale intensity, the difference in average atomic number between the red layer, gray layer and other dust particles.
View attachment 202179

BSE images of cross sections of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The cross sections from sample 2 (b) and 4 (d) also show the adhering gray layer.
View attachment 202180

Ax - don't you think its odd that you claim there was nano-thermite used at 9/11, and I post a 2012 scholarly article explaining how the junk science presented in the 2009 Neils Harrit paper was debunked, and your response is to post the 2009 Neils Harrit paper?!?!? Do you actually read any of these articles, or do you just hear about them on the conspiracy pages and click-repost as fast as possible to drown out the sound of logic?

Even IF there was nano-thermite found at the twin towers disaster (which there wasn't per the linked articles you never read) you fail to address how much thermite would be needed, how it would actually take down a building that big, how the dozens of bomb experts kept the secret, how miles of wires were hidden for weeks were never seen, how the planes were used and timed to match the thermite detonation, and WHY both twin towers were dropped to cover a simple gold heist at WTC7?? Why not just fly one plane into WTC7 and do your imaginary demo job / gold heist then???

So silly. Hence the continuing myths and misinformation from 9/11....

 

[BamBam54]

And for those interested in logical explanations to extraordinary conspiracy claims... here is why there were burned out cars found on the FDR. And surprisingly, a secret jewish space laser cannon (for an auto-insurance scam, LOL) was not involved !!

Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Ax - don't you think its odd that you claim there was nano-thermite used at 9/11, and I post a 2012 scholarly article explaining how the junk science presented in the 2009 Neils Harrit paper was debunked, and your response is to post the 2009 Neils Harrit paper?!?!? Do you actually read any of these articles, or do you just hear about them on the conspiracy pages and click-repost as fast as possible to drown out the sound of logic?

Even IF there was nano-thermite found at the twin towers disaster (which there wasn't per the linked articles you never read) you fail to address how much thermite would be needed, how it would actually take down a building that big, how the dozens of bomb experts kept the secret, how miles of wires were hidden for weeks were never seen, how the planes were used and timed to match the thermite detonation, and WHY both twin towers were dropped to cover a simple gold heist at WTC7?? Why not just fly one plane into WTC7 and do your imaginary demo job / gold heist then???

So silly. Hence the continuing myths and misinformation from 9/11....

Lol. This is great. You’re the man.

 

[ax1]

Ax - don't you think its odd that you claim there was nano-thermite used at 9/11, and I post a 2012 scholarly article explaining how the junk science presented in the 2009 Neils Harrit paper was debunked, and your response is to post the 2009 Neils Harrit paper?!?!? Do you actually read any of these articles, or do you just hear about them on the conspiracy pages and click-repost as fast as possible to drown out the sound of logic?

Even IF there was nano-thermite found at the twin towers disaster (which there wasn't per the linked articles you never read) you fail to address how much thermite would be needed, how it would actually take down a building that big, how the dozens of bomb experts kept the secret, how miles of wires were hidden for weeks were never seen, how the planes were used and timed to match the thermite detonation, and WHY both twin towers were dropped to cover a simple gold heist at WTC7?? Why not just fly one plane into WTC7 and do your imaginary demo job / gold heist then???

So silly. Hence the continuing myths and misinformation from 9/11....

Im not sure that it was used so its not unusual at all. My only real definitive claim I make is WTC7 did not collapse from bricks, sticks, and camp fires, its completely 100% impossible. No steel structure have ever before and ever will collapse in its own footprint from NISTS's claimed fires.

There are various pieces of scientific evidence that NIST refused to research to add to things. Science is looking at the presented evidence, not strongly neglecting it it and coming up with out other voodoo theories.

Scientists generally debunk one another all the time, like climate change or how this or that work. Its nothing new, its called science.

Im posting research pieces from professionals from various fields with a strong scientific look at to what may have happened, so if you dont believe in science its not my problem.

 

[ax1]

And for those interested in logical explanations to extraordinary conspiracy claims... here is why there were burned out cars found on the FDR. And surprisingly, a secret jewish space laser cannon (for an auto-insurance scam, LOL) was not involved !!

Invalid Link Removed

This doesnt address the issue, fake news and avoids the problems presented.

 

[ax1]

Lol. This is great. You’re the man.

Thats offensive, how do you know he relates to that? You should that person as a person. How do you know what he may or may not have between his legs or prefers to admit?

 

[THOR 70]

Ax - don't you think its odd that you claim there was nano-thermite used at 9/11, and I post a 2012 scholarly article explaining how the junk science presented in the 2009 Neils Harrit paper was debunked, and your response is to post the 2009 Neils Harrit paper?!?!? Do you actually read any of these articles, or do you just hear about them on the conspiracy pages and click-repost as fast as possible to drown out the sound of logic?

Even IF there was nano-thermite found at the twin towers disaster (which there wasn't per the linked articles you never read) you fail to address how much thermite would be needed, how it would actually take down a building that big, how the dozens of bomb experts kept the secret, how miles of wires were hidden for weeks were never seen, how the planes were used and timed to match the thermite detonation, and WHY both twin towers were dropped to cover a simple gold heist at WTC7?? Why not just fly one plane into WTC7 and do your imaginary demo job / gold heist then???

So silly. Hence the continuing myths and misinformation from 9/11....

Your whole reality is based on trust and completely ignores the fact that there can be conflicts of interest, deceit, and evil involved. Almost a head in the sand mentality towards the fact there is evil in the world.

Again who has more to gain, someone questioning the destruction of the buildings or someone trying to cover it up?

You posting your source absolutely doesn’t negate the possibility of his being true. Something you need to come to terms with.

 

[ax1]

Your whole reality is based on trust and completely ignores the fact that there can be conflicts of interest, deceit, and evil involved. Almost a head in the sand mentality towards the fact there is evil in the world.

Again who has more to gain, someone questioning the destruction of the buildings or someone trying to cover it up?

You posting your source absolutely doesn’t negate the possibility of his being true. Something you need to come to terms with.

He probably also believes the official government story that one of the hijackers passport flew out of his pocket after crashing into the building, flue through the firebomb and somehow landed in decent condition on top of the rubble to verify his identity, but it happened all because some debunkshyt website run by the deepstate told him so LLLMMMFFFFAAAAOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[THOR 70]

He probably also believes the official government story that one of the hijackers passport flew out of his pocket after crashing into the building, flue through the firebomb and somehow landed in decent condition on top of the rubble to verify his identity, but it happened all because some debunkshyt website run by the deepstate told him so LLLMMMFFFFAAAAOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bruh exactly. I actually feel bad for people that gullible. But of course, guys like you and I just get off on conspiracies and getting ridiculed

The thousands of people marching for 9/11 truth of dead family members, the countless eye witnesses that report strange things, hundreds of scientists, airline pilots, architects, and engineers should just read a scholarly article or two like him so they can’t sleep at night and stop wasting their time.

 

[Jiigzz]

Your whole reality is based on trust and completely ignores the fact that there can be conflicts of interest, deceit, and evil involved. Almost a head in the sand mentality towards the fact there is evil in the world.

Again who has more to gain, someone questioning the destruction of the buildings or someone trying to cover it up?

You posting your source absolutely doesn’t negate the possibility of his being true. Something you need to come to terms with.

Your entire life revolves around trust. You trust that the car you drive won't spontaneously combust. You trust that the building you are in won't just randomly collapse with you inside. You trust that the computer you use will perform the function it is expected to function.

The reason we trust others is because we cannot be experts in everything, so we rely on others to be experts. You wanting to be an expert in everything ultimately ends up with you questioning things well beyond your understanding.

For example, you doubt we went to the moon but have no understanding on rocket propulsion.

Again, not all sources are equal. If you post a study which shows DAA raises test, and then I post a meta analysis which refutes that, the weighting of presented evidence is more in favour of the meta analysis.

The study ax1 posted had samples collected with zero chain of custody. Rule #1 of collecting evidence is establish proper chain of custody. The NIST not investigating this further is not evidence that it did actually happen, but rather it is more likely that they dont want to give any manpower or credence to investigating a conspiracy that hinges very loosely on evidence that hasn't been handled properly.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Thats offensive, how do you know he relates to that? You should that person as a person. How do you know what he may or may not have between his legs or prefers to admit?

Did you just say perSON? What about perDAUGHTER?

I can play this game too.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Your whole reality is based on trust and completely ignores the fact that there can be conflicts of interest, deceit, and evil involved. Almost a head in the sand mentality towards the fact there is evil in the world.

Again who has more to gain, someone questioning the destruction of the buildings or someone trying to cover it up?

You posting your source absolutely doesn’t negate the possibility of his being true. Something you need to come to terms with.

And you’re deluded into thinking that because conspiracy CAN exist that it exists EVERYWHERE, and that all differences of opinion are equally valid, regardless of how much more evidence one side has, just because “you never know who has what to gain.” You still don’t seem to get the thrusters in space and that you don’t need to be in a vacuum to test this phenomenon with a skateboard. But yes, continue to lecture him on his flawed worldview...

 

[Jiigzz]

Take this scenario for example. Someone has been murdered, and some evidence exists. Near the body is hair belonging to the spouse, and in the corner of the room there is video footage showing the neighbour beating the victim over the head with a wrench 5 times.

The prosecution would argue that the video evidence points to the neighbour being the killer. The neighbours defense team would try use the hair to say it was actually the spouse.

Which evidence is more credible?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Your entire life revolves around trust. You trust that the car you drive won't spontaneously combust. You trust that the building you are in won't just randomly collapse with you inside. You trust that the computer you use will perform the function it is expected to function.

The reason we trust others is because we cannot be experts in everything, so we rely on others to be experts. You wanting to be an expert in everything ultimately ends up with you questioning things well beyond your understanding.

For example, you doubt we went to the moon but have no understanding on rocket propulsion.

Again, not all sources are equal. If you post a study which shows DAA raises test, and then I post a meta analysis which refutes that, the weighting of presented evidence is more in favour of the meta analysis.

The study ax1 posted had samples collected with zero chain of custody. Rule #1 of collecting evidence is establish proper chain of custody. The NIST not investigating this further is not evidence that it did actually happen, but rather it is more likely that they dont want to give any manpower or credence to investigating a conspiracy that hinges very loosely on evidence that hasn't been handled properly.

And he can trust those things to not typically catastrophically fail because other people DO have the ability to understand that so many things in science are incredibly counterintuitive and seem at odds with “observations” and “what we see.” So it’s not surprising that he thinks anything that seems counterintuitive is a conspiracy theory because he just isn’t that knowledgeable regarding basic scientific principles.

Also, good point on not lending credence to conspiracy theories. Sometimes dumping a ton of time, effort, and money into it makes it seem like it’s two equal viewpoints going back and forth, when it’s not. Sometimes ignoring them is better. Just like when a small no-name rapper goes after a legend. The legend makes the no-name’s career by engaging with him, and the legend gains little if anything by doing it.

 

[ax1]

Did you just say perSON? What about perDAUGHTER?

I can play this game too.

perNEUTRAL sounds more safe, Id go with that. Sorry if I mislead you!

 

[Jiigzz]

Look at this image as another example. Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Take this scenario for example. Someone has been murdered, and some evidence exists. Near the body is hair belonging to the spouse, and in the corner of the room there is video footage showing the neighbour beating the victim over the head with a wrench 5 times.

The prosecution would argue that the video evidence points to the neighbour being the killer. The neighbours defense team would try use the hair to say it was actually the spouse.

Which evidence is more credible?

Clearly the other neighbor with the tinfoil hat and Faraday cage claiming that both the spouse and neighbor were setup, and it was really the crab people who had to silence him for trying to leak the passcode to the Jewish Space laser to the mole people.

 

[ax1]

Take this scenario for example. Someone has been murdered, and some evidence exists. Near the body is hair belonging to the spouse, and in the corner of the room there is video footage showing the neighbour beating the victim over the head with a wrench 5 times.

The prosecution would argue that the video evidence points to the neighbour being the killer. The neighbours defense team would try use the hair to say it was actually the spouse.

Which evidence is more credible?

Except then other witnesses come out with scientific evidence that the spouse had invlovment andit wasnt caught on camera, and instead of getting the witness stand to present the evidence, they are immediatly told to fuq off and then assassinated.

Back to WTC7, its on camera anyways so wtf???

 

[Jiigzz]

And he can trust those things to not typically catastrophically fail because other people DO have the ability to understand that so many things in science are incredibly counterintuitive and seem at odds with “observations” and “what we see.” So it’s not surprising that he thinks anything that seems counterintuitive is a conspiracy theory because he just isn’t that knowledgeable regarding basic scientific principles.

Also, good point on not lending credence to conspiracy theories. Sometimes dumping a ton of time, effort, and money into it makes it seem like it’s two equal viewpoints going back and forth, when it’s not. Sometimes ignoring them is better. Just like when a small no-name rapper goes after a legend. The legend makes the no-name’s career by engaging with him, and the legend gains little if anything by doing it.

I work in prosecution and people CONSTANTLY allege that XYZ occurs. For example, i had a weird case involving someone accusing someone else of eating cats. They were adamant that they were because cats kept disappearing and the people were of Asian descent.

It was part of another investigation but I asked about the cats while I was there and they say they foster them then rehome them so they only stay a few days.

The complainant was mad I didn't investigate it further but I simply didn't have the time to chase her wild fantasies or give any credence to her claim.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Except then other witnesses come out with scientific evidence that the spouse had invlovment andit wasnt caught on camera, and instead of getting the witness stand to present the evidence, they are immediatly told to fuq off and then assassinated.

Back to WTC7, its on camera anyways so wtf???

You mean “scientific” evidence with no peer review except themselves and no chain of custody for the evidence they present?

You still haven’t addressed when someone else pointed out that your study you referenced was debunked, and you posted the debunked study in response to the article debunking that very paper. It’s like you didn’t actually read either one my friend.

 

[Jiigzz]

Except then other witnesses come out with scientific evidence that the spouse had invlovment andit wasnt caught on camera, and instead of getting the witness stand to present the evidence, they are immediatly told to fuq off and then assassinated.

Back to WTC7, its on camera anyways so wtf???

One thing about witnesses is that they are not always credible, especially when they have no idea what they are looking at.

There are a lot of witnesses to the supposed election fraud, and a lot basically amount to "i saw them run the same ballot through multiple times". Turns out, that is how you clean the machine. But the witnesses were sure it must have been fraud.

WTC-7 video just shows it coming down. That isn't smoking gun evidence.

 

[ax1]

One thing about witnesses is that they are not always credible, especially when they have no idea what they are looking at.

There are a lot of witnesses to the supposed election fraud, and a lot basically amount to "i saw them run the same ballot through multiple times". Turns out, that is how you clean the machine. But the witnesses were sure it must have been fraud.

WTC-7 video just shows it coming down. That isn't smoking gun evidence.

Yes it is smoking gun evidence, what is seen is impossible if the causes are from what NIST claims they are.

I trust Barry Jennings, but there were explosions all day and everybody knows it. Even the owner said he made the call to pull the building and watched it fall down.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

One thing about witnesses is that they are not always credible, especially when they have no idea what they are looking at.

There are a lot of witnesses to the supposed election fraud, and a lot basically amount to "i saw them run the same ballot through multiple times". Turns out, that is how you clean the machine. But the witnesses were sure it must have been fraud.

WTC-7 video just shows it coming down. That isn't smoking gun evidence.

I have a Ring doorbell and every night, without fail, there are several people SWEARING they heard gunfire. Not just a gunshot or two, repeated gunfire that would only be found in a Stallone movie. But they SWEAR they heard gunfire, and they know what gunfire sounds like compared to fireworks, a loud car, a transformer blowing, etc.

Or when police release a sketch of a wanted criminal and dozens if not hundreds of people swear they just saw him, but somehow he most have been in twenty places at once separated by dozens of miles of more.

But yeah, “witnesses.”

 

[ax1]

You mean “scientific” evidence with no peer review except themselves and no chain of custody for the evidence they present?

You still haven’t addressed when someone else pointed out that your study you referenced was debunked, and you posted the debunked study in response to the article debunking that very paper. It’s like you didn’t actually read either one my friend.

Who? Someone random person a bodybuilding forum who likely cheated their way out of high school discussing the intricacies of the 9/11 building collapse? Wuuttt???? Who would do that?

 

[ax1]

One thing about witnesses is that they are not always credible, especially when they have no idea what they are looking at.

There are a lot of witnesses to the supposed election fraud, and a lot basically amount to "i saw them run the same ballot through multiple times". Turns out, that is how you clean the machine. But the witnesses were sure it must have been fraud.

WTC-7 video just shows it coming down. That isn't smoking gun evidence.

The election was clearly rigged too, thats simple common sense how the election was stolen. Im more certain of that than even the building 7 collapse which is hard to top.

 

[ax1]

It’s like you didn’t actually read either one my friend.

Yeah right, like you read and watch most of my crap too, unless its from some Pentagon debunkshyt website you found on top of google's algorithm tweaked searches.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

The election was clearly rigged too, thats simple common sense how the election was stolen. Im more certain of that than even the building 7 collapse which is hard to top.

Lol. Why do we even bother with you. Why didn’t they rig other elections on the same ballots then? Why did control have to come down to runoff elections? Why only rig the POTUS election and not any other elections on the same exact ballots? You’re funny man, you know that?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yeah right, like you read and watch most of my crap too, unless its from some Pentagon debunkshyt website you found on top of google's algorithm tweaked searches.

DuckDuckGo man. And at the very least I don’t immediately post the very paper that was debunked as a rebuttal to the article debunking that paper.

 

[ax1]

Lol. Why do we even bother with you. Why didn’t they rig other elections on the same ballots then? Why did control have to come down to runoff elections? Why only rig the POTUS election and not any other elections on the same exact ballots? You’re funny man, you know that?

They do, Ive been saying that for a dozen years on here. This year was different, they illegally changed election laws and on massive level that was advantageous primarily only one side.

 

[ax1]

DuckDuckGo man. And at the very least I don’t immediately post the very paper that was debunked as a rebuttal to the article debunking that paper.

Thats a good search engine I think it was you who convinced me to use that. Ive been finding most of my old stuff especially video's on yahoo search.

Yahoo search is helping me find youtube video's almost impossible to find directly on youtube believe it or not. Its really crazy to be honest that its like that. I thank @Ricky10 for bringing that to my attention.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yes it is smoking gun evidence, what is seen is impossible.

A fire bought down the Plasco Building in Iran.

2D Models showed that thermal expansion of the truss played a critical role in it coming down, same as WTC 7

 

[ax1]

A fire bought down the Plasco Building in Iran.

2D Models showed that thermal expansion of the truss played a critical role in it coming down, same as WTC 7

I looked at that, first its a 3rd world country construction, 2nd its highly likely it was a controlled demolition but I havent seen details much yet.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

They do, Ive been saying that for a dozen years on here. This year was different, they illegally changed election laws and on massive level that was advantageous primarily only one side.

It almost like we were in the midst of a global pandemic or something. And the same mail in ballots Trump said are new and cheating and corrupt are functionally the same exact things he’s been confirmed to use to vote when he votes for years. And mail in ballots aren’t benefiting one side inherently, you’re just admitting if everyone who can technically vote does vote, the republicans would lose. Signed, a registered Republican.

 

[Jiigzz]

I looked at that, first its a 3rd world country construction, 2nd its highly likely it was a controlled demolition but I havent seen details much yet.

Another controlled demo that killed 20 firefighters? Was there gold in this building too?

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Thats a good search engine I think it was you who convinced me to use that. Ive been finding most of my old stuff especially video's on yahoo search.

Yahoo search is helping me find youtube video's almost impossible to find directly on youtube believe it or not. Its really crazy to be honest that its like that. I thank @Ricky10 for bringing that to my attention.

I think I’ll agree to end the debate for now on common ground. Yeah, Google has become like 50% paid ads now it seems. It’s wild!

 

[Jiigzz]

Another controlled demo that killed 20 firefighters? Was there gold in this building too?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

A fire bought down the Plasco Building in Iran.

2D Models showed that thermal expansion of the truss played a critical role in it coming down, same as WTC 7

You should start citing fake events and names every so often so that when people claim to have looked into it already, they expose themselves as liars.

 

[ax1]

A fire bought down the Plasco Building in Iran.

2D Models showed that thermal expansion of the truss played a critical role in it coming down, same as WTC 7

I took another look. That came down sectionally rather than crimping in itself straight down at free fall speed, so no its not the same. You can see it collapsing from the back then to the front. WTC had all its columns blown at the same exact time which is something that is an impossibility.

Invalid Link Removed

vs

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Guys, if the most powerful government in the world wanted to fake the collapse of a building, you really think they couldn’t make it look convincing? The fact it looks wrong to laymen is actually fairly compelling support it wasn’t an inside job.

 

[ax1]

It almost like we were in the midst of a global pandemic or something. And the same mail in ballots Trump said are new and cheating and corrupt are functionally the same exact things he’s been confirmed to use to vote when he votes for years. And mail in ballots aren’t benefiting one side inherently, you’re just admitting if everyone who can technically vote does vote, the republicans would lose. Signed, a registered Republican.

Dump can go to hell, he stole the election too when he refused to allow the other presidential candidates from having their voice heard to America on the debate stage which is something he has ferociously defended on the past. Fuq Dump.

Forget the mail in ballots, the elections were rigged the day there were only 2 people on the debate podiums.

 

[ax1]

Guys, if the most powerful government in the world wanted to fake the collapse of a building, you really think they couldn’t make it look convincing? The fact it looks wrong to laymen is actually fairly compelling support it wasn’t an inside job.

They convinced you so that says alot. I actually believed it for a good 8 years and was just like you when I was younger, but then I started getting into looking at the science and facts.

 

[ax1]

Invalid Link Removed

Just like I showed in the videos, the two collapses are clearly not even comparable and thats also considering WTC7 was made much stronger.

 

[Jiigzz]

I took another look. That came down sectionally rather than crimping in itself straight down at free fall speed, so no its not the same. You can see it collapsing from the back then to the front. WTC had all its columns blown at the same exact time which is something that is an impossibility.

Invalid Link Removed

vs

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Dump can go to hell, he stole the election too when he refused to allow the other presidential candidates from having their voice heard to America on the debate stage which is something he has ferociously defended on the past. Fuq Dump.

Forget the mail in ballots, the elections were rigged the day there were only 2 people on the debate podiums.

I liked JoJo! Much better than Gary, who could barely put together a coherent sentence.