Creative Speculation

AZCat

(8,345 posts)

8. Maybe this was never an issue because there was no evidence of explosives?

Thu Nov 6, 2014, 11:59 PM

Nov 2014

Of course that can't be it - what am I thinking? That explanation leaves no room for a shadowy, all-powerful cabal that is intent on covering up evidence of space-based beam weapons. Or holograms. Or micro-nukes.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

50 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The End of the Road for NIST [View all] JohnyCanuck Nov 2014 OP

k/r nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #1

I am sure NIST is sad at their impending demise. hack89 Nov 2014 #2

So explain to me how an independent 9/11 investigation take place. hack89 Nov 2014 #3

Here are some ideas nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #4

NIST could put all the questions to rest gyroscope Nov 2014 #5

Because NIST didn't conduct the criminal investigation? hack89 Nov 2014 #6

NIST was responsible for investigating WHY the towers collapsed, genius gyroscope Nov 2014 #9

But the FBI tested and found nothing hack89 Nov 2014 #11

You're just making crap up as you go along gyroscope Nov 2014 #13

no they were not "paint chips"! wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #38

Ten years gone and nothing new hack89 Nov 2014 #39

guess you know that from your own experience eh hack? wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #46

I miss the old days - we use to have a lot of fun hack89 Nov 2014 #49

Yes, they were paint chips William Seger Nov 2014 #40

again all you have is denial! unless you can link please! n/t wildbilln864 Nov 2014 #45

Again? William Seger Nov 2014 #48

Why wouldn't they have used high explosives? hack89 Nov 2014 #12

If they had bothered to look into it instead of trying to cover it up gyroscope Nov 2014 #14

Large tall buildings are easier hack89 Nov 2014 #15

You ignored the part about gyroscope Nov 2014 #16

So you discount the eye witness accounts of explosions? hack89 Nov 2014 #17

Try to pay attention gyroscope Nov 2014 #18

But we have been told for ten years that explosives were used hack89 Nov 2014 #19

I said no such thing gyroscope Nov 2014 #20

So if they used RDX hack89 Nov 2014 #21

What an absurd thing to say gyroscope Nov 2014 #22

Falling in its footprint is the easy part hack89 Nov 2014 #23

But according to the NIST report gyroscope Nov 2014 #24

I think you actually need to read the NIST report hack89 Nov 2014 #25

No airplane hit Tower 7 gyroscope Nov 2014 #26

You want to discount the fire hack89 Nov 2014 #27

"Enough the weaken the steel." gyroscope Nov 2014 #28

In post #25, hack calls that a "collapse" nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #30

The Beijing building is still in use today gyroscope Nov 2014 #32

Your first picture shows the concrete core standing while the steel portions collapsed hack89 Nov 2014 #37

Windsor had a concrete core. The steel portions collapsed. hack89 Nov 2014 #33

The claim that the towers should have collapsed like falling trees is ludicrous. AZCat Nov 2014 #36

Doesn't matter if its a tree or a highrise building gyroscope Nov 2014 #41

"random office fire" zappaman Nov 2014 #42

Special Magical Fire! gyroscope Nov 2014 #43

Special Magical Fire makes sense! zappaman Nov 2014 #44

You have quite an imagination gyroscope Nov 2014 #47

Your post doesn't address my argument at all. AZCat Nov 2014 #50

Maybe this was never an issue because there was no evidence of explosives? AZCat Nov 2014 #8

Are you a psychic or clairvoyant? gyroscope Nov 2014 #10

Fortunately for incident investigators everywhere... AZCat Nov 2014 #29

Oh boy this is always interesting. AZCat Nov 2014 #7

Here's what these posters mean by nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #31

Here on the internet I'm just an anonymous poster. AZCat Nov 2014 #34

Oh, and there are many more threads with Tony's participation still on DU2 if people care to look. AZCat Nov 2014 #35