Wibble wrote:Oh god here we go again!
Yeah. You can say that again....
In the preceding months and weeks before the terrorist attacks, several testimonies from WTC workers that are now deemed 'irrelevant' by the 9/11 Commission Report, reported of abnormal power outages, shut-down orders (where people could not go to work for several days each time these orders were carried out), security and evacuation drills that were not normal activities in terms of the WTC complex
So in several months despite the fact the buildings were the work place for thousands of people only several workers reported "abnormal power outages etc.
Nope. Only several people made public this fact. Obviously, thousands of people were aware of the outages at the same. But like everything else in life, you don't have everyone going around afterwards complaining about such things. Especially when you are so brainwashed by the official story of 9/11 that you misjudge such events to be irrelevant.
What are abnormal power outages?
A rhetorical question to make it appear the concept is meaningless.
To wire the WTC with CD you would need to disturb people on every floor.
Who is talking about wiring the tower? It could have been pre-wired long (according to Paul Laffoley, who worked on the design of the South Tower, it was), with explosives added during the preceding week-end.
Perhaps you might have heard of Scott Forbes
I have and he has been debunked in various Youtube videos. Just one man noticed the "suspicious" noises and white dust!!!!!!
Again, no. Just one man who has got the guts to speak publicly and question events.
The only possible explanation is the drilling of holes for CD!!! On the outer, non load bearing walls. My god they were so thorough in planting the CD but let down by the lack of a dyson.
Exaggerated sarcasm is not a very effective argument (sigh!)
Sorry, none of your middle paragraph makes sense? What are you getting at? Lobby damage? You seem to spend more time trying to counter your own argument than making it?
If you are trying to say the lobby damage is evidence of CD then...
Why would they CD the lobby as the aircraft impacted?
They didn't. Some of the explosives went off prematurely. They would hardly have blown up the lobby deliberately at such a moment. Too suspicious. In fact, it's clear except to the very thick that some explosives went off before they should have done.
It is not load bearing? Surely they would wait until the rest of the alleged CD went off? Why did the towers not collapse from the bottom if they CD the lobby?
False question based upon a false assumption. The explosions in the lobby were premature.
How did they fly the aircraft into the towers accurately enough not to destroy/upset the CD by the impact zone?
Firstly 'they' did not fly into the tower. The plane was remote-controlled. Secondly, those who targeted the plane were not concerned about avoiding explosives on the 81st floor. Anyway, there did not have to be explosives on every floor in order to bring down the tower. Your objection is as weak as a wet toilet tissue.
How did they stop the fires from affecting the CD? And all the wiring and etc they secretly hid?
Perhaps the wires were thermally insulated against office fires? Don't you have any imagination?:roll:
The alternative theories are so many that is why it is not one united theory.
But there is only one truth yet 7 years later the truth movement can not agree on anything.
Yes, of course it can. But I don't expect you to report it accurately.
Surely all your evidence points to the truth? What is it?
IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. Disagreements on some of the minor details about how it was carried out are beside the point.
But the reports of molten metal are confirmed by the personnel of the FDNY, from the interviews , the videos of these firemen and the testimonies in the FDNY 9/11 Oral Histories
But not one of them carried out any form of testing. Not one of them stated the quantity. Not one of them showed what type of metal it was.
You really think that matters when it is obvious except to the scientifically illiterate that it could not have been steel and certainly was not the molten aluminium remains of a plane, which would have quickly cooled and solidified? Such pedanticism to obscure the damning fact of unexplained pools of molten metal. Tut Tut. But predictable.
You are twisting what the eye whiteness said to suit your own needs, a common truther ploy.
Really? And non-truthers don't do the same? LOL!
Anyway, the NIST have accounted for this and if you dont believe (just a guess, you are a truther) please prove them wrong and prove your theory?
No, they have not. They don't even admit it. The chief of NIST said on camera that he was unaware of such reports of molten metal. Your really should stop making up facts to suit your case. You might start to look like a truther. God forbid! 
Subterannean fires (that could explain the molten metal) could not possibly result after the collapses of the three buildings, since these fires, if any resulted, would have been knocked out by the lack of oxygen, the amount of soot and pulverized dust abound, and especially weeks after 9/11 when there would not have been any fuel left for these 'subterranean fires' to be well and alive.
What lack of oxygen?
Um, any student of chemistry understands that normal fires need oxygen. Being underground means the supply of oxgen is limited, leaving it a problem why they should have lasted so long at Ground Zero. But perhaps you still believe in the phogiston theory of combustion? If so, please hurry up and get yourself a GCSE in chemistry
How does CD burn at 1000 degrees weeks after it has blown up?
It doesn't. No one claimed it did. That's why the fact remains puzzling, suggesting to some that thermate was used.
Or without oxygen?
Thermate does not need oxygen.
How do volcanoes work if there is not CD, air, thermite, fuel?
A dumb question. Volcanoes merely release already molten larva from deep fissues. But I guess if you try to compare apples with oranges, you may dupe some into seeing oranges instead of apples
What about the under water ones? Could it be a volcano under the WTC?
Another dumb question intended to make truthers look dumb but which actually make you look dumb for asking it in the first place.
Do you have any calculations of how much fuel would be needed to fuel the fires for weeks? Do you have any calculations of how much fuel and air would be available? Or are just saying all this because it suits your blinkered view on events? I dont want to tar you with same brush or anything but it is very common for truthers to come out with all sorts of stuff like this with nothing to back it up. Then when question they go "you prove it wrong" or something like that. So you prove it right first, then I will prove it wrong.
Another vacuous, rhetorical question. No one can provide such calculations because no one knows how much molten metal was underground. But then you knew that, didn't you, and was just posing the question because you know it could not be answered, not because the question really needed an answer? And you of course miss the point. Molten metal cools and solidifies. It does not remain hot enough to remain molten unless it was being fed by heat. Ask any steel foundry worker. What was that heat source? Things don't keep burning for weeks, you know? Geddit? I doubt it.
Why do Truthers believe terrorists dont exist?
They don't. They merely don't believe those responsible for 9/11 were terrorists. There is too much anomalous evidence contradicting this. Yet again, you set up a bogus question for its rhetorical value because you have nothing to offer but empty, illogical rhetoric.
Or if they do exist they believe they are stupid?
No. Only those who believe the official story about 9/11 are stupid. 
:lol::lol:
[/code]
