• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evidence of EXPLOSIVES in the WTC complex.

zyzygy said:
But what solid evidence is there for explosives?
Click to expand...
So you ask for evidence and you get some evidence. Admittedly, its not proof, but its evidence all the same.

BUT NOW YOU WANT TO MOVE THOSE GOALPOSTS. lol

Now you ask for SOLID evidence?

Please tell us what constitutes as SOLID evidence for you? lol
 
Fledermaus said:
And this is evidence of? Stop trolling.
Click to expand...
Its evidence of Bush saying there was explosives in the towers. lol

Did he mean it, was it a Freudian slip or just a mistake? I dunno.
 
Fledermaus said:
Explosions can be found in structural fires where there are no explosives......
Click to expand...
And until there is a source for what those people heard, we cannot rule out the possibility they were explosives. lol
 
golaposts2.jpg
 
Their is a lot of conflicting evidence on both sides and people on both sides seem to be quite adamant..

Me, I'm in the middle, I just don't straight believe any of it..
 
Orly? said:
Their is a lot of conflicting evidence on both sides and people on both sides seem to be quite adamant..

Me, I'm in the middle, I just don't straight believe any of it..
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion but this thread is about evidence of an explosion and you obviously have none.
 
zyzygy said:
You are entitled to your opinion but this thread is about evidence of an explosion and you obviously have none.
Click to expand...

Out of all posters here I am the one that has posted the most of anything that could be considered "evidence"...

Did you post any "evidence" pro or contrary to the debate?
 
Orly? said:
Out of all posters here I am the one that has posted the most of anything that could be considered "evidence"...

Did you post any "evidence" pro or contrary to the debate?
Click to expand...

The official story fits the facts. If you have another coherent story supported by evidence then feel free to present it. Why fly planes into buildings if you are going to blow them up? Why not just blow them up and then blame terrorists? Truther theories make no sense.
 
Fledermaus said:
What evidence?

I can't provide evidence for something that didn't exist.
Click to expand...

There was nothing whatsoever in those planes that can explode? Not batteries or tires or bottles of alcohol nothing?
 
zyzygy said:
Bush was a moron who had difficulty with constructing a coherent sentence.
Click to expand...
Very true, the kind of moron who would watch loose change and then be so influenced by it, he would say there were bombs at the WTC.

Rumsfeld might have been influenced by loose change too, seeing as he spoke about missiles at the pentagon.....lol
 
2 large airliners travelling at very high speed and impacting with the energy of more than a ton of TNT each were the explosive preparations.

9/11 was about people - about causing mass casualties. It was not about buildings. The callous, un-thiking, un-caring :censored who obsess over real estate and never give a moments thought to the thousands of victims do not deserve our attention.

/thread
 
The thread is about evidence of explosives. No one has provided any to date

Sounds of "explosions" can be heard during some building fires and even on wildfires. What the CD supporters lack is any indication that an "explosive" was used. They have yet to show that the sounds heard did not occur do to the natural process of the building burning.
 
stundie said:
Very true, the kind of moron who would watch loose change and then be so influenced by it, he would say there were bombs at the WTC.

Rumsfeld might have been influenced by loose change too, seeing as he spoke about missiles at the pentagon.....lol
Click to expand...

Intentional ignorance as to the context of Rumsfeld's statements.
 
Mark F said:
2 large airliners travelling at very high speed and impacting with the energy of more than a ton of TNT each were the explosive preparations.

9/11 was about people - about causing mass casualties. It was not about buildings. The callous, un-thiking, un-caring :censored who obsess over real estate and never give a moments thought to the thousands of victims do not deserve our attention.

/thread
Click to expand...
Are you talking about ole Larry??
 
stundie said:
I can't post evidence of explosives, no more than you can post evidence of heat weakened steel. I don't have any direct proof/evidence of explosives seeing as none were looked for according to the NIST.

What I can do is post evidence which suggests the possibility that there were explosives.

If that's what you are interested in, I'll be happy to provide you with it?
Click to expand...

I would change only one word in your post. From "possibility" to "probability".

Indeed, there had to be explosives of some sort, simply because gravity alone could not have caused what damage there was.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would change only one word in your post. From "possibility" to "probability".

Indeed, there had to be explosives of some sort, simply because gravity alone could not have caused what damage there was.
Click to expand...
In the grand scheme of things, I agree, but using the word probability will make these pantomime debunkers froth at the mouth.

You have to be gentle with them.......lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom