What science says

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...2016474p21.pdf

The White House knows lots about it

He works for the same powers who organized it

I would recommend you go to a friend from a science/engineering background and discuss with them about the physics side of it :2 cents:

Good to hear that, but you often seem to believe a lot of the propaganda on the liberal side
There are many architects, engineers and physicists who will be in that cave too

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...2016474p21.pdf

I'm the only one here posting scientific studies :2 cents:

Find a way of blaming the fake moon landings on Trump, then the DNC will give you a pay rise :2 cents:

Right but you didn't actually read it did you.

"NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual
purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
speculation."


Speculation.

Not science.


The whole of WT7 controlled demolition theory is simply speculation.

The collapse video looks similar to a controlled demolition, therefore it is a controlled demolition.

Thats it.

Nothing else.

I watched the video you posted, your scientific expert offered no evidence whatsoever and ducked all the important questions such as WHO or WHY.

He starts with the controlled demolition presumption and runs with it - that really is all that he has.

No science. No proof. No evidence.

It just looked kinda similar.

So you claim to be the only one posting Science WHP - it turns out you have not posted any.

Well fuck me.

Baawaahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha!! ! Watching videos is not "scientific study" nut case.

Speculation

vs

Science.

WHP and all these bozos dont realise that these are very different concepts.:error

And mostly science, hence why it's in the Euro Physics magazine, the speculation bit is as the evidence was all quickly removed from the crime scene.

Whereas the Official Story posters post all speculation and no science

Says a poster whose main tactics are namecalling and ad hominems

Euro Physics Magazine

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...2016474p21.pdf

You posted speculation and called it science.

The whole WT7 argument is speculation.

Thats it.

Not one shred of evidence to support the controlled demolition theory.

Absolutely fucking nothing.

Fuck all.

NADA.

Why have you posted that link again.

The very first paragraph says that the report is full of speculation.

Not science.

Read the report dipshit.

You are pretending that you don't know the meaning of the word some, if it was pure speculation it wouldn't be published in euro physics

You are just trolling as usual, he hadn't clicked on it, so I posted again

Baawaahahahahahaha!!! You are a nut case.

WHP is off his meds again

On the nofap med, giving me 3 months of testosterone charging through my veins, easily enabling me to kick the asses of the lazy minded foot soldiers in this thread

Right.

But you are unable to tell the difference between facts science and logic vs speculation and ?internet research on youtube?.

:1orglaugh

So that pit of molen steel and iron (1800-2000 f) in the basement of the towers, who?s heat signature could be seen from space (1800-2000 f), was from diesel fuel? If diesel fuel had that many btu?s you could power a rocket ship with it, mark prince would be heralding it as a super fuel, etc. But that is not the case. Why? Jet. Fuel. Cannot. Melt. Steel. Beams.

You are projecting again, you are too low energy to have looked into both sides of the debate, which would have allowed you to form a balanced and informed opinion. Instead you spend time namecalling on GFY, trolling educated people who have spent hundreds of hours researching the topic :helpme