Je suis Omar

Yes, I do, Michael. http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/890-ae911truth-reaches-out-to-philosophers-and-engineers.html Notice how few realize this is the situation. I suspect from reading you that you are a relatively informed individual. Yet you don't know this.

Could you point me to where you have discussed the science, Poochy? "the entire topic should have simply never have been allowed to stand " These are the people who rant and rave about the importance of freedom of speech.

Michael: You're starting to engage in the tactics of the bloggers now and after about 1 hour on this I'm starting to see that there isn't any good science. Omar: You've just learned, in less than an hour, that the molten metal pouring from tower 2 wasn't aluminum. Given the evidence presented, the only available alternative, molten steel/iron, seems to be causing you enough personal distress that you write things like the above, instead of discussing the science. Michael: my question - do you have any evidence that it wasn't an explosion, wasn't thermite, etc. ? Omar: I don't understand your question at all. However, we do know that the fuels described by the officials story can't melt steel, or produce molten iron. Do you now understand what a eutectic substance does?

No, Michael, by not watching it, you are missing the point, or avoiding it. Contained therein is a professional engineer doing scientific experiments that refute both NIST and the propaganda on TV that has led hundreds of millions of people to false conclusions. He is doing what NIST wouldn't, when it was their job. Blogs or websites that address the science are, what else, valid science. Open to dispute, of course, but this position of yours is untenable. All scientists did, like Newton, Einstein, Galileo, ..., was blog.

This, jbg, on 21 Apr 2015 - 05:34 AM, said: Ho-hum. Another anti-Jewish thread started by the usual cadre. describes a person interested using in slogans/memes, biblical tales, anything diversionary to avoid discussing the facts.

Is this part of what you consider "thinking about science"? Slow down and think.

You said, BD, "I never stated categorically what the stuff was. But in choosing between "melted aluminum from giant jetliner that crashed in a ball of flames" and "iron melted by thermite charges planted by some unproven, implausible conspiracy" I and most people with a brain would go with Occam's Razor." That's certainly been a major part of the problem, people rushing to illogical conclusions, using things they "discovered" on Wikipedia, which they think make them look intelligent - Occam's Razor. What you suggest, above, does not remotely approach science. It's no different than phrenology or intelligent design. Slow down a bit and try to think. That's what science is.

You said, "YouTube: not science.", BD. I know you didn't watch it. The PE actually did science. Give it a look. That's what people who believe in science do. NIST also appears on YouTube. This is what I said about you not thinking.

Your focus is much much too narrow, BD. You are grasping at straws, ignoring the available evidence. Watch this video. Proof that Thermite can cut a vertical column I know that it will raise many questions in your mind. That's good, 'cause then you know you are in scientific mode.

It didn't seem to bother you one bit advancing NIST's unproven assertion, BlackDog. How many people have you mislead with your ignorance (non pejorative sense) ? How many people has NIST misled. These are the scientists who were tasked with looking at the evidence, doing what scientists are supposed to do, ie. not avoid uncomfortable truths, not dance around potentially damaging results, but to do what RJ Lee Group says scientists should do, "At RJ Lee Group, we believe that science speaks for itself. We just give it a confident voice." You remember them, don't you? No, that is false. I'm going to ask you to do something that you have so far shown a marked reluctance to do. That is think. After that let's discuss it. Here too, thinking is required. Science does science. In order to discuss the science, it is important, if not imperative, to be up to speed on the attendant issues and vocabulary. "thermite" suggests you aren't. But don't let that get you down for this IS rocket science and I must admit that it has a steep learning curve.

NIST didn't do science. They have refused to provide their data for peer review. Is that science? Why does Dr Jones's findings, backed up by experiment, need peer review but NIST's explanations, not backed up by experiments, or for that matter, by scientific principles, doesn't need peer review? They failed to do the easy experiments that could have cleared up their "explanation". An explanation, I have to add, one of many, that were not backed up by science, ie. experimentation, and yet these have resulted in many (see BlackDog, OGFT, you and how many millions of others) simply believing NIST and referring others to them as the experts. Experts, scientists, don't refuse or fail to do easy to perform experiments to validate their theories. That simply is not science. It is the exact opposite of science. Science is all about experiments. Experiments are the essence of science. As things now stand, we have molten steel pouring from WTC2, when, and this is crucial, by everyone's admission, NIST included, there was no fuel source available that could have melted steel.

You are likely reading the post, two below this one of yours I'm quoting that refutes NIST's untested hypothesis.

Scientists don't/can't simply explain away things they don't want to face up to. NIST performed no tests to "explain" their contention. Whereas other scientists have. That is what scientists do. Scientists asked NIST to perform experiments, but NIST failed to do so. Easy to perform experiments NIST failed to do. That's not science.

Why are you ignoring the pointed information from the Consensus that I posted? There also should not, could not be eutectic mixtures at the WTC complex. That is evidence of hi tech, military grade nanothermite. Which definitely should not be there.

What article, Michael? Why don't you bring that information forward. See, "Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important?" http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/900-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

That would be because you are incapable of delivering.

August 1991: But if you go to the trouble to make a movie, then it's better to tell the truth. Omar: if the truth is what you are looking for then you had better stay far away from American movies.

No need, OGFT, you've illustrated many a time how you are a shyster and a fraud.

Derek2.0: Sure.....didn't find the part that suggested riots were a prerequisite for a conviction though.... Omar: Riots, combined with terrorism, were exactly how the USA was founded. They are as American as apple pie.

So take it over to the thread where these issues are being discussed and show us your language prowess.

Evidently, you'll believe any old nonsense.

That would be Monsanto, Dow, Bayer ... .

The very same guy who can't discuss language or grammar issues either, but he makes himself out to be some grammar guru who takes money from unsuspecting folks.

Friends don't let friends commit war crimes. And join 'em to boot.

Such capital D Dishonesty. You were right in there pitching until you were schooled. Then you disappeared. And you obviously haven't moved on. You just keep illustrating that you're not capable of taking any real substantial part except from where you have moved to take your seat in the peanut gallery.