hot enough

You folks really aren't big on science. Some even pretend they attended university.

We're on page two now and there has been, as always, zero evidence for the USGOCT.

Explain in a manner even remotely resembling scientific, how your conjecture has any relation/pertinence to the controlled demolitions of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

Do you think that it makes any sense to you for the lower 92 floors, which were progressively stronger as they descended, for the structural steel to have exhibited the same structural strength as 900 feet of custard pudding? How did the towers stay up for all those years when the structural steel had the same load bearing capacity as custard pudding?

How about you, Michael, do you think that it is sensible for the lower much much much stronger undamaged section of WTC 1 structural steel to have exhibited the same structural strength as 900 feet of custard pudding? And remember this is erring on the USGOCT side.

Total BS. The US/UK illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan all based on total lies.The US has been trying to overthrow the Syrian government for years - that is TERRORISM! To advance the totally ludicrous notion that Islam promotes the killing of people is so far out there it's almost approaching Pluto. Just do a count of the millions murdered by US/UK/Canadian war criminals versus westerners killed by Islam. Consider the planned and executed genocide of the US/UK governments against the people of Iraq in the 1990s. Half a million children died, maybe the same number of adults, the UN stopped counting. The US figure the losses might approach 2 million but no big deal, on with the fun and games for them.

So the alleged hijacker confided in your aunt's brother's cousin details for this top secret plan. And now you want to put this forward as "evidence".

Are you presenting this as evidence, OftenWrong?

Funny, we all get way more JWs and Mormons showing up at our doors.

And you didn't surprise me one bit, sapper. I had thought, "give the guy a chance, anyone who follows the evidence/science will be able to see that the USGOCT has zero evidence supporting it". Again, how did that tiny upper chunk of WTC1 go thru all that structural steel as if it was a ball dropped in a vacuum, or, to err greatly for the side of the USGOCT, to a pile of 900 foot custard pudding? Does this make sense to you?

And here I thought you were an open minded individual who was willing to look at the evidence. You show yourself to be someone who is terribly frightened to find out the truth. Surely, you can think, can't you? How does the tiny, in comparison, upper section of WTC1 fall thru the hundreds of tonnes of much much much stronger structural steel in the lower sections at accelerating speed?

In the largest elevator update in modern history. Why would this company, obviously a top flight company, I mean who would give a contract to a fly by night company to do this big a renovation on the largest buildings in the world go bankrupt in 2006? Why would this company doing this highly secure work never be mentioned by the 911 Commission or NIST?

The twin towers fell, being exceedingly generous to the USGOCT, as if the resistance of the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 equaled a vacuum to the strength of custard pudding. Is this logical to your brain?

Once again for clarity, Michael, that is NOT evidence. Meanwhile, you totally ignore all the science that says the USGOCT is simply not possible. As I said to sapper; "Sensible people have an inherent "smell test" to discern real evidence from fake. Sensible people can combine "evidence" with rational thought. It's the basis of our jury system." Anyone who clings to such dodgy "evidence" and refuses to look at the science is not really being honest with themselves or everyone else.

That is not how evidence works, except on the most base pedestrian level. If that is what you operate on then there is no use discussing anything with you. You already knew I was referencing legal evidence, something substantial, something you know you can't find as regards alleged hijackers. Sensible people have an inherent "smell test" to discern real evidence from fake. Sensible people can combine "evidence" with rational thought. It's the basis of our jury system. Before you spend a lot of time consider how you expect to provide evidence that the alleged hijackers melted/vaporized steel [2750/4900F] when the maximum steel temperatures in the twin towers were 1000F short of that. Then consider how you expect to gather evidence to show these same alleged hijackers managed the same thing in WTC7 when they never came within two football fields of it.

It was a metaphoric reference but you already know this.

The first is an example of evidence, the second is not. I shouldn't have to point that out to you.

Soooooooooooooooooo lame. That defense never works for anyone in a court of law, now does it? It never worked for WWII war criminals, except for the ones who had clear proof that the US had committed the same war crimes, then the US dismissed the charges and let the war criminals go instead of doing the honorable thing and trying both US offenders and others.

You might want to think that but the historical record is very clear. US death squads the world over have always described how they wanted to learn new ways to murder people so they watched US gangster movies. The CIA has long trained terrorists and torturers and the alumni have ripped apart Latin America.

You are on very firm ground, PA.

No, this is what the US is doing/has done/will continue to do to other peoples in THEIR countries!!!!

Please try to be serious about these things. You, anyone, can provide evidence for the existence of the Sydney Opera House but you can't provide evidence for the alleged hijackers? Certain things really should cause thinking people to, well, think. Do you think that it is sensible for the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 to have had the strength of custard pudding?

Not a thing in your quote, Michael, suggests that OBL confessed to anything. You're not usually this sloppy with your sourcing.

You are saying that you can't provide any evidence for the existence of the alleged hijackers. What might be causing you to continue to accept such a flimsy fable? I don't know exactly what Gordon says, but I'll suggest that he doesn't involve himself with such ludicrous notions when the science unequivocally says that Arab hijackers could not have melted/vaporized steel, caused the twin towers to fall as if the resistance of the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 equaled the strength of custard pudding. Do you think that it is sensible for the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 to have the strength of custard pudding?

What do you say about the hijackers? Do you support the contention that there were Arab hijackers? If so, could you please provide some evidence to prove such a contention.