hot enough

The ad says, "we are sick of all the lies but in these times to speak out directly in addressing the deep evil is seen as an attack on the whole country, which is a lie, the BIG lie that has been perpetrated by the right, conservatives. Time to bring back honesty, time to hold these criminals to account."

Gee, an ad that shows, "we aren't your enemy, we are just citizens like you". And you are folks just like us, sick of all the lies of these right wing governments. We know you have jobs and families you need to protect or you would be marching with us." And Boges and DoP are offended. Telling isn't it?

That would be regular thermite, Altai, which can, in and of itself, readily melt and cut thru steel beams and columns One can't do any research on nanothermite because it isn't available because it is SOLELY a US government military grade high explosive. Again, See, 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate Nano sized particles increase the explosive power by a factor that is unknown to the general public, unknown to demolition experts because it and its properties, other than in a general sense like that described above, is unknown to everyone except secretive US government folks. Why hasn't the honest, upfront US government told everyone like the 911 Commission, NIST, the people who govern them, that the nanothermite and the nanothermite residues found in WTC dust, not just a wee bit of residue, about 6% of the dust is nanothermite residue and UNREACTED nanothermite particles is a material that the ALLEGED HIJACKERS COULD NOT HAVE HAD, nor could they have obtained it, and even if they could have obtained it they couldn't have ferried it over to WTC7? There is NO legal or legitimate reason for nanothermite or even regular thermite to have been at WTC. Its presence tells the whole story. As does the molten and vaporized steel, as does the free fall, the acceleration of the twin towers, the ... .

Always with the wild accusations. Next will come an anecdotal example, garnered from some nutty right wing website, which is where all this comes from. And the vicious cycle repeats.

Move to the thread where this is being discussed.

If you are so certain it is nonsense, it will be incredibly easy for you to illustrate that. Please do so, Argus. I have asked Omni, B_C, segnosaur, and I extend it to anyone else who holds the view that the things I have advanced on 9-11 are nonsense.

MLW No, this is not a thread on Martin Luther Wing.

Take it to the thread and we can discuss it. I'll delete this post of mine if you will delete yours and transport it over there. PM me a "DONE" and I'll follow suit.

Why would adults need a time out? The time outs you mean are those times when these adults hit the wall. Altai seems to be able to discuss these issues without tiring herself much. And she does so in spite of all the attacks.

Those are for that thread. I can provide information in that regard, but why would we discuss that before you folks admit it was at WTC, described, not by camlok, but by many independent scientists.

Then you have nothing at all to fear [except your own fear]. You can debate me on any single 911 issue you raised and then I get to pick one from any of the material.

I wasn't surprised, in the least. Notice how you failed to note when you fled, which really means WHY you fled. "When you two saw the US government scientists describing the nanothermite that you all had been categorically denying, with a range of silly jokes, you both fled the thread, as did everyone else." Do you, does everyone still refuse to believe it?

That is simply because you don't want any. In plain and simple English, the US official story is a conspiracy theory. But that isn't the topic of this thread.

You aren't even ashamed of your sum total actions in those threads where all you did was snipe, post false and misleading information, etc. We can go back and discuss any one of your offerings on "science", which will illustrate that what I am stating here is accurate. Shall we do so, B_C? You can even pick your "science". Not here of course. In the appropriate location.

"as far as I know" - you avoided that topic in such a diligent fashion, you took a lead role in derailing any pertinent debate, pulling and pushing things off topic, always back to me - "troother" ... . Was any of that in any way scientific?

That is a ludicrous assertion. You and segnosaur spent your whole time focusing on a single inanity for the express purpose of derailing the damning evidence. When you two saw the US government scientists describing the nanothermite that you all had been categorically denying, with a range of silly jokes, you both fled the thread, as did everyone else.

Lots of unscientific things in there, Argus. Suggesting you can for "most of those" is also unscientific and false. And then you went downhill, fast. If all these false allegations you made had any connection to reality, if you were to phrase my beliefs accurately, then the question would be, given that what you think is the opposite, it should be stunningly easy to prove; why don't you, why doesn't anyone, why haven't you done so, why hasn't anyone done so?

If the players say, "we want to go, go ahead and keep your nhl games going while we're gone, best of luck" where would the nhl be? Now remember, these are guys who don't care about the effects their business has upon the health and well-being of the players. Would any workers compensation group allow workers to take repeated hits to their heads as part of normal business operations?

This is a topic which we all should have had long ago. It came up in another thread regarding a separate issue. So here we can discuss freedom of speech/expression and its meaning. [If anyone feels that there was/is something pertinent that I have missed from the other discussion, please feel free to bring it forward. "If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsk bcsapper wrote: ... Freedom of expression/speech is something I value very highly. Even that which disgusts me. Of course, expressing disgust is also freedom of expression. bcsapper wrote: I don't often start threads. I'm always afraid no-one will answer it. I think Noam Chomsky's quote says it very well, without the obvious provisors about incitement to violence and shouting "fire" etc. Most people accept those as a given. A couple of examples come to mind. A long time poster who has now, sadly, left of hs own free will, used to post this cartoon to illustrate his views on Freedom of Speech: Which also seems to state the case very well. Of course, the right to call those doing the boycotting assholes is equally valid. The other example is the strange case of the student and Fabrice Muamba. Fabrice was a footballer for Bolton Wanderers who died during a game against Spurs a few years back. He was brought back to life by the prompt attendance of emergency crews and a doctor who happened to be attending the game. A student at the University of Swansea, I believe, tweeted about how happy he was Fabrice had died, and included some awful racial slurs into the bargain. (Fabrice is black) Twitter banned him. Fair enough, see the cartoon. The University of Swansea kicked him out. Fair enough, see the cartoon. He was charged with hate speech, found guilty, and sent to jail. Utterly, completely ridiculous. See the cartoon. See what Noam said. -------------------------------------------- Let the games begin!

That is reasonable on its face however, the avalanche of distractions, which are unscientific and against forum rules causes there to be a failure, often multiple failures, diversions, tangents, which do not "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion", but just the opposite. See the post right before your post to me for a perfect example.

I'd like to see a thread on this. And your ideas. You should start one.

And here I mistakenly thought that we might all do better. Silly me.

And after this Thomas Paine speech, no comment from you on Argus's comment. No comments from you in all the threads on 911 where you not only encouraged others to degrade the level of "something I value very highly", you did so yourself, ie. degrade that which is "something I value very highly".