hot enough

You are very very very unknowledgeable on this topic, as are all many members.

The facts are, nanothermite was found in WTC dust. End of this story.

That's for the courts.

With fabrications, innuendo, trickery, all the usual things.

Not "now", I have been saying it for a long time. Let me explain it to you once more; molten/vaporized steel means there were no hijackers; WTC7 free fall means there were no hijackers; WTCs 1, 2 and 7's controlled demolitions means there were no hijackers; ...; ... ;... ;... . Only the folks who rigged the controlled demolitions would know that. It's a new super powerful nanothermite. Do you even know what thermite is?

Are you going to describe these "greater energy densities, like those found in fully fueled Boeing 767-200 airliners", or is this just another boondoggle, a big distraction to get folks to not see or think about the new USA super nanothermite, a new generation of very powerful, easily controlled, safe and with great ignition control, explosives that can be painted on, that will cut thru steel, concrete, anything, like a hot knife thru butter.

What you are trying to do is get the topic off on wild goose chases, hoping others won't read about the new super nanothermites. We could "actually describe many ways this situation could have occurred". That could go on for years and decades and that is what you would like to see done, to sidetrack the important things, the things that scare you silly.

There is much scientific consensus that there were no hijackers at all. Certainly the science of 911 doesn't support the US official conspiracy theory, in fact it outright refutes it so one has to wonder how a picture of alleged hijackers and a silly cryptic remark contributes anything to the discussion. Let's do remember that it is this same lady/man, B_C, that posted a number of posts that she knew to be false and misleading regarding steel framed towers versus ferro/concrete structures. When it was pointed out to her, a number of times, she simply fled without a word, with zero discussion. And now she shows up again with more misdirection. Point Flt-2: The Claim that Flight 93 Crashed Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania << Previous Point, Next Point >> The Official Account The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. [1] In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down. The Best Evidence Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; [2] that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; [3] and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over a mile away. [4]

I'll take that as a "No, I don't know anything about them." From the US Lawrence Livermore Labs, the new super nanothermites, "a new era of explosives", precisely what was found in WTC dust, residues of thermite, unreacted particles of nanothermite which when heated "exploded" producing microspheres of molten iron, a by-product of thermite, giving the chemical signature of thermite, ================== Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by ... . These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods." ... Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson.

I will, presently. First, ...

Yes, seriously, buildings can be weakened before the total collapse. You aren't aware of the new super nanothermites, are you?

Shall we get back to the science now?

Yes there has been many analysis done. Why aren't you up to speed on this? NIST was urged to do a study but they never did. Know why? Their entire fraudulent study would have been exposed right then.

This is what US government conspiracy theorists do when the meet real science. From the extreme to the ludicrous.

Relax, segnosaur.

This is what US government conspiracy theorists do when they meet real science. It has happened a lot in all these threads, segnosaur, and they flee, because real science they find much too disturbing.

I agree with you. He said what you said he said in 2004. He also said what I said, that there was molten and vaporized steel when he arrived at WTC on I believe it was September 19, 2001. Beside, there are many others, who have described these high temperatures, the molten steel, the vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum [4700F], the vaporized lead [3100F]. ...

Here is molten steel pouring out of WTC 2 minutes before it was blown up/ WTC 2 molten steel right where collapse started

Bold letters are all you have. You have no idea of the context when he said what you quoted. It doesn't change the fact that he described molten and vaporized steel years before. The following provides a much greater context to the FEMA report. There is also much discussion there of the others who described molten metals that could not/should not have been there at WTC, temperatures that were reached far above the temperatures of the WTC fires.

You would have to be up to date on things and it is obvious you are not. During a study, many conclusions can be drawn. The study is done. They are checking other things. This is no different than what NIST did or what any other scientist does.

He described molten steel. Here is one such description. Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.” "[NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001] "searing temperatures" are needed to vaporize steel, in the absence of another reasonable explanation.

No, he hasn't stated controlled demolition. That wasn't what the study was about. What he did say was, 1. Exchange between lawyer and Prof Hulsey Daniel Sheehan [lawyer]: "On a scale of 1 to a 100, ... how probable do you think it is, or how possible do you think it is that this building [WTC7] could have collapsed simply because of the fires?" Professor Hulsey: "Zero." Go to, 13:09 of the following. Dr. Leroy Hulsey Testifies before Panel of Attorneys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY =============== 2. Professor Hulsey also said and I paraphrase, We can't find any justification that it could have come down by fire. So that contradicts the findings of the NIST report ... ... we found, which is quite interesting, no big surprise, the building is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have summetrical behavior it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other. So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure, for god's sake, isn't built perfectly so nothing is ever gonna come straight down, unless you force it to do that. Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 4: Dr. Leroy Hulsey on the WTC 7 Modeling Study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegkDCBJxjY&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4&index=4 The only problem with language is yours. You don't understand English. You described 'conspiracy' accurately and then you described the US government conspiracy theory - "Obviously, 9/11 involved a conspiracy... Bin laden conspired with volunteers to hijack planes." And so on. You believe in this theory, which makes you a conspiracy theorist, one who believes in the US government conspiracy theory. A theory that has never been proven.

You have formed this opinion using your usual scientific approach, have you?

That is not true. From my readings of your posts I consider you to be highly honest. I suggested you were being totally upfront, totally honest about how 911 has a cloak over it. Discussions don't happen because people are afraid to discuss it.

Would you mind very much contributing something in the way of science?