hot enough

As always no sources. Rants do not qualify as sources. Nanothermite isn't a "plain old garden variety". It is a new, non-commercially available US product, which you and Michael are studiously avoiding discussing how it refutes your nonsense that you magically derived from the Dwain Deets material that you still have failed to provide a link to. Why are you so confused on this whole issue? And actually normal everyday thermite is more than "energetic enough, as a shaped charge" to melt thru steel beams/columns. When are you going to explain about the WT and the Interstate bridge fires and how they support your science?

1) So that's how science works. A science that you want to jettison because the "science" you want to believe supports your preconceived notions. 2) The 9/11 commission didn't do any science. They were controlled beginning to end by Zelikow. 3) Opinions have no place in a discussion on science, yet that is all you keep advancing

The lady who won't address the question of science that she herself raised? The lady who just advanced a notion on nanothermite that is directly and categorically refuted by the scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs who discovered the ways to make these new super nanothermites. This above, that has been pointed out to you both, TWICE, her more times than that.

This is the lady of science in whom you place so much trust, Michael? On things scientific?

The commission that was also a fraud. Have you no sense of shame, Michael, running to these scurrilous sources? I'll discuss them but you folks won't discuss a scientific study. "I think the commission would find the obvious: that terrorists committed 9/11 as is now known." More scientific pronouncements without a shred of evidence.

willylomanwordpress from 2009! Why no link from the Dwain Deets material?

You are ignoring the L Livermore lab scientists. Why?

Better check your Kate L Turabian, Michael.

But you desperately accept B_C's "thanks so much", when she hasn't been anywhere close to objective. When she isn't now replying to my questions asking her to explain her science? You take her word over scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs who describe things that totally refute her notions.

This, below, from B_C, was in the post right above your first reply of today. "Author/source is identified in the diagram." The source is not identified in any fashion that would be considered remotely scientific, but yet you trust her. It could have been photo shopped. Her explanation, which you flew to accept, makes no sense when measured against what the scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs had to say, which was available to both of you, her yesterday, and you, this morning [or possibly yesterday also]. It has been given to you both again, this morning. This is the type of "refuting" that you folks have been relying on since forever.

That doesn't mean, it never means that scientific investigation stops. Why would you suggest such an unscientific idea? When B_C explains, we will all understand.

The WT fire doesn't show that at all and neither does your link to the US interstate bridge. I asked you to explain how "steel reinforced concrete" and steel framed office towers are the same and you still haven't addressed this.

Why didn't you provide a link? Why still do you refuse to provide a link?

How did you and B_C miss this, Michael? Why do you simply accept something from a lady who doesn't know what she is talking about? This will be further illustrated shortly. 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. hot enough: Those are the old explosives, the ones that were not found in WTC dust. Read about the new ones below, from Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists. This was posted before, B_C had to have seen it. Why did she ignore it? What have you ignored it? Why didn't she provide a link to this source that you are profusely thanking her for? Is that science?

People of science don't ever stop reading. That is not of science.

But there are rules that strongly urge those who use sources to see that those sources are on point, that they actually defend the argument being advanced. B_C's were so far off base, they were nowhere near to defending or supporting her arguments.

Your one question, the one that serves to move away from the science. How many questions of mine, on the science, have you refused to address. Questions which point up clearly the impossibility of the official story? But you aren't willing to discuss it. How is that science?

You didn't look at B_C's links but you trust they are well researched? Again, this is science. They illustrated that she knows nothing of the topic because the things she advanced were not the same as WTC issues. Why would she be allowed to mislead?

Still nothing to show it is completely resolved.

The NIST report is a fraud, a totally unscientific piece of nonsense, which the scientists here refuse to discuss, but we don't need a new investigation. How is that scientific? NIST, all those top US scientists, initially says WTC7 40% longer than free fall, then after being challenged, admits free fall. But we don't need a new investigation.

Because your science, and everyone else's is non-existent. Point me to where you have discussed the science. Why don't you insist that B_C describe the science she pretends to bring forward? Do you know what her latest graphic means, how it contributes to the science?

The OftenWrong "argument" but as I pointed out, there's never anything offered to illustrate these refutations.

No, that means that it stands as the guiding science, ready for all the "scientists" to do peer review on. That is how science works.

That is sure a scientific reply. You are outright denying the nanothermite. You are supporting the fraud of NIST on nothing at all, not the slightest wisp of science. It's all personal conjecture. Why would you, a person of science, advance on a scientific issue just your personal conjecture and feel that was satisfactory? Why do you allow, as a moderator, people to make sneering comments coupled with no science, no reasonable argumentation?

Focusing on such an unimportant issue isn't indicative of a person who believes in science. Based on your opinion, right.