hot enough

See what I mean, Michael. Professor Leroy Hulsey's study hasn't been refuted by anyone. And this is another of the big lies - "has already been refuted by the most highly respected scientists. But I just can't seem to find it anywhere."

Not only here, Michael. You allow it and actively support its use in other areas.

People find in the bible, everything they need for self delusion. But the bible isn't the only place that comes from. Facts, reality, science are all things that are of greater importance than personal homilies, which, while they can be comforting, they can also be highly misleading. You bring up Billy Graham, again, despite Billy's plumping for the deaths of untold large numbers of innocents' deaths. How would this in any way be christian?

More "science" everyone. "Rule of thumb: play the ball, not the person (i.e. Tackle the argument, not the person making it)."

Of what importance is it whether you believe or not. The important thing here is, and you are admitting it outright - you are categorically denying science. You refuse to look at the sources because you are afraid of what they will show you. Is this science? Are you a person of science, a person who believes in the scientific process? And you see everyone else doing the same thing, and it doesn't twig anything in any of you folks' brains? If the US official story has science so solidly on its side, why all the palpable fear from the supporters of that theory? Bush_Cheney throws up a big graphic but she won't explain what it even means. She brought up the Windsor Tower and the Interstate exchange collapse when both have nothing to do with how steel framed buildings react in fires. That she doesn't know what she is talking about is abundantly clear, because she won't and can't explain anything, yet MLW lets her go on in this fashion. Is this, "Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way." ? *You haven't addressed where the nanothermite found at WTC could have come from. I posted a video where an unreacted particle of NANOthermite taken from WTC dust was heated to ignition point. The chemical signature is that of thermite, the only exception being that it is made up of nano sized particles, which is something that only the US has, being a 1996/97 patented explosive developed at Lawrence Livermore Labs. I provided a link to said Lab where they describe the wonders of these new super-explosives, these new super-thermites. *You haven't addressed how the nanothermite found at WTC could be there in a legal/legitimate sense. *You haven't addressed how the steel girders came to be molten and vaporized. Scientists from FEMA, a body of the US government, described the molten/vaporized steel. I have posted links to their Appendix C, which has pictures of said molten/vaporized steel girders. *You haven't addressed all the firemen's testimony about explosions. These testimonies were gathered by the city of New York, they were hidden until the NY Times got them released thru a FOIA lawsuit. You can view multiple videos of firemen describing these secondary explosions, multiple ones. *You haven't addressed how WTC7 could fall at free fall speed. NIST admitted free fall. You don't trust NIST? A top US forensic engineer says the NIST has a zero chance of being true, but you don't want to look at the science. See what I mean when I said how this is a massive cover up - when people won't even look at the science, giving lame excuses for not doing so, to a discerning person warning bells should be going crazy.

Then explain why you haven't provided a link for your source as required by house rules.

Go ahead, explain what your chart means. And then explain about "concrete and steel" versus "steel framed" buildings, and how you posted, by design, a misleading post about the collapse of the freeway structure and how you also posted, by design, a misleading post about the Windsor Tower. Then explain how this only US military nanothermite came to be at WTC.

That is hardly surprising since you don't know what it means. Nanothermite had no legal or legitimate reason to be at WTC. Since it is a new superexplosive, as per the below underlined/in bold from Lawrence Livermore Labs, it, along with numerous other impossible scenarios found within the US government fable, well, we all know it's a fable. ===================== 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. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

Science needs neither pity nor extraneous diversions. You have brought both. How did the nanothermite get to WTC? It wasn't any hijackers.

As was described in the video, the USA developed new high tech nanothermite explosives in the 1990s. The following article explains how they are much better than regular thermite. They are superthermites and super explosives. 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. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

Just derailing the discussion is your total interest, has been since these threads started, with you using the same old tired lines. You admit that you know nothing at all, that you have no interest, which is obviously another of your fabrications. You don't want to know because your whole world will be crushed. All your hate hate hate for no logical reason. I appreciate your burden. Why compound it?

Again, you go on about a subject you either know nothing about, or you are purposefully trying to derail the topic, a violation of this site's rules. Watch starting at 9:10 of the video," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM where Jonathon Cole describes the newly patented US non-commercially available nanothermite "that can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, dust, flying chips and the like." Patent # .... Murakami July 2, 1996. Remember everyone. Residues of this nanothermite were found in WTC dust. Unreacted particles of this same nanothermite were found in WTC dust. The only difference that nanothermite has to regular thermite, that you all can buy and make yourself, is that the nano level size makes this a superthermite, a super explosive, with all the same super high temperatures of regular thermite, except AGAIN, very important, the size of the particles makes this a super high explosive without the noise. Michael Hardner, everyone, who had access to this nanothermite?

This will address all your questions, blackbird. Let's watch it together. 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=Mamvq7LWqRU 46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know; [in other words, more people think controlled demolition than believe the government’s narrative] By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it. =============== When you didn't watch the video, are you in agreement with the 46% [of Americans who] are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition

Not so secret at all, but you are doing your "best" to hide them. Let's discuss why concrete and reinforcing steel are different than steel framed. You first.

The nanothermite isn't a secret, at all. Why would you suggest such a silly thing? Is this ignorance of the subject or another planned diversion? I just posted a video of some unreacted nanothermite particles that were found in WTC dust being heated to explosion point.

But you don't, ever. You just attempt to derail any discussion. Answer the many questions I have raised, as many as you can.

One has to understand what one is talking about before one can participate in such discussions. Or ask questions when you don't understand. If you understood that "concrete and reinforcing steel" are a completely different kettle of fish than a steel framed high rise and your comments pointed that out, they would be welcomed because they would be salient. They are not at all salient. They are as "unsalient" as your Windsor Tower posts of some time ago. And after all this time, you either still do not know what this is about or you are trying to derail the discussion. Which is it?

No, I didn't suggest anything near that malevolent would happen to me. You can speak the ---- word but I can't. Yes, I do remember that you are just one of the many cowards. And it shocks me so, as I have mentioned, given you seem to be an independent thinker.

You haven't addressed where the nanothermite found at WTC could have come from. You haven't addressed how the nanothermite found at WTC could be there in a legal/legitimate sense. You haven't addressed how the steel girders came to be molten and vaporized. You haven't addressed all the firemen's testimony about explosions. You haven't addressed how WTC7 could fall at free fall speed. Come on, Michael, break the spell that has all these tongues tied tightly. It doesn't hurt, I promise. Start a dedicated thread for that voluminous topic.

These kind of attitudes, these types of responses go some distance to illustrating how this is a VERBOTEN topic. They also show, no disrespect intended, how people want to stay ignorant about the science of 911, how people only want to ridicule those who want the science to be discussed. It all points to cover up, on every level. The following is from 2013.

Normal people expect normal people in society. I know it is becoming less so but that is still the reasonable expectation of normal people. I agree the bicyclist should not have contributed to the road rage. But yelling and anger are not valid reasons for assaulting someone. Where the charge landed tells us that. When I make a mistake in traffic, I apologize as much as is needed, and it is based on how badly I messed up.

And this has even seriously affected you, eyeball, an independent thinker. Why is, "Gee, that's really weird, we should discuss that"; "That can't be possible, we should have another look see" out of the realm of possibility for this one topic?

How would you know? You admit you are woefully ignorant on how much this is being discussed, how much science is being done? The AIA went from 4% of their members in year one wanting a new independent study to 11% in year two, to, we shall see for year three. AIA - American Institute of Architects That the AIA never once mentioned the collapse of three towers in their own journal in all the years since 911 tells you a lot. These are people that make a living on this very thing.

No, it just illustrates what I have described in another thread. The huge pall, the cloak of silence that everyone feels and obeys, completely, Komrade!