hot enough

So far it is, Betsy, for you not providing anything of any value in a intellectual fashion.

You advanced it, bcs, you prove it.

Confining one to a lifetime of Interests:Propane and propane accessories.

The US doesn't have free speech either. The US is a heavily propagandized system, the worst in the world, where presidents can daily, hourly, mouth the most nonsensical lies, "the US is a bastion of freedom"; "the US advances democracy"; "the US is the only power that can save the world", all in complete and total defiance of reality.

If it is so abundantly clear, it should be abundantly easy to prove.

Don't just keep saying it. Go ahead and prove it.

cough cough cough Holy Smokes, Impact.

It was a criminal conspiracy and the overwhelming evidence says the alleged hijackers didn't do it. Just remember who lied to justify their illegal invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, China, the Philippines, Angola, ... . Who had the means, the motive, the opportunity?

Describes everything anyone ever needs to know about anything you say, ever.

Again you offer no proof for either of your fabrications.

NIST performed a fraudulent years long study of the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 & 7. Their WTC7 study has now been proven to be a complete falsehood - it had a zero chance of being accurate. NIST didn't perform any study of WTC5, even though it burnt, full engulfed for hours and never collapsed, just like every other burning steel frame high rise that has never collapsed due to fire. See page 22EPN = PDF page 2 of, http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf All of them much longer and much more of the building being involved in flames. But we are supposed to buy the US government official conspiracy theory that 3 towers fell on the same day, in the same country, same state, same city. NIST was asked by many different scientists to look at specific issues, to perform simple, easily done experiments to prove their contentions. NIST never did! NIST hid most of their data. This is completely UNSCIENTIFIC, which is how NIST approached the whole sordid affair they got involved in, as an arm of the same Bush government. Make a spurious assumption and then craft the "science" to meet that notion. That's not science.

Impact says: The US government says that 10 hijackers flew 2 planes into the WTC twin towers, is that a wild, cockamamie bunko conspiracy theory? The US government says that those 2 planes caused massive damage and started large fires, is that a wild, cockamamie bunko conspiracy theory? The US government says those hijackers were supported by Osama bin Laden, is that a wild, cockamamie bunko conspiracy theory? Discuss. With proof.

New thread, Wilber. This one is about the science that shows that the US government official conspiracy theory is wild, cockamamie bunko.

Kim Jong Un and the poor people of Korea have been subjected to over a century of terrorism and the rankest of propaganda.

Start a new thread and then show us the proof from the US government that the alleged hijackers were responsible for the things they have been accused of. While you are at it, bring the US proof forward that Osama bin Laden was the leader for the 911 attacks. All in a new thread, of course.

Still no links.

Start a new thread and then show us the proof from the US government that the alleged hijackers were responsible for the things they have been accused of.

Have you watched any video presentation of Prof Hulsey describing his study? If you have, which one or ones? Where has your info come from and why no links from you?

Perform some more kitchen experiments and tell us what it was.

Yes, I did provide a quote, a transcribed one, which I noted was transcribed from a video and it could contain some errors. What you do is almost never or never produce a source, a quote or a link. No, what is dishonest is for you to not provide the context in which he said that. Because that would be honest and that is just not you. You have been claiming since the get go, with all manner of personal attack, both your own and those you encourage, that the official story has some measure of truth, despite all the evidence that shows it is impossible. Now NIST's WTC7 is worth the paper it was deceived on. And on you go. More of your dishonesty.

Again, not a link, not a quote, just your regular dishonesty. Of course not. That wasn't the direction of his study, which, if you had had the slightest thread of honesty, we would have been able to have established long ago just what his study was all about. You illustrated by your continued deceptions that you didn't want the results of Professor Halsey's study here. His study was and is, paraphrased, I can't tell you what brought it down, I can only tell you what did not bring it down But this abysmal lack of honesty that you have carried like a banner throughout this thread, keeping every out to lunch individual on your side, just for the sake of having a bunch of detractors on your side. There have been a lot of despicable things on this thread and you own many of them.

Off topic gentlemen. Start a new thread.

Yeah, trust this man of science, Wilber.

This is one for all the Freuds. Do you have the slightest grasp, the tiniest notion of what science is, Wilber? Do you have the slightest grasp, the tiniest notion of what compassion is, Wilber? Can you not grasp how many millions have died because of these lies, how many hundreds of millions have had their lives and countries destroyed?

You should be asking yourself, What part of everything am I misunderstanding?