hot enough

No, Wilber, it was a made in the USA fable, one that is still being made and strengthened as we speak that the alleged hijackers were radical Islam that was hell bent on destroying the west and all its wonderful values! Some values we have!

You have been supporting this, and them, the entire thread. And still no shame! Professor Hulsey has shown us, in certain terms, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. What part of this, which you were petrified to quote, do you not understand? A building forced to come STRAIGHT down is a building that is being brought down by controlled demolition.

I agree. Aren't they just the most repugnant thing imaginable? And it was such a terribly lame one, so incredibly transparent that a child could see thru it. Murdering 3,000 of your own just so you can get support to go murder millions more. Hitler and the Nazis are saints in comparison. The worst gangsters in the world have nothing on these guys.

He doesn't have to. Anyone who is remotely connected to science, even by way of having been born, can connect those dots. The molten metals, the nanothermite, the free fall, the twin towers accelerating "collapses", the myriad reports of explosions, the carbon nanotubes in first responders lungs, the ... . And still, you show no.shame

But not enough to share your "kitchen experiments". Still no shame, after all the deception, the dragging things off topic song and dance routines, the outright refusal to address the Rues, the DoPs, the Wilbers, all the folks who, like you, are "interested in science". Still no shame. Unbelievable!

How deeply repugnant!

You are not interested in seeing anything, Impact. Save for more of your grand deception.

People falsely accused on 9-11, countries illegally invaded, millions murdered, untold wealth stolen and you have no sense of shame whatsoever. You actually seem to delight in the carnage that has been wreaked upon so many innocents. All because so many like you believe in a fantasy.

Nice evasion, again, with no sense of shame. [I have transcribed this from a video so if there are any errors in the text they are mine.] ============ Professor Leroy Hulsey [in bold]: "The Uof A-F study found that there is no justification at all for NIST's notion that WTC7 came down as a result of fire. Column 79 did not buckle under gravity loading The portion below is where he describes how they looked further at other potential scenarios for progressive collapses Professor Leroy Hulsey [in bold]: ... we're looking at progressive collapses, what we found is quite interesting, but 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 symmetrical 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 is not built perfectly, for god's sake, so nothing is ever gonna come straight down unless you force it to come straight down.

Don't you just love it how you can run, with no sense of shame whatsoever, with the fatuous notion that you are correct, the lil kitchen scientist, the guy who hasn't addressed one science issue.

And there's an excellent chance that thermitic would have remaind a very marginal use if the US hadn't developed nanothermite and used it to blow up three WTC towers.

Both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal invasions, no different than the illegal invasions committed by the German Nazis. Just as Hitler lied his way into illegal invasions, so too did the Bush and Blair governments lie their way into illegal invasions.

He was just an enabler of the MIC. What did he ever do about it, ole Ike, ole BSing Ike, nothing, not a fookin' thing.

'grammar, not 'grammer'. I suppose you are going to blame your spell check again. I found About 81 results for "thermitic" during the years 1990 to 2008. It definitely does, perfectly; it just isn't a commonly used word, which doesn't mean that it couldn't be. I found eight uses for 'gasolinic' in various scholarly works.

If you knew how to do research, you could find out two things; it's commonly used among people knowledgeable in this field and secondly, it follows the rules of English grammar/word formation perfectly.

Your "research skills" are pathetic. As is your knowledge of English. There are 27, 14 of them in the text and the remainder in page headings and the title. Another important point to remember is that you don't even seem to understand the concepts. And your stark confusion. And the fact that you can't discuss any topic in any depth. And your drive by accusations point up other not at all nice things about you.

No, there are NONE, ZERO for "thematic". Perhaps you got confused with 'the', of which there are 1,070. Or you were confounded by 'them', of which there are three. No, he doesn't, not a once. You might want to check your, your, ... your conscience. Why does Impact, the scientist, the guy who pretended he read the article, not know "what a thermitic reaction is". How is it possible that Impact, the scientist, can get so many little things so wrong? It doesn't make anyone wonder why he gets so many big things wrong. The gall, the unmitigated gall.

Perfect symmetry. Denying that is as big a falsehood as NIST denying free fall. Denying that is as big a falsehood as NIST denying explosions. Denying that is as big a falsehood as NIST denying molten metals. NIST phony video is not symmetrical, it is completely unrealistic, like your contentions. Neither yours nor NIST's are based in any actual reality. Are you going to help Betsy or are you as confused as she is?

The scientific paper, or the truther blogs? I know what a thermic reaction is, not sure what a thermitic reaction is but I guess you are implying it uses thermite. You had previously said, "3. More speculation. If you go to the actual Harrit paper it does not claim the material is thermite, it says: “These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere” I went to the "actual Harrit paper". In that paper, which you quoted, which assumes from what you wrote above, that you went to the paper and read it, there are 27 uses of "thermitic" in the whole paper, but Impact, the scientist is "not sure what a thermitic reaction is".

You advance something and you hide your "science". That's completely unscientific. But we all know you by now. [see next post] Yes we did. WTC7. Symmetrical and free fall, 8 floors, 2.5 seconds, 105 feet.

You might, dre, if you actually read the material. In the same article!!! However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires. 9

1. This is highly illustrative of just how dishonest you are. YOUR EXPERIMENT, which you misleadingly, still, right up to now, erroneously suggest that there is some connection to steel being vaporized at WTC. And you haven't ever even described it? Are you going to show Betsy how poorly she understood, or do you like keeping all you can around to distract from the science? 2. Yup, based on a VIDEO which shows a human being being explosively ejected from an opening, when no explosives are the official story. Collapsing is uneven when there is fire, because fire is an organic process, which tells us that a free fall, totally symmetrical collapse is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE! The floors - remember, you just described "uneven", which is correct. Any floor collapse, which would be uneven, would be halting and gradual, ie. not uniform across an entire floor [which you must know and understand was of composite construction, and it COULD NOT produce such a concentrated explosive force. 3. Forget about helping Betsy. You may well understand less than her. The entire paragraph is "2. Is the Red Material Thermitic in Nature?" and they describe many times how it is a thermitic reaction. How could a guy who does fantastic science experiments, in secret, in his kitchen, have misunderstood what "reminded us" meant?

Unnnn, because NIST's entire report is one huge lie. Where have you been living for the last number of years. NIST Denies Evidence of Explosions in WTC 7

The deafening silence tells it all. Not just here, but in society at large. This is not how western society, the child of the Enlightenment is supposed to be. If the official conspiracy theory, and it is nothing but a conspiracy theory, is so rock solid why are there so many folks being so dishonest when discussing it? Why are there so many sitting in the wings, silent, when they have fount of knowledge gleaned from their free, honest and open press?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency I'm not "simply relying on FEMA", Betsy. If you knew anything about this topic you would realize that. Why are you attempting to discuss things that you have not the slightest clue about?