hot enough

Okay, Betsy. Let's give it one last try. The NIST study [do you know who NIST is and what they studied?] has been shown to be false by an in depth scientific study. Not just questions raised about the study - it has a zero chance of being true. The US government official conspiracy theory rests totally [=100%] on that study. If NIST lied about WTC7, and they most certainly did, then they lied about WTCs 1 & 2. A few examples; NIST lied about molten metals; they lied about explosions; they lied, and still lie about molten aluminum. [it's on their website FAQs.

A new study, that will see formal release in the Spring of this year. That is new. All the "Lot's of other, more current "turmoil"" is turmoil that has been occasioned by the evil lies perpetrated by the real criminals on September 11, 2001.

I'm completely familiar with Popular Mechanics. There is no rebuttal in that material, Betsy. It is old and it was not accurate to begin with. If you would like to bring forward any point for discussion, I would be happy to explain it to you. I must have thought you were joking. I'm shocked that you don't know who has been falsely accused. Have you ever read anything about 911?

If you think that the US official conspiracy theory is so strong, discuss those issues that you believe have merit.

The UofA-F study is new. It shows the NIST/US official conspiracy theory is not only wrong, but evil. Consider the implications of this revelation that the alleged hijackers are innocent. Don't you think it's evil to bear false witness against innocent people?

How is your French?

If the blacksmith has made some good, salient points, then why not address them, DoP? Hasn't anyone noticed how the rock solid US official conspiracy theory doesn't seem to stand up to simple scrutiny?

Folks, come on, please. Forum rule: If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful.

Are you saying you don't understand the blacksmith's points or you can't explain the blacksmith's points?

Okay, I just checked your link. I am familiar with that video. And I'm willing to discuss your expert's ideas on how 911 happened. Let's get 'er on!

You don't understand what you have advanced. And yet, your post before this, you put forward a you tube video as an authority. Do you not see the logical disconnect? Folks have offered Popular Mechanics as experts. They are most assuredly not. "Argument from authority An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert." Dr Leroy Hulsey is an expert in his field. You could have done this simple bit of research yourself. http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

I haven't looked at your video yet. Could you briefly summarize the gist of it and we can discuss it.

That has been done, for WTC7 but in a more limited fashion than you envision, Altai. The professor, a PhD and his doctoral students, focused on NISTs suggested cause of collapse, a column failure [79]. They went as far towards NIST's position, ie. gave the benefit of the doubt, erred in favor of NIST and the result, as you all know by now, the chance of NIST's story being true is zero.

What "very high temperature? And provide links to your sources, if you wouldn't mind.

The entire 911 issue and all the resulting world conflict, world problems, "radical Islam", everything bear on this one single point, Betsy. 1. The only fuel that was available to the alleged hijackers was jet fuel and office furnishings. They have a MAXIMUM burning temperature of 1,800F, in ideal burn conditions. There were not ideal burn conditions. US official conspiracy theory folks describe maximum burn temps in the twin towers as being around 1,400F. 2. Melting points/vaporization points a. steel - 2,800F b. molybdenum [Mo] 4,700F c. vaporized steel 5,000+F d. iron, about the same as steel So, the only fuels available to the alleged hijackers was 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel. There was molten steel, much of it, reported by many people. There are videos of the Meterorite, the famous one and there are others. These are fused agglomerations of molten steel and concrete. It is not possible that the alleged hijackers melted those metals. The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that the alleged hijackers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. They have been falsely accused. The most important implication that comes to mind [there are hundreds and hundreds of very serious implications] is, who then could have melted all those metals and caused the collapse of the three towers.

That what science does, studies things to their logical conclusions. Do you think that scientists should stop a quarter way, a half, three quarters of the way thru their study and then stop, throw up their hands and say, "then a miracle happened"

I never said that WTCs 1 and 2 fell at free fall speed. Do you know what theory the official story/NIST relies on?

Your notion is completely false. It goes against the laws of physics. The pancake theory was never accepted, even by NIST. It was propaganda churned out to help confuse the masses. It worked. It's important that on these complicated issues, you understand what you are advancing. WTC 1 burned for about an hour with low temperature fires. There have been numerous fires in many steel framed high, 15 and more hours, most floors fully engulfed and not a one has ever collapsed.

There's no logic in that at all. It goes against the laws of physics. There was no jolt, the collapse was uniform in an accelerating manner for the entire distance the fall could be measured. Everything that makes contact with another body, whether that body is stationary or in motion, experiences a jolt, a slowing down. This is the conservation of momentum. Are you familiar with the study that NIST/the official story relies on as their bible?

That doesn't explain how WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 floors, 105 feet, for 2.5 seconds. Free fall speed is impossible without a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition on one tower means a controlled demolition on all three towers. Vaporized steel, requiring 5,000+F means that the hujackers didn't cause the collapse of the three towers. Who could have? Who had access to superthermite/nanothermite?

To my knowledge, this gentleman, an Iranian immigrant has drawn no conclusions. But the conclusions have been drawn by many other scientists working off his findings and their own work. Molten steel means that the alleged hijackers were not responsible for the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. Their "explosive/fuel" was roughly 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel, Some 3,600 degrees F short of being able to vaporize steel. In a word, they have been falsely accused.

Watch Peter Ketchum, a former NIST employee, who illustrates in his short 13 and a half minute talk how all the science had been, has been so easily hidden for 15 years and how NIST engaged in a patently deceptive study. Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 5: Peter Michael Ketcham Makes First Public Appearance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2NOBbD88c&index=5&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4

The molten metals tell the whole story. They were impossible according to the official theory. Nanothermite, this new superthermite, which had no legitimate, legal reason for being there, can account for the collapse of all three towers, one of which, WTC7 fell at free fall speed. That too, makes the official story patently false, as it is impossible for a building to be there one moment and the next go into free fall for 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, eight floors.

That's not basic chemistry at all. Regardless, the thermite that was found was superthermite/nanothermite, a recently discovered, at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, about mid 1990s, patented 1996/97, non-commercially available US military explosive. This is not your ordinary thermite, which is ground down. This is built from the atomic level up. That's not something the alleged hijackers could have done.

We all know who the false narrative says is involved but these initial false accusations from 911 are just a repeat of last century's "commies, commies, commies". Molten steel means the alleged hijackers didn't cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.