hot enough
-
Posts
4,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by hot enough
-
-
Darn that Charles Anthony. Why is he always so quick!!??
-
33 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
How do you split a quote into pieces so you can reply separately to different points a person is making?
I put my cursor after the question mark after "making" above. Hit return twice and it will isolate the portion you want in a quote box, as above, and put the remainder, below, in another quote box. Wash, rinse, repeat as many times as needed.
33 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:I also can't figure out how multi quotes work
Thanks.
-
14 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
Now YOU'RE saying it's all about the money...
What IS truth, what IS honest? Oooor what is YOUR truth, what is YOUR honest?
Hey, you already asked me this question!!!
I said from the get go it was about money. George Will is a good example of a prostitute reporter. The National Post has a lot of them. Actually, most mainstream media are prostitutes, working to satisfy the big boys, striving for the gold ring.
The kind that satisfied the Nuremberg Tribunals. Although I might have to rethink that. No, the principles were sound, the abuse of those principles by the USA since then has been the cause of pretty much all the world's problems.
Let's look at it this way. We have a USGOCT that is so full of holes there is no material material left.
People who believe in the USGOCT do so because they want to believe it even though there is zero evidence to actually support it, in a legal sense. It most assuredly was a grand scam, but then Hollywood movies do the same thing all the time.
-
13 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
LOL, I don't have a clue... I posted a question in a new topic and drifted here out of curiosity and saw this quote box and "PRESTO" here it is!
I did the same thing the other day and posted a new thread in the wrong area.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
Yes. I'm not going to look at your reasons for not trusting the FBI. Most of us do, at least to name suspects so...
Well then, Michael, that sinks what you think is your "slam dunk".
You had said before, Michael,
"Bin Laden's confession and the FBI assessment align. Case closed."
Nothing at all in your first long quote in that post even hints at an OBL confession. That's because OBL never confessed to being involved in 911. It would be totally impossible for him to have been because there wasn't even any 19 Arab hijackers.
What was OBL's plan, to sneak into US government military labs and steal the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust, then secretly run around planting it as necessary to cause the twin towers to fall in a manner that breaks Newton's Laws of Motion?
Are you familiar with Newton's Laws of Motion?
Of course, Marcus has totally dismantled your non argument much better than I. Why do you always resort to such non arguments on such an important topic and avoid the scientific evidence that makes the USGOCT totally impossible?
Especially when you really, actually know that the US government story is totally bogus.
What are you really trying to do here? Don't you think it is one thing to be emotionally troubled by the revelation that the US government has lied about pretty much everything and a totally different and much more serious thing to be actively trying to provide cover for these vicious criminals?
QuoteOn June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/2623
-
How did this jump over here? Why did you bounce this to this thread, Tostb?
-
5 hours ago, Boges said:
Tabernac! Tabernac! Tabernac! Tabernac!
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be allowed to say a myriad of ethnic bad words on English TV.
Yet another example of the double standard French Canada enjoys over the ROC.
How big is your teapot, Boges? Is 'Tabernac' actually equal in "value" to the word some of us can't use here at MLW?
-
17 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Indeed....not only do I LOVE THE USA,You love the deep evil the US has done with nary a break since its inception as a terrorist, genocidal "nation".
Why?
-
17 hours ago, bcsapper said:
I think, maybe, that the point is this. Whenever anyone on here points out an egregious or atrocious act by anyone who is not American or British, you immediately apply the sole defense of whoever it is by equating it with the evil the US/UK has done.
They just applied your reasoning.
You illustrate that you don't know what reasoning is. I don't defend evil done by anyone, unlike you and the rest of the supporters of war criminals and terrorism.
You must be referring to my reminders that the Muslim peril is just another US crock of propagandist bullshit which has been swallowed by so many gullible people and by people who are simply just plain evil because they are not at all gullible, they simply support US/UK/... evil.
-
20 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
HE
Sorry, I still don't get your money statement
You also need to realize, reporters are like computers, they are there to report what's happening, you feed them garbage, they are going to report garbage. Yes there is a certain amount of research and such they should do but where do you draw the line?
People who tell the truth don't make the money that the usual pimps do. I can't understand why that is so difficult to grasp. Don't you know that many reporters of US mainstream media have long worked for the CIA, planting stories?
I personally draw the line at what is the truth, what is honest.
-
28 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
As far as the incorrect jet engine being found near the site I have no clue, how do you know. that wasn't made up? Did it fall off a truck that happened to be in the area? Who read the serial numbers off it? Was it an engine that was being tested on this aircraft?
There were pictures taken of the engine by various independent sources.
If it had fallen off a truck wouldn't you be even more suspicious? How could it have fallen off in the exact place that its trajectory, speed and flight path describe?
Doesn't it make you at all suspicious that this engine was not saved for investigation, that it was just dumped in a Manhattan landfill?
It wasn't serial numbers, it was a very noticeable part, readily identifiable in the picture, that was a part that was not used in UA 767-200s engines. Different manufacturer.
That doesn't make you suspicious?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
Sooty black smoke is actually not a good determining factor for actual fire temperature. I say this because I have personally seen the results of black sooty fires on automobiles and equipment, the heat can get high enough to cause steel to bend and settle.
Scientists disagree with your analysis.
QuoteIn a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types....
It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Even NIST says that steel temperatures, from paint study tests, didn't get high enough to cause failure. That's why NIST never did a twin towers study. They knew that they couldn't justify such results with the data available to them.
QuoteThat being said, this stuff didn't just "freefall" and disintegrate...
Precisely!! Which is enough, in and of itself, to show that the USGOCT is totally false. As this is impossible to have happened, the remainder or much of the remainder of the story is also impossible.
The planes were needed to even get the story remotely close to plausible. But nothing about the planes makes the science disappear. The twin towers were designed for just such an event. The redundancy of the structure was far beyond anything the "planes" could have done. At most, a partial, localized collapse.
As you have so eloquently stated "freefall", actually accelerating speed collapses, cannot cause total disintegration of all the steel structure plus 220 acres of steel reinforced concrete floors 4 to 5 inches thick and the floors steel forming pans.
-
27 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
1. So HE, what struck the twin towers?
2. What happened to the planes and passengers?
3. Do you have an alternative chain of events as to what caused the explosions and fires before the towers collapsed?
1. Obviously not the planes that the USGOCT alleges, that much is clear. No comments on these total impossibilities?
2. I don't know. Why should I know or why should I be expected to know? Do crime investigators know all all the time?
3. George Bush describes bombs and explosions in the twin towers after the planes hit and before the collapses. Don't you think he should be asked as to how these occurred?
The seismic record shows that there was a huge basement explosion before the plane hit the WTC1. Is this not odd to you?
QuoteAs far as the incorrect jet engine being found near the site I have no clue, how do you know. that wasn't made up? Did it fall off a truck that happened to be in the area? Who read the serial numbers off it? Was it an engine that was being tested on this aircraft?
I don't expect you to know, or to even have a clue. This isn't about you or me, and I'm sorry if I gave you an indication that I expected a detailed and complete analysis from you. I didn't and I don't. I only ask that you [and everyone else] think these things over and see if they pass the smell test that every thinking human possesses, even children.
QuoteI can see no investigation being done to determine the cause of the crash as what happened is blatantly obvious. Especially the second plane.
I don't understand what you are saying.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
Money?
What makes these reporters more honorable then others? They align with your line of thinking?
Their careers have not been near as lucrative as a George Will or any of the other mainstream pimps.
That has come about, the low pay, because, yes, they are more honorable, light years so, from the others who provide cover for all these war criminals/terrorists.
-
5 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
Windsor tower is not even close to a valid argument, it was still standing after it's major 18 to 20hr fire, you see that in the picture. The portions of the floors that did actually collapse did so over several hours. The WTC buildings were collapsed into piles ten feet high after about four hours... That doesn't raise any flags?
Actually the Windsor Tower fire provides a lot of information that totally sinks the USGOCT, as if we needed anymore evidence.
WT was built without any fireproofing on the steel, as it was not required then. Just do a mental comparison, the sooty, black smoky fires of the twin towers compared to the almost 24 hours, roaring, complete conflagration of the WT fires.
The twin towers had heavy insulation on the steel framework. They even had had upgrading of the steel insulation that went on on the floors where the planes hit.
Coincidence?
Nanothermite can be spray applied and set off with nanothermite matches controlled remotely.
WT was lightweight steel framing, uninsulated remember, while the twin towers were massive steel columns with heavy insulation on all steel.
Same for WTC7. Office fires typically burn thru the office furnishings fuel in about 20 minutes and then they move on to new fuel areas. Twenty minutes is not enough time to heat massive steel framing anywhere close to critical steel temperatures even if it is totally UNINSULATED!!
-
4 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
Windsor tower is not even close to a valid argument, it was still standing after it's major 18 to 20hr fire, you see that in the picture. The portions of the floors that did actually collapse did so over several hours.
Everything you have said is completely true. Windsor Tower is also not remotely close to the same kind of construction. What collapsed was lightweight ferro/concrete exterior walls.
WTC steel was most certainly not lightweight and it was not surrounded by concrete.
4 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:Although I'm not sure what HE is getting at with the aircraft he does have some very valid arguments and evidence about the collapse of the buildings.
I thank you for your honesty, Tostb. It is incredibly refreshing to see this kind of honesty and bravery. Shouldn't we, the honest and open WEST be able to fully discuss absolutely anything?
As regards the aircraft, don't you consider it at least as equally odd as the twin towers collapses that not one of the roughly four million serial numbered parts from any of the four alleged 911 planes has been positively identified as coming from the alleged aircraft, matched to any of the 4 aircraft?
This has never ever happened before in aviation history. Here is a highly trained airline accident investigator has to say about this incredible impossibility:
QuoteIn all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident.
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority.
Don't you consider it odd, incredibly odd, impossible, that the engine we see flying out of the north face of WTC2, the one that landed on Murray Street, is not an engine that was ever installed in United Airlines 767-200s, one of which, UA175, was alleged to be the plane that hit WTC2?
Do you consider it odd, incredibly strange that the odds of the USGOCT happening as the US government says is 54 Trillion to one?
But those odds are actually much much too low. It is actually 100% impossible that the USGOCT is true. Why? Because of all the impossible things that have occurred that the alleged 19 Arab hijackers could not have done.
1. Melted steel
2. Vaporized steel/lead
3. Melted molybdenum
4. Brought US government/military non-commercially available nanothermite, developed in the 1990s by US military labs to the WTC and caused unreacted/unexploded particles of it to be in WTC dust
5. Hijackers could not have even brought regular thermite/thermate to the WTC.
6. Hijackers could not suspend the laws of physics and cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed, especially when they didn't come within two football field of said building.
7. Hijackers could not suspend the laws of physics and cause the twin towers to fall at accelerating speed. That too is against Newton's Laws of Motion.
8. Caused 6% of WTC dust to consist of iron microspheres which are one of the main by products of thermite/thermate/nanothermite reactions. Normal office dust contains 0.04% iron spheres.
There are many more total impossibilities. One of the major ones is that there is no actual evidence for the USGOCT. I have been asking for some for a long long time and none has ever been advanced.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Jariax said:
I don't understand. What does this have to to with the US being evil?
If you have to ask, you are beyond help. But that isn't what I replied to you about so why are you picking out someone else's quote instead of addressing what we were discussing?
QuoteSeriously though, you should know by now that the UN is morally corrupt and irrelevant.
Unless Iran or Iraq do something to violate a UN resolution, and then every word the UN says is critically important.Who has the greatest degree of control over the UN? That should clue you in as to why it is so corrupt.
Why are there no UN resolutions putting sanctions on the USA for its UNGA 1/4 century condemnation [198 to 2, guess who the 2 is; US and Israel] of the US's terrorism against Cuba?
Why are there no UN resolutions putting sanctions on the USA for its conviction as the ONLY nation EVER to be convicted of international terrorism by the World Court?
Why doesn't the world know, why are there no UN resolutions putting sanctions on the USA for its planned genocide against the people of Iraq, where the US murdered some 500,000 Iraqi kids, the same number of adults, where the US planners had seen possibly a couple million death?
-
5 hours ago, Rue said:
Yes grow up. Erase the childish remark re. Charles Anthony
That's rich, Rue, you, suggesting others grow up.
You pointedly ignored what GH wrote, as you always do when you find yourself up a stump.
It is to Charles Anthony's credit that he has allowed what he has allowed.
Quoteit has nothing to do with whether specific posters want to piss on Israel for existing as a Jewish state.
If there was this kind and this amount of anti-Jewish attacks going on in multiple threads from multiple posters about Jewish people like there is about Muslims, stating the same kinds of rank falsehoods that have been aimed at Jews since forever, every Jewish organization in the world would be all over MLW.
I have yet to see anything other than folks asking that Israel stop acting like the USA, ie. stop stealing others lands and wealth, stop murdering innocents, stop being an apartheid state, ... .
-
4 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:
She's the one that brought her kids into this...
She called him on it and that was his knee jerk reaction, if she's been using climate change as a photo opp then he should have said so. There may be totally legitimate reasons to call her Climate Barbie.
Reporters enter the industry with the best of intentions, problem is they have to answer to editors and editors have to answer to the the board and the board have to answer to advertisers and/or subscribers. This is a problem with capitalist media and it's getting worse as they are getting squeezed by alternate news sources. I bet Rebel subscriptions fluctuate daily based on actions and decisions made by staff and management, numbers = revenue.
Nice to know your morals all boil down to money.
As Seymor Hersh says, editors are mice trained to be rats. An addendum, reporters are mice to remain mice but they act like rats.
There are some decent, honorable reporters, like Hersh, John Pilger, William Blum, ... but mainstream media, and the Rebel like squads are pure propagandists.
-
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
I didn't look. I'm obviously dumber than you give me credit for.
I guess we will just have to agree to agree.
-
Just now, bcsapper said:
The thing is, it's not incoherent babbling. It's a first try counter to one of your common accusations. I'm not saying they are right. Everyone knows one can pretty much find confirmation for any whacky theory they want to on line somewhere. I just wanted to know what you thought of their assertions. That your numbers were wildly exaggerated.
It's all incoherent babbling because there are no noun references. You are likely doing this on purpose and if so, that is patently dishonest of you. It is incoherent babble.
-
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:
I think you keep getting the links mixed up. Yours goes to OftenWrong's development assistance post. At least, it does on my PC.
I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are not so dumb that you can't find the link on that same page.
QuoteSorry for misunderstanding your Saudi theories. Have you come around to admitting they did it now?
You're still doing it. What are you babbling about?
-
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
Although without the fantasy aspects of your 9/11 theories, the point you made still appeared to be on very shaky ground.
One of the famous always without any evidence USGOCT conspiracy theorists pulls the same old trick. Just incoherent babbling without any focus.
-
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
I said, I don't deny history. You, with your foaming, all encompassing bigotry, cannot be relied upon to quote history. Sometimes, as in the case above, I am tempted to look it up. Although without the fantasy aspects of your 9/11 theories, the point you made still appeared to be on very shaky ground.
Read the study, it's all right where you don't dare want to venture
You always do this, ignore pointed questions, and keep on babbling.
"I do deny your silly holographic Saudi theories, because they are ridiculous."
Now what the hell are you babbling about?
Sixteen years on and still no evidence for USGOCT
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted · Edited by hot enough
Apparently. But not absolutely. More on this after I briefly address 2 to 5.
Not in the least. Why would you say that?
There have been many murder convictions without bodies.
What blows the USGOCT out of the water is all the totally impossible things that occurred that 19 Arabl hijackers could never have done.
He knows enough to know there were bombs and explosions in the twin towers before they collapsed. How do you figure that one of the humans that were on the impact floors was explosively blown out a twin tower window as seen in a video?
The same video shows explosions moving the window blinds over multiple floors and the people hanging out the windows visibly reacting to these explosions.
It's not just possible, it is 100% true. The seismic record is hard science.
Again, this in and of itself blows the USGOCT out of the water. There was no, that is zero legal/legitimate reason for any explosions according to the official story before the arrival of the "plane".
Such a thing, is, of course, possible. However, in this case, no, it is 100% impossible. There were no Arab hijackers. Airports have cameras, video, etc for security. No pictures. Some of the "hijackers" are still alive.
All the impossible things, the molten metals, the nanothermite, the unexploded nanothermite, the by products of nanothermite reactions, the free fall of WTC7, the accelerating speeds of the twin towers, the molten steel in the rubble pile until February 2002, the ... means there were no hijackers. No hijackers means the USGOCT is totally bogus.
It appears or was made to appear that aircraft were flown into the towers.
How come the face of WTC2 is completely intact? Supposedly, a wing has gone thru this part of the building but it is as perfect as it was on September 10, 2001.
Blow the picture up and see for yourself. This addresses your number 1 and 6.