Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 This is phantasmagorical! No, I haven't ignored them at all. I've posted numerous articles, videos and the like that have specifically addressed the woeful shortcomings, outright lies (of NIST that you disingenuously tried to explain away) of the main groups. Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Scientists don't accuse each other of lying, they just disprove the data. NIST addressed Thermite in their report: Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm I'm sorry, but I've concluded that you're not actually interested in science, but in 'conspiracies'. If you were only interested in science, you wouldn't be personalizing the arguments. I'd like to talk about more than the science. Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself? Yes, it's actually up to you to prove your own points not me. Please do ask me anything about the science... I'm through with the science, as you're not being sincere about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Omar: Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself? Michael: Yes, it's actually up to you to prove your own points not me. ------------------- Here you are, Michael, from your own source. http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2009/03/911-truthers-meet-their-waterloo-ron.html?m=1 After the talk, there were some questions from the audience. One questioner asked him if he considered the "geo-political context" for 9/11. To his credit, Craig said that this was not his area of expertise; he is a fire and explosives expert, and his job is to look at the hard evidence, not speculations about motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Maybe we need a combined "conspiracies" and "gender issues" sub-forum. Both types of topics seem to end up being discussed in the same manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Michael: Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Because John Gross lied. Did you not watch the video? He stated, "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so ... ". And then a number of eyewitnesses said so. Firefighters, Rudy Giuliani, Mr Riggs on TV, ... ! Phantasmagorical, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Michael: NIST addressed Thermite in their report: No, they didn't. They dismissed it out of hand. Using a specious argument. They were asked by scientists, from both sides of the debate, to address these issues, specifically the one about where residues might be found. NIST promised to do so and didn't. And again you bring up the issue of sulfur, in a round about fashion, when this issue has been tested and found to be as I have previously described to you, which you have then ignored. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Michael: Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Scientists don't accuse each other of lying, they just disprove the data. -------------------- My apologies at the outset, but I really really cannot fathom how you can advance such a nonsensical argument. Look at all the slanderous comments that are regularly levelled at those who disagree with the official theory. Conspiracy theorists, whackos, nutty ... , ... . "Whack-a-moles who pop up", from whose mouth did this flow? Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) ...Look at all the slanderous comments that are regularly levelled at those who disagree with the official theory. Look at the slanderous comments directed at those who agree with the "official theory". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The WTC North Tower was attacked by a truck bomb in 1993, but it failed to bring down the entire structure. On September 10, 2001, the WTC towers were still standing. On September 11, 2001, two hijacked Boeing 767-200 airliners laden with fuel were piloted into the WTC towers and they subsequently collapsed. Cause...and effect. Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Look at the slanderous comments directed at those who agree with the "official theory". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The WTC North Tower was attacked by a truck bomb in 1993, but it failed to bring down the entire structure. On September 10, 2001, the WTC towers were still standing. On September 11, 2001, two hijacked Boeing 767-200 airliners laden with fuel were piloted into the WTC towers and they subsequently collapsed. Cause...and effect. Now you've gone and went done science, George. How could anyone ever have questioned the rigour that you use in your approach to things scientific? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Now you've gone and went done science, George. How could anyone ever have questioned the rigour that you use in your approach to things scientific? No, Jesus, it really is that simple, no matter how complicated or "scientific" you want to make it. Sorry, but the elephant (and most other people) have moved on to more interesting things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 One questioner asked him if he considered the "geo-political context" for 9/11. To his credit, Craig said that this was not his area of expertise; he is a fire and explosives expert, and his job is to look at the hard evidence, not speculations about motives. Right. So can we discuss these aspects ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 ... Sorry, but the elephant (and most other people) have moved on to more interesting things. Your ongoing contributions to the advancement of science, here in this thread, contradict what you just said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Because John Gross lied. Did you not watch the video? He stated, "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so ... ". How do you know he knew of these things ? How do you know he didn't correct himself ? Why is it 'lies' and not a mistake ? Because conspiracy, right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Michael: NIST addressed Thermite in their report: No, they didn't. They dismissed it out of hand. Using a specious argument. They were asked by scientists, from both sides of the debate, to address these issues, specifically the one about where residues might be found. NIST promised to do so and didn't. And again you bring up the issue of sulfur, in a round about fashion, when this issue has been tested and found to be as I have previously described to you, which you have then ignored. Why? The Waterloo lecturer talked about other chemicals too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 "Whack-a-moles who pop up", from whose mouth did this flow? Yes, from mine. I'm willing to consider sociological and other aspects which is why I point out the fringe lunacy of the conspiracists. You're the one who isn't supposed to be bringing those up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Your ongoing contributions to the advancement of science, here in this thread, contradict what you just said. Another contradiction...but no matter...the world has really moved on. A new tower gleams in the Manhattan sunshine. It was built using more science and engineering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Right. So can we discuss these aspects ? Forum Rules and Guidelines ... It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact a moderator and request a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 A new tower gleams in the sunshine. Called the "freedom tower". That's as ridiculous a notion as the Statue of Liberty being located in the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Called the "freedom tower". That's as ridiculous a notion as the Statue of Liberty being located in the USA. Yes...but they still stand. Reality sucks that way, huh ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Yes, from mine. I'm willing to consider sociological and other aspects which is why I point out the fringe lunacy of the conspiracists. You're the one who isn't supposed to be bringing those up. Why would a moderator, which I am led to believe you are, Michael, wish to break the rules of the forum, which seem to be desirous of keeping threads focused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Yes...but they still stand. ? Thank you for once being honest. We agree, it is ridiculous that these nonsensical notions of freedom and liberty are advanced by the greatest terrorist group/nation that has ever existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Thank you for once being honest. We agree, it is ridiculous that these nonsensical notions of freedom and liberty are advanced by the greatest terrorist group/nation that has ever existed. We do our best....your empire was just not getting it done anymore. At least there is still a queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 Why would a moderator, which I am led to believe you are, Michael, wish to break the rules of the forum, which seem to be desirous of keeping threads focused. I think the question is about discussing the science, so we should be ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 2, 2015 Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 I am in the camp it was an inside job somehow. Now I have watched endless hours of 9/11 footage. Much of it is speculative garbage but there are a few good videos that show something else was going on that day. My favorite is one called 'Eye Witness 9/11'. This was done from the Jersey side in Hoboken I believe. It is an hour and 40 minutes, but he does capture explosion sounds before the collapse of the buildings. Visually you can see smoke rising from the base of the towers after the loud explosion sounds. By far this was the most compelling for explosives being used. But, make up your own mind. This film does not show or talk about politics or anything else, it simply documents the sounds and visuals. So in my view it is one of the better ones. I'll link some more when I think of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) I think the question is about discussing the science, so we should be ok.No, Michael, it is about derailing the science. You only have to look at all the folks who pointedly ignore the science, you included, and want to talk about what they constantly rail against - conspiracy theories. And now that's all you want to discuss. Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2015 How do you know he knew of these things ? How do you know he didn't correct himself ? Why is it 'lies' and not a mistake ? Because conspiracy, right ? Again, phantasmagorical! John Gross was a lead investigator for NIST, the body charged with investigating the collapse of the buildings. It was his job to know. So many people had said it. Here, don't watch it for yourself and see. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r0rWm6p0s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.