Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

1. How did the alleged hijackers cause the eutectic steel found at all WTC sites?

2. How did the nanothermite get there? What is nanothermite?

3. How did the alleged hijackers get nanothermite to WTC7? How did they cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed?

4. How did the alleged hijackers melt metals that required temperatures up to 5,000F?

If the US official conspiracy theory is so water tight, these questions, which no one has yet answered or even addressed over 8 full pages, should be a breeze for y'all to address. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[DogOnPorch]

 

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

If the US official conspiracy theory is so water tight, these questions, which no one has yet answered or even addressed over 8 full pages, should be a breeze for y'all to address. 

Pretty sure at this point that YOU did 9-11.

So why did you do it?

[hot enough]

How did the nanothermite get there? 

How did WTC7 fall at free fall speed? Absolutely impossible! 

And all you can do is make silly jokes. 

If the US official conspiracy theory is so water tight, these questions, which no one has yet answered or even addressed over 8 full pages, should be a breeze for y'all to address. 

[betsy]

Terrorists hijacked the planes, and slammed them into the Twin Towers.  They caused the death of so many people.

 

Quote

During the September 11 attacks in 2001, 2,996 people were killed and more than 6,000 others wounded.^[1][2] These immediate deaths included 265 on the four planes, 2,606 in the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 at the Pentagon.^[3][4] They do not include the 19 terrorists. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were the deadliest terrorist act in world history and the most devastating foreign attack on American soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.^[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

 

That's the fact!

Edited March 1, 2017 by betsy

[Rue]

12 hours ago, hot enough said:

Direct me to the post where you have addressed the issues. Remember, the likelihood of NIST's report on the collapse of WTC7 being true is zero.

Your first sentence exhibits that when you are given information that directly addresses your allegations and offers explanations other than the  ones you give, you simply deny they exist. Then in your next sentence, you contradict the first by admitting the evidence exists but then dismissing it with no debate, just your subjective denial posing as if your subjective opinion is a fact that can not be questioned and is infallible.

This is a forum. You want to present theories, you get a debate. Accuse everyone but yourself as being wrong, you are going to have problems if you expect people to just agree with you..

To be outright dismissive of evidence that directly responds to each and everyone of your theories and provide a scientific alternative explanation does not mean they do not exist. That is a ludicrous thing to suggest.

Your allegations are not new. They have been directly addressed and debunked. The fact you reject such evidence, does not make that evidence go poof. I find it interesting you just dismiss it outright without debating it and your responses are limited to a script your repeat from others and pose as thought up by yourself and is contradicted by the information I and others have given but you don't seem to be able to address. Instead of addressing the contradictions pointed out to you, you ignore them, you in fact reject them without explaining why they are in your opinion wrong. Look at your response above to me. The report is zero. Why? Why is it Zero, because you issued a Papal edict?. Are you infallible? He;; even the Pope today when he gives his sermons can be questioned. Now  mind you the f at boy on North Korea can't or Trump when it comes to the media, but that is another story for another thread.

Now I want to respond again with utmost respect.

To do so I rely on  Michael J. Wood, Karen Douglas, Roobie M. Sutton, who wrote a text study entitled, "Dead And Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories, Social Psychology & Personality Science, 25 January 2012 and the comments I make apply to all conspiracy theories not just yours including any I would advance.

Conspiracy theories such as the ones you advance on this thread exhibit what is called a monological belief system. Its a system of thought where there can be only one explanation thuis the word "mono" (one) and "logical" (reasoning). The problem with monological beliefs is they do what you do with me, they exclude any other possible explanation and thus if I give you some or other participants give you some, you reject them which is your right.

My problem with people stuck in a world where they can only see one possible explanation for an event and it includes myself as well as you, is that when we do this we create a cacoon, a world that only includes that which we accept and shuts out anything else. That is what is called self-sustaining. By nature it excludes so much and it reduces us to our own subjective biases when we react and offer explanations or discussion.

Psychologists have been able to prove that we humans are 'wired" to make patterns from unconnected events. Tests showed that if we give people random patterns they will see faces in them or objects. We have all experienced that looking at clouds or when people go to art galleries looking at modern art and see a blob and we get fascinating explanations as to what the author intended when in fact if you speak to him, you would find out his only intent was to make a blob and then let some idiot please themselves thinking its God and pay $10,000.00 for it. I love curators. They do a good business when they talk up blobs and get them sold. I know a few. It makes me wonder why I do not get into the blob business but I am close, I have taught and practiced law which is another example of manufacturing blobs.

For me all I have seen in what you have written so far is:

a-you make conclusions based on assumptions you have not proven because you think by stating a subjective opinion that serves as objective fact to prove those assumptions when subjective opinion proves nothing, its simply a vehicle to communicate what you believe not necessarily what happened;

b-you see connections, i.e., cause and effect relationships where none necessarily exist;

c-you reject the possibility of any explanation other than your own;

d-you assume no one but yourself understands 9-11 even to the point you lecture people on what they can and can not tell you-you try control what people say by setting up arbitrary orders that "they must do their homework" a pale attempt to censor information you don't agree with;

e-in conjunction with d, you pose your words as if any opinion other than your own is necessarily defective;

f-you assume any information other than the information you rely on must be unreliable by posing it as part of the conspiracy you see;                                                                      

g- you are fixated in your thought patterns  and so remain inflexible and entrenched  in assuming all events happen in a patterned sequence you discovered even if that patterned sequence has been improven impossible by objective methodology (science).

Bottom line, if you are hear to tell me you see things, that's nice I respect that.. If you are here to tell me what you see is the only possible thing we can all see, I am going to tell you, get off my lawn or I will spray you with my hose.

" You can't get movement out of a Prophet who won't eat enough figs."

Hebe-Rue 2017.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

34 minutes ago, betsy said:

Terrorists hijacked the planes, and slammed them into the Twin Towers.  They caused the death of so many people.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

 

That's the fact!

Because the alleged terrorists COULD NOT have caused the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7, because the alleged hijackers could not have brought the nanothermite found at WTC, because the alleged hijackers could not have melted and vaporized WTC steel beams and columns, you have to look at the real perpetrators who murdered all these people, then went on to illegally invade numerous countries and murder many hundreds of thousands more.

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your first sentence exhibits that when you are given information that directly addresses your allegations and offers explanations other than the  ones you give, you simply deny they exist.

 

Direct me to the post where you have addressed the issues relating to the science. Remember, the likelihood of NIST's report on the collapse of WTC7 being true is zero.

Address these scientific questions, Rue. Psychologists can't explain the science. 

1. How did the alleged hijackers cause the eutectic steel found at all WTC sites?

2. How did the nanothermite get there? What is nanothermite?

3. How did the alleged hijackers get nanothermite to WTC7? How did they cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed?

4. How did the alleged hijackers melt metals that required temperatures up to 5,000F?

Edited March 1, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[Wilber]

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

How did the nanothermite get there? 

How did WTC7 fall at free fall speed? Absolutely impossible! 

And all you can do is make silly jokes. 

If the US official conspiracy theory is so water tight, these questions, which no one has yet answered or even addressed over 8 full pages, should be a breeze for y'all to address. 

Your first question assumes nanothermite was there.

Your second sentence assumes there was free fall.

Those two assumptions are only that.

Your questions pose them as if they are fact showing you assume your assumptions are given facts.

You have no objective proof that can prove nanotheremite was at the 9-11 site.

You have no objective proof that the WRC7 feel at free fall speed.

You assume both and when given explanations of alternative explanations that prove both your assumptions may be incorrect and based on a lack of understanding of basic principles of physics and science, you don't respond with scientific objective methodology only more subjective assumptions.

You see God looking back at you in your stain, I just see poo poo.

[Rue]

17 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Because the alleged terrorists COULD NOT have caused the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7, because the alleged hijackers could not have brought the nanothermite found at WTC, because the alleged hijackers could not have melted and vaporized WTC steel beams and columns, you have to look at the real perpetrators who murdered all these people, then went on to illegally invade numerous countries and murder many hundreds of thousands more.

Your comment is incoherent. It makes no sense, its a run on sentence of fragmented subjective assumptions you pose as infallible truth with no objective methodology to establish their possibility.

To start with you assume  nanothermite was found at the WTC.

You then assume WTC steak beams and columns were vaporized by nanothermite.

Then you assume since WTC beams and columns were vaporize by nanothermite and there could no other possible explanation for how the buildings collapsed, a terrorist could not use nanothermite which is an illogical assumption.

Then you make some subjective confusing stament that orders people they have to look at "the real perpetrators". One would assume the "real perptrators" would be perpatrators based of course on your say so, your version of reality.

Your last sentence of course refers to your belief the "real perpatrators" were the US government, i.e., Bush, Chaney, Potus et al.

To summarize you exhibit in the above statement, one thing: people must follow your beliefs and not question them or they do not understand what is "real".

Thanks I don't need you on my lawn this morning telling me to repent. Get off before I spray you.

Oy Mormons They are so pushy.

(that last comment was a joke, please any Mormons I apologize just go away when I say go away-you too Jehova's Witnesses-I know you mean well but scoot)

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your first question assumes nanothermite was there.

Your second sentence assumes there was free fall.

Nanothermite was discovered and described by many independent scientists. It's mainstream science. Would you like the paper describing it so you can "discuss it"?

NIST described free fall for WTC7. Would you like to see that too?

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, hot enough said:

Nanothermite was discovered and described by many independent scientists. It's mainstream science. Would you like the paper describing it so you can "discuss it"?

NIST described free fall for WTC7. Would you like to see that too?

 

Could you respond to Wilber? Or is that too difficult a question?

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

You then assume WTC steak beams and columns were vaporized by nanothermite.

Not "steak" beams and columns, Rue, STEEL beams and columns. 

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

It even has pictures for you.

[hot enough]

27 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings.

Wilber, you said you didn't want to talk about it. Why have you changed your mind? 

Got to my first post and read what I said. Then we can talk.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, hot enough said:

Wilber, you said you didn't want to talk about it. Why have you changed your mind? 

Got to my first post and read what I said. Then we can talk.

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings.

[Rue]

35 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Direct me to the post where you have addressed the issues relating to the science. Remember, the likelihood of NIST's report on the collapse of WTC7 being true is zero.

Address these scientific questions, Rue. Psychologists can't explain the science. 

1. How did the alleged hijackers cause the eutectic steel found at all WTC sites?

2. How did the nanothermite get there? What is nanothermite?

3. How did the alleged hijackers get nanothermite to WTC7? How did they cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed?

4. How did the alleged hijackers melt metals that required temperatures up to 5,000F?

All responded to b y others and in the references I gave you which provide a synopsis of what everyone else is attempting o convey to you, directy and indicating your assumptions about nanothermites, eutectic steel, free fall, melting on certain temperatures, can be explained other than in the manner you are explaining them.

Ignoring that evidence and pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away and no I did not use the psychologist to address those issues, I provided the psychologist references to explain why you may be remaining fixated on refusing to acknowledge there could be an explanation other than yours, in your responses.

With due respect, you aint helping yourself talking in circles and ignoring people.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Rue

[Wilber]

49 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Wilber, you said you didn't want to talk about it. Why have you changed your mind? 

Got to my first post and read what I said. Then we can talk.

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings. What you are talking about really has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11, you are just engaging in a how many angels can dance on a pin argument, because you have to ignore everything that actually did happen on 9/11 in order to indulge in your fantasy.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Wilber

[?Impact]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

NIST described free fall for WTC7. Would you like to see that too?

Yet another out of context quote. Yes, there was a period of near free fall for a part of the structure after lower support columns buckled out of the way and then when more resistance was encountered things slowed down again. The examination of video showed that the 18 story part of the structure that was visible in the building was 40% slower than free fall. 

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Yet another out of context quote. Yes, there was a period of near free fall for a part of the structure after lower support columns buckled out of the way and then when more resistance was encountered things slowed down again. The examination of video showed that the 18 story part of the structure that was visible in the building was 40% slower than free fall. 

I researched and TTowers collapse about 10 seconds, so about free fall speed. This means there were no resistance in solid floors, this means someones blowed up solid parts in a way.

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Altai said:

I researched and TTowers collapse about 10 seconds, so about free fall speed. This means there were no resistance in solid floors, this means someones blowed up solid parts in a way.

Where do you get the 10 seconds from, did you have some special camera that saw through the massive debris cloud?

[hot enough]

6 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

So you are saying no aircraft hit those buildings.

Go to my first post and read what I wrote. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, hot enough said:

Go to my first post and read what I wrote. 

 

So you're saying no aircraft hit those buildings? Or can't you dig your own hole?

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The examination of video showed that the 18 story part of the structure that was visible in the building was 40% slower than free fall. 

Please provide your source. 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

So you're saying no aircraft hit those buildings? Or can't you dig your own hole?

Go read my first post. Quote what you think are the pertinent parts. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, hot enough said:

Go read my first post. Quote what you think are the pertinent parts. 

 

No.

So you're saying no aircraft were involved in 9-11?