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

[overthere]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Kennedy is a different thread, Topaz.

Kennedyy never existed.  He was also a hologram.  An early hologram, all the film of him is quite grainy.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, overthere said:

Kennedyy never existed.  He was also a hologram.  An early hologram, all the film of him is quite grainy.

Different thread...

[hot enough]

17 hours ago, overthere said:

The World Trade Towers were both holograms.  There was nothing there to blow up.  They just turned off the projectors, and replaced the images with different images of fire, smoke and a big carter..

That's certainly an apt metaphor for the USA and its entire history.

[hot enough]

The implosion, the controlled demolition of WTC7 for those irrational many who still want to blame Muslims for something they could not have possibly done.

 

 

[blackbird]

Did you see the videos of the passenger jets flying into the two towers?  Not sure how one can deny that.  The videos don't lie.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Did you see the videos of the passenger jets flying into the two towers?  Not sure how one can deny that.  The videos don't lie.

Did you see WTC7 collapse at free fall speed? Only a controlled demolition can do that. Alleged Arab hijackers could not have organized that. 

Did you see the molten and vaporized WTC7 steel girders found? Jet fuel and office furnishings cannot do that, therefore alleged Arab hijackers could not have done that.

Did you see the non-commercially available nanothermite [a new era of explosives] developed in the 1990s by the US military Lawrence Livermore Labs found in WTC dust? Alleged Arab hijackers had no access to those.

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The videos don't lie.

Likewise, the video of WTC7 falling at free fall in a classic controlled demolition doesn't lie. Did you hear all the people describe it as an implosions, a controlled demolition?

[Michael Hardner]

The fact that no one would have the motivation, or means to execute such a project doesn't lie.

[hot enough]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The fact that no one would have the motivation, or means to execute such a project doesn't lie.

Why would you suggest that no one had the means or the motivation? It flies in the face of the facts presented by the science. 

The science is what is important.

How could these unreacted nanothermite particles get into WTC dust?

Why would a non-commercially available nanothermite [a new era of explosives] developed in the 1990s by the US military Lawrence Livermore Labs, patented in 1996/97, be at WTC?

Why would these red/gray chips viewed under a microscope illustrate an explosive that is not possible except when made with nanotechnology? This is not your average everyday thermite, ie. it is not ground down to nano size particles; that would be impossible.

It is made from the atomic level up, using nanotechnology. It had no legitimate/legal reason to be found at WTC.

Even your average everyday thermite would have had no legitimate/legal reason to be found at WTC. 

The chemical signature for these red/gray chips is the same as the chemical signature for normal thermite, with much greater explosive power. Their ignition, at a low temperature [430C/806F] relative to normal thermite illustrates how the nano scale particles allow for much greater explosive power in the reaction. 

9/11: WTC Nanothermite chip vs Paint ignition by Mark Basile

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by hot enough

[Michael Hardner]

It would take billions to execute and there's no payoff.

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It would take billions to execute and there's no payoff.

With all due respect, Michael, you don't have any idea on these things, and though I do, somewhat, they are not of the science.

Why are you even going there when there is so much strong, solid science that illustrates that the hijackers story isn't within the realm of possibility? 

Please put your considerable mental skills towards addressing some of those science issues. Any single one of them should have people demanding a real investigation.

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

The deafening silence tells it all. How can anyone deny that there isn't this huge, palpable pall, an incredible cloak of silence that envelops all western societies when it comes to discussion of things 911? This a verboten topic. This is not what people should talk about, EVER! 

Why?

If the result of this event had had a different, less emotional side/end to it, this thread would be the hottest topic MLW had ever seen. The science is unbelievably intriguing - what's this new nanothermite?!!

How do three buildings fall on the same day from fires, when none have ever fallen from fires before or since? Holy Cow!! What are the odds on that happening? [astronomical, if anyone cares]

Consider how huge the discussions would be if Russia or China attempted a fraud of this scale. They would have to build a new UN building to hold all the discussions. 

But in the countries that are the children of the Enlightenment there is stone cold silence. In the bastion of freedom of speech, the USA, people's tongues have had locks put on them, their brains made afraid.

"Governments don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking, That is against their interests. They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept it." - George Carlin

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The deafening silence tells it all. How can anyone deny that there isn't this huge, palpable pall, an incredible cloak of silence that envelops all western societies when it comes to discussion of things 911? This a verboten topic. This is not what people should talk about, EVER! 

Why?

If the result of this event had had a different, less emotional side/end to it, this thread would be the hottest topic MLW had ever seen. The science is unbelievably intriguing - what's this new nanothermite?!!

How do three buildings fall on the same day from fires, when none have ever fallen from fires before or since? Holy Cow!! What are the odds on that happening? [astronomical, if anyone cares]

Consider how huge the discussions would be if Russia or China attempted a fraud of this scale. They would have to build a new UN building to hold all the discussions. 

But in the countries that are the children of the Enlightenment there is stone cold silence. In the bastion of freedom of speech, the USA, people's tongues have had locks put on them, their brains made afraid.

"Governments don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking, That is against their interests. They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept it." - George Carlin

You still can't explain why no single, reputable, news organization in the world, left or right, friend of America or enemy,  is reporting on this. 

You ask us to consider how huge the discussions would be if Russia or China attempted a fraud of this scale.  I imagine the discussions in Russia and China would be similarly huge if the US did.  And we'd hear them.

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You still can't explain why no single, reputable, news organization in the world, left or right, friend of America or enemy,  is reporting on this. 

15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses

Steven Jones¹, Robert Korol², Anthony Szamboti³ and Ted Walter⁴

¹ Brigham Young University (early retired) 
² McMaster University (emeritus) 
³ Mechanical design engineer in the aerospace industry 
⁴ Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 

Abstract

On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred.

© European Physical Society, EDP Sciences, 2016

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

15 YEARS LATER: ON THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-RISE BUILDING COLLAPSES

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You ask us to consider how huge the discussions would be if Russia or China attempted a fraud of this scale.  I imagine the discussions in Russia and China would be similarly huge if the US did.  And we'd hear them.

How would you know? You admit you are woefully ignorant on how much this is being discussed, how much science is being done? The AIA went from 4% of their members in year one wanting a new independent study to 11% in year two, to, we shall see for year three.

AIA - American Institute of Architects

That the AIA never once mentioned the collapse of three towers in their own journal in all the years since 911 tells you a lot. These are people that make a living on this very thing. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

With all due respect, Michael, you don't have any idea on these things, and though I do, somewhat, they are not of the science.

Why are you even going there when there is so much strong, solid science that illustrates that the hijackers story isn't within the realm of possibility? 

Please put your considerable mental skills towards addressing some of those science issues. Any single one of them should have people demanding a real investigation.

I already addressed the science and have nothing more to add.

If you can explain who would have motive and means to do this...

[hot enough]

47 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You ask us to consider how huge the discussions would be if Russia or China attempted a fraud of this scale.  I imagine the discussions in Russia and China would be similarly huge if the US did.  And we'd hear them.

These kind of attitudes, these types of responses go some distance to illustrating how this is a VERBOTEN topic. They also show, no disrespect intended, how people want to stay ignorant about the science of 911, how people only want to ridicule those who want the science to be discussed. It all points to cover up, on every level. 

The following is from 2013.

Quote

Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation

Posted on September 11, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

But do Americans think that the government lied about 9/11?

A new poll shows that they do. At least about World Trade Center Building 7.

We’re not talking about the Twin Towers … although Building 7 was part of the same complex. No planes hit Building 7, no one was killed when Building 7 fell, no wars were launched on the basis of Building 7, and no civil rights were lost because of the destruction of Building 7.

In other words, Building 7 is a “safe topic” we can discuss without heated emotion. And numerous high-level architects and engineers have already debunked the government’s claims.

Following is a press release from ReThink911 and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth – a group of more than 2,000 architects and engineers – concerning a new poll by YouGov.

How would you answer the poll questions?

On the 12^th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was sponsored by ReThink911, a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1. The campaign includes a 54-foot billboard in Times Square and a variety of transit and outdoor advertising in 11 other cities, all posing the question, “Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?”

Among the poll’s findings:

• 38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;
• 46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;

After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:

30-Second Reel of Building 7 Collapse Footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=Mamvq7LWqRU

• 46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know; [in other words, more people think controlled demolition than believe the government’s narrative]
• By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/poll-more-americans-believe-world-trade-center-7-was-demolished-on-911-than-believe-the-governments-explanation.html

• •  

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I already addressed the science and have nothing more to add.

 

You haven't addressed where the nanothermite found at WTC could have come from. 

You haven't addressed how the nanothermite found at WTC could be there in a legal/legitimate sense. 

You haven't addressed how the steel girders came to be molten and vaporized.

You haven't addressed all the firemen's testimony about explosions. 

You haven't addressed how WTC7 could fall at free fall speed. 

Come on, Michael, break the spell that has all these tongues tied tightly. It doesn't hurt, I promise. 

Quote

If you can explain who would have motive and means to do this...

Start a dedicated thread for that voluminous topic. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Another example of fire causing structural collapse of concrete and reinforcing steel.   Or maybe it was secret "nanothermite" ?

 

Quote

Engineers at the Georgia Institute of Technology say the fiery collapse of a section of Interstate 85 during rush hour Thursday was likely the result of superheated steel rebar supports and concrete that expanded and cracked.

"Clearly, we are looking at high-temperature exposure that led to changes in material properties so that the structural elements which look to reinforce concrete are no longer able to carry the load that they are designed to do," Dr. Kim Kurtis, a professor at the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Georgia Tech said.

..."Once we get a third or half of the melting point of steel, we see very serious decreases in the strength of steel. Concrete is hydrated. It has water in it's structure, so it's literally boiling. It's trapped within the concrete and the only way to escape it to create cracks," Kurtis said.

http://www.wsbradio.com/news/local/collapse-likely-caused-softened-steel-overheated-concrete/hCui31vo8xND6gtRcW2akN/

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, hot enough said:

These kind of attitudes, these types of responses go some distance to illustrating how this is a VERBOTEN topic. They also show, no disrespect intended, how people want to stay ignorant about the science of 911, how people only want to ridicule those who want the science to be discussed. It all points to cover up, on every level. 

The following is from 2013.

• •  

It's not forbidden. You talk about it all time.  I'm sure the BBC, CBC, Pravda, etc, would be happy to have such a scoop. 

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Another example of fire causing structural collapse of concrete and reinforcing steel.  

One has to understand what one is talking about before one can participate in such discussions. Or ask questions when you don't understand. 

If you understood that "concrete and reinforcing steel" are a completely different kettle of fish than a steel framed high rise and your comments pointed that out, they would be welcomed because they would be salient. They are not at all salient. They are as "unsalient" as your Windsor Tower posts of some time ago. 

And after all this time, you either still do not know what this is about or you are trying to derail the discussion. Which is it?

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You talk about it all time. 

But you don't, ever. You just attempt to derail any discussion. Answer the many questions I have raised, as many as you can.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, hot enough said:

And after all this time, you either still do not know what this is about or you are trying to derail the discussion. Which is it?

 

It must be another secret plot by the U.S. government.   

The Great Crimes of Islam are just distraction and misdirection.  

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Or maybe it was secret "nanothermite" ?

The nanothermite isn't a secret, at all. Why would you suggest such a silly thing? Is this ignorance of the subject or another planned diversion?

I just posted a video of some unreacted nanothermite particles that were found in WTC dust being heated to explosion point.