hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Yes, excellent term. No complaints from you about your partners in subterfuge. Oh wait, here comes one now. Edited March 2, 2017 by hot enough clearer explanation 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: How old were you in 2001? See what I mean, Impact? 1 Quote
?Impact Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, hot enough said: I couldn't begin to know. Do you? There was an explosives expert who was responsible for large towers that estimated a single one of the twin towers would have taken his team of 12 over 72 days to rig based on experience. That means about 6 months for the 3 towers. Of course his team doesn't do it as a covert operation, they don't have to hide their work behind panels, they are able to run the cabling out in the open, etc. You don't think an operation of that scope, in buildings with over 50,000 people running around every day (and night) would be found out? Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, ?Impact said: There was an explosives expert who was responsible for large towers that estimated a single one of the twin towers would have taken his team of 12 over 72 days to rig based on experience. That means about 6 months for the 3 towers. Of course his team doesn't do it as a covert operation, they don't have to hide their work behind panels, they are able to run the cabling out in the open, etc. You don't think an operation of that scope, in buildings with over 50,000 people running around every day (and night) would be found out? No sources. You've illustrated that you employ deceptive practices. The link I just gave you describes a much more compressed schedule. You, and "There was an explosives expert", none of us, have any idea of the capabilities of the new superthermites/nanothermites. You, in your deceptive ways, have not even acknowledged its existence, though there is voluminous proof. Nor have you, in your deceptive ways, ever addressed the proof of the molten metals, described, for dog's sake, by FEMA, by scientists who support the official conspiracy theory. Please offer one reason, good or bad, why anyone should trust what you say. 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 Have you now abandoned your glowing scientific experiment and ALL we should learn from it? 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: How old were you in 2001? Your previous posts dealing with these non-issues have been deleted and here you are back with the same. Where did the fuels required to melt metals requiring temps far above the melting point of steel come from? How would you like it if your brother was framed, if your country and people were framed? 1 Quote
?Impact Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, hot enough said: No sources. You've illustrated that you employ deceptive practices. The link I just gave you describes a much more compressed schedule. You, and "There was an explosives expert", none of us, have any idea of the capabilities of the new superthermites/nanothermites. You, in your deceptive ways, have not even acknowledged its existence, though there is voluminous proof. Nor have you, in your deceptive ways, ever addressed the proof of the molten metals, described, for dog's sake, by FEMA, by scientists who support the official conspiracy theory. Please offer one reason, good or bad, why anyone should trust what you say. Speaking of sources. Do you have any real sources that have real evidence of molten steel, or nanothermites? I am not making any claim to their existence or non-existence because despite your claim there is not voluminous proof. There are many extrapolations based on flimsy evidence, to which there are a multitude of other possibilities. You want to question the official story, but when anyone questions your far flung theories you go off and attack them. Yes, there are holes in the official story you can drive a dump truck through. The problem is there are holes in your theory that you could drive the moon through. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 20 minutes ago, hot enough said: Your previous posts dealing with these non-issues have been deleted and here you are back with the same. Where did the fuels required to melt metals requiring temps far above the melting point of steel come from? How would you like it if your brother was framed, if your country and people were framed? Charles has trouble following the logic behind some posts. And who can blame him? If you were a child as I suspect, your age would colour what you thought you had seen. And since you claim there was no aircraft involved that day.... 1 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Speaking of sources. Do you have any real sources that have real evidence of molten steel, or nanothermites? I am not making any claim to their existence or non-existence because despite your claim there is not voluminous proof. There are many extrapolations based on flimsy evidence, to which there are a multitude of other possibilities. You want to question the official story, but when anyone questions your far flung theories you go off and attack them. Yes, there are holes in the official story you can drive a dump truck through. The problem is there are holes in your theory that you could drive the moon through. Isn't FEMA and its hired scientists enough for you? Aren't the pictures I have offered from way back at the beginning enough to at least start discussing it? Isn't the fact that a two year scientific study that tells us, unequivocally, that NIST's WTC7 report is bogus, enough? Do you think that RJ Lee Group is lying? You simply have never addressed any of these things. That's the deception I have talked about. And you have the temerity to say "far flung theories". You have the temerity to suggest that I have been attacking when you have never once said anything to those you saw as your "supporters", those strange bedfellows. Please state one moon size problem. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 ...and of course, if you WERE an adult at the time...lol...that says something else entirely. But then, by your own statements, you are not a Westerner. Who knows what they taught you in your school system.... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: And since you claim there was no aircraft involved that day.... Bald faced lie or a frank admission that you are incapable of adequately comprehending what you read.Go back and read the first post in this thread. That is my defining argument. In your obvious confused state you might have believed I said that. Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: But then, by your own statements, you are not a Westerner. Who knows what they taught you in your school system.... WOW! Prove your "by your own statements, you are not a Westerner" has any validity at all. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 So you're saying no aircraft were involved in 9-11? Who did 9-11? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, hot enough said: WOW! Prove your "by your own statements, you are not a Westerner" has any validity at all. You: Yeah, right. And all the terribly misled western posters on all the forums across the western nations would be screaming, "I told you so, I told you so, they can't be trusted, watch out! they are there to kill infidels, Islam is a religion of violence, blah blah blah." Plus the Turkish... That would make you a Turk, in my books. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: You: Yeah, right. And all the terribly misled western posters on all the forums across the western nations would be screaming, "I told you so, I told you so, they can't be trusted, watch out! they are there to kill infidels, Islam is a religion of violence, blah blah blah." Plus the Turkish... That would make you a Turk, in my books. I think that this is highly illustrative of your thinking processes. The operative words there are "terribly misled". Quote
betsy Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) On 2/25/2017 at 11:42 PM, hot enough said: There is so much turmoil in the world. Why? We hear oh so frequently from oh so many sources that this turmoil has come about because of terrorism, specifically one "grouped" terrorist act. We all know what that is and it is truly a lie of gigantic proportions, not unlike all of the other lies of gigantic proportions. Premise: It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. Proof one: The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. Nanothermite is what got 9/11 truthers to go all excited. Nothing to really get excited about, hot enough. Here is an axcerpt from a long article. Quote The more sophisticated believer might agree that conventional explosives also could have been employed, but for the scientifically less sophisticated 9/11 Truther, the “Thermite/Nanothermite Gospel” says it all – and has been “conclusively proven” by the nine authors of the 2009 published and peer-reviewed paper. But what does other peer-reviewed scientific literature actually have to say about nanothermite? “Nanoscale Aluminum-Metal Oxide (Thermite) Reactions for Application in Energetic Materials,” Central European Journal of Energetic Materials (2010), authored by Davin G. Piercey and Thomas M. Klapötke, identifies the fastest known combustion velocity for a mixture of metal oxide and aluminum: 2,400 meters per second (m/s), in a type of nanothermite made of copper oxide and aluminum. Remember that what Steven Jones found in the dust was iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite. The authors of this paper make it clear that copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite is significantly more reactive than the iron-oxide version, and cite a combustion velocity of 895 m/s for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite aerogel. So 895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock wave. But let’s be realistic: How could the perpetrators drag in and plant over 100,000 tons of explosive without being seen? Even 29,000 tons is hard to imagine and would have been rather difficult to put in place unnoticed. The Missing Element A side note from the many technical papers on nanothermite studied by Hightower: nanothermite produces a blinding flash of light when it goes off. If such immense quantities of nanothermite were used to blow up the Twin Towers, then why didn’t we see tremendous bursts of blinding light all over those two buildings as they were destroyed and largely converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust? The Dangers of a False Theory Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which is led by Richard Gage, has been ceaselessly promoting the nanothermite discovery as the “smoking gun” of 9/11, and calling the substance a “high explosive”. If there is ever a proper investigation and a lawsuit is filed in a court of law on the “strength” of nanothermite as “hard evidence” of controlled demolition by explosives at the World Trade Center and it is revealed to the court by the opposing side that nanothermite is at best a very weak “explosive” and could not possibly have destroyed the Twin Towers in seconds, the entire case would almost certainly be dismissed and a legal precedent set against future efforts by others. ***** T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer with more than two decades of experience in the industry, currently works for NASA. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/ Edited March 2, 2017 by betsy Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 5 minutes ago, betsy said: Nanothermite is what got 9/11 truthers to go all excited. Nothing to really get excited about, hot enough. Here is an axcerpt from a long article. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/ Are you ready to discuss this, Betsy? Quote
betsy Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, hot enough said: Are you ready to discuss this, Betsy? I'd given rebuttals to your molten metals....you ignored them! Never mind posturing! If you've got something to say, say it! You also brought up Trump, like as if he supports your theory.....lo and behold, he has a different theory! Edited March 2, 2017 by betsy Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, betsy said: I'd given rebuttlas to your molten metals....you ignored them! Never mind posturing! If you've got something to say, say it! Are you suggesting that this latest offering of yours is the rebuttal? Or are you referring to some previous post? Quote
dre Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 On 2/25/2017 at 8:42 PM, hot enough said: There is so much turmoil in the world. Why? We hear oh so frequently from oh so many sources that this turmoil has come about because of terrorism, specifically one "grouped" terrorist act. We all know what that is and it is truly a lie of gigantic proportions, not unlike all of the other lies of gigantic proportions. Premise: It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. Proof one: The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. The only fuel that the hijackers are said to have brought to the WTC, according to the official government story, is jet fuel. Add office furnishings and you have fuels that can reach a maximum of about 1,800F. Steel melts at about 2,800F. Molybdenum melts at about 4,700F. Vaporized steel needs higher temperatures. Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Point TT-6: Buildings http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/ Pictures of the vaporized steel https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf There are, of course, many other proofs that show that the alleged 911 hijackers did not cause, could not have caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. There is currently a two year study of WTC7 being conducted at University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It is scheduled for total completion in May 2017. The study is essentially finished and in preliminary reports, the lead professor/engineer said, when asked by a lawyer, and I paraphrase, Lawyer: On a scale of one to a hundred what are the chances the official NIST story of the collapse of WTC7 is true and accurate? Professor: Zero. Lawyer: If a graduate student of yours submitted such a report would you flunk him? Professor: Yes. There is no more turmoil in the world, just more cameras everywhere, and an insane level of media saturation. Compare today with just under a century ago... The entire world was at war and dozens of millions of people were dying in various conflicts between major powers and their surrogates. The world is a relatively peaceful place now, and we are safer than we ever have been in history. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 23 minutes ago, hot enough said: Are you suggesting that this latest offering of yours is the rebuttal? Or are you referring to some previous post? That last one is a rebuttal to your nanothermite! I'd given a rebuttal quite a while back to your molten metal! 1 Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, dre said: There is no more turmoil in the world, just more cameras everywhere, and an insane level of media saturation. Compare today with just under a century ago... The entire world was at war and dozens of millions of people were dying in various conflicts between major powers and their surrogates. The world is a relatively peaceful place now, and we are safer than we ever have been in history. That doesn't address the issues I've raised, dre. Are you quoting Steven Pinker? Quote
betsy Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, hot enough said: Are you suggesting that this latest offering of yours is the rebuttal? Or are you referring to some previous post? Here's an additional rebuttal - knocking down everything about your silly theory. Quote Controlled demolition of a building to code requires weeks of preparation, including laying large quantities of explosive and cutting through beams, which would have rendered the building highly dangerous and which would have to be done without attracting the attention of the thousands of people who worked in the building.[7][55] Controlled demolition is traditionally done from the bottom of buildings rather than the top, although there are exceptions depending on structural design. There is little dispute that the collapse started high up at the point where the aircraft struck. Furthermore, any explosives would have to withstand the impact of the airliners.[7] In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a general investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center but soon made a decision to focus first on the collapse of the Twin Towers. The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water. NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur, that the "use of thermite [...] to sever columns in 7 WTC on 9/11/01 was unlikely".[81] The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives. Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[4] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories Edited March 2, 2017 by betsy Quote
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 1 hour ago, betsy said: I'd given rebuttals to your molten metals....you ignored them! Could you direct me to those? Quote
dre Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 I think the building were just built by shitty tradesman, working for shitty contractors, using shitty steel, with shitty engineering. From popular mechanics... Quote The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs. Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. In other words their crappy ass buildings fell down because they were not built properly, and a lot of people died because of the developers being cheap. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.