hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I suggest you go back and do your research again. I am talking about the term thermitic* reaction which is what I have used consistently. Have you found earlier references in the literature? I suppose you car has a gasolinic reaction, not combustion. Do you want to discuss watching youtube videos? That seems to be your forte. *again the qualifier of apologizing if I didn't make the right extra worldly incantations. If you knew how to do research, you could find out two things; it's commonly used among people knowledgeable in this field and secondly, it follows the rules of English grammar/word formation perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, hot enough said: If you knew how to do research, you could find out two things; it's commonly used among people knowledgeable in this field and secondly, it follows the rules of English grammar/word formation perfectly. So give me a reference in the literature that predates the Harrit paper. Does my gasolinic reaction not follow those same rules of English grammer/word formation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, ?Impact said: So give me a reference in the literature that predates the Harrit paper. 'grammar, not 'grammer'. I suppose you are going to blame your spell check again. I found About 81 results for "thermitic" during the years 1990 to 2008. Quote Does my gasolinic reaction not follow those same rules of English grammer/word formation? It definitely does, perfectly; it just isn't a commonly used word, which doesn't mean that it couldn't be. I found eight uses for 'gasolinic' in various scholarly works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Quote I found About 81 results for "thermitic" during the years 1990 to 2008. And there's an excellent chance that thermitic would have remaind a very marginal use if the US hadn't developed nanothermite and used it to blow up three WTC towers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, hot enough said: I found About 81 results for "thermitic" during the years 1990 to 2008. I said in the literature, which means published scientific papers for anyone with a background in science. I did not ask for a google search of truther websites. Yes, I found your "About 81 results", and most of them are from truther web pages or the debunker of debunker sites. Also note that I am asking for the term thermitic reaction, not just thermitic. It is easier to accept terms like thermitic material, but when you are talking about reactions you should not create a new term for an well understood reaction using different materials. I also see that Harrit and Farrer have an earlier paper with that term (about 2006 time frame). I knew Farrer was an earlier collaborator with Jones, but it seems that Harrit is also an earlier truther than I was aware. Most important however is that your 3 points supporting the truther conspiracy theory are debunked, and this is just a sideshow. Edited March 7, 2017 by ?Impact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Don't you just love it how you can run, with no sense of shame whatsoever, with the fatuous notion that you are correct, the lil kitchen scientist, the guy who hasn't addressed one science issue. Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Found the WTCs yet? Perhaps in Queens? Well...have you looked?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 35 minutes ago, hot enough said: with no sense of shame whatsoever Wrong thread, shame is being discussed in the "Shame: Trump = Shameless" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Wrong thread, shame is being discussed in the "Shame: Trump = Shameless" thread. Nice evasion, again, with no sense of shame. [I have transcribed this from a video so if there are any errors in the text they are mine.] ============ Professor Leroy Hulsey [in bold]: "The Uof A-F study found that there is no justification at all for NIST's notion that WTC7 came down as a result of fire. Column 79 did not buckle under gravity loading The portion below is where he describes how they looked further at other potential scenarios for progressive collapses Professor Leroy Hulsey [in bold]: ... we're looking at progressive collapses, what we found is quite interesting, but no big surprise, the building is not coming straight down, it's actually leaning to the west as it's coming down, so remember the building is not symmetrical, nor is it built to have symmetrical behavior, it's actually built stiffer on one side than it is on the other. So it's gonna have to be forced to come straight down, even a symmetrical structure is not built perfectly, for god's sake, so nothing is ever gonna come straight down unless you force it to come straight down. Edited March 7, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 56 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Found the WTCs yet? Perhaps in Queens? Well...have you looked?? People falsely accused on 9-11, countries illegally invaded, millions murdered, untold wealth stolen and you have no sense of shame whatsoever. You actually seem to delight in the carnage that has been wreaked upon so many innocents. All because so many like you believe in a fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) When you look in Queens, make sure you really quiz the locals. No telling where they hid the towers. They'll say they haven't seen them since 2001...but we know they're lying. Edited March 7, 2017 by DogOnPorch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, hot enough said: Professor Leroy Hulsey ...stated that he will be ready to publish the findings of his grad student and post-doc sometime in the spring of 2017. We await his published results. To date the only thing he has really said is that he does not believe that fire alone was sufficient to bring down building 7. His premise is based on his students running a more complex finite analysis than was done by NIST about a decade earlier. Until he publishes results, it would be pure speculation to comment on his work or his findings. Something I am interested in seeing in his results is what he thinks about the bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors that firefighters noticed over 3 hours before it collapsed. That bulge, and creaking sounds they heard are the reasons they stopped rescue operations and left the area and why they didn't have any casualties from the collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 You are not interested in seeing anything, Impact. Save for more of your grand deception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: When you look in Queens, make sure you really quiz the locals. No telling where they hid the towers. They'll say they haven't seen them since 2001...but we know they're lying. How deeply repugnant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, hot enough said: All because so many like you believe in a fantasy. I think the 4,000 Jews who didn't show up for work at the Towers on the day of the disaster hid the towers. Or maybe those dancing Jews that were reported doing the horah when towers exploding. You do remember those theories hmmm?The problem with my theory though is if that is the case they would be in Brooklyn or Long Island not in Queens as Porch said.I f they were in Queens, I think that means it was done by the gays and artists and chic people who wear cool clothes and get invited to Saturday Night Live after parties. It wasn't the Hasids because they don't lift anything heavy and the people out of Yonkers are too concerned about beer. So who does that leave, certainly not people on the other side you know in Jersey. They are too busy dumping people into the river to have time for anything lse. New York is a place where one must understand who carried out the conspiracy. It was aliens and when I say that I do not mean Muslim terrorist aliens but the shape shifting kind from the constellation Draco who want our planet back and are hell bent on creating problems and using the transsexual Michelle Obama and others like Michael Jackson who is still alive as well as George Bush's wife who really is a man. Its so obvious. Edited March 7, 2017 by Rue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: You are not interested in seeing anything, Impact. Save for more of your grand deception. I am interested in science, and so far Hulsey appears to be a scientist. He may be getting paid by the truthers, so he does give them some leeway but he hasn't really stepped over the line like others. He has not supported any crackpot controlled demolition theories, just disagreed with the details of the NIST conclusion. NIST stated the primary cause of building 7 failure was fire related, and Hulsey stated he doesn't see how fire alone could have caused the collapse. While not completely incompatible conclusions, certainly there is a much different emphasis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, ?Impact said: I am interested in science But not enough to share your "kitchen experiments". Still no shame, after all the deception, the dragging things off topic song and dance routines, the outright refusal to address the Rues, the DoPs, the Wilbers, all the folks who, like you, are "interested in science". Still no shame. Unbelievable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, Rue said: I think the 4,000 Jews who didn't show up for work at the Towers on the day of the disaster hid the towers. There are about 50,000 who worked in the towers, and that was the financial capital of the world. Are you suggesting that only 8% are Jews? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: But not enough to share your "kitchen experiments". Are you telling me you haven't figured out how to burn iron in your kitchen with a wooden match yet? Can someone please give this poor fellow a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, ?Impact said: He has not supported any crackpot controlled demolition theories, He doesn't have to. Anyone who is remotely connected to science, even by way of having been born, can connect those dots. The molten metals, the nanothermite, the free fall, the twin towers accelerating "collapses", the myriad reports of explosions, the carbon nanotubes in first responders lungs, the ... . And still, you show no.shame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 38 minutes ago, hot enough said: How deeply repugnant! 9-11 conspiracy theories are pretty repugnant. Everybody knows Islam did it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: 9-11 conspiracy theories are pretty repugnant. I agree. Aren't they just the most repugnant thing imaginable? And it was such a terribly lame one, so incredibly transparent that a child could see thru it. Murdering 3,000 of your own just so you can get support to go murder millions more. Hitler and the Nazis are saints in comparison. The worst gangsters in the world have nothing on these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: 9-11 conspiracy theories are pretty repugnant. Everybody knows Islam did it. Reason and logic are no match for a true zealot. And if you disagree you are as good as a Nazi. Edited March 7, 2017 by Wilber 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, hot enough said: I agree. Aren't they just the most repugnant thing imaginable? And it was such a terribly lame one, so incredibly transparent that a child could see thru it. Murdering 3,000 of your own just so you can get support to go murder millions more. Hitler and the Nazis are saints in comparison. The worst gangsters in the world have nothing on these guys. Agreed: Islamic terrorism is the existential threat of our time. Most of the "Islamic world" supports Jihad to some extent or another. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Agreed: Islamic terrorism is the existential threat of our time. The one rathole this thread has yet to descend into... until now. 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.