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

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

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

 

Not so secret at all, but you are doing your "best" to hide them.

Let's discuss why concrete and reinforcing steel are different than steel framed. You first. 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, hot enough said:

Not so secret at all, but you are doing your "best" to hide them.

Let's discuss why concrete and reinforcing steel are different than steel framed. You first. 

 

It is forbidden by Islam to use secret nanothermite.   Curse the infidels !

[hot enough]

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.

===============

When you didn't watch the video, are you in agreement with the 46% [of Americans who] are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, hot enough said:

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?

You still haven't answered about the video of the airliners flying into the towers.  How do you explain that?

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You still haven't answered about the video of the airliners flying into the towers.  How do you explain that?

This will address all your questions, blackbird. Let's watch it together.

9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, hot enough said:

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

I don't talk about it because it isn't an interest of mine. I don't talk about zoology or muscle cars either. 

Although I do like the look of a '60 Corvette. 

I don't derail either. I just offer up the number one common sense reason why any conspiracy cannot be true. I don't need to assess the evidence. Auntie has, and she says it's not good enough for the News at Ten. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by bcsapper

[hot enough]

37 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

 secret nanothermite.  

Again, you go on about a subject you either know nothing about, or you are purposefully trying to derail the topic, a violation of this site's rules.

Watch starting at 9:10 of the video,"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM

where Jonathon Cole describes the newly patented US non-commercially available nanothermite "that can be employed to demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency, while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, dust, flying chips and the like." Patent # .... Murakami July 2, 1996.

Remember everyone. Residues of this nanothermite were found in WTC dust. Unreacted particles of this same nanothermite were found in WTC dust. The only difference that nanothermite has to regular thermite, that you all can buy and make yourself, is that the nano level size makes this a superthermite, a super explosive, with all the same super high temperatures of regular thermite, except AGAIN, very important, the size of the particles makes this a super high explosive without the noise.

Michael Hardner, everyone, who had access to this nanothermite?

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't talk about it because it isn't an interest of mine. I don't talk about zoology or muscle cars either. 

Although I do like the look of a '60 Corvette. 

I don't derail either. I just offer up the number one common sense reason why any conspiracy cannot be true. I don't need to assess the evidence. Auntie has, and she says it's not good enough for the News at Ten. 

Just derailing the discussion is your total interest, has been since these threads started, with you using the same old tired lines. 

You admit that you know nothing at all, that you have no interest, which is obviously another of your fabrications. You don't want to know because your whole world will be crushed. All your hate hate hate for no logical reason. 

I appreciate your burden. Why compound it?

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Guest]

Well, my work is done here...

[bush_cheney2004]

 

Just now, bcsapper said:

Well, my work is done here...

 

Good job....the nanothermite red herring is debunked yet again.

So many conspiracies...so little time.

[OftenWrong]

33 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Again, you go on about a subject you either know nothing about, or you are purposefully trying to derail the topic, a violation of this site's rules.

I thought he was showing you some pity, actually.

[hot enough]

As was described in the video, the USA developed new high tech nanothermite explosives in the 1990s. The following article explains how they are much better than regular thermite. They are superthermites and super explosives. 

 

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by ... .

These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods."

... 

Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I thought he was showing you some pity, actually.

Science needs neither pity nor extraneous diversions. You have brought both. 

How did the nanothermite get to WTC? It wasn't any hijackers. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[bush_cheney2004]

The nanothermite theory is nano-nonsense...."science" says so:

 

 

 

[OftenWrong]

I'm not saying I find your science unsound... I'm saying, I don't see any science, at all.

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

... I'm saying, I don't see any science, at all.

That is hardly surprising since you don't know what it means. Nanothermite had no legal or legitimate reason to be at WTC. Since it is a new superexplosive, as per the below underlined/in bold from Lawrence Livermore Labs, it, along with numerous other impossible scenarios found within the US government fable, well, we all know it's a fable.

=====================

Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

 

[hot enough]

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The nanothermite theory is nano-nonsense...."science" says so:

 

Go ahead, explain what your chart means. And then explain about "concrete and steel" versus "steel framed" buildings, and how you posted, by design, a misleading post about the collapse of the freeway structure and how you also posted, by design, a misleading post about the Windsor Tower. 

Then explain how this only US military nanothermite came to be at WTC.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Go ahead, explain what your chart means. And then explain about "concrete and steel" versus "steel framed" buildings, and how you posted, by design, a misleading post about the collapse of the freeway structure and how you also posted, by design, a misleading post about the Windsor Tower. 

 

They were all explained many years ago...you are very late to this game.  

[hot enough]

Then explain why you haven't provided a link for your source as required by house rules.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Author/source is identified in the diagram.   

It is easy to let the Truthers fight among themselves, revealing all to be fools.

Edited April 1, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, hot enough said:

1) 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. 

2) Start a dedicated thread for that voluminous topic. 

1) I don't believe in any of these things.  They're either anomalies or falsehoods and I don't accept that the sources for such things are objective.
2) I think there was already such a thread.

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, hot enough said:

That is hardly surprising since you don't know what it means.

That's hardly surprising since it's nonsense.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I don't believe in any of these things.  They're either anomalies or falsehoods and I don't accept that the sources for such things are objective.
2) I think there was already such a thread.

Of what importance is it whether you believe or not. The important thing here is, and you are admitting it outright - you are categorically denying science. You refuse to look at the sources because you are afraid of what they will show you. Is this science? Are you a person of science, a person who believes in the scientific process?

And you see everyone else doing the same thing, and it doesn't twig anything in any of you folks' brains? If the US official story has science so solidly on its side, why all the palpable fear from the supporters of that theory?

Bush_Cheney throws up a big graphic but she won't explain what it even means. She brought up the Windsor Tower and the Interstate exchange collapse when both have nothing to do with how steel framed buildings react in fires. That she doesn't know what she is talking about is abundantly clear, because she won't and can't explain anything, yet MLW lets her go on in this fashion.

Is this, "Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way." ?

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

I posted a video where an unreacted particle of NANOthermite taken from WTC dust was heated to ignition point. The chemical signature is that of thermite, the only exception being that it is made up of nano sized particles, which is something that only the US has, being a 1996/97 patented explosive developed at Lawrence Livermore Labs. I provided a link to said Lab where they describe the wonders of these new super-explosives, these new super-thermites. 

*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.

Scientists from FEMA, a body of the US government, described the molten/vaporized steel. I have posted links to their Appendix C, which has pictures of said molten/vaporized steel girders. 

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

These testimonies were gathered by the city of New York, they were hidden until the NY Times got them released thru a FOIA lawsuit. You can view multiple videos of firemen describing these secondary explosions, multiple ones. 

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

NIST admitted free fall. You don't trust NIST? A top US forensic engineer says the NIST has a zero chance of being true, but you don't want to look at the science. See what I mean when I said how this is a massive cover up - when people won't even look at the science, giving lame excuses for not doing so, to a discerning person warning bells should be going crazy. 

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

That's hardly surprising since it's nonsense.

More "science" everyone. 

"Rule of thumb: play the ball, not the person (i.e. Tackle the argument, not the person making it)." 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

More "science" everyone. 

Everything you said has already been refuted by the most highly respected scientists. Your conspiracy theory makes its argument by ignoring the facts. If you actually believe this, you have sadly been duped friend.