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

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

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.

See what I mean, Michael.

Professor Leroy Hulsey's study hasn't been refuted by anyone. 

And this is another of the big lies - "has already been refuted by the most highly respected scientists. But I just can't seem to find it anywhere."

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

1) Of what importance is it whether you believe or not.

 

2) 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?

3) ...why all the palpable fear from the supporters of that theory?

 

1) Importance to you: you asked me to address the ideas you posted.

2) No I don't deny science.  I have already looked at these things in the past, and my opinion is posted above.

3) I have never heard that supporters of the official story all display palpable fear.  I don't believe that.

I addressed the rest of your article in that I spent enough time looking into such matters in the years following the event and found the sources to be devoted to fanning the flames of controversy rather than answering questions.  Again, to my mind the biggest question is how humans could have executed this plan. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Professor Leroy Hulsey's study hasn't been refuted by anyone.  

That doesn't mean it's true - just unproven and unrefuted.

There are plenty of other facts that have been refuted and this whole topic is really just a side hobby for people who believe in new world order fantasies IMO.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Again, to my mind the biggest question is how humans could have executed this plan. 

Focusing on such an unimportant issue isn't indicative of a person who believes in science.

Quote

I spent enough time looking into such matters in the years following the event and found the sources to be devoted to fanning the flames of controversy rather than answering questions. 

Based on your opinion, right. 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are plenty of other facts that have been refuted and this whole topic is really just a side hobby for people who believe in new world order fantasies IMO.

That is sure a scientific reply. You are outright denying the nanothermite. You are supporting the fraud of NIST on nothing at all, not the slightest wisp of science. It's all personal conjecture. Why would you, a person of science, advance on a scientific issue just your personal conjecture and feel that was satisfactory?

Why do you allow, as a moderator, people to make sneering comments coupled with no science, no reasonable argumentation? 

[hot enough]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That doesn't mean it's true - just unproven and unrefuted.

No, that means that it stands as the guiding science, ready for all the "scientists" to do peer review on. That is how science works. 

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are plenty of other facts that have been refuted and this whole topic is really just a side hobby for people who believe in new world order fantasies IMO.

The OftenWrong "argument" but as I pointed out, there's never anything offered to illustrate these refutations.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Focusing on such an unimportant issue isn't indicative of a person who believes in science.

I am not 'focusing' on it.  I have looked at the science, why won't YOU look at this aspect ?  

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Based on your opinion, right. 

Yes.  I am the ultimate judge of my reality, and you of yours.  I think that works best, but I'll help manage yours for a small fee.

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That is sure a scientific reply. You are outright denying the nanothermite. You are supporting the fraud of NIST on nothing at all, not the slightest wisp of science. It's all personal conjecture. Why would you, a person of science, advance on a scientific issue just your personal conjecture and feel that was satisfactory?

Why do you allow, as a moderator, people to make sneering comments coupled with no science, no reasonable argumentation? 

I'm just offering an explanation for OW's response.  Not sure if he rejects your professors ideas, but I don't.

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No, that means that it stands as the guiding science, ready for all the "scientists" to do peer review on. That is how science works. 

Not THE guiding science, but a theory.

[Altai]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

No, that means that it stands as the guiding science, ready for all the "scientists" to do peer review on. That is how science works. 

We need to create a common research commission to investigate about 9-11. I dont really think that US govt would accept such an offer 

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

The OftenWrong "argument" but as I pointed out, there's never anything offered to illustrate these refutations.

The reason is simple, nobody wants to get into a childish back-and-forth with you on an issue that's already been completely solved. That is why you get no replies. This forum is for mature discussion.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Altai said:

We need to create a common research commission to investigate about 9-11. I dont really think that US govt would accept such an offer 

Oh, no we don't need that at all.  There will always be a core group of people who will not be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented.  The best evidence they have represent curiosities and anomalies and the worst is just fantasy and falsehoods.

There's no point in trying to convince these people.  If a commission found that the 'official story' was false, then you'd have people who didn't believe THAT commission.  Then what ?  Another one ?  

 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am not 'focusing' on it.  I have looked at the science, why won't YOU look at this aspect ?  

Because your science, and everyone else's is non-existent. Point me to where you have discussed the science.

Why don't you insist that B_C describe the science she pretends to bring forward? Do you know what her latest graphic means, how it contributes to the science?

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Oh, no we don't need that at all.

The NIST report is a fraud, a totally unscientific piece of nonsense, which the scientists here refuse to discuss, but we don't need a new investigation. How is that scientific?

NIST, all those top US scientists, initially says WTC7 40% longer than free fall, then after being challenged, admits free fall. 

But we don't need a new investigation.

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

nobody wants to get into a childish back-and-forth with you on an issue that's already been completely solved.

Still nothing to show it is completely resolved. 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Because your science, and everyone else's is non-existent. Point me to where you have discussed the science.

Why don't you insist that B_C describe the science she pretends to bring forward? Do you know what her latest graphic means, how it contributes to the science?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/13913-explosives-found-in-world-trade-center-dust/

I didn't look at BC's link.  Knowing BC's posts, I trust that they're well researched and anyway I have spent enough time on this topic in my life.  I already told you my conclusions.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The NIST report is a fraud, a totally unscientific piece of nonsense, which the scientists here refuse to discuss, but we don't need a new investigation. How is that scientific?

No, I have read the NIST report and it satisfies me completely.

I have already answered your questions about my opinions from many angles and my question to you remains unanswered.  As such, I'm sensing that this is turning from a discussion into a fruitless interrogation.  We should both be uninterested in such an exchange, I think.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Knowing BC's posts, I trust that they're well researched

You didn't look at B_C's links but you trust they are well researched? Again, this is science. They illustrated that she knows nothing of the topic because the things she advanced were not the same as WTC issues.

Why would she be allowed to mislead?

[Altai]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Oh, no we don't need that at all.  There will always be a core group of people who will not be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented.  The best evidence they have represent curiosities and anomalies and the worst is just fantasy and falsehoods.

There's no point in trying to convince these people.  If a commission found that the 'official story' was false, then you'd have people who didn't believe THAT commission.  Then what ?  Another one ?  

 

If someone rejects an investigation about a crime, this makes them directly the guilty side. Logic based on the same information does not vary from person to person. If we find out all the informations, we all will reach to the same results. There will also be people who rejects to recognize the logic, I think this is also another crime. 

Currently there are many different claims about this event because there is not enough effort have been made to explain this event. Therefore people are trying to find out reality themselves. 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

and my question to you remains unanswered.

Your one question, the one that serves to move away from the science. How many questions of mine, on the science, have you refused to address. Questions which point up clearly the impossibility of the official story?

Quote

 I have read the NIST report and it satisfies me completely.

But you aren't willing to discuss it. How is that science?

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, hot enough said:

1) You didn't look at B_C's links but you trust they are well researched?  

2) Why would she be allowed to mislead?

1) Yes, because having spent years with Bush_Cheney on here I have developed a nuanced trust of how he posts.  It saves me neuron firings to not have to reconstruct opinions from scratch every time I encounter something in the world.  Likewise 9/11 Truth sources (such as "Loose Change") have lied to me enough times that I don't waste my time on them.

2)  There are no rules against lying here, but again please PM me for questions about moderation and the rules.  Thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Altai said:

If someone rejects an investigation about a crime, this makes them directly the guilty side.  

No, I stopped reading after this.  That makes no sense.  People who don't believe the NIST reports are guilty ?  No.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

....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.

 

The diagram means that "nanothermite" is not energetic enough to cause the demolition you have alleged, hence the very idea is utter nonsense.  Particles and small chips recovered from the WTC collapse are readily explained by known substances common to building construction and exposure to fire/heat.

The Windsor Tower fire readily demonstrates that steel framed structures can/do fail when exposed to high temperatures below steel's "melting point".

A U.S. interstate bridge collapsed just days ago because steel reinforced concrete failed when exposed to fire for a lengthy period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you are late to this game, a game many of us played many years ago, and there is absolutely nothing new or original offered by your allegations.   It is the same, old, stale....nonsense....motivated by a completely different agenda than..."science".

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Yes, because having spent years with Bush_Cheney on here I have developed a nuanced trust of how he posts.  It saves me neuron firings to not have to reconstruct opinions from scratch every time I encounter something in the world.  Likewise 9/11 Truth sources (such as "Loose Change") have lied to me enough times that I don't waste my time on them.

2)  There are no rules against lying here, but again please PM me for questions about moderation and the rules.  Thanks.

But there are rules that strongly urge those who use sources to see that those sources are on point, that they actually defend the argument being advanced. B_C's were so far off base, they were nowhere near to defending or supporting her arguments.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I stopped reading after this.  That makes no sense.  People who don't believe the NIST reports are guilty ?  No.

People of science don't ever stop reading. That is not of science.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1) It diagram means that "nanothermite" is not energetic enough to cause the demolition you have alleged, hence the very idea is utter nonsense.  Particles and small chips recovered from the WTC collapse are readily explained by known substances common to building construction and exposure to fire/heat.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Again, you are late to this game, a game many of us played many years ago, and there is absolutely nothing new or original offered by your allegations.   It is the same, old, stale....nonsense....motivated by a completely different agenda than..."science".

 

1) Yes, thank you.  I remember this response from past discussions now.

2) Agreed, and you are free to school our new arrival in the game.  I don't feel I have much more in me on this today but thank you for your posts.