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

[Altai]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

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

LoL he didnt even understand what I mean. Anyway.

[hot enough]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

How did you and B_C miss this, Michael? Why do you simply accept something from a lady who doesn't know what she is talking about? This will be further illustrated shortly.

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.

hot enough: Those are the old explosives, the ones that were not found in WTC dust. Read about the new ones below, from Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists. This was posted before, B_C had to have seen it. Why did she ignore it? What have you ignored it? Why didn't she provide a link to this source that you are profusely thanking her for? Is that science? 

Quote

"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."

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Altai said:

LoL he didnt even understand what I mean. Anyway.

Well, I did ask you to explain.  I read your post again and it still doesn't make sense.  People will never agree on this event, even to the 95% level.  At 5% doubt, you're still talking about tens of millions of people who will never agree with any conclusion either way.

[hot enough]

27 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The diagram means that "nanothermite" is not energetic enough to cause the demolition you have alleged, hence the very idea is utter nonsense. 

Why didn't you provide a link? Why still do you refuse to provide a link? 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

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.

The WT fire doesn't show that at all and neither does your link to the US interstate bridge. I asked you to explain how "steel reinforced concrete" and steel framed office towers are the same and you still haven't addressed this. 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I did ask you to explain.  I read your post again and it still doesn't make sense.  People will never agree on this event, even to the 95% level.  At 5% doubt, you're still talking about tens of millions of people who will never agree with any conclusion either way.

That doesn't mean, it never means that scientific investigation stops. Why would you suggest such an unscientific idea?

When B_C explains, we will all understand.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That doesn't mean, it never means that scientific investigation stops.

Why would an investigation continue ?  What are the criteria for continuing any inquiry versus stopping it ?  

My point is that 100% agreement from the public is unattainable.

[Altai]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I did ask you to explain.  I read your post again and it still doesn't make sense.  People will never agree on this event, even to the 95% level.  At 5% doubt, you're still talking about tens of millions of people who will never agree with any conclusion either way.

You meant that an investigation is not need. I meant that if you reject to make an investigation, this makes you the guilty side.

Again, if we all have the same informations, we all will find the same results. If someones are disagree with something, they have to explain its reasons based on an information. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Altai said:

1) You meant that an investigation is not need. I meant that if you reject to make an investigation, this makes you the guilty side.

2) Again, if we all have the same informations, we all will find the same results. If someones are disagree with something, they have to explain its reasons based on an information. 

1) Oh, well there are millions of guilty people then.  I don't accept this premise.  As I said, there will never be full acceptance.

2) I don't accept this.  There are many reasons people don't accept information, such as mine for not believing the objectivity of various sources.

 

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

either way.

This, below, from B_C, was in the post right above your first reply of today.

"Author/source is identified in the diagram." 

The source is not identified in any fashion that would be considered remotely scientific, but yet you trust her. It could have been photo shopped. 

Her explanation, which you flew to accept, makes no sense when measured against what the scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs had to say, which was available to both of you, her yesterday, and you, this morning [or possibly yesterday also]. It has been given to you both again, this morning. 

This is the type of "refuting" that you folks have been relying on since forever.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) I don't accept this.  There are many reasons people don't accept information, such as mine for not believing the objectivity of various sources.

 

But you desperately accept B_C's "thanks so much", when she hasn't been anywhere close to objective. When she isn't now replying to my questions asking her to explain her science? You take her word over scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs who describe things that totally refute her notions. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The source is not identified in any fashion that would be considered remotely scientific, but yet you trust her.  

There is no such thing as identifying a source in a scientific fashion.  BC is right - the source is identified.  And I have wasted yet more time on this non-issue.

[Altai]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Oh, well there are millions of guilty people then.  I don't accept this premise.  As I said, there will never be full acceptance.

2) I don't accept this.  There are many reasons people don't accept information, such as mine for not believing the objectivity of various sources.

 

Probably there are people who thinks that 2x2=5 too, does this make it 5 ? Recently I saw a guy on instagram who take a photo and says "If the world is spherical, why I still can see the XXX object behind me." Is this make the World flat ? There are always people who rejects logic when it does not fit their interests.

As I said, there are many different ideas because there is an information pollution. We could solve this with a common research commision consist of scientists from many different countries and I personally believe that this event is a false flag and I dont think that US govt would accept such an offer. 
 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Altai

[bush_cheney2004]

Sherman, please set the WABAC Machine (from Mr. Peabody's Improbable History) to 2009, when the "nanothermite" circus was running at full tilt:

Quote

...This “nanothermite” track that the Truth Movement has been on since the publication of the Harrit/Jones/Roberts paper has been increasingly dishonest since the very beginning and this is just another example of how “nanothermite” is blowing up our movement.

Which is, of course, the only thing this “super secret” pyrotechnic COULD blow up…

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/

 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is no such thing as identifying a source in a scientific fashion.  BC is right - the source is identified.  And I have wasted yet more time on this non-issue.

Better check your Kate L Turabian, Michael.

[hot enough]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is no such thing as identifying a source in a scientific fashion.  BC is right - the source is identified.  And I have wasted yet more time on this non-issue.

You are ignoring the L Livermore lab scientists. Why?

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Altai said:

1) Probably there are people who thinks that 2x2=5 too, does this make it 5 ? Recently I saw a guy on instagram who take a photo and says "If the world is spherical, why I still can see the XXX object behind me." Is this make the World flat ? There are always people who rejects logic when it does not fit their interests.

2) As I said, there are many different ideas because there is an information pollution. We could solve this with a common research commision consist of scientists from many different countries and I personally believe that this even is a false flag and I dont think that US govt would accept such an offer. 
 

1) Exactly.  Why do you want to have endless commissions to convince such people ?

2) This wouldn't work.  I think the commission would find the obvious: that terrorists committed 9/11 as is now known.  They may at best find that the cause of the WTC 7 collapse is unclear, but that wouldn't lead to any idea of a conspiracy.  Then, what would come next would be people discrediting this new group of scientists as being "in on it"

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Sherman, please set the WABAC Machine (from Mr. Peabody's Improbable History) to 2009, when the "nanothermite" circus was running at full tilt:

 

willylomanwordpress from 2009! Why no link from the Dwain Deets material?

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Exactly.  Why do you want to have endless commissions to convince such people ?

2) This wouldn't work.  I think the commission would find the obvious: that terrorists committed 9/11 as is now known.  They may at best find that the cause of the WTC 7 collapse is unclear, but that wouldn't lead to any idea of a conspiracy.  Then, what would come next would be people discrediting this new group of scientists as being "in on it"

The commission that was also a fraud. Have you no sense of shame, Michael, running to these scurrilous sources? I'll discuss them but you folks won't discuss a scientific study.

"I think the commission would find the obvious: that terrorists committed 9/11 as is now known."

More scientific pronouncements without a shred of evidence. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

willylomanwordpress from 2009! Why no link from the Dwain Deets material?

 

"Because you didn't use the magic word."   - Dr. Peter Venkman 

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

"Because you didn't use the magic word."   - Dr. Peter Venkman 

This is the lady of science in whom you place so much trust, Michael? On things scientific?

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

This is the lady of science in whom you place so much trust, Michael? On things scientific?

Yes.

[Altai]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1) Exactly.  Why do you want to have endless commissions to convince such people ?

2) This wouldn't work.  I think the commission would find the obvious: that terrorists committed 9/11 as is now known.  They may at best find that the cause of the WTC 7 collapse is unclear, but that wouldn't lead to any idea of a conspiracy.  Then, what would come next would be people discrediting this new group of scientists as being "in on it"

I am not interested to convince someones. I am interested to find truths. Comission would be endless as long as we have endless informations. 


We dont know what the commission would find out. You are just talking based on your prejudices, try to be objective. Anything they find would have a big impact in this issue. 


By the way, you are really a frustration for me after your posts in this topic. 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.

The lady who won't address the question of science that she herself raised?

The lady who just advanced a notion on nanothermite that is directly and categorically refuted by the scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs who discovered the ways to make these new super nanothermites. 

This above, that has been pointed out to you both, TWICE, her more times than that.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Altai said:

1) Comission would be endless as long as we have endless informations. 


2) We dont know what the commission would find out. You are just talking based on your prejudices, try to be objective. Anything they find would have a big impact in this issue. 


3) By the way, you are really a frustration for me after your posts in this topic. 

1) We keep getting 'new' information so...

2) The 9/11 commission didn't just dig through the dust to find bits of thermite - they looked at the big picture such as evidence about the highjackers and so on.  I am confident they would reach the same conclusion, unless somebody confessed to running the conspiracy

3) Sorry, but I'm stating my opinions as asked.