hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 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. 1) So that's how science works. A science that you want to jettison because the "science" you want to believe supports your preconceived notions. 2) The 9/11 commission didn't do any science. They were controlled beginning to end by Zelikow. 3) Opinions have no place in a discussion on science, yet that is all you keep advancing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altai Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 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. 1) Why are you disturbed by having new information ? What would be wrong with having new informations ? Lets believe it if you still want to believe the World is flat. 2) You make no sense. Does not matter what you personally think, its matter what science will find out. 3) Bye Edited April 1, 2017 by Altai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 So if plain old garden variety "nanothermite" wasn't/isn't energetic enough, even as a shaped charge, then it must have been the new and improved "SUPER NANOTHERMITE", right ? And if that isn't enough to blow up huge steel structures, then it must have been the even more top secret "SUPER-DUPER NANOTHERMITE". And if that isn't strong enough....wait....wait...it must be the new "MOTHER OF ALL NANOTHERMITE" ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 Just now, Altai said: 1) Why are you disturbed by having new information ? What would be wrong with having new informations ? Lets believe it if you still want to believe the World is flat. 2) You make no sense. Does not matter what you personally think, its matter what science will find out. 1) I'm not. But you said inquiries should continue as long as we keep getting 'information' and I'm saying that never stops, especially when there is an industry of people profiting from bringing out new information. 2) The 'science' still needs to be interpreted, though. Even scientists don't agree 100% on things. The method that is used to keep this controversy open is to have someone with a background in science ask questions about some aspect of this disaster that many others agree on. As such, we can't ever get 100% consensus. Why are we continuing to ask questions ? It's pretty clear what happened to me, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 2 hours ago, hot enough said: 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 hI ow 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 TimYes 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. I asked you how you explain the videos of the airliners flying into the towers. You answered with a video. I don't have time to sit down and watch a propaganda video. Why can't you give an answer in a sentence? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: So if plain old garden variety "nanothermite" wasn't/isn't energetic enough, even as a shaped charge, then it must have been the new and improved "SUPER NANOTHERMITE", right ? As always no sources. Rants do not qualify as sources. Nanothermite isn't a "plain old garden variety". It is a new, non-commercially available US product, which you and Michael are studiously avoiding discussing how it refutes your nonsense that you magically derived from the Dwain Deets material that you still have failed to provide a link to. Why are you so confused on this whole issue? And actually normal everyday thermite is more than "energetic enough, as a shaped charge" to melt thru steel beams/columns. When are you going to explain about the WT and the Interstate bridge fires and how they support your science? Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, blackbird said: I asked you how you explain the videos of the airliners flying into the towers. You answered with a video. I don't have time to sit down and watch a propaganda video. Why can't you give an answer in a sentence? You don't have time to address the science, with the direct link I provided you, but you want me to go searching for videos that support your non-science. That's just crazy. You don't even provide a link to a video you believe supports your "I don't even know what?". You just want silly goose chases to help with your distractions from the science. Because the video I linked to addressed your point head on. You must have watched some until your cognitive dissonance drove you crazy. Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Why are we continuing to ask questions ? It's pretty clear what happened to me, anyway. It's pretty clear to you, a gentleman that avoids the science like the plague. A gentleman who lets/encourages his trusted scientist friends advance all manner of nonsense with not any discussion of same, with no links. People who won't answer direct questions, with material that directly refutes notions that they have just advanced. But "It's pretty clear what happened to me, anyway." Truly astonishing! What is even more astonishing is the silence from all the open minded westerners who reside at MLW. A sixteen year old young lady from Turkey has to point up how "western science" works. Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 3 minutes ago, hot enough said: 1) It's pretty clear to you, a gentleman that avoids the science like the plague. 1) Sorry, but you're being pretty unfair. I have responded at least twice to you on this and shown where I discussed the science in the past. If the purpose of an endeavour is to provide knowledge, to arrive at some conclusion, then there are some limits to it. We don't have perpetual investigations of historical events. As I have already indicated, I don't trust the objectivity of courses who keep surfacing so-called new material and fan the flames of controversy. As for your professor, let's wait for the discussion on his claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altai Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, hot enough said: It's pretty clear to you, a gentleman that avoids the science like the plague. A gentleman who lets/encourages his trusted scientist friends advance all manner of nonsense with not any discussion of same, with no links. People who won't answer direct questions, with material that directly refutes notions that they have just advanced. But "It's pretty clear what happened to me, anyway." Truly astonishing! What is even more astonishing is the silence from all the open minded westerners who reside at MLW. A sixteen year old young lady from Turkey has to point up how "western science" works. LoL I dont really think he is serious, he is just making fun with us. If he dont believe in the new informations, he should leave Canada which was found through investigations and researches and he should move back to Europe and should pretend like there is no America 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Altai said: 1) LoL I dont really think he is serious, he is just making fun with us. 2) If he dont believe in the new informations, 1) No, I'm serious. 2) It's not that I don't believe in 'new information' but investigating a historic event such as this needs a purpose and a limit. The purpose of such 'new information' as I have read is to spread lies for profit as far as I can see. I'm not a sucker, nor a monkey. I value my time seriously and believe me I spent a lot of time on the conspiracy angle in the years after 9/11. Sorry to disappoint you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1) Sorry, but you're being pretty unfair. I have responded at least twice to you on this and shown where I discussed the science in the past. If the purpose of an endeavour is to provide knowledge, to arrive at some conclusion, then there are some limits to it. We don't have perpetual investigations of historical events. As I have already indicated, I don't trust the objectivity of courses who keep surfacing so-called new material and fan the flames of controversy. As for your professor, let's wait for the discussion on his claims. I am not being unfair. There have been no replies on the science. B_C has made, to be kind, laughable claims, which she doesn't understand at all, which she has been soundly refuted about, by, [how many times does this have to be said before you will address it] the scientists from Lawrence Livermore Labs? The professor, not "your professor", that is dishonesty, has stated the case. Do you need "YOUR science deniers" [is that fair?] before you are able to discuss it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, hot enough said: You don't have time to address the science, with the direct link I provided you, but you want me to go searching for videos that support your non-science. That's just crazy. You don't even provide a link to a video you believe supports your "I don't even know what?". You just want silly goose chases to help with your distractions from the science. Because the video I linked to addressed your point head on. You must have watched some until your cognitive dissonance drove you crazy. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a scientific investigation or a scientific treatise posting. All I asked is a simple question about why you don't believe the video evidence that airliners flew into the twin towers on 9-11 and you reply with a video. It should be a simple thing to summarize your answer in a sentence to several. Unless you know, there is nothing to explain away the video and you want to brainwash people with an alternate theory. You are of course free to believe in conspiracy theories if you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 7 minutes ago, blackbird said: This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a scientific investigation or a scientific treatise posting. All I asked is a simple question about why you don't believe the video evidence that airliners flew into the twin towers on 9-11 and you reply with a video. It should be a simple thing to summarize your answer in a sentence to several. Unless you know, there is nothing to explain away the video and you want to brainwash people with an alternate theory. You are of course free to believe in conspiracy theories if you wish. Let's get it straight what you are saying. Science has no place in determining the impossible collapses of three buildings. I have seen the videos, many many many more than you, many many many more times than you. And here you are also suggesting, scientifically I suspect you think, that we should focus on something we have all seen many times, as if that will give us some great scientific insights. Again, I told you that the video I linked you too addressed these issue of the planes hitting the towers, but you, like all the other science based MLWs refuse to watch or discuss it. Why? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, hot enough said: Let's get it straight what you are saying. Science has no place in determining the impossible collapses of three buildings. I have seen the videos, many many many more than you, many many many more times than you. And here you are also suggesting, scientifically I suspect you think, that we should focus on something we have all seen many times, as if that will give us some great scientific insights. Again, I told you that the video I linked you too addressed these issue of the planes hitting the towers, but you, like all the other science based MLWs refuse to watch or discuss it. Why? I may watch it later. It's just that I have a lot of things I should be doing and must break off shortly and do some work. I am not sure why you are obsessed with these other things. Most people would accept a video of something as being the final, unquestionable account of something. Videos don't lie. It is possible for experts to tell if a video is doctored and I have never heard anything to suggest that. There is much other evidence to show the planes were hijacked anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 2 hours ago, hot enough said: As always no sources. Rants do not qualify as sources. Nanothermite isn't a "plain old garden variety". It is a new, non-commercially available US product, which you and Michael are studiously avoiding discussing how it refutes your nonsense that you magically derived from the Dwain Deets material that you still have failed to provide a link to. Why are you so confused on this whole issue? And actually normal everyday thermite is more than "energetic enough, as a shaped charge" to melt thru steel beams/columns. When are you going to explain about the WT and the Interstate bridge fires and how they support your science? You don't seem to understand that there was nowhere near enough thermite found in the rubble to have brought down an igloo let alone structure like the WTC towers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Omni said: You don't seem to understand that there was nowhere near enough thermite found in the rubble to have brought down an igloo let alone structure like the WTC towers. Interesting point, Omni. Have you a source for this? Don't you think it is odd that you know this when pretty much everyone, NIST, US government, ... denies that there was any thermite, ever? What legitimate/legal reason was there for any thermite at WTC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: Interesting point, Omni. Have you a source for this? Don't you think it is odd that you know this when pretty much everyone, NIST, US government, ... denies that there was any thermite, ever? What legitimate/legal reason was there for any thermite at WTC? Correct. That's where the whole "controlled demolition" theory falls apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Omni said: Correct. That's where the whole "controlled demolition" theory falls apart. Please explain, Omni. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 6 minutes ago, hot enough said: Please explain, Omni. What's to explain? Planes flew into the WTC's at high speed, we all saw it, and the buildings were damaged to the point they collapsed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, Omni said: What's to explain? Planes flew into the WTC's at high speed, we all saw it, and the buildings were damaged to the point they collapsed. How does that explain the thermite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, hot enough said: How does that explain the thermite? Aluminum and iron oxide. That's what was found. Guess what planes are made of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, Omni said: Aluminum and iron oxide. That's what was found. Guess what planes are made of. This shouldn't have to be like pulling teeth, Omni. If you are unable to explain, can you provide the place where you acquired your knowledge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted April 1, 2017 Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: This shouldn't have to be like pulling teeth, Omni. If you are unable to explain, can you provide the place where you acquired your knowledge? Grade 10 science class if I remember correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted April 1, 2017 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, Omni said: Grade 10 science class if I remember correctly. Obviously you don't remember or your teacher badly misled you. You can't make thermite from some aluminum cans and rust. And nanothermite was found at WTC, and the residues of thermitic reactions were found in huge amounts, some 1500 times normal. Didn't you read the info from the Lawrence Livermore scientists? It is in this thread, not too far back. 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.