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

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

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.

Throw an empty pop can on a campfire and see what you get. It's clear who is being misled here, but the 9-11 "truthers" like their conspiracy theories, no matter how often they are debunked. How much thermite do you think it would take to bring down a building like the WTC, and how would you install it?

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Throw an empty pop can on a campfire and see what you get. It's clear who is being misled here, but the 9-11 "truthers" like their conspiracy theories, no matter how often they are debunked. How much thermite do you think it would take to bring down a building like the WTC, and how would you install it?

I know what you get, melted aluminum, not thermite.

There is no legal or legitimate reason for thermite, let alone nanothermite to be at WTC. Because it was at WTC, the answer obviously is, as much as the experts who deal with these new nanothermites/superthermites determined was needed to blow up the three towers. 

But it is highly interesting that you go off on these silly tangents just like all the rest of the science deniers when you hit the brick wall. 

The better questions are the myriad questions I have asked which no one, not a one, will address. Why?

[Omni]

Just now, hot enough said:

I know what you get, melted aluminum, not thermite.

There is no legal or legitimate reason for thermite, let alone nanothermite to be at WTC. Because it was at WTC, the answer obviously is, as much as the experts who deal with these new nanothermites/superthermites determined was needed to blow up the three towers. 

But it is highly interesting that you go off on these silly tangents just like all the rest of the science deniers when you hit the brick wall. 

The better questions are the myriad questions I have asked which no one, not a one, will address. Why?

No brick wall here. I am always surprised when the truthers come out bashing their heads against one though. You haven't explained how all those "explosives" got installed in the towers. 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

No brick wall here. I am always surprised when the truthers come out bashing their heads against one though. You haven't explained how all those "explosives" got installed in the towers. 

Big brick wall, Omni, you hit it when you acknowledged thermite at WTC and you have been backtracking ever since. You haven't explained the presence of those explosives at all. You haven't explained how explosives that could not/should not have been there in a legal sense, were there? 

You have a contradiction bigger than Everest and you are flummoxed. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Big brick wall, Omni, you hit it when you acknowledged thermite at WTC and you have been backtracking ever since. You haven't explained the presence of those explosives at all. You haven't explained how explosives that could not/should not have been there in a legal sense, were there? 

You have a contradiction bigger than Everest and you are flummoxed. 

Pop can on a campfire, sorry if that flummoxes you. But again, support how you think they loaded enough tons of explosives in those towers. "Oh sorry ma'am, we just need to rip your office wall apart just now and install some "stuff", won't be long dear" Right! 

[hot enough]

32 minutes ago, Omni said:

But again, support how you think they loaded enough tons of explosives in those towers.

You are making no sense, Omni. That information is available, if one is knowledgeable, if one has a modicum of research skills. Reasonable scenarios have been described. Why do you folks always come loaded for bear with no ammunition?

The issue you raised was the thermite. We have established between the two of us that it was there, in a new variety - nanothermite, a product that no Arab "hijacker" had a snowball's chance in hell of ever obtaining. You are avoiding addressing what legitimate reason there is for it being there. 

A police investigator upon finding a pistol by a body doesn't start immediately wondering how an as yet unknown suspect got the money necessary to buy one. He knows there has been killing and he follows the science to determine what happened. 

Are you in the habit of often trying to squirt toothpaste onto your toothbrush before you take off the cap?

Ignoring the nanothermite and the 1500 times normal residues of thermitic reactions doesn't illustrate that you have a science inclination or a logical inclination. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You are making no sense, Omni. That information is available, if one is knowledgeable, if one has a modicum of research skills. 

The issue you raised was the thermite. We have established between the two of us that it was there, in a new variety - nanothermite, a product that no Arab "hijacker" had a snowball's chance in hell of ever obtaining. You are avoiding addressing what legitimate reason there is for it being there. 

A police investigator upon finding a pistol by a body doesn't start immediately wondering how an as yet unknown suspect got the money necessary to buy one. He knows there has been killing and he follows the science to determine what happened. 

Are you in the habit of often trying to squirt toothpaste onto your toothbrush before you take off the cap?

Ignoring the nanothermite and the 1500 times normal residues of thermitic reactions doesn't illustrate that you have a science inclination or a logical inclination. 

Still waiting for your explanation of how they got all these explosives embedded in the building. But you are right, no hijacker had it. They made it on site by smashing an aluminum airplane into a building containing a lot of steel and aluminum and creating a huge fireball from all that jetfuel.

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Still waiting for your explanation of how they got all these explosives embedded in the building. But you are right, no hijacker had it.

As I said,

"You are making no sense, Omni. That information is available, if one is knowledgeable, if one has a modicum of research skills."

Then I added,

"Reasonable scenarios have been described. Why do you folks always come loaded for bear with no ammunition?"

Quote

They made it on site by smashing an aluminum airplane into a building containing a lot of steel and aluminum and creating a huge fireball from all that jetfuel.

That is the most ludicrous idea anyone has advanced in a gigantic panoply of ludicrous notions. And you don't even understand just how ludicrous it is. How, in that huge conflagration did the nanothermite get into a solgel solution? Perhaps you should try to actually understand what nanothermite is. Explain it to us so we know you can further discuss this.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

As I said,

"You are making no sense, Omni. That information is available, if one is knowledgeable, if one has a modicum of research skills."

Then I added,

"Reasonable scenarios have been described. Why do you folks always come loaded for bear with no ammunition?"

That is the most ludicrous idea anyone has advanced in a gigantic panoply of ludicrous notions. And you don't even understand just how ludicrous it is. How, in that huge conflagration did the nanothermite get into a solgel solution? Perhaps you should try to actually understand what nanothermite is. Explain it to us so we know you can further discuss this.

Heat and materials my friend. Or are you so far along the truther line you don't think the planes actually hit the buildings?

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Omni said:

Heat and materials my friend.

You need to explain much more, Omni. Your test, answer from your deep knowledge base, no cheating by looking at the books. How is nanothermite created from "heat and MATERIALS"? 

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You need to explain much more, Omni. Your test, answer from your deep knowledge base, no cheating by looking at the books. How is nanothermite created from "heat and MATERIALS"? 

 

How many metric tonnes of thermite do you reckon it would take to knock down the WTC towers? and how do you get it installed. Let's start there.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

How many metric tonnes of thermite do you reckon it would take to knock down the WTC towers? and how do you get it installed. Let's start there.

First we have to know that you even know what you are talking about. Describe how thermite and nanothermite are made.

[Omni]

Unreacted thermite is composed essentially of elemental aluminum and iron oxide. Lots of both when you crash an airliner into a building such as the WTC. You would expect to find aluminum oxide and metallic iron, no thermite reaction needed to explain it. But you still dodge the question of how the building was "rigged" as you folks like to suggest, but never address.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Unreacted thermite is composed essentially of elemental aluminum and iron oxide. Lots of both when you crash an airliner into a building such as the WTC. You would expect to find aluminum oxide and metallic iron, no thermite reaction needed to explain it.

That's a start, stumbling, but a start. Now the nanothermite.  

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

That's a start, stumbling, but a start. Now the nanothermite.  

It's not a start. I reached my conclusions, based on science, a long time ago. So if you can't explain how the explosives got integrated into the buildings, let me ask you about the speed of the aircraft as they hit. I've heard truthers try to say that the buildings were designed to be hit by an airliner without falling down.

[hot enough]

 Now the nanothermite.  

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

I reached my conclusions, based on science, a long time ago.

If that were true, how do you explain your obsession with not discussing the science?

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

I've heard truthers try to say that the buildings were designed to be hit by an airliner without falling down.

What folks might these be, Leslie Robertson and John Skilling?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

If that were true, how do you explain your obsession with not discussing the science?

I have discussed the science. Now how fast were the planes going?

[Omni]

Just now, Omni said:

I have discussed the science. Now how fast were the planes going?

And how did they get all those explosives planted?

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

I have discussed the science. Now how fast were the planes going?

Not in the least, have you discussed the science, the science you pretend you have studied closely. If that were true you would be able to discuss it fluently, not haltingly, stumbling from one incoherent post to the next.

[hot enough]

Now the nanothermite. 

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Now the nanothermite. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Now the nanothermite. 

 

And, there was no molten steel found in the rubble, only slag. Much different beast. Now how did they get the explosives in there?

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

 

And, there was no molten steel found in the rubble, only slag. Much different beast. 

9-11: Military nano thermite unknown to the general public found in the dust

 

[hot enough]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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.

This is truly unbelievable. The confusion, the misinformation, the wildly false accusations, the leap to illogical conclusions, ... . 

1) Inquiry never does stop. It is ludicrous and false to suggest it does or should. You have heard of cold cases, have you not? And to malign truth seekers by suggesting they are making profits is just out of this world.

2) That was very, very difficult to parse. The method that has been used by the folks you call and help others call disparaging names, is one of independent scientists, some who have suffered a great deal for doing the very job their job description states, doing independent, straight science, guided by the principles of science. 

That doesn't mean "to have someone with a background in science ask questions about some aspect of this disaster that many others agree on", and even it did, I hate to have to inform you - that is science and that is how science works!

Professor Hulsey is doing a two year totally independent study. Check with him, ask him, find out if he is following the guidelines of science regarding maintaining neutrality. If he was doing something untoward, what you spuriously are suggesting, he would have long ago been drummed out of his university. Do some research before you make wild insinuations.  

Why are we continuing to ask questions? Because of people like you, who support, avidly, and are satisfied with the half baked, nonsensical, unscientific, done in secret, fraudulent claims made a government who has a long and storied history of grand lies. A government that put in place a commission and two studies that grossly ignored reality to cover the butts of what we all know are war criminals. 

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by hot enough