Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: You have avoided, as you folks always do, an unbelievable amount of hard science.... Stop there. It's not 'hard science', it's 'comic book science'. And, like GH, you avoided my point which is the only one I want to discuss. You can fill the web page with ever-expanding crackpot sources but you can't respond to my point so we're not going to go anywhere with this. I hope it's at least entertaining for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Stop there. It's not 'hard science', it's 'comic book science'. And, like GH, you avoided my point which is the only one I want to discuss. It's always " the only one I want to discuss", Michael, which illustrates perfectly why no one should ever trust anything you say, or offer. You are already planning your escape. Edited July 5, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: It's always " the only one I want to discuss", Michael, which illustrates perfectly why no one should ever trust anything you say, or offer. Why should they trust you, who *doesn't* want to discuss that one thing ? Your crackpot scientists are not interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Why should they trust you, who *doesn't* want to discuss that one thing ? Your crackpot scientists are not interesting to me. Quote This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. (Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant. Ibid One of thee top US physicists peer reviewed the paper and he has come out as a reviewer. He also won the national debate on 911 science by default because no US scientist will debate for the USGOCT. You, of all people, should not be calling others crackpots. You are the guy who always flees after taking a few potshots. You can't even name any of these scientists, architects, engineers, physicists who you are calling crackpots. You are one of the guys who NEVER brings forth anything from any scientist for the USGOCT because no scientist will try to defend such arrant wackiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Why should they trust you, who *doesn't* want to discuss that one thing ? Oooooooooo, "that one thing"! Ominous, Michael, really ominous. You are so blatantly dishonest. There have been myriad things that you and others would/will never discuss. You, a moderator, provided cover for so many of these folks who do all the drive-by snipings, never addressing the issues as described by MLW guidelines. Edited July 5, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: 1) You are the guy who always flees after taking a few potshots. 2) You are one of the guys who NEVER brings forth anything from any scientist for the USGOCT because no scientist will try to defend such arrant wackiness. 1) Why should I stick around when you refuse to acknowledge the basic sanity of my point ? Why would you never ever acknowledge that unless you are being a dishonest debater ? 2) I have posted the NIST report before. So you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, hot enough said: Oooooooooo, "that one thing"! Ominous, Michael, really ominous. And yet still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Stop there. It's not 'hard science', it's 'comic book science'. Then why is it so impossible for any of you to ever show that. Just a bunch of shermerisms, that all you folks are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1) Why should I stick around when you refuse to acknowledge the basic sanity of my point ? Why would you never ever acknowledge that unless you are being a dishonest debater ? 2) I have posted the NIST report before. So you're wrong. 1) Go ahead, discuss your point! 2) What NIST report did you post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: And yet still... Stop whining and discuss your point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: Then why is it so impossible for any of you to ever show that. Just a bunch of shermerisms, that all you folks are. Insulting me will only amuse me. You can start yourself on the long road to actually convincing me by explaining the rationale behind your scheme to augment a terror attack with an extremely risky and pointless controlled demolition. It's on you. Or you can call me a shermerism again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: Stop whining and discuss your point! Once again: ...the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Insulting me will only amuse me. Wow, the hypocrisy. Quote You can start yourself on the long road to actually convincing me by explaining the rationale behind your scheme to augment a terror attack with an extremely risky and pointless controlled demolition. It's on you. Or you can call me a shermerism again. It's not MY scheme, Michael. Stop beating around the bush and discuss YOUR point! These are the very definition of shermerisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: 1) Wow, the hypocrisy. 2) It's not MY scheme, Michael. Stop beating around the bush and discuss YOUR point! 3) These are the very definition of shermerisms. 1) How is enduring your odd insults hypocritical ? Strange. 2) I just stated it. 3) Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Once again: ...the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense These are hardly complicated for US military demolition experts. It was actually done rather well, tricking even scientists, ... . But too bad the unreacted particles of nanothermite were found, and the widespread molten metals which can only be accounted for with the nanothermite/thermate, which, you must note, was described by RJLee, FEMA, USGS, Steven Jones group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 2) I just stated it. Stating something means squat. Even you know that! Discuss it, taking into consideration all the known facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 I believe I asked 2) What NIST report did you post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 34 minutes ago, hot enough said: I believe I asked 2) What NIST report did you post? I believe that I have posted the original NIST report from the 9/11 commission. And yes, planting explosives to bring down the 2 tallest buildings in the world, killing thousands without detection system is difficult obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 5, 2017 Report Share Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said: I guess the fact that you ignored the point of my post means you accept it then ? What stupid logic brings you to that conclusion? I skipped over a few pages and started posting again. What?? You've NEVER done that? Also what point did you want me to address here?? Edited July 5, 2017 by GostHacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 6, 2017 Report Share Posted July 6, 2017 56 minutes ago, GostHacked said: Also what point did you want me to address here?? ...the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted July 6, 2017 Report Share Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, hot enough said: Here's a video for you, Rue, that you might learn a bit. Wow. Clearly you didn't. You just produced a ridiculous conspiracy tape but even funnier it proves the point I made that in fact there is no such thing as eutectic steel. Its discussing what it calls eutectic formations on the steel. Did you even listen? God you can be embarrassing. The steel was not and is not eutectic. The friggin film explains to you the steel appears to have eutectic formations, i.e., burn marks. The fact the film maker used the head-line eutectic steel did not prove its eutectic steel in fact the idiot who made that headline should have stated steel with eutectic formations because that is all your tape thinks it is showing.. Not only that you show again you reproduce films that express subjective opinions not facts established by scientific methodology but keep coming on this forum claiming you are engaging in science. The idiot who made this film is no different then some jack ass who sees Mary in his urine stain. Get back to me when you can grasp what eutectic means until then show someone else your stains kid. Hari Krishna Kroishna Krishna Hari Krishna Krishna Hari. Edited July 6, 2017 by Rue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted July 6, 2017 Report Share Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, hot enough said: I believe I asked 2) What NIST report did you post? The one with eutectic formations. No just kidding, The only eutectic formations are the ones caused in my neurons when they try handle your responses. Either you are again engaging in denial or you are being lazy which one is it? Edited July 6, 2017 by Rue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted July 6, 2017 Report Share Posted July 6, 2017 2 hours ago, hot enough said: Stating something means squat. Even you know that! Discuss it, taking into consideration all the known facts. Ok so using that logic your response said nothing and you knew that. Lol you just don't quit with the absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 6, 2017 Report Share Posted July 6, 2017 43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: ...the idea of augmenting an already-planned plane attack with a completely unnecessary and complicated demolition makes no sense Amen to that. The logic here should be quite obvious. And of course the question has never been responded to as far as I have seen (by HE), as to how the myriad of people that would have had to have been involved in this great conspiracy could have been kept silent all these years. Extreme fixation is a bit scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I believe that I have posted the original NIST report from the 9/11 commission. You believe? The 911 Commission didn't write or have anything to do with the NIST reports. NIST reports came out after and much after the 911C report. You really don't know much about this at all. That seems to be the norm here, none of the anti-truthers/science deniers/supporters of the USGOCT don't even know anything about it. That's why no one can provide any evidence for the USGOCT. Quote And yes, planting explosives to bring down the 2 tallest buildings in the world, killing thousands without detection system is difficult obviously. Yet you are willing to believe the phantasmagorical USGOCT, the one that none of you can provide any evidence for, the one, that, when one looks at the evidence, it is totally impossible, a goofy as all get out conspiracy theory. The science says THREE, not 2 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, because the USGOCT can't account for the alleged hijackers doing all these impossible things that none of you know anything about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts