Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[hot enough]

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

Its clear to anyone who has seen the tape the liquid metal was never definitively tested to be able to be defined as  only being steel.

But it was shown that NIST lied, AGAIN, stating that it was aluminum. When told it couldn't be aluminum because of the color, they invented a story that they knew was wrong, another NIST lie. The experiments prove it was not aluminum. Yet NIST still has that LIE on their FAQs page. Always lying, that is NIST. 

If you were to act as an honest lawyer/barrister, you would state that anyone or any government body that lied that much is not to be trusted.

In fact you have no proof it was not lead, aluminum or that it was steel.

Man, you are dishonest, Rue. All you had to do was read the material. Your deny deny deny schtick is getting really old. Even if you were defending a client, this level of lying would not be tolerated in a court of law. Have you been disbarred?

"NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire."

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

 

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by hot enough

[Rue]

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

because there is scientific proof in the article I provided, in the form of scientific experiments that refute the false NIST contention that it was molten aluminum. A scientist who worked for NIST actually did the experiment that proved organics would not mix with molten aluminum, but NIST knew that was false even before they advanced it.

Did you even read what you stated? Do you read what you reproduce?  You clearly have not. The phrase " experiment proved organics would not mix with molten aluminum"  is something you wrote as your interpretation of what you think the "experiment" showed. What "organics"?  What you said is illogical. What organics? How did this alleged scientist by using the alleged "organics" he did rule out the liquid metal could not have been aluminum. That is an out and out false statement for two reasons. First the substance that you think was molten steel was never obtained by any of your conspiracy theorists. I repeat they never examined the molten metals.

Next what organics did they use and how did they know those organics were in the molten metal they found? Lol you never read the experiment and are trying to bluff your way through as if you did.

Go on reproduce the alleged organics and what they were tested on. They never ruled out aluminum at the WTC. No one ever has. That is an out and out bold faced lie.

At this point you just spew it out hoping no one notices.

[hot enough]

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

Again is there something seriously wrong with you you want to share? Why would you come on this forum, call everyone who disagrees with you a liar and other childish insults then quote the very MLW guidelines you openly break?

I am not breaking the rules. I am stating a fact. You folks lie by omission, diversion and just outright lie. 

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, Rue said:

Did you even read what you stated? Do you read what you reproduce?  You clearly have not. The phrase " experiment proved organics would not mix with molten aluminum"  is something you wrote as your interpretation of what you think the "experiment" showed. What "organics"?  What you said is illogical. What organics? How did this alleged scientist by using the alleged "organics" he did rule out the liquid metal could not have been aluminum.

You have to read the material, Rue. Do you need a definition of "organics"?

Another of your lies by omission or you have read it and you are outright lying or you don't understand what you are reading. Do you now have a license to practice law or was it taken away from you?

Edited July 8, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

hoping no one notices.

I notice that you are long on lies and/or diversion and absent on sources and evidence.

Edited July 8, 2017 by hot enough

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I notice that you are long on lies and/or diversion and absent on sources and evidence.

The techniques of calling people liars and pretending they have not sent you any information is spent. The fact you keep using these techniques over and over again is sad. You clearly have run out of gas and at this point don't know how to respond other than to chant Hari Kirshna hoping people just give up on responding and you can delude yourself into thinking you scared them away with your brilliance.

Actually no. I think people have seen you for what you are. But hey me I love wacking the mole.

Now in post 476 you took my words in response to your earlier post and added your read comments into my quote showing you don't know how to use the quote button. That's not surprising.

What is bizarre is your response.

Let's summarize shall we. You presented a you tube tape that alleges it shows metal liquid. Nothing in that tape proved or provided proof that the metal liquid was steel. In fact all the tape did was speculate it was steel.

In your bizarre response you didn't address the issue and instead tried to change the subject and said NIST lied calling the metal liquid aluminum. That makes zero sense. Even if we were to believe NIST "lied" and NIST in fact did not prove the metal liquid was aluminum that would not prove the metal liquid was steel only that NIST lied. You can't even grasp that point.  Its a basic point.You would have people believe things are proven scientifically not through proper methodological process but by simply calling someone else a liar.

That repeats this behaviour pattern you exhibit on this board that whenever anyone presents you with evidence to the contrary to your theories, you think by simply calling their evidence a lie, yours automatically must be true. That is not only illogical but I exhibits a repetitive personality disorder feature.

You keep repeating the same "you iied" response to then try infer, that therefore what ever you say, has to be true

No. If the entire forum at this point and as you ha e exhibited many many people including scientists, engineers, people you don't know but call liars..even if they are all liars as you say it still does not prove your theories. Your theories until they are proven are only that, speculation.

Now your technique of repeatedly calling all information you don't know how to respond to a lie, is worn. Its exposed, its spent, either debate the evidence or run along.

Get it clear, the fact you think NIST lied did not prove the liquid metal in your tape was proven to be steel. You inferred that from the alleged lie. You. Not the tape, not some scientist with an experiment as you falsely stated, just you.

[Rue]

34 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You have to read the material, Rue. Do you need a definition of "organics"?

Another of your lies by omission or you have read it and you are outright lying or you don't understand what you are reading. Do you now have a license to practice law or was it taken away from you?

That bluff is not going to work nor will the attempt to insult me does not detract from your inability to explain what THE organics were you think you read. In fact your above sentence shows you never read what you claim to have. The definition of "organics" wouldn't address the issue.  If you had understood my question and the nature of THE  organics you claim to have read you would know the definition OF organics would not address the issue and one would need to know THE organics used in the alleged experiment. You again pull a "eutectic steel" using the descriptor incorrectly showing you bluff.

Here's a hint Hot Enough, as much as you try ridicule me for being a lawyer and trying to bring that into this discussion its not my law back-ground that deciphers and keeps track of your slip ups-its another discipline I have. Can you guess?  Lol. Definition of organics. Good Gawd man. At least read what you pretend to have read.

 

" I asked him, son how old are you and he responded, you'll have to read my biography..I then said, ah 15 and pimples."

Rue 1323

Edited July 8, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, Rue said:

The techniques of calling people liars and pretending they have not sent you any information is spent. The fact you keep using these techniques over and over again is sad. You clearly have run out of gas and at this point don't know how to respond other than to chant Hari Kirshna hoping people just give up on responding and you can delude yourself into thinking you scared them away with your brilliance.

These determinations were made by scientists, Which you are not even close to being, Rue. You are a science denier, you don't understand anything about the science. You do understand lying, diversions, scams, misdirection.

Did you read the article? No. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

That bluff is not going to work. You have no clue what organics you refer to.

I know and you would also know if you knew anything about NIST's lie and how it was proven false. It's all in the article. What you don't understand, you can ask questions for and I will help you out. 

The attempt to insult me does not detract from your inability to explain what the organics were you think you read.

You insult yourself and there is nothing I can do about that, Rue. It's in your nature.

In fact your above sentence shows you never red[sic] what you claim to have. The definition of "organics" wouldn't address the issue. 

When you have read the article, then you can talk. In your present state of abysmal ignorance, or pathological lying, there's nothing I can do. There is nothing relating to the science in your screeds, Rue. 

 

Edited July 8, 2017 by hot enough

[Rue]

22 minutes ago, hot enough said:

These determinations were made by scientists, Which you are even close to being, Rue. You are a science denier, you don't understand anything about the science. You do understand lying, diversions, scams, misdirection.

Did you read the article? No. 

That was pathetic. "determinations"? You want to play. When someone proves something by a scientific methodology they don't make a "determination" they render a conclusion.

Now let's get this clear. You are well aware there were no conclusions made because no scientist conducted any experiment that concluded anything. This is why you now lamely try to play semantics and use the word "determination" because you know they didn't conclude anything. They didn't determine a damn thing, they speculated theories.

Now let me remind you of your latest slip up. When I challenged the tape, you responded talking about "materials" not the tape. You tried to change the focus away from the tape to "materials"  to avoid having to deal with the fact the tape proved nothing and now you hope no one will notice that and instead switch focus to "materials"

Then you have the audacity to accuse me of lying, diversions, scams and misdirection in the very exercise of doing the same in response to me. My how that pattern repeats where you do the exact thing you accuse others of in the very accusation.

You asked me did I read the article? What a lame question. What a pathetic attempt to manipulate. You know damn well I can't answer whether I read "the" article"  because you've never identified it the article you claim to have read.

I have caught you numerous times bluffing your way through responses and when you are exposed not having read the article you claimed you did trying to switch to claiming you meant another article.

When I challenged you on a Steven Jones paper you claim was peer reviewed which you knew was not, you switched reference to a second paper trying to bluff your way that it was peer reviewed because you saw it had 9 contributors. What you could not grasp is a contributor to an article can't and does not peer review his own article.

This crap is over.

You really think you can play with me like that? No.

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

Ok at this point looking at your latest response where you misuse the quote feature again I see clearly you have no clue as to what article you claim to have read and are at this point just trying bluff your way with insults.

Enough.

When you respond with the alleged experiment and the organics and try explain why you think it proved the liquid metal at the WTC was steel I will try decipher your babbles.

" I appreciate in the grand scheme of things something has to eat the dung..but man I just don't get dung beatles..."

Rue 1333.76

Edited July 9, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

12 minutes ago, Rue said:

You are well aware there were no conclusions made because no scientist conducted any experiment that concluded anything.

The conclusion is that NIST lied, which we all know, and it was not aluminum. There was white smoke, witnessed and described by NIST, which is indicative of a thermitic reaction. There is no other metal source of the volume necessary to provide that flow seen pouring out of WTC2.

You are clinging to a straw, because you know that you are up a stump - it is not aluminum. That is why NIST wouldn't do the experiments to prove their silly notion that organics were mixed with aluminum to create the color. It is molten steel. The same molten steel seen and described by myriad eyewitnesses, up to February 2002. 

Quote

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero

  

A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11.[Source: Frank Silecchia]In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center: 
 Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation, and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, will later tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that moltenmetal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 4/1/2003] 
 William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, will describe, “n the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [LANGEWIESCHE, 2002, PP. 32] 
 Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU NEWS, 10/2001 ] 
 Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding moltensteel.” [JOHNS HOPKINS PUBLIC HEALTH MAGAZINE, 2001] 
 Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, 9/2003, PP. 40 ] 
 Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There, he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—moltenmetal dripping from a beam.” [US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 9/12/2002] 
 According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [NATIONAL GUARD MAGAZINE, 12/2001] 
 New York firefighters will recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004] 
 As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [KNIGHT RIDDER, 5/29/2002] 
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [DESERET MORNING NEWS, 11/10/2005] There will be no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 5/1/2002; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 9/2005] 

 

[hot enough]

18 minutes ago, Rue said:

When you respond with the alleged experiment and the organics and try explain why you think it proved the liquid metal at the WTC was steel

You know of the experiment because you/or Omni have provided the USGOCT supporter reply. I have posted both the video and the article at least twice and I know that you have seen it. So you are either incredibly incompetent, Rue, or you are lying as you normally do. 

[Rue]

I am not playing with you Hot Enough. Yu have not a clue what organics you are talking about so you can not respond to them. Your refusal to provide the experiment shows like your pathetic attempt with the misuse of eutectic to describe steel or suggest anything Steven Jones has done was peer reviewed that you are caught in a lie and so you can't answer.

Now here is what I know. You would have people believe NIST lied just as you would have people believe anyone who disagrees with you lies. You consider anything that does not come from conspiracy theorists to be a lie. In fact you have made the accusation so many times like the boy who cried Wolf all you have done is reveal when you have no clue how to rebut a counterpoint call it a lie.

Here is what I know:

1-the melting point of steel is 1,500 degrees Celsius or 2,800 degrees farenheit.

2-The temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees farenheit.

3-I don't need a NIST report to tell me nor would anyone else that the jet fuel from the airplanes could not have melted any steel.

4-that the NIST report stated the maximum upper layer air temperatures at the WTC were 1,000 degrees Celsius.

5-Steel most certainly can buckle at the 1,000 degrees Celsius.

6-that no documented evidence exists to conclude that molten steel was found and in fact the eye witness reports from workers proved to be false as to what they thought they found

7-that no WTC conspiracy theorist ever saw first hand or obtained first hand any molten steel from the WTC and in fact Steve Jones was caught fabricating evidence and was so stupid as to pass off as molten steel debris that had writing on it and later was proven to be paper

8-that Hot Enough pretends the following evidence does not exist, was never given to him, or if given to him is a lie but he has never responded directly to it instead going back to only his theories and refusing to address it:

 

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

 

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2013/03/debunking-molten-metal-2439630.html

 

9-what I know is Hot Enough fabricates studies and experiments that don't exist, switches papers and documents or what he calls "materials" when they are repudiated and he has no way of retracting his statements and poses the new materials as the old ones he was referring to.

10-Does not understand how to use the term eutectoid as a descriptor.

11-Does not understand the experiments he claims he read would use the term organics in a general sense and would have to have used them in a specific sense referring to specific carbon based elements but he has no clue what those elements are.

12-Hot Enough when caught not knowing what he claims he presents tries to tell the challenger to read the paper he has not read and in my case can't even tell me the paper he read that contains "organic references".

13-That he has no idea what a peer review is and thinks someone can peer review themself.

 

[Rue]

35 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You know of the experiment because you/or Omni have provided the USGOCT supporter reply. I have posted both the video and the article at least twice and I know that you have seen it. So you are either incredibly incompetent, Rue, or you are lying as you normally do. 

The technique of calling me a liar does not hide the fact you can't provide the experiment, neither does your pathetic attempt to say I know what the experiment was because I provided a " USGOCT supporter reply".  What the  hell is a  "USGOCT supporter reply"  and how is that the experiment I asked you to provide?

Your answers are at this point pathetic. You not only can not walk yourself out of your lie, you babble. USGOCT supporter claims will not divert from your inability to provide the experiment. Its not working. You are caught read handed unable to respond and provide the experiment because quite simply you fabricated it. It does not exist, just like your fabricated peer review was shown never to have existed..

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

You have no clue how to respond to the above so you do 3 things:

1-pretend the information given to you never was; and

2-call anyone who gives you the information, a liar; and

 

You quoted the article on this very page, Rue. What are you, a bald faced liar? a totally incompetent poster? a disbarred lawyer?

Quote

3-periodically provide you tube tapes of people speculating theories and then passing them off as proven facts.

That is the specialty of the USGOCT science deniers/anti-truthers, the Rues, the Omnis, the OftenWrongs, the eyeballs, the Michael Hardners, the ..., folks who will deny realities and cling to falsehoods. 

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Rue said:

You are caught read[sic] handed

You are the one that has been caught red handed, Rue, proclaiming you haven't seen the article when you have quoted it yourself. And no one possesses the slightest measure of honesty which would lead them to say, "Rue, you asked for the article and it's in the link you quoted".

[hot enough]

49 minutes ago, Rue said:

4-that the NIST report stated the maximum upper layer air temperatures at the WTC were 1,000 degrees Celsius.

5-Steel most certainly can buckle at the 1,000 degrees Celsius.

Abysmal ignorance, Rue. Upper layer air temperatures do not remotely reflect as steel temperatures. You all keep ignoring that there have been huge fires in other buildings, some for as long as a day, buildings totally engulfed and no collapses. 

Quote

Summarizing: 

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. 

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). 

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. 

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. 

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." 

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). 

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers. 

Conclusion: 

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center. 

 

Quote

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal. 

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped." 

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway." 

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned." 

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived. 

Ibid

Quote

hot enough: How did these people survive if the temperatures were as hot as you/NIST say? How did Edna Citron come to be standing in the hole created by the plane in WTC1, right at the wall edge, along with a couple of other people, if the fires were so hot? This would have been the area where much of the jet fuel would have been dumped. They remained there until the collapse. That indicates that the fires were out and the steel was cooling. 

Quote

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur." 

Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively." 

Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel. 

Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical): 

Full scale fire tests	Maximum measured steel temperature
Country	Beam	Column
UK	275 C (527 F)	360 C (680 F)
Japan	245 C (473 F)	242 C (467 F)
USA	226 C (438 F)	-
Australia	340 C (644 F)	320 C (608 F)

A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC. 

To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).

Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation. 

I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers. 

— J. McMichael 

 

Rue: 6-that no documented evidence exists to conclude that molten steel was found and in fact the eye witness reports from workers proved to be false as to what they thought they found

hot enough: There is a great deal of documented eyewitnesses to huge volumes of molten steel, flowing like rivers, until February 2002. Why was all the millions of gallons of water needed to cool the high temperatures recorded by the USGS? Why didn't the Pyrocool help lower the temperatures below the rubble. 

Quote

 

Rue: 7-that no WTC conspiracy theorist ever saw first hand or obtained first hand any molten steel from the WTC

You, the US conspiracy theory supporter lie, Rue. There is the FEMA steel, the picture of John Gross touching a molten/vaporized steel beam/column. The fused concrete and steel, the molten handguns, the 

Rue: and in fact Steve Jones was caught fabricating evidence and was so stupid as to pass off as molten steel debris that had writing on it and later was proven to be paper

Provide your source. You never provide any sources. Sources are not good for consummate liars, are they, Rue?

Edited July 9, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Provide your source

When are you ever going to provide your source as to how the planes hit the buildings if they weren't hijacked?

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, hot enough said:

How does this escape a guy who normally appears sensible? 

If I'm so sensible why did you think it would escape my notice that you're changing the goalposts?

I asked you how many peers have reviewed your extraordinary claim.

I haven't made any claim that requires review. You on the other hand have and given its extraordinariness it should be subject to extraordinary review.  

 

  

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

1) If I'm so sensible why did you think it would escape my notice that you're changing the goalposts?

2) I asked you how many peers have reviewed your extraordinary claim.

3) I haven't made any claim that requires review. You on the other hand have and given its extraordinariness it should be subject to extraordinary review.  

1) That was tongue in cheek. What goalposts have been moved [not changed]?

2) Talk about moving the goalposts. It is not my claim, it is the science of 9 top of their field scientists. I told you already, there has been no peer review of the Harrit et al scientific paper by any scientists for the USGOCT. That means it is the established science. 

How does US government/military proprietary nanothermite come to be at WTC, melting structural steel in the twin towers and WTC7?

3) You have made many crazy claims. You deny all manner of scientific impossibilities to offer your support to a crazy conspiracy theory that has no evidence to support it. How did the "hijackers" melt steel, molybdenum 4700F, vaporize lead 3,180F, deliver the nanothermate to the twin towers AND WTC7?!! 

 

Have you found any videos/pictures of the hijackers? How about DNA? Did you know that the phone calls to Ted Olson from his wife never occurred? That's where the hijackers with box cutters myth came from. All the phone calls were fakes. Can you explain to us how a "hijacker" passport made it out of the "jet" that hit WTC1 unsinged and floated to the sidewalk? Can you explain how this passport story changed when it wasn't convincing enough?

Can you explain how the engine that flew out of WTC2 and landed on Murray Street was not the kind of engine used in the 767-200? Yet that is the plane that the USGOCT says flew into WTC2.

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Have you found any videos/pictures of the hijackers?

Lots of them. Where have you been.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=pictures+and+videos+of+9%3D11+hijackers&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH2om9tfvUAhVT3mMKHTHWD0AQ7AkIMQ&biw=1058&bih=474&dpr=1.25#imgrc=abgJFLllkmxKpM:

[hot enough]

25 minutes ago, Omni said:

When are you ever going to provide your source as to how the planes hit the buildings if they weren't hijacked?

Any sentient human with half a functioning brain knows that such a source can't exist, Omni.

When are you going to address the wrong engine for the WTC2 plane landing on Murray Street?

When are you going to describe evidence that shows the planes that the USGOCT describes are the planes that hit the towers?

[hot enough]

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

Lots of them. Where have you been.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=pictures+and+videos+of+9%3D11+hijackers&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH2om9tfvUAhVT3mMKHTHWD0AQ7AkIMQ&biw=1058&bih=474&dpr=1.25#imgrc=abgJFLllkmxKpM:

No time and date stamps, Omni. 

=============================

The Official Account

The 9/11 Commission Report holds that four airplanes (American Airlines flights 11 and 77, and United Airlines flights 93 and 175) were hijacked on 9/11. [1]

The Best Evidence

Pilots are trained to “squawk” the universal hijack code (7500) [2] on a transponder if they receive evidence of an attempted hijacking, thereby notifying FAA controllers on the ground. But leading newspapers and the 9/11 Commission pointed out that FAA controllers were not notified. [3]

A CNN story said that pilots are trained to send the hijack code “if possible.” [4] But entering the code takes only two or three seconds, whereas it took hijackers, according to the official story, more than 30 seconds to break into the pilots’ cabin of Flight 93. [5]

The fact that not one of the eight pilots performed this required action casts serious doubt on the hijacker story. [6]

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Any sentient human with half a functioning brain knows that such a source can't exist, Omni.

That has to be about the flimsiest excuse you have tried so far. There are ATC recordings of the hijackers, but you already know that.