Jump to content

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

1) anti-truthers like you who make a mockery of all the people murdered on 911 and since because of huge lies, huge lies that

2) you are supporting with your ZERO evidence. 

3) Still none of this voluminous evidence you say is available, Michael. Answer the questions I have posed to you and bcsapper.

4) What are you so afraid of? Why do you continue with your lame song and dance?

1) On the contrary, I would say suggesting that victims were faked or that their lives didn't exist at all is more of a mockery.  Again, I defer to the right to self-express, including hateful lies, rather than try to moralize.

2) Even you must admit it's hyperbolic to say 'zero' evidence.

3) There are plenty of testimonies and videos available.  I would submit one, but it won't make a difference to you.

4) If I were afraid, then I might suggest you be imprisoned or ask for you to be banned for propagating falsehoods.  While it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, it's not illegal to yell "Leprechaun !"  This latter area is the safe zone that you currently occupy, even as you express contempt for the very institutions that protect you.  I don't fear Leprechauns, do you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I watched.  Parsing the testimonies for words as he has done is fraught with problems.  .. If I were more bored I would watch more.

He is a qualified research professor. Talking to professional firefighters. You anti-truthers make these silly blanket statements as if your words have some quantifiable value when it is just the opinions of people who know nothing about the issues or the science.

You have illustrated in all your offerings from the get go that you have no science knowledge at all. 

You still haven't addressed any of the gigantic impossibilities. When are you going to announce your departure? 

 

Quote

The pre-planted explosion theory still makes no sense, let alone the "no planes" theory or whatever else..

That shows that you make no sense. You are defending murderers for what silly reason, I can't imagine. 

You do this not by offering any evidence to support the incredibly wacky conspiracy theory you support, you just deny reality after reality with no evidence whatsoever. "... or whatever else..

You make no sense at all for there was nanothermite there and there was much molten/vaporized metals. You and the rest of your science denying crowd have seen it pouring out of WTC2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Even you must admit it's hyperbolic to say 'zero' evidence.

3) There are plenty of testimonies and videos available.  I would submit one, but it won't make a difference to you.

The anti-truthers: "There's all this evidence but I prefer to keep it private."

All you have done since your latest return, Michael, is dither and avoid the hard facts, and, as is always the case, never provide any evidence to support the USGOCT. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, hot enough said:

All you have done since your latest return, Michael, is dither and avoid the hard facts, and, as is always the case, never provide any evidence to support the USGOCT. 

Yes, I provided a link to the Guardian article which you dismissed out-of-hand.  Very easy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I provided a link to the Guardian article which you dismissed out-of-hand.  Very easy to do.

It wasn't the Guardian. So much for your evidence. You quote the liars as evidence for the same liars' conspiracy theory. 

None of that changes all the hard physical evidence that you dismiss out of hand, the hard physical evidence that is still totally lacking from any of you. 

[You don't need hyphens for out of hand. That is illustrative of an old fuddy duddy who clings to old useless information]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, hot enough said:

 [You don't need hyphens for out of hand. That is illustrative of an old fuddy duddy who clings to old useless information]

Ok, so what do you want me to do ?  Google 9/11 video then post it here ?  Will that preclude you from saying there is 'zero' evidence then ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, so what do you want me to do ?  Google 9/11 video then post it here ?  Will that preclude you from saying there is 'zero' evidence then ?

Your quoted portion has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You always fail to address that which embarrasses you and you jump to a new tangent. 

In fact, you STILL haven't dealt with any of the issues, scientific evidence, absolute impossibilities that make the USGOCT a zero possibility. 

If you need someone to help you determine what is evidence we are both wasting our time here. You should simply volunteer to stop posting. 

Try again. 

It wasn't the Guardian. So much for your evidence. You quote the liars who gave you the yellowcake stories, the Iraq WMDs, the liars who planned the genocide of the Iraqis in the 1990s which killed a million people, as evidence for the same liars' conspiracy theory. 

None of that changes all the hard physical evidence that you dismiss out of hand, the hard physical evidence that is still totally lacking from any of you. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omni said, in another thread: It certainly is if it can be proven that that conversation actually took place as described because it provides the magic ingredient "intent".  

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

And this provides intent, Bush and his guilty conscience. Bush knows there were bombs in the twin towers, as do all the science denying USGOCT supporters here - Michael Hardner, bcsapper, Omni, Boges, Hal, ..., the latter two have been honest enough to admit it.

[bolding/size increase is mine]

Quote

 

George W. Bush Opens Up About His Sleepless Nights After 9/11

...

The 43rd president recognizes, however, that his plight was “incomparable” to the firefighters, police officers and other responders who witnessed the tragedy firsthand.

“I had a job to do,” he says. “They had a job to do, but I didn’t see the horrific scenes they saw nor did I get concussed by the loud explosions and the bombs that went off around them.”

http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-opens-up-about-his-sleepless-nights-after-911/

 

http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-opens-up-about-his-sleepless-nights-after-911/

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

If there were, they would have found the chemical signatures in the dust. But they didn't.

Wrong again, OftenWrong. Surely you don't doubt GW Bush!

NIST didn't and wouldn't look for that. How unscientific is that?

Nanothermite was found in the dust, unreacted particle and the chemical signature of these thermitic reactions. 

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen3

(NH) Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark. 

Electronic publication date 3/4/2009
[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
 

Abstract:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

If there were, they would have found the chemical signatures in the dust. But they didn't.

It's rather amazing what gobbledygook the conspiracy theorists will buy into seemingly endlessly. I see HE has now bought into the one "no planes" one. Funny in a way, but also bit frightening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Wrong again, OftenWrong. Surely you don't doubt GW Bush!

NIST didn't and wouldn't look for that. How unscientific is that?

Nanothermite was found in the dust, unreacted particle and the chemical signature of these thermitic reactions.

So you say. But thermitic explosives produce a characteristic, very brilliant white light. Nothing of the sort was observed on 9/11. And no chemical markers for conventional explosives were found, neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Omni said:

It's rather amazing what gobbledygook the conspiracy theorists will buy into seemingly endlessly. I see HE has now bought into the one "no planes" one. Funny in a way, but also bit frightening. 

Result of unchecked leftism- delusions, selective attention, paranoia and final descent into madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Result of unchecked leftism- delusions, selective attention, paranoia and final descent into madness.

Oh I think it's quite a stretch to try and say it's left or right ism. People on both sides of the political divide can understand science, and can also succumb to paranoia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2017 at 8:56 PM, OftenWrong said:

If there were, they would have found the chemical signatures in the dust. But they didn't.

Why are you ignoring GW Bush describing bombs and explosions going off in the twin towers?

Why are you ignoring the 503 eyewitnesses to bombs and explosions?

Why are you and Omni engaging in another round of USGOCT supporters still never providing any evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Omni said:

It's rather amazing what gobbledygook the conspiracy theorists will buy into seemingly endlessly. I see HE has now bought into the one "no planes" one. Funny in a way, but also bit frightening. 

Another Omni set of lies. Same old Omni lying again. 

Do you understand what 'bye bye' means? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Omni said:

People on both sides of the political divide can understand science,

Some can, but you are not among those people. You deny reality, you deny evidence, you provide no evidence ever and you don't even understand the meaning of 'bye bye'. 

You hold to the ludicrous idea that a falling building can produce nanothermite. And you aren't even bright enough to realize that if that were the case then there was no discovery by the US Lawrence Livermore scientists. They are blowing their horns for nothing.

Have you never asked yourself, Why aren't all the scientists saying to the US Lawrence Livermore scientists, "You guys didn't discover anything, I can make nanothermite in my kitchen? 

Have you never asked yourself why did they give a patent for these new super explosives when any old "scientist Omni" can make nanothermite at home? 

And not a one of your equally totally dumb USGOCT supporters have called you on your lunacy, which illustrates 1) that they are as scientifically stupid, or, 2) they are complicit in your massive lying campaign. 

The notion that you folks have been scientifically aware and/or scientifically honest is the biggest lie of all. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

So you say.

But thermitic explosives produce a characteristic, very brilliant white light. Nothing of the sort was observed on 9/11.

So the science and the scientists say. You don't have the foggiest notion what the new nanothermite explosives can do. Hell, you seriously deluded folks are still denying its existence. It exists and it was present in WTC dust. Anyone who is sentient knows what that means. There were no Arab hijackers, which, of course, no a one of the seriously delusional USOGCT supporters have ever been able to offer any evidence for. 

Quote

 

Quote

And no chemical markers for conventional explosives were found, neither.

 

I already told you, OftenWrong. NIST refused to test for explosives. Why? Because NIST's work was farcical science, it was Bush rigged science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

So the science and the scientists say. You don't have the foggiest notion what the new nanothermite explosives can do. Hell, you seriously deluded folks are still denying its existence. It exists and it was present in WTC dust. Anyone who is sentient knows what that means. There were no Arab hijackers, which, of course, no a one of the seriously delusional USOGCT supporters have ever been able to offer any evidence for. 

I already told you, OftenWrong. NIST refused to test for explosives. Why? Because NIST's work was farcical science, it was Bush rigged science.

All you have are insults in response to my observation about thermitic explosions. Therefore I know, and you have proven, you know nothing. Now everyone here can see what a little liar you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2017 at 11:39 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1) On the contrary, I would say suggesting that victims were faked or that their lives didn't exist at all is more of a mockery.  Again, I defer to the right to self-express, including hateful lies, rather than try to moralize.

2) Even you must admit it's hyperbolic to say 'zero' evidence.

3) There are plenty of testimonies and videos available.  I would submit one, but it won't make a difference to you.

4) If I were afraid, then I might suggest you be imprisoned or ask for you to be banned for propagating falsehoods.  While it's illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, it's not illegal to yell "Leprechaun !"  This latter area is the safe zone that you currently occupy, even as you express contempt for the very institutions that protect you.  I don't fear Leprechauns, do you ?

1. All you have ever done is hateful lies, and in this latest posting, that's all you are doing. Zero evidence, again!

2. Stop talking about it and produce some evidence. Provide evidence for the molten steel flowing out of WTC2 is something else.

Provide evidence to explain the presence of nanothermite in WTC dust. Provide evidence that can explain the molten/vaporized metals. 

Provide evidence that can explain how the supposed gravity collapse of WTC7 fell at free fall speed. 

Provide evidence that can explain how the supposed gravity collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 fell at accelerating speeds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

All you have are insults in response to my observation about thermitic explosions. Therefore I know, and you have proven, you know nothing. Now everyone here can see what a little liar you are.

You and Omni just finished a set of intended insults and you have the unmitigated gall to pull this arrant nonsense. You are and have always been, very dishonest.

Because you are making silly responses that you try to characterize as "observations" when you have shown all along that you know very little about the events. You know that all you are trying to do is create confusion and smoke and mirrors. 

Your "observations" mean absolutely zilch when measured against the thousands of scientists, architects, engineers, physicists, ... who have studied all this in great detail. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You and Omni just finished a set of intended insults and you have the unmitigated gall to pull this arrant nonsense. You are and have always been, very dishonest.

Because you are making silly responses that you try to characterize as "observations" when you have shown all along that you know very little about the events. You know that all you are trying to do is create confusion and smoke and mirrors. 

Your "observations" mean absolutely zilch when measured against the thousands of scientists, architects, engineers, physicists, ... who have studied all this in great detail. 

Have you explained to Omni how the buildings fell without any resistance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Have you explained to Omni how the buildings fell without any resistance?

Actually, many times. Even in my last post.

Provide evidence that can explain how the supposed gravity collapse of WTC7 fell at free fall speed. 

Provide evidence that can explain how the supposed gravity collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 fell at accelerating speeds. 

Provide evidence that can explain how the supposed gravity collapse of WTC7 fell at free fall speed. 

Provide evidence that can explain how the supposed gravity collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 fell at accelerating speeds. 

Please, Hal, by all means, I encourage you to jump right in and do so. 

Omni is totally blind, as are most people, including Michael Hardner. None of them will face up to any reality, because they know to do so to myriad realities will sink their little boat, the one they so desperately cling to. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...