hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 41 minutes ago, capricorn said: Aw, and that would have ended his access to any more government and university research grants. Omni: Too bad his paper on 9-11 got him put under review from his teaching job due to it's lack of any rigorous peer review. ================== Why didn't you question Omni on his lies, capricorn? Because you didn't know he was lying. Now you do. Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: In science we only ask relevant questions. We ignore the unimportant ones. For such big brains as ours, time is money... You aren't a scientist. That much is clear. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 Science quack Stephen Jones has already published something on the Grenfell Towers ? He's sure is fast !! Must have been "nano-thermite" once again. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 53 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Must have been "nano-thermite" once again. Nanothermite is an important issue. 1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s? 2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust? 3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust? 4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see? 5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum? Quote Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives ... At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh. These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods." https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 39 minutes ago, hot enough said: Nanothermite is an important issue. No it's not....and certainly not for this topic (Grenfell Towers). Nanu Nanu ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: No it's not....and certainly not for this topic (Grenfell Towers). Nanu Nanu ! Why are you science deniers so afraid of answering questions? 1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s? 2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust? 3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust? 4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see? 5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum? Quote
eyeball Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 7 hours ago, hot enough said: I don't know. Do you? I'm pretty certain I do. I've walked around the epicenter of an explosion that was caused by 12000 lbs of TNT. It took a crew of 6 guys about a week to set it up and everywhere you looked after the dust settled there were bits and pieces of plastic from the wires that connected everything together. How much thermite was used, how long and how many guys did it take to set it up, where are all the bits and pieces of plastic from the wire that was connected to the thermite?. While you're at it, where are the guilt-stricken whistleblowers that committed this crime? Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, eyeball said: How much thermite was used, how long and how many guys did it take to set it up, where are all the bits and pieces of plastic from the wire that was connected to the thermite?. While you're at it, where are the guilt-stricken whistleblowers that committed this crime? Where are the guilt ridden folks who have slaughtered tens of millions of people in over 70 illegal invasions since WWII? Not to be unkind but you don't have a clue about what is needed for nanothermite. Did you even read the article of the US scientists describing this new super explosive? Why hasn't there been anyone from the US government, any of these scientists come forward to explain the presence of nanothermite, actual unreacted pieces of it, plus the by products of thermitic reactions in WTC dust? 1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s? 2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust? 3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust? 4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see? 5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum? Edited June 20, 2017 by hot enough Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) Quote OftenWrong: "Why don't you calculate the force of a 767 aircraft at 600 MPH hitting a solid object and coming to an immediate stop." There was no immediate stop. You are neither a scientist nor a good observer. The plane wasn't going 600 mph. In fact, with the WTC2 plane, the nose/missile came out the opposite wall. And the engine that flew to Murray Street, only problem, it wasn't an engine that was in the alleged 767-200 that supposedly hit the tower. WTC designers planned for that in the design of the towers. And the amount of jet fuel was quite insignificant. Edited June 20, 2017 by hot enough Quote
Boges Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 Maybe the Grenfell Tower didn't collapse because it isn't 110 stories and wasn't hit by a plane. Quote
Guest Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 24 minutes ago, hot enough said: There was no immediate stop. You are neither a scientist nor a good observer. The plane wasn't going 600 mph. In fact, with the WTC2 plane, the nose/missile came out the opposite wall. And the engine that flew to Murray Street, only problem, it wasn't an engine that was in the alleged 767-200 that supposedly hit the tower. WTC designers planned for that in the design of the towers. And the amount of jet fuel was quite insignificant. Why do you suppose they would go to all the trouble of planning this and then drop the wrong engine on the street? Do you not think someone, at least one of them, might have thought it a good idea to get the right engine? Quote
Wilber Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 47 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Why do you suppose they would go to all the trouble of planning this and then drop the wrong engine on the street? Do you not think someone, at least one of them, might have thought it a good idea to get the right engine? The so called "evidence" is nothing but truthers doing internet searches for engine photos they think they can use to back up their conspiracy.. Edited June 20, 2017 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 34 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Why do you suppose they would go to all the trouble of planning this and then drop the wrong engine on the street? Do you not think someone, at least one of them, might have thought it a good idea to get the right engine? Who said anything about "dropping the wrong engine on the street"? You have never paid the slightest attention to anything, frightened as you are of finding out the truth, bcsapper. You can see the engine flying across the sky in the many videos I have posted on this very issue, the ones it seems that you haven't even watched. Would you, an interested citizen with a modicum of science and an interest in the same, like me to post it again? Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Boges said: Maybe the Grenfell Tower didn't collapse because it isn't 110 stories and wasn't hit by a plane. It didn't even partially collapse, Boges. But it isn't a perfect comparison to the steel framed towers of 911. That style of building has never, ever collapsed, before or since, from fire. Many of those were hours long, raging fires and some of those buildings are still in service. The 110 stories makes it even less likely to collapse, and impossible to totally collapse, because there was so much stone cold steel, much stronger steel below the impact zones. NO fire induced gravity collapse could ever fall symmetrically, hurling multi-ton sections two football fields laterally, eject steel section upwards, acceleration thru the path of greatest resistance [all those defy Newtonian physics] and for WTC7, not hit by a plane, free fall. IMPOSSIBLE! Edited June 20, 2017 by hot enough Quote
Guest Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 12 minutes ago, hot enough said: Who said anything about "dropping the wrong engine on the street"? You have never paid the slightest attention to anything, frightened as you are of finding out the truth, bcsapper. You can see the engine flying across the sky in the many videos I have posted on this very issue, the ones it seems that you haven't even watched. Would you, an interested citizen with a modicum of science and an interest in the same, like me to post it again? You're taking me too literally. Purposely, I suppose, as it relieves you of addressing the point. Obviously I did not mean they backed a Loomis truck up during the incident and offloaded an engine. There would be shipping documents, for one thing, and they would be a dead giveaway. What I meant was, if they are going to claim a plane hit a building, they'd make sure they got the plane right. Frightened? Ha! See what one misses when one uses the ignore feature? Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, bcsapper said: What I meant was, if they are going to claim a plane hit a building, they'd make sure they got the plane right. You would think, right? But they didn't, it's one more, in thousands of pieces of evidence that shows the official story is bogus. Let's discuss it further. One only has to watch the first 1 and a half minutes for the proof. 9/11 - The Impossible Case of Flight 175 Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 59 minutes ago, bcsapper said: What I meant was, if they are going to claim a plane hit a building, they'd make sure they got the plane right. Why do you think a rule of law country, one that FULLY understands the importance of evidence, would bury that Murray Street engine in a landfill one year before the 911 Commission? Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, bcsapper said: Frightened? Ha! See what one misses when one uses the ignore feature? Why do you think there hasn't been even one individual who has come out and said, "You know, there are an awful lot of really unbelievable inconsistencies in the US government story"? Why haven't you, bcsapper? A. Do you deny that there are many unbelievable inconsistencies in the US government story? 1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s? 2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust? 3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust? 4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see? 5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum? Edited June 20, 2017 by hot enough Quote
capricorn Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, hot enough said: Why do you think there hasn't been even one individual who has come out and said, "You know, there are am awful lot of really unbelievable inconsistencies in the US government story"? As you have no doubt surmised by now, this site is not fertile ground for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It beats me why you're still at it here. Surely there must be at least one internet site where 9/11 conspiracy theorists can gather. There, they can massage each other's posts and links in order to nurture their views of the 9/11 event. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, capricorn said: As you have no doubt surmised by now, this site is not fertile ground for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It beats me why you're still at it here. Surely there must be at least one internet site where 9/11 conspiracy theorists can gather. There, they can massage each other's posts and links in order to nurture their views of the 9/11 event. It is incredible what escapes you, capricorn. Do you deny that there are many unbelievable inconsistencies in the US government story? Yours is the same illogic that would deny your own father is a rapist and a child molester when he sits in prison with a life sentence, after exhausting all his appeals. [don't get all upset; 'would' indicates that it is a hypothetical used as a comparison] Can you answer the following questions? 1. Do you deny that the US government developed nanothermite in the 1990s? 2. Do you deny that unreacted nanothermite particles were found in WTC dust? 3. Do you deny that the by-products of thermitic reactions were found in WTC dust, iron microspheres in volumes 1500 times greater than that of normal office dust? 4. Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel described by FEMA, pictures of which anyone can see? 5. Do you deny the molten and fused steel and concrete, one named the Meteorite and housed in a 911 museum? 6. Do you deny the molten handguns found and stored in a 911 museum? Edited June 20, 2017 by hot enough Quote
Omni Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 12 minutes ago, capricorn said: As you have no doubt surmised by now, this site is not fertile ground for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It beats me why you're still at it here. Surely there must be at least one internet site where 9/11 conspiracy theorists can gather. There, they can massage each other's posts and links in order to nurture their views of the 9/11 event. Oh there area few of them unfortunately. All chasing their tales in the same circles. Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, Omni said: Oh there area few of them unfortunately. All chasing their tales in the same circles. "tails". It's you science deniers, you anti-truthers who are "All chasing [your tall] tales in the same circles". How can we expect any science from a guy who can't spell, who can't answer questions he raises, can't address simple little Yes/No questions ...? A guy who runs to any and all posts where he can gain succor and companionship - from another science denier. Quote
Omni Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: "tails". It's you science deniers, you anti-truthers who are "All chasing [your tall] tales in the same circles". How can we expect any science from a guy who can't spell, who can't answer questions he raises, can't address simple little Yes/No questions ...? A guy who runs to any and all posts where he can gain succor and companionship - from another science denier. The spelling "error" was intentional. Sorry I should have put quote marks around it for you. I imagine others got it. Quote
hot enough Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Posted June 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, Omni said: The Still no evidence from Omni to support the US government official conspiracy theory. Why? When you all believe so strongly? What the hell do you actually believe in - something that you can not even defend? Not one piece of evidence. Hilarious! Quote
Wilber Posted June 20, 2017 Report Posted June 20, 2017 The aircraft used on 9/11 were at least 10 years old at the time, their engines would have undergone continuous modifications and upgrades during their history. The engines on that aircraft would not be the ones with which it was originally delivered. In fact, new aircraft are subject to engine staggering where new engines are removed and replaced with those having different overhaul times so that airlines are not stuck with having all its engines replaced at the same time. To say that one bent and busted part confirms a particular engine is a real stretch. The only way to confirm what parts were used in the engines on those aircraft would be through their maintenance and overhaul records. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
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.