Sixteen years on and still no evidence for USGOCT

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, hot enough said:

What do you say about the hijackers? Do you support the contention that there were Arab hijackers? If so, could you please provide some evidence to prove such a contention. 

My sister's brothers friend met the Arab hijackers. He worked at the school in Florida. He told me about them when he came back to Canada one time, at a hockey game.

I kid you not

[hot enough]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

My sister's brothers friend met the Arab hijackers. He worked at the school in Florida. He told me about them when he came back to Canada one time, at a hockey game.

I kid you not

Are you presenting this as evidence, OftenWrong?

[OftenWrong]

No. It's a true story.

[OftenWrong]

He said he thought it was odd they only wanted to learn how to fly the plane, not land it.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

He said he thought it was odd they only wanted to learn how to fly the plane, not land it.

So the alleged hijacker confided in your aunt's brother's cousin details for this top secret plan. 

And now you want to put this forward as "evidence". 

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Once again for clarity:

 

How about you, Michael, do you think that it is sensible for the lower much much much stronger undamaged section of WTC 1 structural steel to have exhibited the same structural strength as 900 feet of custard pudding?

And remember this is erring on the USGOCT side. 

Edited October 23, 2017 by hot enough

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

So the alleged hijacker confided in your aunt's brother's cousin details for this top secret plan. 

And now you want to put this forward as "evidence". 

Did I stutter?

[hot enough]

10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Did I stutter?

Do you think that it makes any sense to you for the lower 92 floors, which were progressively stronger as they descended, for the structural steel to have exhibited the same structural strength as 900 feet of custard pudding?

How did the towers stay up for all those years when the structural steel had the same load bearing capacity as custard pudding?

[hot enough]

14 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

See the 2005 partial collapse of Windsor Tower due to fire in Madrid, Spain...no super duper "nanothermite" required.   Steel failed...concrete didn't.

Explain in a manner even remotely resembling scientific, how your conjecture has any relation/pertinence to the controlled demolitions of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. 

[hot enough]

We're on page two now and there has been, as always, zero evidence for the USGOCT. 

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, hot enough said:

Do you think that it makes any sense to you for the lower 92 floors, which were progressively stronger as they descended, for the structural steel to have exhibited the same structural strength as 900 feet of custard pudding?

How did the towers stay up for all those years when the structural steel had the same load bearing capacity as custard pudding?

But but but... quick hot enough, move the goal posts. 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

But but but... quick hot enough, move the goal posts. 

You were more than content to engage in the usual banalities. 

Moving the goalposts is the speciality of the USGOCT conspiracy theorists; do anything and everything to avoid discussing topics normal adults would always talk about if it didn't mean disturbing their cozy little totally false world views.

Intellectual cowardliness on the grandest of scales. 

[hot enough]

21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

See the 2005 partial collapse of Windsor Tower due to fire in Madrid, Spain..   Steel failed...concrete didn't.

What has this got to do with anything relating to the total lack of evidence for the US government official conspiracy theory?

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

You were more than content to engage in the usual banalities. 

Moving the goalposts is the speciality of the USGOCT conspiracy theorists; do anything and everything to avoid discussing topics normal adults would always talk about if it didn't mean disturbing their cozy little totally false world views.

Intellectual cowardliness on the grandest of scales. 

You are unable to address the issues, in your own thread. This is the second time I've seen you stumped, no reply, just typical name calling by hot enough. Why don't you give it up man, you've lost the debate. You have no answer besides this. ^^

[hot enough]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

You are unable to address the issues, in your own thread. This is the second time I've seen you stumped,

Yet you don't possess the intellectual rigor necessary to speak of these unknowns. That is intellectual dishonesty coupled with intellectual laziness.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Yet you don't possess the intellectual rigor necessary to speak of these unknowns. That is intellectual dishonesty coupled with intellectual laziness.

Well said

[Omni]

5 hours ago, hot enough said:

What has this got to do with anything relating to the total lack of evidence for the US government official conspiracy theory?

Helping prove all you conspiracy theorists you succumb to wrong? Yep.

[hot enough]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Helping prove all you conspiracy theorists you succumb to wrong? Yep.

You many times asked for how the nanothermite was delivered into the twin towers and when it is provided to you you don't possess the intellectual rigor necessary to speak of it, to address it in any manner at all.

That is incredible intellectual dishonesty coupled with intellectual laziness.

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You many times asked for how the nanothermite was delivered into the twin towers and when it is provided to you you don't possess the intellectual rigor necessary to speak of it, to address it in any manner at all.

That is incredible intellectual dishonesty coupled with intellectual laziness.

 

You're on your way to getting another thread locked with that nonsense. 

[hot enough]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

You're on your way to getting another thread locked with that nonsense. 

More dishonesty, because it is you that is being dishonest. An honest person doesn't beg for information and then, upon being presented with it, avoid it totally. 

OftenWrong, to his credit, acknowledges that.

Edited October 24, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, hot enough said:

More dishonesty, because it is you that is being dishonest. An honest person doesn't beg for information and then, upon being presented with it, avoid it totally. 

OftenWrong, to his credit, acknowledges that.

You don't get that you are being toyed with?

[hot enough]

Just now, Omni said:

You don't get that you are being toyed with?

A full on admission of what all the USGOCT conspiracy theorists have been up to from the get go. 

Finally, a tiny measure of honesty from you. 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

A full on admission of what all the USGOCT conspiracy theorists have been up to from the get go. 

Finally, a tiny measure of honesty from you. 

The toying you are falling for seems to come mostly from AE911

 

[hot enough]

So, USGOCT conspiracy theorists, can you muster a wee bit of intellectual honesty to address these simple questions?

1. How did US military laboratories' developed non-commercially available nanothermite come to be in WTC dust?

2. How did roughly 6% of WTC dust come to be made up of iron microspheres, one of the by products of thermite reactions when normal office dust has a mere 0.04%?




 

[Omni]

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

So, USGOCT conspiracy theorists, can you muster a wee bit of intellectual honesty to address these simple questions?

1. How did US military laboratories' developed non-commercially available nanothermite come to be in WTC dust?

2. How did roughly 6% of WTC dust come to be made up of iron microspheres, one of the by products of thermite reactions when normal office dust has a mere 0.04%?




 

They threw a beer can into a camp fire.

And you do understand that the custody of the  "dust" is so lengthy and obscure that it renders it laughable as any form of valid evidence?