Jump to content

Sixteen years on and still no evidence for USGOCT


hot enough

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%?




 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...