Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
hot enough

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I have never denied that there was training involved. The US government isn't that stupid that they wouldn't cover that base somewhat.

What you ignore is the fact that Hani Hanjour could not rent a Cessna. 

What you also ignore is that you can't even provide any evidence for the existence of any hijackers. 

What you also studiously ignore is that you haven't, because you can't address the impossibility of the molten/vaporized steel, the vaporized lead, the molten molybdenum, the iron microspheres to your wacky USGOCT. 

This is pathological denial on a grand scale and it affects many more than just you. 

Molten steel is just another conjecture by the conspiracy theorists, and never been verified. and as I've already explained you can throw an aluminum beer can into a campfire and get what you guys claim is "proof" of explosives. So, I'll give you one more chance to answer 2 questions you have ducked forever; how much explosive would have had to be implanted in the buildings, and how did whoever you think put it there, get it there. Try and answer those for once, or, stfu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Omni said:

Molten steel is just another conjecture by the conspiracy theorists, and never been verified.

Now you, the actual conspiracy theorist, flat out lies. 

swisscheese.jpg

 

The existence of molten steel (or iron) was inexplicitly denied by one of the authors of the NIST reports, engineer John L. Gross. [8] At a lecture at the University of Texas in October 2006, Gross was asked a question about “a pool of molten steel,” to which he replied:

“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody – no eyewitnesses said so, nobody’s produced it.” [9]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

911truthgrosswtc7beam.jpg

That, above is the gross liar, John Gross of NIST. 

 

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Now you flat out lie. 

swisscheese.jpg

 

The existence of molten steel (or iron) was inexplicitly denied by one of the authors of the NIST reports, engineer John L. Gross. [8] At a lecture at the University of Texas in October 2006, Gross was asked a question about “a pool of molten steel,” to which he replied:

“Let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody – no eyewitnesses said so, nobody’s produced it.” [9]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

911truthgrosswtc7beam.jpg

 

 

I see bent and twisted steel. I don't see molten steel. Between burning jet fuel and then the heat generated by the friction of tons of steel collapsing you would expect to find what your pictures show. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Omni said:

I see bent and twisted steel. I don't see molten steel. Between burning jet fuel and then the heat generated by the friction of tons of steel collapsing you would expect to find what your pictures show. 

Now you are either lying big time or you are totally incompetent. 

You are looking at John Gross, touching a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/girder.

 

Quote

 

I-B. The RJ Lee Report

In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust, unique to the WTC Event.” [19] The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature.” [20] This was the only statement about iron’s being modified by high temperature in this 2004 report.

 

However, RJ Lee had written an earlier report in 2003, entitled “WTC Dust Signature Report,” which contained much more about iron. It said: “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust … but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.” [21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal). [22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [23]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

 

 

 

No legal/legitimate fuel source was available to melt/vaporize the steel, molybdenum or lead. The fictional hijackers didn't melt/vaporize all this metal.

They didn't bring the nanothermite that was NECESSARY to create the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up of iron microspheres, 1500 times the amount that is found in normal office dust. These iron microspheres can only come from the reactions of a thermite/thermate/nanothermite reaction. 

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Now you are either lying big time or you are totally incompetent. 

You are looking at John Gross, touching a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/girder.

 

No legal/legitimate fuel source was available to melt/vaporize the steel, molybdenum or lead. The fictional hijackers didn't melt/vaporize all this metal.

They didn't bring the nanothermite that was NECESSARY to create the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up of iron microspheres, 1500 times the amount that is found in normal office dust. These iron microspheres can only come from the reactions of a thermite/thermate/nanothermite reaction. 

I'll conclude then that you have no idea as to how to even try answer the two questions I have posed numerous times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Omni said:

I'll conclude then that you have no idea as to how to even try answer the two questions I have posed numerous times. 

Such stunning "intellectual" cowardliness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Such stunning "intellectual" cowardliness. 

I wouldn't have condemned you quite so harshly, however you still evade the questions, probably based on something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Omni said:

I wouldn't have condemned you quite so harshly, however you still evade the questions, probably based on something like that. 

I have told you many times that it doesn't matter how the explosives got in there, it is indisputable that they did. You look at pictures of molten/vaporized steel collected by FEMA for dog's sakes, the picture of John the gross liar Gross holding the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel beam and you deny these stark realities.

RJLee Group tells of molten metals that are 100% impossible according to the USGOCT. Do you deny this stark reality too?

And you don't consider that that is stunning intellectual dishonesty, especially when you have long ignored these irrefutable proofs and that there are many other impossibilities in the USGOCT story and zero evidence to support it. 

 

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I have told you many times that it doesn't matter how the explosives got in there, it is indisputable that they did. You look at pictures of molten/vaporized steel collected by FEMA for dog's sakes, the picture of John the gross liar Gross holding the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel beam and you deny these stark realities.

RJLee Group tells of molten metals that are 100% impossible according to the USGOCT. Do you deny this stark reality too?

And you don't consider that that is stunning intellectual dishonesty, especially when you have long ignored these irrefutable proofs that there are many other impossibilities in the USGOCT story and zero evidence to support it. 

 

"Indisputable"? hahahaha, "Excuse me Ma'am, I just have to get under your desk for a few minutes to drill a hole to install this explosive, won't take long". And only a few thousand times, and then all that det cord to hook it all together.  Yep, nobody would have ever noticed that. It does matter, but not to conspiracy theorists because it totally upsets their apple cart. 

Keep tryin' l'il buddy. We're all amused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Omni said:

"Indisputable"? hahahaha, "Excuse me Ma'am, I just have to get under your desk for a few minutes to drill a hole to install this explosive, won't take long". And only a few thousand times, and then all that det cord to hook it all together.  Yep, nobody would have ever noticed that. It does matter, but not to conspiracy theorists because it totally upsets their apple cart. 

Keep tryin' l'il buddy. We're all amused.

You made a tiny, weak plea that you might be an intellectually honest person, but you immediately fall back into what can only be stark delusions. 

How can you deny the picture proof that you have seen with your own eyes?

And all the other equally intellectually dishonest folks, it's truly remarkable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Omni said:

then all that det cord to hook it all together.  

How can you be so "naive" or intellectually dishonest, it's hard to tell with the whoppers you have tried to advance. 

You think the US military needs det cord? Have you ever heard of remote controlled detonation. Gee you have! You know that cell phones can be used for this. And you don't think the US government has access to all the latest gadgets? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

You made a tiny, weak plea that you might be an intellectually honest person, but you immediately fall back into what can only be stark delusions. 

How can you deny the picture proof that you have seen with your own eyes?

And all the other equally intellectually dishonest folks, it's truly remarkable. 

I could give you some online flight instructions to show you just how easy it would be for even a fledgling pilot to fly a plane into a building. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Omni said:

I could give you some online flight instructions to show you just how easy it would be for even a fledgling pilot to fly a plane into a building. 

Hilarious. But you can never provide any evidence for your wacky USGOCT. And you ignoring such stark realities. That is not at all reflective of a person of responsibility.

Try dealing with these total impossibilities, any one of which sinks the USGOCT.

You are looking at John Gross, touching a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/girder.

 

No legal/legitimate fuel source was available to melt/vaporize the steel, molybdenum or lead. The fictional hijackers didn't melt/vaporize all this metal.

They didn't bring the nanothermite that was NECESSARY to create the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up of iron microspheres, 1500 times the amount that is found in normal office dust. These iron microspheres can only come from the reactions of a thermite/thermate/nanothermite reaction. 

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Hilarious. But you can never provide any evidence for your wacky USGOCT. And you ignoring such stark realities. That is not at all reflective of a person of responsibility.

Even you I could probably get skilled up enough within 20 hours to where you could see how easy hitting a huge building with a plane would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Omni said:

Even you I could probably

Zero evidence again, and total delusion, avoiding all these stark realities. And all the dishonest people just allow your patent dishonesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...