Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
hot enough

Grenfell Towers did not collapse

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I took the time to read your link and gave an intelligent response to your copy/paste arguments, which I knew you yourself do not even understand. What I said eviscerates all the BS you've spouted, and it took me only 3 minutes to read your link and show that it just doesn't add up. But all you have in response is... nothing.

You had the chance to have a scientific discussion with me on this one and chose not to. Instead you chose to just make another childish insult about my level of knowledge. Now you know why no one cares to seriously engage you in "the science of 911".

You spouted the same nonsense that you have spouted since your first comment on 911. Your opinion means nothing in and of itself. And to whine about being insulted, you, a guy who has done nothing but that for months on end, never once addressing any science. 

In this exchange too, you didn't address any science. You failed to note that there were people on those floors that survived, you failed to note that FEMA described a very short burn time for the fuel, you also forgot to address the very generous "gives" to the official story. 

But most of all, you haven't provided anything, not the tiniest shred of evidence to show temperatures that you believe are necessary to support the US conspiracy theory actually existed. You guys deny deny deny realities, but you can never provide any evidence that supports the US government conspiracy theory.

Why do you think that after months of delivering pure bullshit and no serious discussion or evidence, anyone would accept, out of hand, your personal opinion? Your frequent stark denials of reality are enough to show that you are just joking, always have been and this is just another OftenWrong charade.

Share this post


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

Why do you think that after months of delivering pure bullshit and no serious discussion or evidence, anyone would accept, out of hand, your personal opinion? Your frequent stark denials of reality are enough to show that you are just joking, always have been and this is just another OftenWrong charade.

You are not here to discuss science at all. You had your chance to show your stuff. But if anyone tries to give you an answer, you can't discuss it.  Just another troll trying to get a rise out of people. You have no shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You are not here to discuss science at all. You had your chance to show your stuff. But if anyone tries to give you an answer, you can't discuss it.  Just another troll trying to get a rise out of people. You have no shame.

The one and only time you have ever done anything remotely close to discussing science, OftenWrong. And you didn't discuss anything, you dismissed it out of hand based on an OftenWrong opinion. That's not science. 

All you have ever done is troll. Do a rough count of the number of troll comments you have made and encouraged from others. 

Now you say I "have had my chance". I ask you to provide some temperatures that illustrate 911 Research is wrong and you/the US conspiracy theory are right. What happens? Another song and dance routine from OftenWrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You leave:

1. Nanothermite

2. Molten/vaporized steel

3. Molten molybdenum

4. Molten iron microspheres, the product of nanothermite reactions.

5. Free fall WTC7

6. Accelerating collapses WTCs 1 & 2

7. ...

Each and every one of them fatal to the US conspiracy theory. And you make a phony pretense that you have been some fair minded, honest individual in your dealings on this issue. Pure baloney. 

 

 

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


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

The one and only time you have ever done anything remotely close to discussing science, OftenWrong. And you didn't discuss anything, you dismissed it out of hand based on an OftenWrong opinion. That's not science.

It is thermal analysis. It's not necessary to do actual calculations, when the methodology is exposed as fundamentally flawed. They divided the total energy by the total mass of steel on the floor, as though the energy were dispersed equally. That's a logical fallacy. That's why the temperature you quoted is so low.

In thermal engineering, temperature rise is based on power density, where power is energy x time. 1watt is 1 joule per second. Power density means, the power delivered into a given volume of material. Temperature rise is given by the thermal conductivity of the material expressed in watts per meter-kelvin. I don't need to look this up, it is very familiar to me. The fact that you thinkI or others here are inferior to your intellect is testimony to your own arrogance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It is thermal analysis.

Why have you been hiding all this brilliance behind an "Aw shucks" country bumpkin for all this time? Where is your evidence of temperatures high enough to do what you and the US conspiracy theory say happened?

Share this post


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

Why have you been hiding all this brilliance behind an "Aw shucks" country bumpkin for all this time? Where is your evidence of temperatures high enough to do what you and the US conspiracy theory say happened?

What would you have a person like me do, go to the WTC and demand them to show me forensic samples? Rational technical arguments are evidence enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

What would you have a person like me do, go to the WTC and demand them to show me forensic samples? Rational technical arguments are evidence enough.

Noooooo, I am not suggesting anything that goofy at all. Why does this come from?

Rational technical arguments do not dismiss all the huge "gives" to the official story. 

Rational technical arguments do not leave out the people who were on those floors and survived.

Rational technical arguments do not leave out FEMA saying the fuel would be burned off in 5 minutes.

Rational technical arguments do not mean a body denies a human being being exploded out a twin tower window. 

Rational technical arguments do not mean creating myriad silly diversions to divert from real evidence. 

Rational technical arguments do not involve ignoring the 6  arguments I raised in the post three above yours being replied to.

It would be fitting had you been this honest from the get go. Why all the dumb "nanu nanu" comments and support for the same?

Edited by hot enough

Share this post


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

It would be fitting had you been this honest from the get go. Why all the dumb "nanu nanu" comments and support for the same?

Because I know we could write 1000 pages and never come to an agreement or conclusion. And if we did, either way, there's not a damned thing anyone could do about it. The world is a rotten place... elsewhere. I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Because I know we could write 1000 pages and never come to an agreement or conclusion. And if we did, either way, there's not a damned thing anyone could do about it. The world is a rotten place... elsewhere. I can live with that.

Of course we could come to an agreement, if we all looked at reality. I am puzzled no end by people who hear, in US scientists' own words, how they have invented nanothermite and then respectable scientists from around the world, men who have had held long and distinguished careers, describe nanothermite found in WTC dust. [hold that thought!]

This was found all by accident. Dr Steven Jones didn't expect to find it - he didn't know it was there. He couldn't have planted it because he doesn't "have any idea" how to make it; because it is US government proprietary knowledge.

But it WAS found! 

We know it is nano scale because that is how it measures - at the nano scale. One one-millionth of a MILLIMETER! I don't even know how to describe something that small!

We know it is thermitic in nature because it "explodes" with a very quick and a very high energy level, exactly what the US nanothermite scientists describe. 

We know it is thermitic in nature because it produces the chemical signature of thermite. Including the much too voluminous iron microspheres that are never there in normal office dust. 

[bring that thought I asked you to hold back, forward now] and people deny all this stark reality with silly nanu nanu comments.

Share this post


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

We know it is nano scale ...

We know it is thermitic in nature because it "explodes" ...

We know it is thermitic in nature because it produces the chemical signature of thermite ...

[

You have no shame using this tragedy to spout your 9/11 conspiracy sermons. Your useless words are getting old.

Share this post


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

You have no shame using this tragedy to spout your 9/11 conspiracy sermons. Your useless words are getting old.

You share some of the same feelings as H. Goering. Good propaganda, capricorn.

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

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

Osama bin Laden was being blamed by 9:15 on 911 and then the US government really ramped up the propaganda. And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker because you can't/won't do science or reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, capricorn said:

You have no shame using this tragedy to spout your 9/11 conspiracy sermons. Your useless words are getting old.

Here's another one of those people who deny the stark realities I have listed above. With no sense of shame at all. All because you can't understand the science and you are afraid, for a number of reasons, to ask, capricorn.

And this silly argument that has been raised by a number of people - all of them science deniers. The articles are full of scientists and professors discussing science. News media the world over are discussing this event just to make money! Should they be ashamed of themselves?

I often wonder about many of the adults in society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk about your honesty levels, Hot Stuff.

You start a topic on the Grenfell Towers fire in London.  Out of the 32 posts by yourself on this thread, 31 of them are about 9/11, nanothermite, and WTC conspiracy theories.  I'm being generous giving you your first post.

Thank you for proving my point yesterday when I said you don't really give a rat's patootie about the fire in London or anyting else.  

If you want to reply to this post, I refuse to accept anything you say as honest unless you also post pictures of yourself, your daily schedule and your SIN #.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been here since Feb and already you have worn out your welcome with everyone all sides of the political spectrum.....that's a olympic record for this forum, even for those on the far right who bash liberals all day, all night have not created the enemies you have seemed to have.....and now the liberals, and the rose sniffing NDP and the greens are saying please STFU.....and for them to not be politically correct is unheard of....There has got to be a forum somewhere in this intra net that concentrates on conspiracies theories that you have not been banned from....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-06-15 at 9:27 PM, hot enough said:

Why have you been hiding all this brilliance behind an "Aw shucks" country bumpkin for all this time?

I like to relax after a hard day's work at the research lab, and get a rise out of vexing leftist intellectual lightweights such as yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I like to relax after a hard day's work at the research lab, and get a rise out of vexing leftist intellectual lightweights such as yourself.

That doesn't sound at all logical when you are often to always wrong, OftenWrong. 

Do you deny the existence of nanothermite developed by US scientists in the 1990s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

You've been here since Feb

Such great science, Army Guy. Very impressive. 

Note that what all you folks do is personal attacks. Why are you so afraid of the science? You all know why and that doesn't say much about you. 

Do you deny the existence of nanothermite developed by US scientists in the 1990s?

Share this post


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

Do you deny the existence of nanothermite developed by US scientists in the 1990s?

We scientists invent all sorts of fantastic things. But it wasn't needed to take down the towers as already demonstrated, not-so-hot-fella.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Goddess said:

 

 

23 hours ago, Goddess said:

Let's talk about your honesty levels, Hot Stuff.

 

 

Do you deny the existence of nanothermite developed by US scientists in the 1990s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

We scientists invent all sorts of fantastic things. But it wasn't needed to take down the towers as already demonstrated, not-so-hot-fella.

Do you deny the existence of nanothermite developed by US scientists in the 1990s?

Share this post


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

Do you deny the existence of nanothermite developed by US scientists in the 1990s?

That is irrelevant. I deny that Alex Jones is a credible scientist.

Share this post


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

That is irrelevant. I deny that Alex Jones is a credible scientist.

Do you deny that US government scientists discovered nanothermite in the 1990s?

Share this post


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

Do you deny that US government scientists discovered nanothermite in the 1990s?

Are you a spam bot now? What if I said yes or no. Go ahead, make my day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Are you a spam bot now? What if I said yes or no. Go ahead, make my day.

You make spurious claims to be a scientist when you don't/have never acted like one. 

Do you deny that US government scientists discovered nanothermite in the 1990s?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...