Rising fascism in the US

Let's wait for that stidy to get published then, before milking it. And the one after that... Science can provide no final certainty to this question, short of making a full size maquette and torching it...

tried that already, no dice.

https://able2know.org/topic/369947-2#post-6368591

What do studies mean to you? Or honesty. Apparently nothing. I merely reported something from what was a public event.

You speak of honesty yet you are willing to advance the most ludicrous nonsense.

Do you even understand what the presence of these molten metals means?

He can try this one as well:

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Pick any portion of the information found in your source and present your case, McGentrix, and I'll be willing to discuss it with you.

Let's start with the molten metals, the ones that could not have been there without an illegal, illegitimate fuel source that had no legal reason to be at WTC on Sept 11, 2001.

Make your case, Baldimo, and we can discuss it, thoroughly, completely, without running away.

There is an old idiot, no , I mean idiom that states "reinvent the wheel:
to discover how to do something that has already been discovered"

I don't feel the need to reinvent the wheel.

Are you telling me that you can't even research within this body of material written by no scientists to find the information they provide on the molten metals found at WTC?

I don't need to make a case that has already been proven. 2 different links for you to read over. I didn't post the links to start a discussion, but to end the discussion. Enjoy!

Baldimo: I don't need to make a case that has already been proven.
========

But that is false, and you know it. The University of Fairbanks study already shows that the likelihood of the NIST study being true is ZERO. You do know what/who NIST is, don't you?

So the NIST study is false but you think dragging out a bunch of amateurs who don't even know what is in their own magazine is a good idea.

-------------------

The editors at Popular Mechanics have made a name for themselves as ardent defenders of the official 9/11 story. Editor-in-Chief James Meigs and contributing writers have presented articles in the magazine that dismiss the scientific evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers and characterize the discovery of thermitic residue in the WTC dust as insignificant. However, a recent review of the Popular Mechanics archives has revealed that this “world-renowned” publication reported on the use of thermite to bring down steel structures over 75 years ago.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/575-popular-mechanics-ignores-its-own-historical-records-of-thermite-demolition-destruction-of-skyride-towers-reichstag-dome-set-incendiary-precedent.html
----------------

How can Popular Mechanics "characterize the discovery of thermitic residue in the WTC dust as insignificant" when this recently discovered, [Lawrence Livermore Lab], recently patented [1996/97] high grade, non-commercially available US military explosive had no legitimate/legal reason for being there?

How can Popular Mechanics "characterize the discovery of thermitic residue in the WTC dust as insignificant" when they describe in their own magazine how it was used to bring down two 628 foot tall steel structures in 1933, with a much much inferior grade thermite.

Nanothermite was discovered at the WTC. Scientists, other than US miliary scientists, don't even know how it is made. It isn't material crushed down thermite, it is super thermite, built from the nano scale up.

Milo Yiannopoulos has been uninvited to speak by CPAC which doesn't surprise me, and Simon and Shuster have reneged on their book deal with him, which seems unfair.

Still, it's business.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos.html

It means nothing. It could be anything, like molted lead from an acumulator. Are you even positively certain there was any? Was it analysed? What were the quantities? The metal concerned? etc.

You're building a vast conspiracy on minute and highly doubtful evidence. But how do you explain the planes raming into the buildings? That's not a detail. I saw these planes myself, with my own eyes.

I don't mean to be unkind but I'm surprised, shocked that there could be anyone so uninformed. Such is, I guess, the power of propaganda.

There was lead that was vaporized. Does it mean anything to you that a leading NIST scientist lied, about the molten steel, the vaporized steel, actually full out denied its existence, when there are pictures of him at the WTC boneyards touching a previously molten steel beam/column?

I could provide voluminous sources, which I have already done, numerous times for others here. There is a discussion here,

https://able2know.org/topic/369947-1#post-6368105

This, for the moment will suffice.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

How can you say it means nothing when a couple of posts before yours I described the nanothermite reaction products and unreacted nanothermite particles in WTC dust?

I describe, "The University of Fairbanks study already shows that the likelihood of the NIST study being true is ZERO."

What is going on with you, Olivier?

I guess Trump's been coached on the right words finally.

Trump addresses JCC threats, anti-Semitism

Do you happen to know what a nanothermite is? It's aluminium powder + some other finely grated metal oxyde. That aluminium powder and metal oxydes were found around ground zero should not surprise anyone. The catastrophe pulverised a lot of stuff.

And if your Fairbanks U guy was truly serious, he would wait for his study to be OVER before stating its conclusion.

What do you make of the PLANES? What's the idea here? Did the CIA drive them? How?

Yes, I do, but you definitely do not. It is not grated at all. That would be thermite.

You also don't know a lot about science. Gravity collapses do not have the energy necessary to "pulverised a lot of stuff".

How do you propose that all that grated stuff just happened to coalesce into unreacted nanothermite particles found in WTC dust?

How did these "grated" particles form themselves nanothermite, which is a proprietary US government/military, mid 1990s developed, 1996-97 patented, non-commercially available explosive?

Please read some of the science before you talk about things.

Here's a good place for you to start.

https://able2know.org/topic/369947-1#post-6368105

Show me a reputable source about your military-grade nano BS. Also you failed TWICE to address my question on the planes. Does that leave you speechless or what?

Oh and yes, gravity can pulverize stuff. And why not?

Show me your reputable source that so badly misled you on nanothermite.



Show me anything from anywhere that, even your bad sources that describe gravity collapses that pulverize rock like a volcano pulverizes into pyroclastic flows.