@hightor,
Quote:Why trash other people who are actually taking the time to respond to your posts? That's self-defeating. That sort of behavior just prompts people to put you on "ignore" — do you really want that?
Who might that be, hightor? Isn't that what blatham, you, maporsche, ... do all the time?
Quote:You keep mentioning this "fear" factor, as if people are too frightened to accept your version of the story. I've got news for you. They're not. There's nothing to be frightened of. They've moved on. Your elaborate conspiracy theory is simply unconvincing.
You keep mentioning this as "your version". It isn't my version and you know that. Why can't you be honest about even that small point?
How are totally impossible things of the USGOCT unconvincing? That is unconvincing. There was no possible way for Arab hijackers to melt WTC structural steel. You do understand this, don't you?
Quote:All the forensic "evidence" cited by the conspiracy theorists doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the engineers making the claims are simply mistaken, actually trying to prove a particular hypothesis for personal or political reasons, or simply tools like the "scientists" who told us that tobacco didn't pose a threat to human health.
Why would 2900 architects and engineers waste all their valuable time putting forward the science of 911? How could they all have " personal or political reasons"? You really are making no sense whatsoever.
A forensic structural engineer is doing a study of the collapse of WTC7. The study's conclusion as regards NIST's idea of the collapse of WTC7 is that it has a ZERO chance of being true.
These science professionals all see the same impossible things of the USGOCT. farmerman also sees these same impossible things which is why he has fled all conversations on these topics after trash talking those who brought them forward.
Ask yourself, shouldn't farmerman's "science" be all he needs?
You denigrate others for not addressing the facts/reality Why can't you address reality? No one else in the world but the USA government has nanothermite. It was found in WTC dust by 9 top scientists. How can we tell it is US government nanothermite? Because the components measure at the NANO scale.
This is irrefutable science. Everything about the discovered WTC nanothermite matches up with reality.
USA developed Nanothermite, a solely US government explosive discovered in WTC dust --> nanothermite by products in WTC dust, large volumes of them ---> molten and vaporized WTC structural steel from both WTC7 and the twin towers ---> nothing else but nanothermite could have melted and vaporized WTC structural steel from both WTC7 and the twin towers ---> can the USGOCT stand up to this evidence?
Quote:It's much more plausible to see the Bush administration as bunglers who missed all the intelligence signals about an impending terrorist attack than to imagine some secret powerful collective of plotters who executed this plan for no publicly announced end and who been able to maintain 100% silence among all the participants ever since.
A very common myth among USGOCT conspiracy theorists.
Quote:Myth Number 3:
Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.
This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.
We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats—such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward.
http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin911mythandreality.htm
Look at how fearful you all are to discuss the science and events of 911 and you have nothing to lose.
