It was pointed out numerous times in that thread yet you never bothered to retract it there, so why should I be constrained by your demands? It's not like you didn't put it in the title of a thread nor was it the very premise why you created that thread......derp. But you're taking the high road now. Gotcha.
I'm trying to engage in something other than the non productive nonsense that has been exhibited by all involved here at some point or another. Turn over a new leaf, so to speak. Perhaps that way, logical debate and reasonable conclusions to the points raised can be achieved. Just an attempt...It may not work well either...Lord knows nothing else has to this point.
Would you like me to produce all the insults you make for "shills"? Besides, my point was spot on. Truthers appear to be completely incapable of honest debate. Want more proof? You continue to run from a direct response to a question you asked me. Your excuse for running? Because you claim I am not responding to a question you asked me. Subterranian indeed!
I would assume this turning over a new leaf will include not claiming anyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill? Could one also assume that this leaf turning will include retracting future falsehoods one claims, rather than never re-addressing them? I look forward to actually seeing this other side of the leaf.
No problem. Just post some more. I will be there to point out the falacies, inaccuracies, impossibilities, and general dishonesty that seems to be present in your posts.
You would do yourself a real big favor by not using that nomenclature at all. If your goal is to have a civil debate, I, personally, find it very unhelpful. I promise, you'll get what you give from me if it stays civil.
Fair enough. Let's stick to specifics and make the communications as clear as possible. I'll treat your posts in the same manner you do mine if you like.
I'm not exactly sure what your issue with the response is. The specific point you raised is that thermitic materials were mixed in paint, painted on structural members of the WTC, and used in the controlled demolition of the towers. I gave you three very specific detailed reasons why this claim does not describe the observed phenomenon. What part of this is not specific enough for you? Do I need to use smaller words? 1. The heat of ignition of thermite is very high. This heat needs to be sustained in order for the reaction to continue. A. The temperatures required for ignition were not observed or measured within the buildings prior to or even after the collapse. B. The temperatures required for ignition could not have been generated by jet fuel, or office fires. 2. Thermite does not do work on objects it comes in contact with. It does not expand during reaction. It is not explosive. It only releases the difference in energy between the Fe2O3 bond and the Al203 bond in the form of heat. Some of this heat is consumed to maintain the reaction, the rest radiates. The amount of heat released is directly proportional to the mass of the sample. A. A thin layer of reactant coating a beam in the WTC has very little mass. B. Steel is very conductive, and can quickly lower the heat released by the minimal mass of the painted on thermite to below the heat of ignition. 3. The thermite reaction requires the free exchange of oxygen from Iron Oxide to Aluminum. It is an oxidation reaction; burning. A. Contaminate compounds used in paint would inhibit the free exchange of oxygen, and slow the burning. The three bolded statements are very specific statements of fact. They outline established properties of the material in question. They are not up for debate. The 5 italicized statements explain how the statements of fact apply to or diverge from the observed phenomenon on 9/11. You're welcome to debate these points if you wish. By the way, the entire post was only 13 lines, none of which can be described as rhetoric. Perhaps you're reading someone else's post while responding to a quote from mine? Regardless I think someone with a well thought out understanding of the events should be able to respond to one or all of these points if their theory is even remotely correct. If you want to only choose one, I can't stop you, but I don't see the point in demanding I choose one. Pick whichever one you have the ability to respond to. Frankly, I think all this filibustering is simply a way to avoid addressing the topic at all. But maybe I'll be surprised and you'll be able to sufficiently explain how thermitic reactions capable of melting steel can take place in temperatures well below 1000 deg F. Good luck.
