Originally posted by pteridine
If the 'eutectic' bit is not part of your position why do you keep bringing it up?
Because it was already established as being at Ground Zero in the FEMA report. That is a commonality, period. I know you have excuses but you
apparently don't realize that when you make something up, it isn't automatically proven, or necessarily even relevant. When you claim what Cole did
shares no similarities with what happened at the WTC, you're denying (in denial) of the fact that steel that had suffered from a eutectic reaction
was left after Cole was done, and it was left on structural steel at the WTC. That's not someone (like you) making something up. That's something
you can verify, between this video, and FEMA appendix C.
It is also apparent that your grasp of language is tenuous at best. I didn't say I thought you were Steven Jones and don't know why you would
interpret my comment that way.
It's ironic you should go straight for insulting my grasp of language when I was addressing you sarcastically for automatically putting something in
Jones' paper in my mouth, which went right over your language-grasping head.
You do seem to defend Jones whenever he is the topic.
Only because you can't even interpret what's in his papers, like you just demonstrated. He didn't claim anything was painted on as a fact and even
suggested that larger amounts were applied. Bottom line is you're attacking something that someone else said, and not even as a fact, instead of
anything I actually posted about.
You wouldn't know how science works because you haven't done any.
I didn't realize you've been hovering over my shoulder my whole life. This coming from someone who has always refused or been too "afraid" to
even say if they have a degree or what it's in. Stop preaching.
It seems that you were the one mainly demanding answers from people. You said that you wouldn't know that red paint wouldn't cause anything
to collapse. Paint something red and see if it falls apart.
You've already been shown plenty of information to indicate that the material was not red paint, and you chose to ignore it. That's not my problem.
If you want to see those videos again, or want me to type out all the reasons given in them as to why the material was not a match with paint, why
don't you start another thread so we can make it a permanent reference?
You are also sure I've "never stepped foot inside a military explosive research lab or had any earthly experiences even remotely bordering on
that," are you? You know what they say about assumptions.
I wouldn't call it an assumption given a lot of the things you've already said.
I haven't made any of the new nanoparticulate materials but I am familiar enough with them to synthesize them if necessary. The red paint that
Jones "discovered" isn't remotely like any of the nanoparticulate thermites and Jones knows it.
Right, like you can do in your basement what Los Alamos is doing.
If you have evidence that would cause a reinvestigation, now is the time to bring it forward. Someone not satisfying you with the depth or
directions of their investigation is not cause.
Now is the time it's
being brought forward, and it
is being brought forward, but not by me. More things have to happen beyond my
control and it isn't like a freaking light switch. It took about 75 years before the USS Maine was proven to be an internal explosion. About two
decades after the Vietnam war the NSA admitted the event that started it never actually happened, probably because they realized no one would care
anymore. You act like what people know now is what they'll know forever. You can do better than that.
