The Great Thermite Debate...

[William Seger]

291. Do you ever research anything?

You could at least investigoogle, and the first hit for "wtc sulfur" is this: http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf?

Greening is no fan of NIST, btw -- he coined the amusing term "NISTians" to describe people who blindly support their report.

> I didn't say that thermate was the most plausible explanation. I said it was "the only practical explanation that has been proposed and demonstrated." You have a tendency to rewrite reality to fit your ideological needs.

Say what? You say it's the "only practical explanation" but you don't consider it to be the "most plausible?" That's positively weird, unless one considers that your primary aim since you started posting here seems to be playing word games. But I see you threw in "demonstrated," which I am still waiting for.

> Thermate didn't produce slag in Mr. Cole's blasts that reproduced the thinning and the holes. The steel was vaporized in those.

Um... bullshit. You are the one who appears to be fond of making empty assertions. The maximum temperature of thermitic reaction is right around the boiling point of steel, so some small amount may have been vaporized, but claiming that no slag was produced is bullshit, since even in that unclear video, slag can be seen (which is precisely why it doesn't look all that much like the WTC samples). Backed into a corner, you are talking through your hat.

> Apparently NIST couldn't find any core steel that had been weakened sufficiently to cause it to fail.

Well, gee, maybe that's one of the reasons why their theory doesn't hypothesis that a weakened core was the initial cause?

> You seem to be on a mission to defend NIST. Why?

Wrong again. There are qualified people such as Dr. Greening who have made criticisms of the NIST report which seem to me, a layman, technically valid, and I would be foolish to try to defend NIST against those criticisms. As much as you would like to flatter yourself by inclusion on that list, my "mission" here is to challenge people who seem to me to be serving up agenda-driven bullshit instead of valid criticism to prove their claims. If I'm the one who is wrong and you can make a valid argument, I give you every opportunity to prove it. I do that because I believe that bullshit doesn't do anyone any good and that the truth actually matters. To me, the proof that the "truth movement" is a pack of hypocrites is that they are completely baffled by that attitude.

But it isn't just your vacuous assertions and disingenuous claims; you then go on to try to bolster your absurdly weak case by slandering NIST as being dishonest and accessories to covering up a mass murder. And you don't stop there; your spiraling delusions cause you to just keep expanding the targets of your slime to include anyone who doesn't tell you what you want to hear. To me, that is a behavior pattern that is well worth opposing.

> What would be so awful about having new investigations? Why do you labor so mightily to deny that they are needed? What are you afraid of?

Wrong again; if nothing else (and I seriously doubt there would be anything else), I do believe it will be rather amusing to have bullshit peddlers like Richard Gage and Steven Jones exposed to some sunlight. The "truth movement" should be careful what they wish for, and I'll take very short odds on the outcome of having their bullshit exposed to objective analysis by people who actually know what they are talking about.