If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's one thing that's convenient, until pushback occurs, then it's something else, and then something else. Trying to cling to the 'best version' is like grasping a jelly-like slime.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Well first, should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid exculpatory evidence it was cut by ground crews.

As for the "nanothermite" study, there's a wealth of evidence that it wasn't nanothermite, but a type of primer on the steel (which likely explains why they so easily found it, while not finding the reacted thermite which should've been in far greater quantities).

https://www.rajce.idnes.cz/bobule100/album/li1epoxid#LI1_16epi_04.jpg

This guy functionally replicated the results by mimicking the formulation of the steel primer, even resolving iron microspheres, and finding a duplicable spectrographic analysis. The issue of the MEK is also explained because bonded epoxies are functionally immune to MEK.

The problem is many conspiracies open up more questions that have a very obvious lack of any attempt to answer. If you want to build a fully-fledged theory, fine. But no matter what, things like 'official narratives' offer complete pictures, while conspiracy theories rarely ever do.

Thermite usage has a lot of questions involving how it actually was used, how it was placed, how much of it would've been used, when it was installed, etc. "Just" thermite isn't used in demolition projects for a reason, it just burns straight down, and it's very inefficient requiring a huge amount of thermite to burn remarkably little material, and it burns very fast.

Are you ruling out the possibility that maybe the "nanothermite" wasn't what they thought it was? Even in light of a lack of collaborating evidence that should exist if thermite were used?

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid exculpatory evidence it was cut by ground crews.

The problem is many conspiracies open up more questions that have a very obvious lack of any attempt to answer. If you want to build a fully-fledged theory, fine. But no matter what, things like 'official narratives' offer complete pictures, while conspiracy theories rarely ever do.

Thermite usage has a lot of questions involving how it actually was used, how it was placed, how much of it would've been used, when it was installed, etc. "Just" thermite isn't used in demolition projects for a reason, it just burns straight down, and it's very inefficient requiring a huge amount of thermite to burn remarkably little material, and it burns very fast. The strangest fabrication by Truthers was the fictional and evidence-less claim that some magic way of getting thermite to burn sideways exists, but... it just doesn't. They made it up.

The big ass fucking question mark about any thermite theory has always been "If they were able to so incredibly easily find aluminum and iron oxide nanothermite everywhere they looked, why didn't they find infinitely more iron and aluminum oxide from the actual burned thermite?"

The paper actually specifically mentions not finding any significant amounts of aluminum oxide. If we suppose thermite burned, then we'd guess MOST of it burned. So the amount of debris of thermite reactive product in the dust should've been infinitely higher than the flakes they conveniently found everywhere they looked. So why didn't they find any of it in the dust?

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid exculpatory evidence it was cut by ground crews.

The problem is many conspiracies open up more questions that have a very obvious lack of any attempt to answer. If you want to build a fully-fledged theory, fine. But no matter what, things like 'official narratives' offer complete pictures, while conspiracy theories rarely ever do.

Thermite usage has a lot of questions involving how it actually was used, how it was placed, how much of it would've been used, when it was installed, etc. "Just" thermite isn't used in demolition projects for a reason, it just burns straight down, and it's very inefficient requiring a huge amount of thermite to burn remarkably little material, and it burns very fast.

Understanding how thermite works runs into conflicts with things like how on earth anyone could've filled the building with it with nobody noticing. You'd think years later people who were in those offices would've remarked on things like 'yeah for some reason multiple floors were closed and we could hear tons of construction work'.

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid exculpatory evidence it was cut by ground crews.

The problem is many conspiracies open up more questions that have a very obvious lack of any attempt to answer. If you want to build a fully-fledged theory, fine. But no matter what, things like 'official narratives' offer complete pictures, while conspiracy theories rarely ever do.

Thermite usage has a lot of questions involving how it actually was used, how it was placed, how much of it would've been used, when it was installed, etc. "Just" thermite isn't used in demolition projects for a reason, it just burns straight down, and it's very inefficient requiring a huge amount of thermite to burn remarkably little material, and it burns very fast.

Understanding how thermite works runs into conflicts with things like "molten metal flowing out", because the thermite would've burned out in only seconds from ignition (especially the alleged 'nanothermite').

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because AE911 was obsessed with that column until it was revealed they basically hid evidence it was cut by ground crews. Conspiracy theorists are not any more honest than the government.

Like most conspiracy THEORIES, the problem you always run in to with your theories is that they open up more questions that literally have no attempt at answers.

Possible arguments against sample integrity of 'nanothermite' aside, the simple fact remains that thermite isn't an effective demolition tool. It can't be controlled, it burns downwards.

Any discussion about 'thermite' has to flip around to "how do you expect that to have worked"? Thermite isn't an efficient reaction whatsoever. It takes an astonishing quantity of thermite to do fairly little. We once again have to ask the obvious question of how did shittons of thermite end up installed in a fully-occupied office building? Presumably barrels and barrels of the stuff would have to have been set up, likely directly on the structure itself, which would require extensive predemolition work.

But there's not even a hint that any of that happened, and that's a pretty big problem with the thermite theory.

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it?

Like most conspiracy THEORIES, the problem you always run in to with your theories is that they open up more questions that literally have no attempt at answers.

Possible arguments against sample integrity of 'nanothermite' aside, the simple fact remains that thermite isn't an effective demolition tool. It can't be controlled, it burns downwards.

Any discussion about 'thermite' has to flip around to "how do you expect that to have worked"? Thermite isn't an efficient reaction whatsoever. It takes an astonishing quantity of thermite to do fairly little. We once again have to ask the obvious question of how did shittons of thermite end up installed in a fully-occupied office building? Presumably barrels and barrels of the stuff would have to have been set up, likely directly on the structure itself, which would require extensive predemolition work.

But there's not even a hint that any of that happened, and that's a pretty big problem with the thermite theory.

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because A&E911 were obsessed with that fucking column. Then it turned out whoops, dozens of pictures of the column existed as they dug it out, before it was cut by debris removal crews, and A&E911 knew that and just pretended the pictures never existed, only ever showing the cut column.

But you know, the government lies. Definitely not conspiracy theorists who absolutely knew that column was cut by crews on the ground, and intentionally hid that information.

If you can't address the best version of a given "conspiracy theory"

Because it doesn't exist. The second you point out any flaw they will >literally< lie to your face and tell you 'nobody believes that'.

What they believe is completely amorphous and undefinable. It's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" when it's convenient, until you point out how stupid it is, and then it's "BB-18 fuse holders", until you point out that that's made-up fiction, and then it's something else, and something else, and something else.

For example, someone pointing out telltale indications of thermite usage in the WTC

Really? And what is the 'best version' of that theory? Should I ask about the "cut column" before you deny anyone ever believed it? Because A&E911 were obsessed with that fucking column. Then it turned out whoops, dozens of pictures of the column existed as they dug it out, before it was cut by debris removal crews, and A&E911 knew that and just pretended the pictures never existed, only ever showing the cut column.

Never mind the part where even if you were going to bring the building down thermite would not be how you would do it. Anybody who wants to talk about thermite has absolutely no idea how ridiculously inefficient the reaction is and just how much material it takes to do much of anything with it. And thermite follows gravity. Thermite isn't used in ordinary demolition for a reason, why would it be used there?

Thermite explanations were invented because it sounded cool and because of gay shit like the 'cut column'. That's it.