I’ll take that to mean that you’ve given up and conceded the point.
Because your original post, in case you’ve forgotten:
You said pretty plainly that you wanted an explanation for the 45 degree angle. I’ve given you that, and now you want to move on to something else rather than face the debunking.
This is why it’s impossible to argue with a Believer.
No. I’ve always shied away from these things online. Too easy to be bombarded.
But in person, respectful debates are my preference.
Where people have equal air-time. No one can bombard the other. I can, also, then know if you’re actually listening or just scanning over it (Body language, as you know, is uppermost).
So I concede nothing.
… in person …
… In person. 
Too easy to be quoted.
I worry not about that. I stand behind all I’ve said. You’re not the first I’ve debated this on. You’re just the first who’s tried so hard to lure me into it online. 
(Which has worked, really. hehe)
Typically, I do this in person.
So you’re either truly, keenly, positively interested in knowing what I have to say, with an open mind – or you’re not. Either case is fine.
So which is it? 
What I am doing is trying to push this debate offline: Where I can stand there, in person, and present what I’ve to present. Answer questions in person.
I suppose it’s the human contact aspect I prefer. Too easy to hide online.
Hey. I might make 100 posts soon here. hehe
I’m sure that you have a wonderful presentation pixel, full of all kinds of stuff. What Mig no doubt suspects, as do I, is that your presentation is a house of cards. Pull out any card and focus on it, and the whole house comes tumbling down. I can see why you’d prefer to do it in person. It would be much harder for someone to focus in on individual parts of your theory.
Imagine discussing the original picture in this thread in person. Mig has done a wonderful job of putting it into context and explaining it. That would be near impossible to do to the same level if this was face to face.
I can appreciate this.
But it’s not why I prefer person to person. It’s because, throughout the time I’ve spoken about this with people (in person) I like to be able to tell when they’re confused, or needing more information, or explanations or if they’re even feeling defensive or apprehensive. And the only way I do this is through advanced kinesics.
And why does body language matter to me?
Well, in presenting all of this information, I’ve found there’s no one-best-way to do so: because people are in various stages of awareness, in various stages of reception (defensive vs. open) and so forth.
I prefer reading them and adjusting my presentation to make it the most digestible. 
How did you come by this solid evidence?
The two main byproducts of Thermate are Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate. Both are unique to Thermate and would not be found at Ground Zero except through the use of Thermate.
Neither the United States Geological Survey nor Stephen Jones make any mention of these compounds when presenting their conclusion that Thermate was evident at Ground Zero.
The ingredients of Thermate were certainly at Ground Zero–namely Iron, Sulfur, Aluminum, Potassium, Manganese, Fluorine, and Titanium–but they were all common in things like office equipment, paper, vehicles caught under the collapse, the planes, and the buildings themselves.
Therefore, the presence of these elements alone does not lead to the presence of Thermate–but furthermore, the absence of Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate proves the absence of Thermate.
Edit: As for my body lanuage. I’m confused at how someone could believe these theories without any real proof. I’m confused why you move onto Thermate when your photo was disproved. As to my receptiveness, I’m defensive, but open to any real proof. Posting a picture and saying “LOOK!” is not proof… it’s a picture.
Well pixel… that’s all great and all but I fail to see how what I’m feeling has anything to do with whether your argument holds water or not. When I listen to things like this I do so with as much emotional detachment as I can. I feel that doing so is giving the other person as much respect as I can.
That’s not what you want though. You want to tailor your presentation to my feelings and reactions. You want to create other believers. It’s sounding like some sort of indoctrination.
Research research and more research.
And let it be known: It’s not like I like this stuff. It’s not like I love knowing what I do. It’s not like I love the direction we’re headed in. It’s not like I adore knowing great minds have written books about us, calling us stupid. I don’t love knowing any of this.
But the more research I did, the more the World I thought I knew was ripped out from under me. Now I’m irritated and want it back so I can drop these topics and go back to what once was my life.
Sorry for trolling you into the thread. 
Now I know why you want to avoid them.
Sorry that you had your life ruined, really.
But… not gonna respond to my bit of Thermate banter?
You are being evasive. Research gleaned from what source? From what archive? Is this evidence from a government official? Really now, how can you expect anyone to believe you?
Heh. I expect no one to take anything from this. I don’t do the online debating thing.
I’m too used to speaking with, and to, groups. Question and answer sessions. You name it.
I didn’t create this thread, keep in mind. lol
As for responding to the thermate thing: No. Not online. I never wanted this to begin with, so even knowing I sound like a kook, I’m backing down from any online discourse about this topic.
I can see what you mean, but I think you’re misinterpreting my reason for answering like that. It’s, as I’ve mentioned before, a vast (vast vast) topic and not something easily delved into online. (At least not for me?)
Convenient.
Heh. I agree. Looks that way, for sure. It’s the risk I’m willing to take.
Truly, though, I’ve had this talk, and presented what I’ve to present, easily 1000, or more times. So it’s not like my evidence is weak. It’s not like I don’t know how to present it – I’m just reluctant to do so here.
Thanks for your input, too. 