The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#61  Postby BlackBart » May 06, 2010 4:33 pm

econ41 wrote:
BlackBart wrote:
econ41 wrote:

:grin: :grin:

Dealt short shrift over there I see.


Yep. Sheep can be vicious buggers.


First time the topic has been raised on rationalia AFAIK - it is probably off their mainstream interest. My prediction is that, after the initial burst of interest, the residents over there will simply ignore. It's a smaller community and in many ways more selective in what they bother to respond to.


We shall see :grin: :popcorn:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12152
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#62  Postby econ41 » May 06, 2010 4:35 pm

Moridin wrote:I do not think anyone supports Bush in the debate between the 9/11 truthers and the rationalists.

Not the least reason being that the principle technical facts of 9/11 do not rely on Bush, NIST or any other human or "social domain" factors. The WTC buildings collapsed for purely technical reasons absolutely independent who did or who did not conspire with who.

The WTC buildings were not demolished whether or not it was Bush who didn't demolish them OR terrorists OR any other person/agency.

Ditto, if anyone wants to post a pro-demolition hypothesis, the explosives don't give a damn who bought them, who installed them or who pressed the tit. They still go "bang".

Same story at Pentagon. The plane made that hole even if Bush was piloting. Or if he wasn't.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#63  Postby PJG » May 06, 2010 4:36 pm

Are you confusing my query regarding the cause of the microspheres with the cause of the collapses? I think you must be.

I manage to differentiate cause and effect very soundly thank you. It is you who is claiming to know that the spherules are neither related to the cause nor to the effect of the collapses without knowing what caused the spherules. You may be correct but I am interested in how you KNOW that.

All I am asking for is that, assuming they are there in quantities indicated by samples to date, what created them? I am not asking that of you - I don't expect you to know this - I am asking for someone who is in a position to carry out the analysis to a) confirm or deny their quantities and b) IF their quantities are unusual - which would require comparison to dust from other office fires/non-demolition building collapses - to explain how they were caused. SOMETHING caused them. If they were there in the office dust before the collapses - specifically denied by the RJLee report - then they must have been caused by something else. If they were ONLY there following the collapses (supported by the RJLee Report) then they need to be explained - claiming that "anything" could have caused them is just ridiculous - unless you think they got there by magic?
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#64  Postby PJG » May 06, 2010 4:48 pm

econ41 wrote:
Moridin wrote:I do not think anyone supports Bush in the debate between the 9/11 truthers and the rationalists.

Not the least reason being that the principle technical facts of 9/11 do not rely on Bush, NIST or any other human or "social domain" factors. The WTC buildings collapsed for purely technical reasons absolutely independent who did or who did not conspire with who.

The WTC buildings were not demolished whether or not it was Bush who didn't demolish them OR terrorists OR any other person/agency.

Ditto, if anyone wants to post a pro-demolition hypothesis, the explosives don't give a damn who bought them, who installed them or who pressed the tit. They still go "bang".


Steel is mechanically robust and chemically weak - again!

econ41 wrote: Same story at Pentagon. The plane made that hole even if Bush was piloting. Or if he wasn't.


Now this is very interesting to me - since I have never seen evidence that confirms this either way - to me every piece of "evidence" is either inconclusive or irrelevant. I would be interested to know what evidence you have seen that makes you 100% certain of this.

Early in the first thread, someone else (can't remember his name - began with G - said he'd come back to me on Scott Forbes and Kevin Ryan but he never did) gave me the evidence he had found compelling and every piece neither confirmed nor discredited the official story. I wonder if you are convinced by the evidence that had convinced him, or if you have additional information. I am not being difficult by the way... I am absolutely 50/50 on the Pentagon and would like to hear your take - if you could indulge me? If you can't be bothered, I understand, but I would be interested.
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#65  Postby aspire1670 » May 06, 2010 4:51 pm

PJG wrote:Are you confusing my query regarding the cause of the microspheres with the cause of the collapses? I think you must be.

I manage to differentiate cause and effect very soundly thank you. It is you who is claiming to know that the spherules are neither related to the cause nor to the effect of the collapses without knowing what caused the spherules. You may be correct but I am interested in how you KNOW that.

All I am asking for is that, assuming they are there in quantities indicated by samples to date, what created them? I am not asking that of you - I don't expect you to know this - I am asking for someone who is in a position to carry out the analysis to a) confirm or deny their quantities and b) IF their quantities are unusual - which would require comparison to dust from other office fires/non-demolition building collapses - to explain how they were caused. SOMETHING caused them. If they were there in the office dust before the collapses - specifically denied by the RJLee report - then they must have been caused by something else. If they were ONLY there following the collapses (supported by the RJLee Report) then they need to be explained - claiming that "anything" could have caused them is just ridiculous - unless you think they got there by magic?


Well, I think magic or gnomes with wheelbarrows are a much more plausible explanations than your inept assertions but reality trumps all.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ent=safari
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread

#66  Postby uke2se » May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Galaxian wrote:
[url=http://www.rational-skepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=178186#p178186]uke2se[/url] wrote:
[url=http://www.rational-skepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=178173#p178173]PJG[/url] wrote:
Tell you what - you make a list of the things that you think represent the "mainstream view presented in this thread" and I will tell you if I "accept", "don't believe/accept" or "don't know".
- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse.
- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7.
- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7.
- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure.
- A hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania due to a struggle between passengers and hijackers.
- The criminals perpetrating the attacks were 19 misguided Muslim extremists, funded in part by rich Muslim extremists.
That's the mainstream view. What do you not agree with?

What a load of CRAP. That is NOT the mainstream view! the mainstream view by a big margin is that 9/11 was a totally inside job or hugely aided & abetted by the US secret services & possibly Israel's Mossad.
And yu fucking well know what we don't agree with, don't play silly buggers; this is a serious issue.
Since you don't even know what the mainstream view is; the opposite of "Truther" is "Liar" is it not??? :coffee:


No, that is the mainstream view. The "inside job" view is a fringe nutjob view, held by an diminishing amount of people who can't justify their beliefs.

The opposite of truther isn't liar. Truther is synonymous with liar.

/Edit: Darnit, I always forget the coffee emoticons.

:coffee: :coffee: :coffee:
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#67  Postby uke2se » May 06, 2010 6:11 pm

aspire1670 wrote:
PJG wrote:Are you confusing my query regarding the cause of the microspheres with the cause of the collapses? I think you must be.

I manage to differentiate cause and effect very soundly thank you. It is you who is claiming to know that the spherules are neither related to the cause nor to the effect of the collapses without knowing what caused the spherules. You may be correct but I am interested in how you KNOW that.

All I am asking for is that, assuming they are there in quantities indicated by samples to date, what created them? I am not asking that of you - I don't expect you to know this - I am asking for someone who is in a position to carry out the analysis to a) confirm or deny their quantities and b) IF their quantities are unusual - which would require comparison to dust from other office fires/non-demolition building collapses - to explain how they were caused. SOMETHING caused them. If they were there in the office dust before the collapses - specifically denied by the RJLee report - then they must have been caused by something else. If they were ONLY there following the collapses (supported by the RJLee Report) then they need to be explained - claiming that "anything" could have caused them is just ridiculous - unless you think they got there by magic?


Well, I think magic or gnomes with wheelbarrows are a much more plausible explanations than your inept assertions but reality trumps all.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ent=safari
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.


Oh no you didn't!

Don't go around destroying people's arguments like that. You're liable to cause this thread to be cut short of a thousand pages. I can already hear the sound of goalposts moving from the direction of certain truthers.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#68  Postby econ41 » May 07, 2010 12:30 am

PJG wrote:Are you confusing my query regarding the cause of the microspheres with the cause of the collapses? I think you must be.
Actually, on your previous posts, I am not. But your facility at shifting logic from post to post takes some tracking. Hence the reason I cannot/will not engage in discussion of those topics which I think are your genuine concerns. I see three - your interest in microspheres, your open ended and unclear desire for a "further investigation"; your total rejection of any credibility of official sources principally NIST. Those are three concerns that, to my thinking, are separable. You persist in linking them. I consider the linkages invalid. Note that - I regard the issues as genuine but not the linkage. And there lies the crux of our different debating positions.

The phenomenon of the microspheres is of definite interest if they are present in significant quantities. So stand alone that is an interesting scientific topic for debate. Many members here would probably be interested - some clearly are - in pursuing it as a scientific phenomenon which stands in its own right.

However you continue to link microspheres to suspicions about the official explanation of the collapses.

HoG has denied that the question of "demolition or not" is central to the debate. His reason is that it is not his central issue. Sorry but it is not about HoG's or my preference. The global discussion topic here related to WTC on 9/11 is the mechanisms of collapse. With two or three "sides":
  1. Collapses caused by impact damage plus cumulative effects of unfought fires; (Therefore the "official" and my position reached by my independent analysis, not dependent on NIST et al.)
  2. Collapses caused by impact damage plus cumulative effects of unfought fires PLUS some assistance by demolition. (Originally some years back this was the interest area of genuine sceptics but now mainly held by the majority of "truthers" or "CTs");
  3. And collapses caused by impact damage plus cumulative effects of unfought fires PLUS some possible assistance by incendiary materials and not properly investigated by NIST et al and independent of whether or not the use of incendiaries was deliberate or accidental. This as I understand it is one area of your concern leading to your call for further investigation.
...so with the central question being "explain the collapses" the two questions of "was there any demolition?" and "Was there any deliberate or accidental use of incendiaries?" must be centre stage as the must be investigated issues in determining the mechanism of collapse. HoG's preferences notwithstanding the structure of the issues places those questions centre stage. So if Hog or anyone else has a different focus of interest they have to work around and accommodate the fact that in a discussion of collapse mechanisms, demolition and incendiaries are in pride of place at the right hand of the prima facie case for "impact damage plus fire damage".

Then the main difference between your position and mine is that in analysing the evidence of those three aspects I form the conclusion "Impact damage plus accumulating fire damage" is the cause. I make that conclusion based on the total of necessary evidence. There is not sufficient evidence for and a hell of a lot of evidence against both "demolition" and "incendiaries". My conclusion based on two broad areas of evidence which I have repeated:
  1. The technical - mainly structural - evidence of how the three collapses occurred says no demolition or incendiaries; AND
  2. Totally independent of the technical evidence the security/logistic aspects also say no deliberate demolition or incendiaries. And no accidental incendiary use from logistic/security considerations but by a different path (Naturally) to "deliberate use".
PJG wrote:... You may be correct but I am interested in how you KNOW that....
I have offered several times to link or re-write my explanations. But I start with WTC1 and WTC2. The technicals are much more out in the open than with WTC7. The technical explanations, in my estimation are 98% conclusive. For WTC1 and WTC2 there is one key point of technical explanation where there is no absolute proof of a point BUT it requires a most ridiculous pro demolition method as should satisfy anyone of open mind. (I have repeated that bit in recent posts. To initiate the Twin Towers collapses would require fire suited suicide teams working in the fire zone to place charges and fire them. I cannot prove that such did not happen but..... ;) any one who does not accept that as "improbable" is beyond my ability to assist/explain. :scratch: )

PJG wrote:...All I am asking for is that, assuming they are there in quantities indicated by samples to date, what created them? I am not asking that of you - I don't expect you to know this - I am asking for someone who is in a position to carry out the analysis to a) confirm or deny their quantities and b) IF their quantities are unusual - which would require comparison to dust from other office fires/non-demolition building collapses - to explain how they were caused. SOMETHING caused them. If they were there in the office dust before the collapses - specifically denied by the RJLee report - then they must have been caused by something else. If they were ONLY there following the collapses (supported by the RJLee Report) then they need to be explained - claiming that "anything" could have caused them is just ridiculous - unless you think they got there by magic?
...as a suggestion, if you pursue the microspheres "...to explain how they were caused. SOMETHING caused them..." as a stand alone topic you may get a lot of discussion support. To do that you need to disconnect the microspheres issue from your wish for another investigation into WTC 9/11 and disconnect it from your wish to denigrate NIST et al. And adopt an enquiring approach free of the personal attacks with which which you decorate most posts. You may get a lot of support. It is not my interest area - I have only joined in two or three discussions which were off mainstream "demolition or not" but others have already shown an interest in microspheres. Maybe their interest can be sustained in a discussion separated from the hot truther topics.

Who knows, if you get sufficient clarity on the microspheres sourcing you may be able to then relink to the collapses and open a new topic of debate. If my memory serves me well that was the aspect on which we first crossed swords - the idea that something out of a WTC7 investigation could somehow cause reopening of WTC1 and WTC2 debate.

Eric C
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#69  Postby econ41 » May 07, 2010 12:42 am

uke2se wrote:...Oh no you didn't!

Don't go around destroying people's arguments like that. You're liable to cause this thread to be cut short of a thousand pages. I can already hear the sound of goalposts moving from the direction of certain truthers.

I don't know about the thousand pages. We managed eight parts to the thread on RDNet.


...and I personally, on my lonesome, "alone and without a leader" *, posted about 1300 separate posts.





* Apologies to Mortimer, J (or Rumpole, H)
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#70  Postby hotshoe » May 07, 2010 12:57 am

Yeah, but we're done now. All but done. The fringe is fading. Even Jones' supernanothermite can generate enthusiasm amongst only a few, because no one can figure out how it could have been used in conjuction with their other pet bits of theory.

Won't get 8 parts to this thread, not in my lifetime.

And sue me if I'm wrong. If we're both still here then ...
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#71  Postby econ41 » May 07, 2010 7:48 am

hotshoe wrote:Yeah, but we're done now. All but done. The fringe is fading. Even Jones' supernanothermite can generate enthusiasm amongst only a few, because no one can figure out how it could have been used in conjuction with their other pet bits of theory.

Won't get 8 parts to this thread, not in my lifetime.

And sue me if I'm wrong. If we're both still here then ...

No suit - I agree.

In terms of Jones ego tripping the "nano thermxte" debacle was simply an unsubtle marketing ploy to lift his fading image. And in my judgement the last one which will "succeed" - he may try another one but...

The loser tactic with "supernanothermite" is that he plays off the "nano" thing as if it was a "nano technology" which it isn't in the usual meaning of that term. The pivot points of failure obvious to anyone with some basic physics is that:
1 finely grinding the particles simply releases the same energy faster, ask any ammunition reloader (yes I know but it is good enough for a broad explanation.); AND
2 even if it is four times "stronger" than standard thermite there is no way it could be used in the situation which happened at WTC.

Thermxte in any form never was and never could be a plausible deliberate use technology to assist collapse occurring by the actual mechanisms which applied at WTC on 9/11.

Now not being able to explain how it could be used has never stopped the core "truthers" - they revel in half truths and innuendo.

But the bottom line must be that the number of part way plausible silly ideas the truthers can invent is running out.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#72  Postby uke2se » May 07, 2010 8:12 am

econ41 wrote:
hotshoe wrote:... But the bottom line must be that the number of part way plausible silly ideas the truthers can invent is running out.


My money is that they'll just resurrect old talking points all over again. We're talking about unfalsifiable belief here. It's not going to go away save for growing the fuck up or a miracle.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#73  Postby PJG » May 07, 2010 9:18 am

Econ41 wrote:Actually, on your previous posts, I am not. But your facility at shifting logic from post to post takes some tracking. Hence the reason I cannot/will not engage in discussion of those topics which I think are your genuine concerns. I see three - your interest in microspheres, your open ended and unclear desire for a "further investigation"; your total rejection of any credibility of official sources principally NIST. Those are three concerns that, to my thinking, are separable. You persist in linking them. I consider the linkages invalid. Note that - I regard the issues as genuine but not the linkage. And there lies the crux of our different debating positions.


Now we are getting somewhere - but I am not sure whether you genuinely or wilfully misunderstand me.

I do not "denigrate" NIST - and it is interesting that you think that disagreeing or finding their report wanting = degeneration. I know you went into a fantastic explanation as to why having a "challenge to show how...[something that has never happened before could have happened in only a specific set of circumstances]" does not equate to having a predetermined conclusion but in a report of that type, that is exactly what it is, however you want to contort it. If it is not, why even put it in?

I think they ignored a very important piece of evidence that should be explained as a part of the whole event - or shown to be unimportant. All the explanations I have seen to date may explain the presence of some Fe-rich microspheres (there could be some in my house dust I expect, if you looked hard enough!) but not in the quantities indicated by the samples to date. Again, if you want to "explain" the microspheres, you have to either show that they were not there in exceptional quantities or you find a way that the exceptional quantities can be accounted for by fires and gravitational collapse. NIST did not do that, they simply ignored them. This is not the only criticism I have of their work, but it is certainly very high on my list.

Their reasons for excluding demolition (so far as their FAQs are concerned) are not "satisfactory". By this, I mean you do not exclude the possibility of something because it "unlikely" - particularly when you are looking into an unprecedented event. I just looked the FAQs up because I wanted to count the number of times they used "unlikely" to explain why they didn't look for evidence of demolition (it was "unlikely" that material could have been placed in the building, it was "unlikely" that conventional explosives were used therefore no others (exotics) could have been used - or words to that effect). The FAQs on WTC7 seem to have disappeared - anyone else find them? Also, they removed the "technical briefing" video - where they admitted freefall. Why would they do that econ41? *awaits another "excuse"*

You claim that I "reject any credibility of official sources, principally NIST". This is an absolutely outrageous statement! :shock: You have no evidence of this whatsoever. This is from my VERY FIRST POST on this (I mean the first) thread (red-bolded for this post):

Before anyone mocks – yes, I have read the précis of NIST's final report on WTC7, I have also read their FAQ and there are errors and omissions that just don't add up. I have also read the Niels Harrit paper. It is because of the scientific evidence that points to NIST being either incompetent or dishonest that I have been leaning more and more towards the idea of a cover up. I don't think the scientists at NIST are incompetent - so where does that leave me?

In NCSTAR 1-9:330 NIST states, "The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC7 under an ordinary building contents fire". Why on earth would they state this as a "challenge? If creationists state a conclusion and then look for evidence to support that conclusion, we criticise that as being unscientific - and it is. Isn't NIST doing exactly the same thing here?



I'll give you an example of why you are not even wrong when you make that claim:
I see official "evidence" that flight 77 hit the Pentagon but most of the "evidence" is not evidence at all - certainly not conclusive evidence. Then I see other (non-official) "evidence" that a plane did not hit the Pentagon but most of the "evidence" is not evidence at all. Since I expect the "official" claim, to be more sound and accurate, this does not sit well with me. It doesn't mean I don't accept the credibility of the official sources, it is because I think I should be able to accept their credibility that I find myself 50/50. Why would I doubt the official sources if they made sense?

What you describe as my "open ended and unclear desire for a "further investigation"" is also misleading, to say the least. What other stance can I take? I am sitting in my home in England with two choices - I can accept what I see as flawed claims and claims of evidence FOR a conclusion that is not "evidence" at all, or I can affiliate with a group of people who are also not satisfied and want to see an explanation that fits the evidence - if it is possible.

You claim I continue to link things that you see as separate. You define these as:

My interest in the spherules
My rejection of any credibility of official sources principally NIST
My open "ended and unclear" desire for a further investigation

Let's take a look at this.
Yes, I am very interested in the spherules.
NIST did a report on the collapse of the buildings that excluded them and I think, if they were thorough, they would have referred to the findings of other analysis that were available to them** and either state that the quantities in the other samples taken appeared to be anomalous or that they are explained thus...x,y,z.
This leads me to my conclusion that further investigation should be carried out.

Can you explain to me how these things are NOT linked?


EDIT: Perhaps I should make this clearer - If NIST had done a thorough job with a "null hypothesis" and included all the possible evidence and not ruled out possibilities in an investigation into an unprecedented event because they were "unlikely", then I would not be joining those asking for a new investigation. Is that clear why I "link" these factors?

** Harrit and Jones did this incidentally. They may be "crap scientists", they may be "kooks" and they may even be fraudulent - I DON'T KNOW - and I have tried to be very critical of all the "truther" work to EXACTLY the same degree as I am critical of the official reports. I expect the scientists at NIST to be MORE THOROUGH and probably BETTER than those in university departments since they are supposed to be the best of the best and have access to resources that most other labs - commercial or academic - can only dream of.
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#74  Postby PJG » May 07, 2010 1:35 pm

One other thing you might like to consider. As I have absolutely no affiliation to either the US government's official explanation, nor to the "truther" movement, the more you keep insinuating that I have, the more you appear to be projecting your own bias onto me.

There were things that "didn't make sense" to me as I watched the story unfold in September 2001 but I didn't even know that the "truther" movement existed until AFTER I started to question the official reports several years after 9/11 - specifically NIST on WTC7. I have told you, many times now, that I have not looked into the collapses of the twin towers to the same degree and I am not an engineer. Therefore, I am not able to make a judgement - that does NOT mean that I automatically accept what I am told. It means I have no opinion. My only comment - much distorted on this thread - has been that if evidence emerged from a thorough and complete investigation into WTC7 which suggested that the building had been tampered with in any way, shape or form, then I think it would be prudent to re-open the investigation into the twin towers since their collapse, like that of WTC7 was unprecedented and it would appear that some of the dust which currently acts as a sample, was collected before the collapse of WTC7. I keep getting accused of moving my stance but I think I have been consistent right from the start of the old thread - indeed, it is others who have attempted to shift the goalposts time and again. It is also others who claim to know things that they cannot know.
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#75  Postby uke2se » May 07, 2010 6:15 pm

So, what do we know thus far about the spherules?

- They appear in large quantities, far too large to have been part of any controlled demolition. The spherules must thus have a "natural" origin.

- The FE-rich spheres are, in fact, expected to form in an event like this, as per the RJLee report and the link provided by aspire.

- Jones/Harrit were wrong/lying in their paper.

- Nano-thermite isn't nano-technology. It's thermite with smaller particles.

Anyone except truthers see any reason to go on about the spheres?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#76  Postby econ41 » May 08, 2010 7:43 am

uke2se wrote:
econ41 wrote:
hotshoe wrote:... But the bottom line must be that the number of part way plausible silly ideas the truthers can invent is running out.


My money is that they'll just resurrect old talking points all over again. We're talking about unfalsifiable belief here. It's not going to go away save for growing the fuck up or a miracle.

However the nature/content of truther claims has shifted a lot in the last two years.

How long since we saw an outright claim such as demolition at WTC? Today's claims are more evasive and innuendo loaded contrasted with the nearly three years ago that I can relate to. Granted most of my experience was on RDNet where the topic OP originally defined the scope as "WTC" and "Demolition or not?" But from (I think) mid 2008 the scope of the thread was widened to include all 9/11 - mainly to ensure all the 9/11 stuff was constrained to one thread. I did suggest (as the responsible Moderator at the time) that two threads be created viz "Technical" and "CCC - or conspiracy/collusion/corruption".

However there as now there was little if any interest in discussing "CCC" apart from any linkage to "Technical". It was reminiscent of the typical truther site/presentation which leads off with the "this is how WTC towers fell - look its like a controlled demolition - THEREFORE it must be an inside job" See Gages intro slide show on AETruth for a typical example or Jones early presentation to whichever university it was.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#77  Postby econ41 » May 08, 2010 8:16 am

PJG wrote:
Econ41 wrote:Actually, on your previous posts, I am not. But your facility at shifting logic from post to post takes some tracking. Hence the reason I cannot/will not engage in discussion of those topics which I think are your genuine concerns. I see three - your interest in microspheres, your open ended and unclear desire for a "further investigation"; your total rejection of any credibility of official sources principally NIST. Those are three concerns that, to my thinking, are separable. You persist in linking them. I consider the linkages invalid. Note that - I regard the issues as genuine but not the linkage. And there lies the crux of our different debating positions.


Now we are getting somewhere
...well the "olive branch" was pretty obvious. :grin:
...but:
...- but I am not sure whether you genuinely or wilfully misunderstand me.
..it doesn't seem to go far. :nono:

..I do not "denigrate" NIST....
contrasted with
... It is because of the scientific evidence that points to NIST being either incompetent or dishonest...


If I comprehend that you are trying to be genuinely neutral/agnostic then I suggest that there is really only one point for debate. That is that you are seeking to impose standards of investigation which go far into matters of irrelevance and far beyond what is required to adequately inform the professionals relying on the NIST et al reports. This is clear from your last paragraph:
...** Harrit and Jones did this incidentally. They may be "crap scientists", they may be "kooks" and they may even be fraudulent - I DON'T KNOW - and I have tried to be very critical of all the "truther" work to EXACTLY the same degree as I am critical of the official reports. I expect the scientists at NIST to be MORE THOROUGH and probably BETTER than those in university departments since they are supposed to be the best of the best and have access to resources that most other labs - commercial or academic - can only dream of.

So the real underlying issue is "how far should NIST et al go with investigations?" You seem to have your own personal standards which go far beyond what is normal and reasonable.

If you go back a few pages here I proposed something along the lines of "the audience for NIST should be professionals in the relevant fields and lay persons who are competent to understand their reports with some informed professional assistance where needed."

Those reports are not intended to meet your personal redefining of terms such as "satisfactory" or "unlikely" to meet your own personal goals. And those are just two recent examples. Given that your goal is something that goes far beyond reasonable standards for formal investigations the discussion of "microspheres" is a waste of time whilst ever you link it to a call for a new investigation. There is nothing legitimate and relevant to investigate.

The microspheres can be an interesting phenomenon which some persons may wish to muse over. But they are irrelevant to the collapse mechanisms. And no amount of postulation that they "could somehow" change the conclusions can change the fact that they cannot and will not.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#78  Postby PJG » May 10, 2010 12:07 pm

Econ - I think you are still not understanding but I am stunned if you do not and that I have to spell this out. However, I will do so but I thought that my meaning was clear right from the start of the old thread.

I am not "denigrating" NIST because I am saying that maybe there is another explanation for their poor report. Of course there is only a "black and white" scenario - i.e. NIST must be incompetent or dishonest, IF the official story is correct. If the official story is NOT correct, then there are lots of OTHER possible explanations but I DON'T KNOW what they are/could be ....e.g. the scientists could have been "leaned on", the fact that they were not given access to physical evidence (and that evidence was destroyed) could have been deliberate, they may have been given a predetermined conclusion to work towards rather than giving themselves that "challenge" ... the list could go on and on and may include a hundred "explanations" - but none of THOSE can fit if those paying the piper are NOT calling the tune - i.e. don't have anything to hide. Do you understand this? I thought it was self-evident. I apologise if I should have stated what I thought was the obvious.

The idea that NIST or anyone else must provide a report that satisfies my own personal requirements is another completely irrelevant statement - of course they do not and I would be being unbelievably arrogant - and/or stupid - to state such a thing as an individual. However, grass-roots movements have often started when someone asks a question and finds others are asking the same questions. Most disappear over time, but some develop and grow. You are satisfied with the official story - you feel that the evidence supplied to support their story is adequate. I do not - and some others do not either.

I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim. I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know", I don't just make up something that fits or accept what someone else tells me - unless I have found them very reliable in the past - and I haven't found governments to be very reliable in the past! :mrgreen:

Look, there really isn't any point continuing this. You are 100% certain that a plane hit the Pentagon, the three towers collapsed because of fires and damage and that the plane in Shanksville crashed and was not shot down. I do not see how you can possibly know this, let alone be 100% certain of most of it. That you accept it 100% - good for you. We seem to agree that our standards of evidence are different. I have a great deal of work (unpaid! :( - well, unpaid in the short term!!) to do and won't be able to spend time on this again for some weeks/months. Since I accept you are an intelligent and thoughtful chap (unlike a few of your cohorts!!! ;) ) I hope we can end this on a civil and respectful note and just say that we agree to disagree. OK? :cheers:
Last edited by PJG on May 10, 2010 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#79  Postby PJG » May 10, 2010 12:26 pm

I stopped reading some people's posts long ago, but I did just notice this:

uke2se wrote:Nano-thermite isn't nano-technology. It's thermite with smaller particles.


:lol: Made my day this did! When I come back in the future, may I quote it in my signature please?
User avatar
PJG
 
Posts: 204
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#80  Postby Galaxian » May 10, 2010 12:36 pm

PJG wrote:I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim. I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know", I don't just make up something that fits or accept what someone else tells me - unless I have found them very reliable in the past - and I haven't found governments to be very reliable in the past! :mrgreen:

:clap: THAT ^ is the scientific process, little do they know it! We either KNOW something, in which case we say so. Or we do NOT know something, in which case we say so. Or we are UNsure, in which case we say so.
No, PJG, you don't have to leave (for now) on a civil note. You beat the crap out him fair & square! :beercheers:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment_Sam Nejad

To know who rules over you find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -Voltaire
User avatar
Galaxian
Banned User
 
Posts: 1307

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest