rationalskepticism.org

Moridin wrote:
No, because a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian (you didn't even get that quote right) is not an unexplained anomaly, it is something much more; it is something that can neither be predicted nor accommodated by evolution. This is not the same as unexplained anomalies. Every controlled scientific experiment you read about in Science or Nature most likely has unexplained anomalies, but if you look at the bigger picture, you will see that these are not really relevant.

I think I remember writing it - *checks* - yep – I said that if the microspheres are anomalous, then that is fine. I completely agree with you, anomalies are (and should be) dismissed as irrelevant. However, if there were hundreds of tons of Fe-rich microspheres in the WTC dust, then they would be representative, not anomalous, and they would - I will add "almost certainly" - falsify the fire-induced progressive collapse theory put forward by NIST – hence my reference to the fossil rabbit**

Moridin wrote:
But please, stop your passive aggressive tactic of being opressed (no one is buying it) and tell us what would disprove your position. Stop squirming. Describe what would disprove your position or admit that your belief is unfalsifiable.

You still do not seem to understand my “position” or my “belief”, as you call it – and I certainly don’t feel “oppressed” – why would you think that? Nor am I “squirming” - are you serious? If you ever read back on the old thread, you might understand why I am not going to get into long discussions with people who are no more able to answer my questions than I am. I am not suggesting this includes you, I am explaining why I chose not to respond to certain posts. I spent hours and hours explaining to one individual who did not believe the spherules existed not only that they existed but what they are, how they are formed, their chemical signatures and so on, including looking up links to papers and micrographs and so on, to have that individual turn around and claim that they were "rust". Following that, I responded to another post with fairly detailed reasons why a JREF Forumite had given irrelevant "evidence" to discredit a paper and not a single point was addressed, instead, the response entirely consisted of personal attacks. I'm not going that way again.... I hope you understand.

Back to your post:

It seems that “I don’t know” is not acceptable on this thread. I know that, had you made the list I suggested, that almost every single answer I would give would be “I don’t know” – with a few “accepts”, no doubt. However, those who support the official story claim that they DO know – when it is patently clear that most of the "evidence" they cite is irrelevant - it neither supports nor counters their claim that the official story is true. Also, as you may observe is happening to HoG at the moment, claims that there are some things that do not "fit" are being met by an insistence that he presents a case. If it goes the way it did with me, he will be asked for a complete alternative scenario - with means, motive and opportunity of each player neatly mapped out, with evidence bagged and labelled. This is what an investigation does - you don't present the evidence to the judge before the investigation has been carried out.

The problem is that IF the NIST report is falsified then the entire official claim is suspect.

** You are correct, of course, about the quotation, but are you seriously suggesting that had I said, “finding a fossil rabbit in the Silurian", you would not have understood the concept?

Edit for grammar