rationalskepticism.org

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. )

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