How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, back up your claim that the world's qualified people do not have enough to work with to evaluate the NIST report, it's evidence, methodology, and conclusions, assuming you now agree the NIST report exists.

I guess you skipped over the post I had about Dr. Quintiere? That's ok, I knew you would. As it pertained to evidence of my claims. But here you go again.

BTW, Dr. Quintiere was a NIST engineer. But, I guess their own engineers don't know what they're talking about if it doesn't coincide with your views. Correct?

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.

informeddissent.com... gation/

And again, I have the full presentation on mp3. I had to buy it. But, I'd be willing to dictate it for you since you'll believe whatever anyone tells you. Correct? Or would you like to hear it for yourself?

Apparently, you don't understand what Quintierre said. He came up with an additional mechanism by which the trusses would fail from fire alone without the foam insulation needing to be "knocked off."

Second, Quintierre left NIST in 1990 and had the same data that everyone else has. By your own claim, Quintierre would not then have the data to make any comment.

Third, Quintierre made it quite clear that he does NOT believe 9/11 conspiracy theories

Please, make a point of catching up with the facts.

Originally posted by jonyo1
I asked you a simple question Jthomas, why is it that you refuse to answer?
Why were none of the hijacked aircraft on 911 intercepted?

I guess you don't get it. Why are you asking ME?

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
jthomas I am concerned for your life in the hereafter.

No need to be, mate. I don't believe in a "hereafter." Never have seen any evidence for one.

Will you honestly maintain that all questions surrounding 9/11 have been answered adequately???

Concerning the facts that Bin Laden was responsible, and Arab hijackers did it, absolutely.

Remember your creator is watching...are you satisfied with the answers??

I don't have a "creator".

Please jthomas look into your soul and ask is this the truth???

I stick to evidence, mate. You should try it sometime.

Originally posted by jthomas
Second, Quintierre left NIST in 1990 and had the same data that everyone else has. By your own claim, Quintierre would not then have the data to make any comment.

Why do you think he's asking for a peer review? Last time. I'm done going around in circles with you just so you can stroke your ego (and who knows what else) and deny everything we have said as just more crazy crap.

Please, make a point of catching up with the facts.

Please make a point of not being an ass. I know it's very hard for you to do.

Originally posted by Maya432


what a joke this thread is.......

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB
911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

you can spew your propaganda till you are blue in the face..

3/4 of the world already knows that the official story is BUNK.

You sir are either a moron or a paid shill.
there is no in-between.
and no, I will not be polite when faced with such sheer
ignorance or deliberate propaganda.
there is no more time to be coy and polite
when you and your monsters are destroying us and our planet.

"If there is a consistent characteristic of the 9/11 Truth Movement, it's a kind of burning, defensive hypersensitivity, a powerful inclination to be instantly offended, which expresses itself in a tendency for its adherents to seem literally to leap out of their seats in anger..."

"The Great Derangement" - Matt Taibbi

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

A lot of people (including engineers) have already come forward, jthomas. Hell, Griff is one of them. I don't know what you are waiting for.

We're all waiting for the 9/11 Truth Movement to step up to the plate and put its money where its mouth is.

That should be obvious to you by now.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Second, Quintierre left NIST in 1990 and had the same data that everyone else has. By your own claim, Quintierre would not then have the data to make any comment.

Why do you think he's asking for a peer review? Last time. I'm done going around in circles with you just so you can stroke your ego (and who knows what else) and deny everything we have said as just more crazy crap.

Man, you are having trouble. Please tell us how how the world's qualified people I listed cannot comment on the NIST report because "data has not been released" but Quintierre, who has no more data than the rest CAN according to you.

You just go around contradicting yourself and then when I show you what Quintierre said, you blow it off.

Originally posted by jthomas
We're all waiting for the 9/11 Truth Movement to step up to the plate and put its money where its mouth is.

That should be obvious to you by now.

There is no statute of limitations on first degree murder. So, you can sit there as long you'd like.

What is obvious is that you still haven't answered anything about Dr. Quintiere. You say he has a different theory. Well, duh, that is my point. Not every engineer out there has their head so far up their ass as you do that they smell roses. You asked me for evidence that the NIST report is questionable. That was the start of this diatribe right? Well, I've given you a prominent engineer who disagrees with NIST and has unanswered questions. Are you now going to turn around and say i said this, no I said that and play little semantic games? Because that's all you're doing here.

Originally posted by jthomas
Man, you are having trouble. Please tell us how how the world's qualified people I listed cannot comment on the NIST report because "data has not been released" but Quintierre, who has no more data than the rest CAN according to you.

I'm not having trouble at all. You asked me first where the evidence was that there were indeed unanswered questions. I gave you an example of a prominent engineer who has unanswered questions and you still want to play semantic games. I'm done with fools and trolls.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Double Eights


Actuallly there is a signed order by Bush authorizing the 911 attacks... being held by an attorney.Already the firm's office has been raided by the FBI trying to retreive the document... Good thing we are in the internet age This coupled with thermate evidence found on WTC steel, the fact that steel was shipped to china as fast as it was, also the molten lava confirmed by firefighters, which is impossible to have with a jet fueled fire (after several weeks) but fits the thermate hypotheis nicely. And WTC7 free fall collapse even though it was not hit by a plane,(it had structural damage on the corner and should have fallen towards its injury(path of least resistance) not onto itself! and the pentagon damage is not consistant with a jet liner crash....(and the manueviering was made that even veteran pilots say is impossible with a commercial airliner... And the fact that that WTC1 andWTC2 were actually desined to withstand multiple 707 impacts ...... an open air jet fuel fire does not reach the needed tempertures to melt steel period... and even if the structure fell.. it would not have fallen as if there was no resistance... how do you create no resistance for a structure to fall at that speed? 110 stories gone in 10 seconds... give me break..


former chief of staff has incriminating evidence in 911 attacks?

This is very serious, he is now a counselor for the victims of 911, and claims he has incriminating evidence.... He claims he has the document that shows bush ordered 911. And is using this in his lawsuit.. now this is huge.. In the radio show he said that the FBI actually raided his office and took the document that had the incriminating evidence.. however according to him he has backup copies of the incriminating evidence..


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Exerpt

SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It’s not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, “seen on television the first plane attack the first tower.” And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government-ordered thing. We are suing them under the Constitution for violating Americans’ rights, as well as under the federal Fraudulent Claims Act, for presenting a fraudulent claim to Congress to justify the bogus Iraq boondoggle war, for political gains. And also, under the RICO statute, under the Racketeering Corrupt Organization Act, for being a corrupt entity. And I’ve been harassed personally by the chief judge of the federal court who is instructing me personally to drop this suit, threatened to kick me off the court, after 30 years on the court....


[edit on 9-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by Griff


Federal trolls everywhere it seems... These people are either insanely blind, or this is there job... I have seen federal trolls hang around forums for years disputing 911 truthers... my question to you federal trolls is this.. If in fact truthers are full of bull then why sit there wasting so much of your lives trying to argue againts this? in actuallity you are confirming that this is a real issue... espeically when you stay in the same forums for years using the same s\n... Best thing you can do is just ignore them.. You can tell when someone is a federal troll when they tottally ignore questions any normal citizen would ask... There so many holes to poke at.. and these federal trolls don't seem to see any. Totally blind to what actually happened that fatefull day.. Good thing there is no statute of limitations on murder...

Why would I ask a question of you, Jthomas?
Because I assume you have the answer, that's all.
You don't do you, and to avoid the question you act as though the question has no merit.
It is a primary question concerning 911 and if you can't answer it perhaps you should have never started this thread in the first place.
You seem to be Mr Knowitall, so maybe silence would be a relief for us all.
Silence from you!
Peace

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks for the answers to questions I haven't asked, are you sure you're talking to the right person?

Also, if you call someone out for ranting, don't you find it ironic that it took you four, lengthy paragraphs to say it? BTW, if you're tired of my “ranting” why do you feel the need to engage me? If you really thought none of what I am saying is worth responding to, wouldn't you just ignore me? If you feel that strongly, please do. As long as this (truther) nonsense continues, so will I.

I haven't stuck my head in the sand and proclaimed an opinion. I have read through quite a bit (not as much as some, more than others) of the publicly available information, deferred to the consensus of experts and formed an opinion. I find absolutely no indication of a conspiracy as it relates to how the buildings fell, or why. The club's failure to provide anything that can be remotely considered hard evidence of.....anything....does not mean I am a “debunker”. I don't debunk anything. The truth club does it for me.

Did the various Intel agencies “fall down” on the job beforehand? In my opinion, absolutely. Could there be conspiracies to cover up blame for the Intel failures? Absolutely. And that is where, IMO, the real possible conspiracies end and the woo-woo begins.

I am devoted to the evidence. Science. Listening to people who have a hell of a lot more experience in some matters than I do. Understanding the consensus opinion of experts, not a few questionable characters who claim to know what they are talking about. Ignore the emotional nonsense and focusing on what the evidence tells us.

You (the royal you) make the assumption that I, as is anyone who believe the preponderance of evidence, am 'with the government'. If you knew me, you would laugh at that assertion. Incidentally, that assertion comes up because of the club's deep political ideology that poisons their thinking. It's not skeptics who use derogatory terms like “Bushies” and Darth Cheny, government pigs and all the other political name calling. If I believe in evidence, then I am a “Bush Crony”. That, my friend, is the domain of the truth club. Finally, it's not only insulting, it's the stuff of mental midgets.

The 9-11 report contains a massive, massive amount of collected work. Does the truth club conduct their own investigations? Do they bring their supposed evidence before a grand jury? Do they prepare a report to be disseminated to the masses for review? No they ask questions and ignore the answers. For years.

Here is what the truth club does do. They protest 9-11, physically at ground zero (IMO) turning the site of over 3,000 people's death into a self-promoting circus act. They claim because sulfur was found at ground zero, that proves thermite was used. Of course, the fact that one of the main components of drywall (of which there were tons and tons) is....drum roll please.......sulfur. They claim there was no plane in Pennsylvania, despite statements from the sheriff, the coroner and a couple hundred first responders, cell phone calls from the actual planes (faked, of course), the black box, the accidental transmissions from the hijackers themselves and many personal artifacts from the victims, positively identified by the family members. They claim no planes hit the world trade centers and holograms were used. Oh, I can't forget the Doppler sound machines to fool us all into thinking we were hearing airliners! Remember the whole “explosive pod” nonsense truthers claimed the planes were carrying? Or how about the military re-fuelers they claimed were used, only painted to look like commercial airliners? They claim mini nukes (!) were used on the buildings, in the basements. Oh, and my personal favorite from Dr' Judy's latest acid trip: the wreckage at ground zero was less than a story high because........wait for it........wait for it........a directed energy beam weapon from outter space, actually two, VAPORIZED the buildings. You think I am kidding? It's a 100% true. As a matter of fact, she's suing! Can you believe that? She literally believes the buildings were brought down with directed energy weapons (2!) that vaporized so much of the buildings that the rubble pile was less than one story. For both buildings, in total.

That's the truth club.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Good thing there is no statute of limitations on murder...

You're right. It's only been six and a half years in which to gather evidence and present your case, right?

At the clubs current, break-neck pace of "smoking guns" I predict in 3013 the club will be ready (almost) to take it mainstream!

Here's to waiting!

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Listening to people who have a hell of a lot more experience in some matters than I do. Understanding the consensus opinion of experts, not a few questionable characters who claim to know what they are talking about.

This just goes back to you not using your own head, but relying on what you feel to be the consensus, and therefore correct information (I guess you're also aware that a majority opinion does not equate to something being correct?).

No one has had any access to the relevant evidence and structural information except for a small handful in the agencies that did the actual investigative work (FEMA, NIST), not entire fields of professional engineers.

One of the teams of guys that actually went out and toured the debris fields, including a Dr. Astaneh-Asl, didn't even get access to the structural documents to further investigate failures, and Astaneh-Asl actually complained about this to Congress and you can look that up. We don't have access to the information we (the general public, including engineers) need; only a relatively few people have even seen WTC7 fall (28% in the poll mentioned earlier, and I'm still not seeing the 4.6% thing...).

Ignore the emotional nonsense and focusing on what the evidence tells us.

Man, my whole last post was asking you to show me evidence.

I don't have an opinion on what brought the buildings completely down, only what didn't do it: potential energy from the structure only.

So between us, if anyone is to be presenting evidence for anything, it would be you presenting evidence for you call the "consensus" scientific opinion (again, as if hardly anyone has actually seen the critical info for engineers and scientists), because I readily admit I don't know what brought them down. I am still to be convinced of what you're referring to.

You (the royal you) make the assumption that I, as is anyone who believe the preponderance of evidence, am 'with the government'.

You're twisting my words. I said you enable them by not thinking for yourself, and only having faith in portrayals from the mainstream media and whatever other "evidence" you only believe exists.

Also, realize that all the people you call "truthers" are just people like anybody else. Among those who believe the "official story" are rapists, murderers, thugs, etc. Do you think it's fair that I associate you with them just by your common opinion on 9/11? Don't tell me what "club" I am in and then tell me what I do and don't do. I post here on my own free will.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You're right. It's only been six and a half years in which to gather evidence and present your case, right?

Yes and six and half years of waiting for any evidence that supports the official media story.

How can people still believe the official story, are they that closed minded or brainwashed?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
I find absolutely no indication of a conspiracy as it relates to how the buildings fell, or why. The club's failure to provide anything that can be remotely considered hard evidence of.....anything....does not mean I am a “debunker”.

What? The debunkers, err, I mean rational analysts, are still screeching about a lack of evidence?

How much more evidence do they need?

Why won't they respond to this thread or this thread?

[edit on 10-6-2008 by GoldenFleece]

This just goes back to you not using your own head, but relying on what you feel to be the consensus, and therefore correct information (I guess you're also aware that a majority opinion does not equate to something being correct?).

Truthers: think they are subject matter experts who's Google-found knowledge of structural collapse, (limited of course to prisonplanet and infowars) supersedes those who have spent a life time in said field.

Thinkers: readily admit where their knowledge ends and where the subject matter experts begins. Again, you're making me the issue and think if you can prove me wrong, that, by extension, proves your theory(s) correct. In actuallity, all it means is your missing the mark on both counts. Buddy, if you think I am a feeler versus a thinker, based off of what I have written in this thread............your continuing to highlight the truth clubs lack of the most basic of observational skills. Then again, you guys think you have a movement on your hands.

No one has had any access to the relevant evidence and structural information except for a small handful in the agencies that did the actual investigative work (FEMA, NIST), not entire fields of professional engineers.

Yet their conclusions, results, methodology, narratives and assumptions are completely available for the entire world to look at, review, critique and evaluate for more than a couple of years. The consensus from those that actually know what they are talking about (literally the world's structural engineer group-think) is in agreement with the overall conclusions. Yet, you feel they are incorrect. And I am the one who isn't using my head?

Man, my whole last post was asking you to show me evidence.

This is something that truthers just don't get. It's not up to me to prove the NIST's report is correct, it's up to you to prove it isn't. This is so basic, and the clubs inability to produce anything that counts as evidence, does not mean the argument lies in NIST re-proving or re-stating their conclusions. Again, stop complaining about woulda-shoulda-coulda and get out there and produce something to state your case for goodness sakes. Stop claiming you have smoking guns and start taking action.

I don't have an opinion on what brought the buildings completely down, only what didn't do it: potential energy from the structure only.

That's your opinion, and that's fine by me. Just consider this. The world has been looking at the 9-11 attack evidence (including truther theories) and found nothing to support a conspiracy of any kind.

you're twisting my words. I said you enable them by not thinking for yourself, and only having faith in portrayals from the mainstream media and whatever other "evidence" you only believe exists

And you're insulting. Eloquent but, the translation is: you're stupid an a sheep of the mainstream media. Once again, more ad hom attacks because........this is all you have. You like to dismiss the evidence that does exist because it doesn't favor your preconceived notions of what the conclusion should be.

Also, realize that all the people you call "truthers" are just people like anybody else. Among those who believe the "official story" are rapists, murderers, thugs, etc. Do you think it's fair that I associate you with them just by your common opinion on 9/11? Don't tell me what "club" I am in and then tell me what I do and don't do. I post here on my own free will

Again, there is no “Offical Story”. Truthers have been peddling this nonsense since day one in an effort to appear as though all scenarios are just as likely. Which, on it's face, is a patent lie. Bascially its yet another attempt by the truth club to ignore the volumes and volumes of information that does not lead to the conclusion of 9-11 being an inside job.

Concerning the truth club: that's exactly what they are. There is no 'movement'. There is no ground swell of popular uprising. How did that 9-11 conference go in Canada? Exactly. After more than six and a half years the truth club has gained exactly.....nothing. Still the same allegations, still the same answers and still zero action on all the various “smoking guns”.

If you want to associate thinker s with murders, go ahead. You'll only look like a woo-woo fool. My representation of the truth club – much to your chagrin – is spot on. In case you missed it here is where the truth club stands today:

They protest 9-11, physically at ground zero (IMO) turning the site of over 3,000 people's death into a self-promoting circus act. They claim because sulfur was found at ground zero, that proves thermite was used. Of course, the fact that one of the main components of drywall (of which there were tons and tons) is....drum roll please.......sulfur. They claim there was no plane in Pennsylvania, despite statements from the sheriff, the coroner and a couple hundred first responders, cell phone calls from the actual planes (faked, of course), the black box, the accidental transmissions from the hijackers themselves and many personal artifacts from the victims, positively identified by the family members. They claim no planes hit the world trade centers and holograms were used. Oh, I can't forget the Doppler sound machines to fool us all into thinking we were hearing airliners! Remember the whole “explosive pod” nonsense truthers claimed the planes were carrying? Or how about the military re-fuelers they claimed were used, only painted to look like commercial airliners? They claim mini nukes (!) were used on the buildings, in the basements. Oh, and my personal favorite from Dr' Judy's latest acid trip: the wreckage at ground zero was less than a story high because........wait for it........wait for it........a directed energy beam weapon from outter space, actually two, VAPORIZED the buildings. You think I am kidding? It's a 100% true. As a matter of fact, she's suing! Can you believe that? She literally believes the buildings were brought down with directed energy weapons (2!) that vaporized so much of the buildings that the rubble pile was less than one story. For both buildings, in total.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by bsbray
No one has had any access to the relevant evidence and structural information except for a small handful in the agencies that did the actual investigative work (FEMA, NIST), not entire fields of professional engineers.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Yet their conclusions, results, methodology, narratives and assumptions are completely available for the entire world to look at, review, critique and evaluate for more than a couple of years.

This is the part where you guys get messed up.

OK. Say bsbray and myself write a report explaining how the towers were demolished by CD. We don't disclose all of our data to anyone. But, our conclusions, results, methodology, narratives and assumptions are there for you look at, review, critique and evaluate (how you would evaluate something without the data is beyond me but) for a couple of years.

Would you accept it? Of course not.

But, you want us to accept the NIST report when they have done the exact same thing? Not gonna happen.

The consensus from those that actually know what they are talking about (literally the world's structural engineer group-think) is in agreement with the overall conclusions.

And you know this for a fact? Have you asked each and every structural engineer out there? BTW, obviously you haven't asked me.

This is something that truthers just don't get. It's not up to me to prove the NIST's report is correct, it's up to you to prove it isn't. This is so basic, and the clubs inability to produce anything that counts as evidence, ot anything does not mean the argument lies in NIST re-proving or re-stating their conclusions. Again, stop complaining about woulda-shoulda-coulda and get out there and produce something to state your case for goodness sakes. Stop claiming you have smoking guns and start taking action.

So, it's not up to NIST to prove their theory correct? It is up to us to prove them wrong? Do you know ANYTHING about peer review and/or the scientific process?

That's your opinion, and that's fine by me. Just consider this. The world has been looking at the 9-11 attack evidence (including truther theories) and found nothing.

Because nothing has been released (evidence wise) for us to look at.

Once again, more ad hom attacks because........this is all you have.

And "truth club", "woo-woo" and "twoofer" are all you have.

You like to dismiss the evidence that does exist because it doesn't favor your preconceived notions of what the conclusion should be.

What evidence?

Again, there is no “Offical Story”.

Would you rather we call it the "Official Conspiracy Theory"? Because that's what it is.

Bascially its yet another attempt by the truth club to ignore the volumes and volumes of information that does not lead to the conclusion of 9-11 being an inside job.

Volumes and volumes of imformation supplied to us by the very people we suspect? Yeah, that counts.

My representation of the truth club – much to your chagrin – is spot on.

So, you are against the truth? VERY telling IMO.

What does that put you in? The lying club?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Just consider this. The world has been looking at the 9-11 attack evidence (including truther theories) and found nothing to support a conspiracy of any kind.

If that's true, I'm wondering why debunkers still spend a good part of their day writing lengthy missives trying to convince them that "there's nothing to see here -- move along."