It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Interesting and thank you for proving my point. The gang who can not only shoot straight, but shoots themselves in the foot:

The part you leave out:
Only 4.6% of the respondents felt 9-11 was an inside job. Do you think you engaged in just a tad of misrepresentation in further of your agenda? For me, the only question I have for you – at this point – is this: did you knowingly misrepresent that poll hoping I was bluffing or, did you just not know?

Lets do the math on that. So, 4.6% of respondents think 9-11 was an inside job and 95.4% don't. If you dig into the actual data and learn what the full questions are you start to understand the truth of the matter. Then again, as you said earlier, you don’t care what the details are or what the questions actually were.. You already know what the conclusion is. Again, science seeks answers through all available evidence. Pseudoscience - which you're engaging in - looks for evidence to prove a foregone conclusion and excludes anything that doesn't meet that standard.

Proof?

You just linked a Zogby poll that indicates 95.4%, when given the chance to choose 9-11 being an 'inside job', didn't. However you are convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt you just dealt a deathblow to my argument. I could not have exposed the truth club for what they are, IMO, better than your honest illustration. Thank you for that.

I notice, at one point, you became completely unhinged and asked me if I was the devil? That’s another excellent illustration of how emotionally invested you are in the truth club. When I criticize the movement, you think I am criticizing you. You’re response? You called me stupid, arrogant, naïve and other pejoratives. I haven’t called you out as a person, I have called out the fallacies (IMO) of these arguments. When someone makes you, the royal you, the subject of the argument, they’ve already lost.

You’re posts, and others, are very, very illustrative. I don’t fault you for your opinions, I really don’t. I don’t think your stupid or any of the other pejoratives you used against me. IMO, you’re falling back on the truther’s final, “Alamo” – type, last stand position: I need to open my eyes. Some form of this argument is always the truthers last stand. Why? When forced to face the actual facts of the matter, truthers claim the evidence is plainly available, you (the royal you) just aren’t enlightened enough to see it.

I understand that makes you feel superior and smug. It’s also gotten you nowhere. True to form, the truth club is in full presence in this thread, slapping themselves on the back claiming victory. Of course, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that but why would we expect them to need evidence?

Get out of these forums (figuratively) and get on with it! Produce something!

P.S. The devil thing from one of your posts: if you’re serious, seek help.
(I’m not trying to be snitty, I am quite serious)




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The one thing I want to say about the serial numbers on aircraft parts is that not ever since last piece of an aircraft has one stamped into it.

The major components might have one of those small metal tags riveted on, but it's a small plate. I expect it to easily melt in a fire.

As for any serial numbers that are physically or chemically etched onto a part, I'm sure it's obvious to see how they can readily be disfigured beyond readibility or destroyed when the part itself is starting to melt or has been mangled.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only parts I see that could have a serial number on them are parts that can be serviced and replaced (landing gear components, engine components, and the like). I would really doubt airframe structure would have serial numbers because:

1. They're hidden between the outer and inner skins with no easy way to reach them, so what's the point on serializing them?
2. If you know an airframe part has an issue, it's not something that's going to be individually "replaced", the whole aircraft has to be replaced.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Quite correct and based off of what I wrote I am wrong. What I meant was the Commission didn't investigate through studies they performed, themselves. The Commission was a clearing house, so to speak, of all the collected knowledge to that point. The 9-11 Commission was not like the Warren Commission, for example. That was my point and you are correct to call me out on it.

I understand some will see this as a schuck-and-jive, but that's the honest truth. One last point: notice the difference. I readily admit when I am wrong.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So you agree that there is a report that can be peer reviewed.


Nope.


OMB has today issued a bulletin applicable to all departments and agencies entitled “Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.” This Bulletin establishes government-wide guidance aimed at enhancing the practice of peer review of government science documents.



When peer review of government reports is considered, the case for transparency is stronger, particularly when the report addresses an issue with significant ramifications for the public and private sectors.



While this Bulletin is not broadly applicable to adjudications, agencies are encouraged to hold peer reviews of scientific assessments supporting adjudications to the same technical standards as peer reviews covered by the Bulletin, including transparency and disclosure of the data and models underlying the assessments.


www.whitehouse.gov...

Don't tell me there is a peer reviewed report after reading that. If so, where's the data?


How many structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects exist in the world that could comment on the NIST report?


Without seeing their fully disclosed data. NONE!!!!!!


We don't need to understand a strawman argument. You have yet to demonstrate that those more qualified in the respective fields, object to, refute, or claim that there is insufficient evidence, bad methodology, and faulty conclusions of the NIST report.


Really?

Here's an article about how well the evidence was preserved.

www.fireengineering.com...

And here's a little bit about one of NIST's own fire engineers (Dr. Quintiere) saying there are unanswered questions. I have the complete presentation if you'd even care to listen to it.


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. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. "I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way," he said.


www.opednews.com...

I am not alone in this. You are. BTW, nice dig about "those more qualified". Like your tactic./sarcasm


You are just making a claim about NIST. You have yet to demonstrate it. The onus is STILL and ALWAYS will be on you to back up your OWN claims.


I'm not the only one making this claim. NIST's own damn engineers are. How much more do you need? Jees. It's like talking to a brick wall or someone employed by NIST to refute that which cannot be refuted. Which is it?

Dr. Quintiere's credentials.


Credentials

Dr. Quintiere has thirty-two years of experience in fire research and teaching. He has investigated numerous fire disasters, including the Branch Davidian Compound fire in Waco,Texas, and the 1986 New Year’s Eve Dupont Plaza fire in Puerto Rico.
His testimony during the civil trial on the Waco tragedy was pivotal to the jury’s conclusion that the fires were not the result of federal authorities’ actions.

Dr. Quintiere is the author of more than 75 journal publications and reports. He is the past chair, International Association for Fire Safety Science. He is also the recipient of the Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982).


www.umresearch.umd.edu...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It matters not that Griff is a civil engineer. He STILL has to back up his claims. He still has to demonstrate that HIS claims and "unanswered" questions are VALID.


Please refute my CLAIM that the NIST report isn't peer reviewed. Especially after reading through the whitehouse link I posted....ahem...evidence to back up my CLAIM. The ball's in YOUR court now.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?


Enough to work with? Fed to them by NIST themselves? Going back to my hypothetical report, would you accept it if I just fed you enough data to back up my conclusion? Or would you demand I disclose all the original data?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 

Thanks for the admission, but it's all over a minor point. I'm really not sure why I did my original post, as I usually don't post on points of semantics. I guess it was out of frustration as I read these threads almost everyday and a lot of them do break down into just arguments over semantics. I guess the point was, if I ever use the term "official story" or if I ever read someone using the term "official story" I asssume everyone would know it's a reference to the 911 commission report. At least that's how I take it. But then again some people use it to refer to what they have seen on network news or on other websites, so there is a point of contention depending upon how it's used. I suppose if there was more clarity in language this board would be only half it's size.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So you agree that there is a report that can be peer reviewed.


Nope.


So after saying there was a report, you now say there was no report. Quite amazing.

Let us know when you make up your mind.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
It matters not that Griff is a civil engineer. He STILL has to back up his claims. He still has to demonstrate that HIS claims and "unanswered" questions are VALID.


Please refute my CLAIM that the NIST report isn't peer reviewed.


First you admit there IS a report that could be peer reviewed.

Then you claim there is no such report.

Now you claim there IS such a report.

No wonder the 9/11 Truth Movement can't keep anything straight.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?


Enough to work with? Fed to them by NIST themselves? Going back to my hypothetical report, would you accept it if I just fed you enough data to back up my conclusion? Or would you demand I disclose all the original data?


I'm talking about the actual NIST Report. If you have finally made up your mind whether the report exists or not, please address my question:

How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 


1-Your claim is that the towers fell at free fall speed.

2-the exterior columns can be seen hitting the ground before the collapse front.

SO- by your claim, this means that the ext columns were falling FASTER than free fall speed.

Can you explain how this would be possible?




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So after saying there was a report, you now say there was no report. Quite amazing.


I never said there was no report. I said there was no report than can be peer reviewed until they disclose their data. For someone who always tells people they have reading comprehension skills lacking, you sure do lack some of your own.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?.


I never said NIST didn't have enough to work with. I'm saying the engineers you pointed out throughout the world don't have enough to work with to peer review the report. Again with the reading comprehension.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So after saying there was a report, you now say there was no report. Quite amazing.


I never said there was no report.


In fact, you did, to wit:

Griff: "To date, the NIST report hasn't been peer reviewed."

Jthomas: "So you agree that there is a report that can be peer reviewed. That's a start."

Griff: "Nope."


Confused, aren't you?

Now, back to the original question I asked: How many structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects exist in the world that could comment on the NIST report?

Please answer the question directly this time.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
How is it you know they didn't have enough to work with?.


I never said NIST didn't have enough to work with. I'm saying the engineers you pointed out throughout the world don't have enough to work with to peer review the report. Again with the reading comprehension.


My reading comprehension is fine, mate. Remember, you are the one who could not make up his mind if there is or is not a NIST report to begin with.

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.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
How many structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects exist in the world that could comment on the NIST report?


OK. I'll try a different tactic with you. All of them. If and only if, NIST reveals all of its data. Actually, the structural documentation from the PA and Robertson would help also as it applies to how NIST got its data. Now, until this is accomplished the NIST report has not and can not be peer reviewed. Got it yet?


Please answer the question directly this time.


I have.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
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?
You can't answer a question with a question!
If you have no answers just say so, so that I can leave this forum and get back to truthing.
HeHe



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
jthomas I am concerned for your life in the hereafter. Will you honestly maintain that all questions surrounding 9/11 have been answered adequately???

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

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



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
The part you leave out:
Only 4.6% of the respondents felt 9-11 was an inside job. Do you think you engaged in just a tad of misrepresentation in further of your agenda?


No, lol, because I don't even see that on the page I linked to. I even did a search for "4.6" and nothing came back. Can you quote it specifically for me so that I can see what you are referring to? You must be reading some other page if you're seeing this figure somewhere.

Again, here is the link: www.zogby.com...

Not that I would give a rat's ass anyway, in case you just missed my entire point, which is that I don't put stock into the emotional fit-in game like you do anyway. And yes I was quite serious with that devil comment, even though I don't believe in the fairy tales that probably come to your mind. It's called a "metaphor," and one of many facets of the devil to me is ignorance. I say what I do because I think it's true, not because it makes me feel good.

Really it always makes me feel sick to deal with people like you, to try to show you German folk what your beloved, humble Nazis are doing to this country, because I know inside that it is you that ultimately allows them to do this, and there is no talking to you. They say actions speak louder than words but apparently not loud enough for you, because you can't tell love from fear. You don't recognize who it is in this world that is actually causing all of the destruction, hatred, and violence. You don't see it in their faces, and you apparently can't read between the political lines. It is NOT Osama Bin Laden that is spreading hatred and death throughout this world!


Here is the article I linked to, from a 2-second Google search:


Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions. I think these numbers show that most New Yorkers are now fed up with the silence, and that politicians trying to exploit 9/11 do so at their peril. The 9/11 case is not closed and New York's questions are not going away."

Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report. How can proposals based on such deficient findings ever make us safe? We think these poll numbers are basically saying, 'Wait just a minute. What about the scores of still outstanding questions? What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7, our air defenses, official accountability, the chain of command on 9/11, the anthrax, insider trading & FBI field probes? There's so much more to this story that we need to know about.' When such a huge majority of New Yorkers want a new investigation, it will be interesting to see how quickly Attorney General Spitzer and our legislators respond."

SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq - do New Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war (51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission - did it answer all the "important questions" (only 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11 - what was its number (28% of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

SPONSOR: 911truth.org is a coalition of researchers, journalists and victim family members working to expose and resolve the hundreds of critical questions still swirling around 9/11, especially the nearly 400 questions that the Family Steering Committee filed with the 9/11Commission which they fought to create. Initially welcomed by the commissioners as a "road map" for their inquiry, these queries cut to the heart of 9/11 crimes and accountability. Specifically, they raised the central issues of motive, means and cui bono (who profited?). But the Commission ignored the majority of these questions, opting only to explore system failures, miscommunications and incompetence. The victim families' most incisive issues remain unaddressed to this day. The Zogby International poll was also cosponsored by Walden Three (walden3.org) and 9/11 Citizens Watch (911citizenswatch.org), a watchdog group which has monitored the Commission since its inception and will release its findings, "The 9/11 Omission Report," in several weeks.

On September 9th and 11th, 911Truth.org will cosponsor two large successive inquiries in New York, a preliminary 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing and "Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth," a research-focused evidentiary forum. These inquiries will examine many of the 9/11 Commission-shunned questions and discuss preparation of a probable cause complaint demanding a grand jury and criminal investigation from the New York Attorney General. Possible charges range from criminal negligence and gross dereliction of duty to foreknowledge, complicity and subsequent obstruction of justice. For details and developments, see www.911truth.org. For press info, contact Kyle Hence 212-243-7787 kylehence@earthlink.net

Zogby International conducted interviews of 808 adults chosen at random in New York State. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from 8/24/04 through 8/26/04. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.



It gives you another opportunity to read everything they're saying about how many people are upset with so many unanswered questions, too.

Even if you disagree that it was an inside job, you would still be in the minority as far as this poll goes, if you are satisfied by the official reports. I'm sure that doesn't make you as giddy as you are when you think you've beaten someone in a pissing contest, to realize so many normal people believe something you try so hard to rationalize as more or less "crazy." And frankly you must also be willfully ignorant of the same reports. You have so much faith in them but can't use them to answer our questions to our satisfaction. Do you think I post here because it's pleasant to talk to you?

[edit on 9-6-2008 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join