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.
Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication.
Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:
vague generalizations
use of the passive voice
non sequitur statements
use of grammatical devices such as qualifiers and the subjunctive mood
use of euphemisms (e.g., replacing "firing staff" with "streamlining the workforce")
Examples
"A growing body of evidence..."[3] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
"Critics claim..." (Which critics?)
"Clearly..." (Is the situation really clear?)
"I heard that..." (Who told you? Is the source reliable?)
"There is evidence that..." (What evidence? Is the source reliable?)
"Experience shows that..." (Whose experience? What was the experience? How does it demonstrate this?)
"It has been mentioned that..." (Can these mentioners be trusted?)
"Popular wisdom has it that..." (Is popular wisdom a test of truth?)
"It is known that..." (By whom and by what method is it known?)
"It turns out that..." (How does it turn out?)
"History has shown that..." (Which events, date, facts have shown that and who is interpreting these events, dates, ...?)
"Our product is so good, it was even given away in celebrity gift bags." (True, perhaps, but not relevant.)
"See why more of our trucks are sold in Southern California than in any other part of the country." (Southern California is a big vehicle market.)
"Nobody else's product is better than ours." (They're all about the same.)
"Becoming involved with this problem would be beneficial to us." (In what way would it be beneficial?)
"Tradition dictates..." (whose tradition, and why is it valid in all cases?)
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by adigregorio
Many analytical chemists see the fallacies in the paper. Yes, we are all either more honest or more competent than the Jones' crew. As I explained earlier, until the paper is published in a real journal, there is no forum for criticism.
Originally posted by adigregorio
This is horrible debating! Three instances of weasle words in one paragraph!?
Many analytical chemists: Which chemists, where are they, what are their credentials?
We are all either more honest: Where is the proof? If anything Jones is more believable than you. Least we know that he is a scientist, even if you/others think its a faulty scientist.
Real Journal: Ahh so this is a "fake" journal? Where is the research to back this up. And don't say because it is open source (or whatever the term was). I want viable data that says the journal is fake, IE a pending case for fraud (Fraud is what this would be, if this was really a fake journal.)
Furthermore, since you have proof that it is fraud. You better save the scientific community!! Let us laymans, and the 'not-as-smart-as-you' "faulty scientists" know your truth.
Or could it be that you are un-qualified? I think it does, or you would have put Jones in his place.
-----
To the rest of the weasle word users, I will not tolerate that type of behavior in a discussion. I will call it out every time, from here on out. It is a shady way to debate, and it is immature.
If you do not have "real" proof to back up claims, do not make claims.
(Real=Not a fallacy, or weasle words)
PS Still no links
Originally posted by bsbray11
And again you talk about lots of people and consensus. What a shock that the last 3 times I said I don't care about that, you weren't even paying attention. You must not really understand what a "logical fallacy" is, either. History never teaches people like you anything, that's why it always repeats itself. Why are you so arrogant on behalf of a lot of people who have seen little to no evidence in the first place? Have you really seen some kind of "proof" that I haven't?
Originally posted bybsbray11
No, what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. ...
Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by mmiichael
Really? Then how come I am not the only one calling the "weasle words" on the carpet?
Originally posted by bsbray11
And again you talk about lots of people and consensus. What a shock that the last 3 times I said I don't care about that, you weren't even paying attention. You must not really understand what a "logical fallacy" is, either. History never teaches people like you anything, that's why it always repeats itself. Why are you so arrogant on behalf of a lot of people who have seen little to no evidence in the first place? Have you really seen some kind of "proof" that I haven't?
Originally posted bybsbray11
No, what it always gets back to is people like you mentioning all this overwhelming evidence, but it never gets back to the evidence itself. ...
(Bolding done by me)
There are plenty more, all I want and bsbray11 wants, is for you to back up your claims. Instead, more weasle words, and run-a-round.
ThermAte was used, according to these scientists. You are not a scientist (unless I missed that post). If you are going to refute their claims, you will need to present something that is viable, not an unfounded claim. And that is what it is, until you provide the 'evidence' that there was no ThermAte.
(My guess is you will 'be done with me' like you were with bsbray11 when he wouldn't let you use these 'logical fallacys'.)
Harrit and Jones et. al. made no attempt to show that their mysterious chips were energetic enough to have damaged the WTC’s frame. Ryan Mackay, from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratories (quite literally a ‘rocket scientist) crunched the numbers on a JREF thread about the paper and showed them to be quite lacking.
QUOTE
" …there's two things to keep in mind: (1) The thickness proposed by Dr. Jones is roughly 20 microns, no more than that; and (2) a coating over the surface of the steel cannot be focused onto a 1/4 kg section of the steel. The latter assumption is the source of your 2% mass-fraction estimate, and it's a bad assumption.
Running my own rough numbers, if we assume the most vulnerable of all columns -- a minumum thickness perimeter column, which is a box column 356 mm on a side and 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick -- consider a 20 micron coating of the nanodoubletalk put onto all sides, which is impossible, but let's go with the worst case. The alleged nanostuff has an energy content of about 7 kJ/g (using the highest of his WILDLY varying four samples), and assuming thermite has a specific gravity of about 4, means 28 kJ/cm3.
The total amount of "film" would be 4 x 356 mm x 0.020 mm = 28.48 mm2 per unit length, or 28.48 cm3 per meter of column, with an energy content of 797 KJ per meter of column.
The column, in contrast, has 4 x 356 mm x 6.35 mm of steel per meter, or 9042 mm2 per unit length, or 9042 cm3 per meter of column. At 7.85 g/cm3 this means the column mass is 71 kg/meter.
Steel heat capacity is roughly 460 J / (kg K). So the nanocrap would heat the steel column by (797 kJ/meter) / [(460 J / kg K) (71 kg/meter)] = 24 Kelvins, or 24oC.
Again, this is the optimal case -- thinnest and weakest column, total application on all four sides, most optimistic energy content estimate, and 100% efficiency in applying heat to steel. From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning. "
QUOTE
forums.randi.org...
Originally posted by mmiichael
You ask for what you consider to be unquestionable "proof" for some of the things I mention. But references to peer reviewed papers are not sufficient substantiation.
That creates a problem as I defer to published expert opinion whenever available.
From this, we reason that in order to be effective, we need at least 16 times the thickness to have any useful effect even on the weakest of columns, even with utterly reliable and efficient ignition and adherence to the column while burning.
Originally posted by bsbray11
... The only reports with access to the structural documentation and physical evidence were FEMA's and NIST's, and neither of them were peer reviewed.
... melted steel taken from WTC7 that was analyzed and found to have melted below its normal melting point by the addition of sulfur and other elements into the steel. So there was something applied to WTC steel that caused it to melt and fail structurally, in this particular case before the rest of the building collapsed.
Originally posted by mmiichael
I'm not certain about FEMA offhand, but NIST used external peer review as an additional pre-dissemination review process.
As far as I know, steel has only been shown to behave this way in reports attempting to prove controlled demolition.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
Notice the above is exactly what I was just talking about.
From Appendix C of the FEMA report: www.fema.gov...
They even have plenty of pictures, and talk about similar corrosion seen in samples recovered from the Twin Towers.
So there was something applied to WTC steel that caused it to melt and fail structurally, in this particular case before the rest of the building collapsed.
Originally posted by mmiichael
You have taken a portion of a quote.
But in isolation, it sounds like a conclusion made to further the controlled demolition claim.
Originally posted by bsbray11
This is exactly what people are talking about when they say someone is biased. If it doesn't fit what you already believe, you aren't willing to consider it. You're already looking for ways to discredit it. Let me know when you summon up the courage to look at the FEMA report, or better yet let me know when you come up with a real reply to my post.