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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true. And I don't accept authorities simply because they assert themselves as authorities, and that includes scientific journals that boil down to nothing but an image and fitting in with a norm imo. In other words you can't win me over by saying by saying "all these people agree with this," but you can win me over by making me agree with their actual reasoning.
Originally posted by bsbray11
That's fine and it's pretty incomprehensible to me too, but, you're still not seeing 50% of the total mass in the footprints, or even 25%, so some high percentage of mass like that WAS ejected out of the footprints.
Originally posted by exponent
and the fact that this model fits correctly with values from 0.2 to 0.5 is circumstantial evidence in favour of it.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Then I could say the fact that the model can't handle 80-90% of the mass being ejected and produce results that reflect reality, is circumstantial evidence that the model is wrong. And the fact that they had to make a new theory to explain not being able to handle those numbers, is circumstantial evidence of the same.
Originally posted by exponent
We're still getting back to the 80% figure though. You have defined this as fact, and even though you have no good evidence for it, you believe it unequivocally. Why?
What possible reason do you have for being so devoted to this number? As we have discussed so far, there is
- No plausible reason for doing it
- No known mechanism to do it
- No good evidence it was occuring
In this post you even resort to circular reasoning to try and justify it
This is a chain of logic that is based upon the idea 80-90% is the correct result, and then says that because the model can't handle that it's evidence the model is wrong. This is not a reasonable logical approach.
I am more than willing to discuss this, but I am going to require some stronger evidence than you deciding that it looks like 80-90% was ejected
Originally posted by bsbray11
Because of the mass I see left in the footprints. You certainly can't build half a tower with it. I hope we would at least agree there. I also look at it and say you can't build even 25 floors with it.
If you want to just agree to disagree on how much mass you see there, that's fine with me. You can see that it's the lobby level because there are still tree columns.
No, circular reasoning is saying, we don't see 50% of the mass still here in the footprints, but we'll assume it landed there anyway and make up a theory as to why it isn't there anymore, just so our models will work out. Because our models obviously should work out, because there were obviously correct from the start. That is circular reasoning.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
If not thermite, then what produced the iron spheres? What has the
chemical signature? What substance can be produce in nano form
coming from the towers?
I'd still like to read a theory from anyone here who denies the paper.
Still don't have one...
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan
The theory is that it is a red oxide paint on a layer of gray oxidized iron. The underlying gray material is what was magnetically separated from the rest of the dust and the red layer came along for the ride.
Originally posted by turbofan
I'm going to send this to Dr. Jones and get his professoinal response.
You still haven't accounted for the iron spheres in your 'theory', but that's
fine. There is enough weakness in your reply to expose you.
I'll let Jones do the honours. Sit back and wait for the reply.
Originally posted by turbofan
I'm going to send this to Dr. Jones and get his professoinal response.
You still haven't accounted for the iron spheres in your 'theory', but that's
fine. There is enough weakness in your reply to expose you.
I'll let Jones do the honours. Sit back and wait for the reply.