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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 39
172
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Sorry, I have pteridine on ignore, and saying you aren't educated enough is a total cop-out. Why don't I just say I'm not educated enough to respond to you at all but I still think my views are more justified than yours anyway? Would you feel like that is a fair way to debate? I might as well start saying that for everything you say to me just to save myself the trouble of thinking. Is that ok?

If you want to say that the sulfur came from the drywall, then show me the chemical analysis that proves it was crushed-up drywall on the columns. Or else explain how the sulfur would be separated out from the drywall in nano-sized particles, and then re-combined with the other elements that made up the eutectic mixture.

Or else, just say, you really honestly have no idea where the sulfur came from. Because you don't. Drywall does not make sense, because the chemical composition is not that of drywall. It's a eutectic mixture consisting of nano-sized particles. And has no readily explainable source at all, at least if you are trying to say it just happened to form there and destroy the integrity of the steel.


Btw, go back and look at my post with the fused debris. You asked me where I thought I saw similar corrosion but I never originally said anything about it. I was just posting another (very large) example of completely anomalous debris that was not analyzed by NIST despite it obviously not fitting anything in their report. Some job they did investigating the evidence they had access to.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Hey mmiichael, there are MILLIONS of scientists and engineers in the world, yet how many do you ever hear about being behind any major scientific discovery?

Next time I see an article saying a team of 5 or 10 scientists/engineers have discovered something, should I just dismiss it because 10,000 other people didn't figure it out first or even simultaneously? Just answer the question, Yes or No.



I remember when you "debunkers" used to claim that all this was bunk because NO scientists or engineers had publicly come forward to contradict FEMA or NIST. A lot has changed since then, including 100's of scientists and engineers putting their professional names in jeopardy, as well as your goal posts. You "debunkers" moved them. But using this as some sort of argument is fallacious to begin with, I hope you are well aware of that. Science not being a popularity contest, and the majority of professionals having their heads too far up their own asses to bother with any of this stuff on a day-to-day basis, let alone spend precious resources (money) on testing, publishing, etc. That ANYONE has done it should make you really think, and not just about how they are trying to make money from myself and the others here that you spend so much of your time arguing with.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, I have pteridine on ignore, and saying you aren't educated enough is a total cop-out. Why don't I just say I'm not educated enough to respond to you at all but I still think my views are more justified than yours anyway? Would you feel like that is a fair way to debate? I might as well start saying that for everything you say to me just to save myself the trouble of thinking.

So we must be experts in every subject?!

I am certainly not, but luckily the people who analysed the samples for FEMA and NIST were significantly more qualified than me!


If you want to say that the sulfur came from the drywall, then show me the chemical analysis that proves it was crushed-up drywall on the columns. Or else explain how the sulfur would be separated out from the drywall in nano-sized particles, and then re-combined with the other elements that made up the eutectic mixture.

The chemical analysis does not prove it, because it cannot eliminate every other possibility. However, it is easy for you to find these facts on the internet:
  • Drywall containing large quantities of gypsum was used massively throughout the towers
  • Gypsum will degrate to sulphur at temperatures seen in a standard office fire
  • The steel had insufficient sulphur by itself
  • The attack was one of diffusion through grain boundaries at a temperature above 700C, not one of melting at 1500C. Nor would small amounts of thermite work, as they would add material, rather than removing it.


It is the opinion of professionals in this field, that drywall is the most likely source of sulphur for the above reasons. If you want to say that it isn't, then frankly I couldn't care less. Without any other evidence, to both a layman (myself) and professionals (pteridine, the FEMA/NIST team), gypsum seems an excellent source.


Or else, just say, you really honestly have no idea where the sulfur came from. Because you don't.

I can't guarantee that I am right, certainly! But since when has not being able to give a complete explanation ever been a critical flaw on this site? I mean if I asked you to tell me what incendiary/explosive compounds were used to take down the towers, could you?

Why must I provide a complete chemical analysis, while you ignore people actually trained in chemistry, wheras you may respond with cynicism and sarcasm and I must find a way to convince you?

All I ask is for an even playing field.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So we must be experts in every subject?!


Omg, you mean you have to actually be able to understand what YOU say to me?!?!?!

Like I said, if you are going to tell me the sulfur "likely" came from drywall, then.... put up or shut up? I don't see the chemical composition of drywall in the analyses, but if you would like to point it out to me, I am all ears. Or, again, any explanation as to how else it would have gotten there.

Or you can ADMIT that YOU DON'T KNOW.

You don't have to be an expert in ANYTHING to do THAT.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It is the opinion of professionals in this field, that drywall is the most likely source of sulphur for the above reasons


I'd like to add, we both know of professionals who disagree with this, and very vocally and publicly so.

What is *likely* is whatever you debunkers WANT to believe. It's obvious you have nothing at all to support your assertion, even when chemical analyses are present on this very same substance, and it is no mystery what drywall is made out of.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Omg, you mean you have to actually be able to understand what YOU say to me?!?!?!

You're not asking for a summary, or for references to the source material, you're asking for a chemical analysis, which generally would need someone trained in chemistry.


Like I said, if you are going to tell me the sulfur "likely" came from drywall, then.... put up or shut up? I don't see the chemical composition of drywall in the analyses, but if you would like to point it out to me, I am all ears.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Here, try this: /m4fktf

Just in case even that fails, the chemical composition of Gypsum, the important part, is CaSO_4·2H_2O


Or, again, any explanation as to how else it would have gotten there.

The dust on that day was made up significantly of drywall that had been destroyed. It settled on everyone and everything in the surrounding area. Exposed to fire, sulphur would begin to separate and attack the grain boundaries in the steel, gradually eroding it as large crystalline chunks break off.


Or you can ADMIT that YOU DON'T KNOW.

You don't have to be an expert in ANYTHING to do THAT.

If I don't know, you apparently have even less knowledge of the subject than me, and therefore what is the point in arguing? Unless you have some evidence that NIST or FEMA are mistaken, then you are just denying that their explanation is relevant, with no basis.


I'd like to add, we both know of professionals who disagree with this, and very vocally and publicly so.

I don't know if we do, do we? I know there are people who are professionals in other subjects, but I can't remember reading any analysis disputing this.

Perhaps I am forgetting temporarily, it's been a busy week! Please link me to whatever you are referring to and I'll check it out.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The chemical analysis has already been done and is in the FEMA report. You know the section well enough by now.

What do you think all those graphs are, where they point out iron, sulfur, and copper?

Now go to those graphs, and show me where all the elements present in drywall, are there in the correct proportions that they would be if you are really looking at drywall. That is not so hard, is it? Nor is it unreasonable.


The professionals I am referring to are Jones, Harrit, et. al., and though I'm sure you have come to develop very lovely opinions of these people yourself due to your fair and unbiased nature, opinions are opinions and if you want to talk about PROFESSIONAL opinions you need look no further for dissenting voices to the nameless crowd you are trying to fall back as your only support for the claim that it came from drywall. Show me one peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that the eutectic mixture was derived from drywall. Or just go to the analysis FEMA already did and show me that you are looking at the chemical make-up of drywall. Maybe you can even acquire some drywall, crush it up, throw it in a fire, and then see if you can melt steel with it. Any of those things would support your assertion. But making references to ghost crowds will not. So did it really come from the drywall or do you even know what in the hell you are talking about my friend?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Now go to those graphs, and show me where all the elements present in drywall, are there in the correct proportions that they would be if you are really looking at drywall. That is not so hard, is it? Nor is it unreasonable.

Why would they be in the correct proportions? It is not the Hydrogen in drywall which damages the steel, it is the Sulphur.


The professionals I am referring to are Jones, Harrit, et. al., and though I'm sure you have come to develop very lovely opinions of these people yourself due to your fair and unbiased nature, opinions are opinions and if you want to talk about PROFESSIONAL opinions you need look no further for dissenting voices to the nameless crowd you are trying to fall back as your only support for the claim that it came from drywall. Show me one peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that the eutectic mixture was derived from drywall.

You know of course that I cannot, because such an analysis is not worthy of publication to start with, and nobody cares enough to do it to second.

Can you link me to Jones/Harrit et al's dissenting opinion? I must be being extra forgetful this morning as I cannot remember their treatment of it at all.


Or just go to the analysis FEMA already did and show me that you are looking at the chemical make-up of drywall. Maybe you can even acquire some drywall, crush it up, throw it in a fire, and then see if you can melt steel with it. Any of those things would support your assertion. But making references to ghost crowds will not. So did it really come from the drywall or do you even know what in the hell you are talking about my friend?

So wait, anything would support my assertion, except for the professionals who actually had access to this material and studied it in detail? Right I see where this is going, NIST and FEMA are invalid for some unknown reason but people without access to this material are likely to be correct?


I will present as much evidence as I am capable of, but it's clear that your attitude is that I must prove this to you, and I must disprove other theories. Somehow the burden is always on me, why is this?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


1) If it were drywall, you would see the other chemical components of drywall in the analysis in the FEMA report, in one form or another. Certain elements that ARE present in drywall would NOT be completely absent if drywall dust actually caused this. This is the last time I will explain this, I really do not care that much about you to try to pound something so obvious into your head. If it were drywall, then you will see drywall in the analysis. Duh????? You will sooner find yourself on my ignore list with pteridine, or more likely I will just stop responding because I don't particularly care to keep running in circles and repeating myself 1000 times on the same freaking page when all YOU have to do is THINK about what I am saying.

2) The Jones, Harrit, et. al. paper is the one claiming to have discovered a nano-composite eutectic compound. Even the FEMA analysis tells you that the corrosion was so severe because the sulfur was small enough to penetrate the grain boundaries of the steel. Nano-particles. I find Professor Harrit particularly fair and professional in his views and interpretation of their collective findings, as he has done several interviews in relation to it for various European media.

3) NIST and FEMA did not even touch the questions I am asking you now. Does FEMA say the sulfur came from the drywall? No. If they did, then all you would have to do is post the relevant quotes from those reports to answer my questions. Make sense? No? I didn't think so. Stop being so dense, you are doing it on purpose now because you are a weasel.



4) For the last time SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE (the burden is YOURS! YOU are making the claim) that this is *LIKELY* from the drywall as opposed to any other source you can think of. Stop saying the equivalent of "because everyone believes it came from drywall," because everyone does NOT. Remember the difference between theories and actual evidence again? No, I don't guess you would, because I don't think you understood it in the first place.

I'm going to bed. If I come back to respond to you tomorrow and find myself repeating these things for the zillionth time, I'm not going to respond at all and you can either think about what I am saying or continue bumbling about your blind way saying this stuff that ate holes through the steel came out of the drywall, a fire-retardant. Seriously, count the number of times I have asked you to consult the FEMA chemical analysis. And you keep weaseling away from it. You know what you are doing. I hope it eats your conscience up, because you are not helping a damned soul on this planet with your intentional ignorance.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
For anyone who does not feel like pouring over so many words (and reasonably so), the issue is this:


Was the corrosion caused by crushed-up, burned drywall?

The answer given by the FEMA chemical analysis is NO.


Still waiting for ANYONE to show me the tell-tale chemical signature of drywall (burned or not) in the FEMA analyses. And still going to bed, disappointed at myself for wasting so many words on an intellectual liar.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
it's clear that your attitude is that I must prove this to you, and I must disprove other theories. Somehow the burden is always on me, why is this?



'exponent'

You are an incredibly patient and knowledgeable person. But welcome to Conspiracy World. You can never win. You generosity and willingness to educate is turned against you. Just as you think you're making a breakthrough, you're called a liar, a shill for the government, a fool.

This is not about discussing scientific issues, it's about the need for attention, the need to inflate low self-esteem egos. Those backed into a corner when confronted with actual facts and data, simply revert to a series of avoidance tactics. The government source is lying is the most common one.

I consider these discussion lists a healthy workout for one's communicating skills. If you talk to a brick wall and get the occasional rise, you can make headway with intractable people in the real world and get an exchange going.

I appreciate all your efforts, but suggest you utilize your skills and knowledge in places where they'll be better appreciated.

Mike


[edit on 17-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Glad you are still here before I retire mmiichael.


I wanted to tell you, I saw an article the other day where a small group of scientists/engineers overturned a long-standing equation, replacing it with a better one. I thought of you because it's obvious they are wrong, because why didn't the MILLIONS of other scientists/engineers all over the world figure it out first?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
1) If it were drywall, you would see the other chemical components of drywall in the analysis in the FEMA report, in one form or another. Certain elements that ARE present in drywall would NOT be completely absent if drywall dust actually caused this. This is the last time I will explain this, I really do not care that much about you to try to pound something so obvious into your head. If it were drywall, then you will see drywall in the analysis. Duh????? You will sooner find yourself on my ignore list with pteridine, or more likely I will just stop responding because I don't particularly care to keep running in circles and repeating myself 1000 times on the same freaking page when all YOU have to do is THINK about what I am saying.

This is a pretty arrogant section coming from you bsbray. Until a page or so ago you weren't even aware NIST had even analysed this material, so please don't portray yourself as an expert in the matter.

The only other constitutent of gypsum we could expect to see is Calcium, because Oxygen and Hydrogen are gaseous and the process of releasing sulphur releases water from the calcium sulphate (from my limited understanding). The question is then, did NIST or FEMA find calcium contamination?

Yes they did (so did FEMA but I am too lazy to extract the graph):

The darker gray phases in the scale interior appeared to be iron oxides containing high levels of Ca, as well as minor quantities of Cl, Si, and S. The bulk gold-colored phases, as well as the majority of phases in the grain boundaries, were iron sulfides.


Before you ask, my uneducated guess for the Chlorine and Silicon would be plastic contamination or similar, I am not sure about Silicon but I know plastic contains an awful lot of Chlorine and there was an awful lot of plastic at the WTC.


2) The Jones, Harrit, et. al. paper is the one claiming to have discovered a nano-composite eutectic compound.

It does? I failed to find the word 'eutectic' in there anywhere, in fact they claim to have discovered a thermitic compound.


Even the FEMA analysis tells you that the corrosion was so severe because the sulfur was small enough to penetrate the grain boundaries of the steel. Nano-particles.

How does this make sense? Sulphur becomes liquid at barely over 100C, why would you have nano particles of sulphur in a liquid slag?


I find Professor Harrit particularly fair and professional in his views and interpretation of their collective findings, as he has done several interviews in relation to it for various European media.

Can you show me what he's said about the relationship between thermite and these samples?


3) NIST and FEMA did not even touch the questions I am asking you now.

NIST did, and state that the drywall was the likely source. They obviously could not have addressed the thermite paper as it came out years after their report.


Does FEMA say the sulfur came from the drywall? No. If they did, then all you would have to do is post the relevant quotes from those reports to answer my questions. Make sense? No? I didn't think so. Stop being so dense, you are doing it on purpose now because you are a weasel.

What's with the insulting? FEMA may not have said it, but NIST did, and I told you this and you dismissed it. So you would accept it if FEMA says it, but not NIST?


4) For the last time SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE (the burden is YOURS! YOU are making the claim) that this is *LIKELY* from the drywall as opposed to any other source you can think of. Stop saying the equivalent of "because everyone believes it came from drywall," because everyone does NOT. Remember the difference between theories and actual evidence again? No, I don't guess you would, because I don't think you understood it in the first place.

Oh please, you have placed the burden of proof upon me in every situation. Your arrogant attempt to deflect this are irrelevant. You are supporting your side of the argument with incredulity and insults. I am supporting my side with facts and observations by experts.

Really, who is not using evidence here?


I'm going to bed. If I come back to respond to you tomorrow and find myself repeating these things for the zillionth time, I'm not going to respond at all and you can either think about what I am saying or continue bumbling about your blind way saying this stuff that ate holes through the steel came out of the drywall, a fire-retardant. Seriously, count the number of times I have asked you to consult the FEMA chemical analysis. And you keep weaseling away from it. You know what you are doing. I hope it eats your conscience up, because you are not helping a damned soul on this planet with your intentional ignorance.

Enjoy your sleep, perhaps you'll wake up less cranky tomorrow.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
'exponent'

You are an incredibly patient and knowledgeable person. But welcome to Conspiracy World. You can never win. You generosity and willingness to educate is turned against you. Just as you think you're making a breakthrough, you're called a liar, a shill for the government, a fool.
...
I appreciate all your efforts, but suggest you utilize your skills and knowledge in places where they'll be better appreciated.

Mike

Thank you mmiichael. It is kind of you to say, and I agree with your criticisms completely. Indeed I have just been called in another thread a disinformation agent who's also a moron for believing the official story.

Such an attempt at insulting me shows just how little critical thought can be present in some posts, how could I be both someone intentionally lying to cover up the real truth, and simultaneously believe that the government story was accurate?

It makes no sense! Then again, this is what I have come to expect.

I assure you though that I do utilize my skills and knowledge for my own benefit in real life, but I have plenty of spare time and it doesn't really hurt me to come here and 'help out'. While I don't think I will ever end up converting people like bsbray, BoneZ or SPreston (and many more), I feel that hopefully I can provide an alternative commentary for any people unsure about 911 and reading this forum.

We know from past experience that when the question is posed, many lurkers on JREF have come out and pointed out that the commentary there has helped them to understand the truth, and I hope that is the case here.

Perhaps my posts are worthless, and I am preaching only to the ignorant, but I hope not, and perhaps in the future I will meet someone I have helped directly



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Glad you are still here before I retire mmiichael.


I wanted to tell you, I saw an article the other day where a small group of scientists/engineers overturned a long-standing equation, replacing it with a better one. I thought of you because it's obvious they are wrong, because why didn't the MILLIONS of other scientists/engineers all over the world figure it out first?



I'm glad you're here too.

Finding an example of scientific miscalculation or error does not overturn or bring into question all correct data compiled.

The scorecard is millions of correct equations, maybe ten found to be incorrect. If 20 are found to be incorrect the reliability of scientists and mathematics or their disciplines will not change radically.

Similarly I might add a group of government officials not telling the truth does not mean every person involved in every project ever authorized by the government can be labeled as a liar.

You will claim you know that, but I don't think you've integrated it into your persona. I think a default distrust of authority often overrides your judgement and this interferes with your ability to look at many things objectively. At least that's what I see in your discussions of WTC controlled demolition theories.

You're exceptionally bright and well-informed. I look forward to your contributions on many subjects.


Mike


[edit on 17-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
We know from past experience that when the question is posed, many lurkers on JREF have come out and pointed out that the commentary there has helped them to understand the truth, and I hope that is the case here.

Perhaps my posts are worthless, and I am preaching only to the ignorant, but I hope not, and perhaps in the future I will meet someone I have helped directly


Thanks for the follow up.

I'm aware 90% of the people reading these messages are either website browsers or ATS lurkers.

When I'm in a positive mood I feel I'm contributing to stemming the tide of misinformation that floods the Internet. But of late I feel more like I'm swimming against a tidal wave.

The 9/11 threads are populated by people who distrust anything that can be labeled Official. So it's an uphill battle even opening a line of communication with them on the data accumulated by NIST, et al.

It has been a fun exercise to try and argue logic, reason, and appeals to common sense. But as I see hard facts summarily dismissed by the same people repeatedly, I start to feel there is not only no headway being made with them, and that there never will be.

Convincing Christian Fundamentalists that Evolution is real and not a malign attempt to discredit their beliefs or the work of Satan is almost impossible and the attempt pays little dividends.


That's how I'm seeing debating this controlled demolition theory business. It's considered to be the Devils handiwork, substitute the Government, and no one will ever be able to successfully provide convincing evidence to the contrary.

Hopefully some observant 15 year olds out there are watching this have figured it out and are entertained by the improv reality comedy show.

The setting is a discussion of 9/11 related issues. What you get is the interaction of a horde of paranoid indigant comedians and their perpetually abused straight men. Applause in the form of stars and flags. Admission is free.


Mike



[edit on 17-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


BS,
I know you tout that you are an "electrical engineering major" to try to impress the readers. You should stick to "electrical engineering major" subjects because your posts regarding chemistry show that you don't know your technical limitations, although the posts are entertaining. Drywall is, by orders of magnitude, the largest single source of sulfur in the WTC debris.
You might also want to keep me on ignore so that you can continue to avoid losing arguments to me, another trait I find amusing.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
well, coming from a 75% lurker and 25% poster, it seems to me that those that can be fit into a "side," either "truther" or "debunker", are both radicalized in their positions. However, it seems to me that the "truther" side is more intellectually honest as, when they find a question, they are not satisfied until they receive an answer that satisfies their personal capacity of understanding. Whereas, on the "debunker" side when faced with a question, it seems to me, that they are more personally apt to be satisfied with a consensus view alone. From where I stand (or sit), I find both sides come to conclusions that should not be come to and then the "kill or be killed" attitude takes hold and nothing constructive comes of these threads but bickering. But that's just my personal opinion. Don't want to stray this thread too far off topic.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


There is a third postion which is that of the disinterested party. I believe that many are actually there and would accept a different story if the evidence fit. The arguments arise out of what is considered evidence. I would guess that the OS crowd would be more accepting of such than the truther crowd, based on a recent thread which asked "If a reinvestigation showed that the OS was correct, would you accept it?" Many wouldn't accept anything but what they desired to be true which shows that dogma trumps everything.
Physical evidence of demolition is non-existent. Interpretations of videos based on gut feelings are not evidence to many, but some think that they are valid. I do not and I also do not like seeing those with some technical background try to snooker those folks that have no technical background by trying to mislead them.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Aha, a post with subtleties which will be difficult to answer well. I think I will disagree with this though:


it seems to me that those that can be fit into a "side," either "truther" or "debunker", are both radicalized in their positions.

I have a pretty open mind, and while I'm sure everyone says that, I still can't see where my position is radical. I don't believe unreservedly in any Government story, I had great hatred in fact for the Bush administration, I never thought the WMD claims for Iraq were valid and am sceptical of their civilian death numbers for example.

I don't think my position is a radical one, but I do think that I can easily come across as arrogantly proclaiming the truth, rather than presenting the facts that guide people towards it.

I have noticed this more in recent times, and I am trying to make more of an effort to engage in a dialog without trying to tell people what to believe. The same applies with regards to bickering, I have increased the verbosity of my posts and have tried to approach things from many angles. Hopefully my quality has perceptibly improved, but who knows for sure.

With regards to the difference pointed out between 'truther' and 'debunker' attitude, this is certainly not without merit, and may actually be very accurate. I don't agree that one side is more intellectually honest though.

Science is naturally a product of consensus, the expertise and experimentation from thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists builds up a picture of a subject, and when discussing it as laymen we do not participate in this process.

I see nothing wrong with deferring to expertise on a subject given certain conditions. There is a fallacy known as 'Appeal to Authority' which can be stated: 'this hypothesis is correct, because this expert in the subject agrees'. This is fallacious, because expertise does not guarantee correctness. However, often it is argued against with pure incredulity, even when (as in this case) the experts being referred to have not only the experience and qualifications, but were the ones with actual access to the samples.

In such a situation, the chips are stacked entirely in the experts' favour. It is still a fallacy to appeal to authority, but this does not mean that the experiments and results mean nothing, they are evidence, as is the experts' conclusion. This evidence has to be weighed against the evidence that the conclusion is not correct, and in many cases there is simply no evidence presented on the other side.

Now, I am not saying that the 'always confirm for yourself' attitude is bad, in fact it is admirable, but one part of understanding is acceptance. You can never believe in atoms if you don't accept something that small can exist, similarly you can never believe in the 'official story' if you cannot accept that fire can weaken steel.

I would think that a good measure of intellectual honesty would be whether people accept issues which have no debate around them. There are not a great many examples I can think of, but fire damaging steel would be an obvious one.

I seem to have waffled a lot here without really making a point, so here it is. I agree with mmiichael, the issue is not really one of understanding, it is one of willingness. Anything that has to do with the government is inherently tainted, and so people will take a single youtube video as proof over 10,000+ pages of analysis. If anyone is reading this and thinking 'aha but those 10,000 pages are full of lies' then consider no-plane theories. If you don't believe in these, they appear as illogical and unsupported as 'normal truthers' do to 'debunkers'.

Thanks for your post though, it does touch at some important issues within the truth movement, and for debunkers in general too. Our aim should be to educate, but not to attempt to force understanding. You should post more.




top topics



 
172
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join