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

Exponent, I was trying hard not to make any personal reference to any member here. I was just making generalizations about my observations. What I find, there are some pretty large assumptions made on either side about the other side and those assumptions really do blind people to the other side's arguments. (I edited out here an observation I find about your posting style, as I want to keep this non-personal). What side a person finds more intellectually honest would come down to a person's constitution, intellectual patterns of thought, and beliefs (yes, beliefs, feelings, instinct). I, personally, just happen to fall more on the "truther" side as explained below.

My guess is that it does basically come down to "the arguments arise out of what is considered evidence," as pteridine put it. I guess it would be safe to say that generally "truthers" rely more on tangible evidence (i.e. photos, witnesses, missing steel, etc.) where "debunkers" rely more on theoretical evidence (i.e. NIST's simulation). (Or maybe this isn't safe to say as it can very easily be misconstrued. It's only a very rough generalization.)

I identify with the "truther" side more as when I read the NIST report I find a lot of things that makes me wonder just how accurate it is to what actually happened that day. When I read it I see a lot of "this could not be accurately modeled" and "this was determined by trial and error" which just puts question marks in the lightbulb over my head. Is it 100% accurate of what happened that day? (definitely not) Or 60%? Or 25%? Without coming up with a full working theory of my own in opposition to theirs, so far my intellect, reasoning and instinct (yes instinct, or feeling, emotion, beliefs, whatever you may call it) says it's in the lower digits. So I find no reason to be satisfied.

But anyway, this is waaaaaaay off topic.

Originally posted by NIcon
Exponent, I was trying hard not to make any personal reference to any member here. I was just making generalizations about my observations. What I find, there are some pretty large assumptions made on either side about the other side and those assumptions really do blind people to the other side's arguments.

That's fine, I assumed it was more general, but wanted to answer it from my perspective.

(I edited out here an observation I find about your posting style, as I want to keep this non-personal).

Please U2U me with it, I assure you I won't be offended. I am genuinely interested.

What side a person finds more intellectually honest would come down to a person's constitution, intellectual patterns of thought, and beliefs (yes, beliefs, feelings, instinct). I, personally, just happen to fall more on the "truther" side as explained below.

I agree, I don't think it's possible to generalise that easily.

My guess is that it does basically come down to "the arguments arise out of what is considered evidence," as pteridine put it. I guess it would be safe to say that generally "truthers" rely more on tangible evidence (i.e. photos, witnesses, missing steel, etc.) where "debunkers" rely more on theoretical evidence (i.e. NIST's simulation). (Or maybe this isn't safe to say as it can very easily be misconstrued. It's only a very rough generalization.)

Yeah there is no doubt that this is a difficult thing to articulate, whatever your beliefs on the subject. I tend to think that the 'truther' side prefers to rely on evidence which obeys 'common sense' rules. Now obviously it's not universal, and obviously I don't have a completely unbiased perspective here, but I would say that is generally what happens.

I still believe it's more a generic distrust of government which leads to a distrust of simulations, or intangible evidence. Probably because of how easily some believe it can be altered to give false results. On the other hand I have quite a strong belief in this sort of evidence.

I guess it's really not something we're going to hash out between each other, but it's a fun intellectual exercise to 'theorycraft'..

I identify with the "truther" side more as when I read the NIST report I find a lot of things that makes me wonder just how accurate it is to what actually happened that day.

This is a commendable attitude to have, error analysis is very important. Perhaps in a few years a truther investigation will produce a definitive document and we can compare the reliability.

Anyway we need more higher quality posts on here, and I will always welcome your contributions I hope.

To what someone else said whether or not this information is true most people just don't want to hear it because they know if it is true they will have to do something about it.It is much easier to just stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and pretend you didn't hear or see anything,that way you don't have to deal with it even if you know it could be true,Unfortunately this is the reality in which we live it is much easier that way and no one has to put an effort in

That or they just don't want to believe it,but i'm sure this has been said many times

Originally posted by NIcon
My guess is that it does basically come down to "the arguments arise out of what is considered evidence," as pteridine put it. I guess it would be safe to say that generally "truthers" rely more on tangible evidence (i.e. photos, witnesses, missing steel, etc.) where "debunkers" rely more on theoretical evidence (i.e. NIST's simulation). (Or maybe this isn't safe to say as it can very easily be misconstrued. It's only a very rough generalization.)

As I see it, the truthers rely on witnesses [sometimes selecting those who suport their views and disregarding those who don't, q.v., Ranke, et al.] videos, often with dubious editing, and general heresay that is repeated on truther sites and repeated, verbatim. The debunkers tend to rely on physical evidence and that derived from physical evidence, such as the computational simulations of collapse.

It really boggles my mind that with as much time as they had to think about this conspiracy that they left so many loose ends and mistakes to be discovered, and had no action plans to try to divert the blame on lower officials instead of looking so guilty through the commissions hearing, Bush I mean.

reply to post by prepare4it777


Maybe the conspiracy is a coverup of the bureaucratic infighting at the apointee levels of management that prevented action against the hijackers. The Bush administration had a poor track record with apointees as cronyism often trumped ability, e.g., FEMA administrator.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by NIcon
My guess is that it does basically come down to "the arguments arise out of what is considered evidence," as pteridine put it. I guess it would be safe to say that generally "truthers" rely more on tangible evidence (i.e. photos, witnesses, missing steel, etc.) where "debunkers" rely more on theoretical evidence (i.e. NIST's simulation). (Or maybe this isn't safe to say as it can very easily be misconstrued. It's only a very rough generalization.)

As I see it, the truthers rely on witnesses [sometimes selecting those who suport their views and disregarding those who don't, q.v., Ranke, et al.] videos, often with dubious editing, and general heresay that is repeated on truther sites and repeated, verbatim. The debunkers tend to rely on physical evidence and that derived from physical evidence, such as the computational simulations of collapse.

The irony of course being that there are ONLY witnesses to the pentagon attack. That is the ONLY medium that presents evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. To deepen it MANY witnesses to the pentagon attack are trained to know aircraft and said it WAS NOT flight 77.

So since the OS'ers are RELYING on witnesses also I propose whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Originally posted by pteridine

Maybe the conspiracy is a coverup of the bureaucratic infighting at the appointee levels of management that prevented action against the hijackers. The Bush administration had a poor track record with appointees as cronyism often trumped ability, e.g., FEMA administrator.

There were serious attacks on American buildings in the 90s. The 1993 attempt to topple the WTC, and the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, which many feel also involved Iraqi and Pakistani agencies.

My impression, shared with a number of journalists, is that the US admin was certainly aware there were plans of another major attack. The intelligence gathered was badly co-ordinated and not specific enough. There were internal 'turf' wars of who did and didn't have access to sensitivre information. They were in a 'wait and see' mode. The rationalization was that a serious attack could again be utilized for leverage in domestic and foreign policies.

I think the admin and the intelligence agencies were really taken by surprise by the enormous scale and effectiveness of what happened on 9/11. No terrorist operation had ever approached this level of devastation.

A disastrous miscalculation by a government that was complacent in thinking it was invulnerable to serious attack. And a very compromising position for those who were aware something was going to happen and chose not to do everything within their means to prevent it.


Mike




[edit on 18-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Could the conspiracy really be the coverup aided by the disinfo agents, somebody-for-truth, who muddy the waters by promoting and defending theories with no evidence supporting them?
Theories about nuclear weapons in the WTC's, a Pentagon flyover, hologram airplanes, etc., are all based on the flimsiest evidence and could be promoted by disinfo agents and the people that they have duped.

Originally posted by pteridine
Could the conspiracy really be the coverup aided by the disinfo agents, somebody-for-truth, who muddy the waters by promoting and defending theories with no evidence supporting them?

Theories about nuclear weapons in the WTC's, a Pentagon flyover, hologram airplanes, etc., are all based on the flimsiest evidence and could be promoted by disinfo agents and the people that they have duped.

I suspect you're giving too much credit too the sources of false information and speculation. LOOSE CHANGE was the progenitor of the 9/11 conspiracy videos. Done as a lark by 3 college kids in a dorm.

Turned out to be the biggest thing since UFOs. A new industry and sub-culture is created.

But for sure the Bad Guys That Got Away are more than happy to encourage deflection from their crimes. Members of the Saudi Royal family in cahoots with renegade officers in the Pakistani military finance and co-ordinate an attack on the US. Embarrassed CIA seniors and admin figures remain silent on their passive complicity. The story quietly fades into the background without notice while adolescents and the adolescent-minded analyze videos and paint chips frantically trying to prove the government blew up the destroyed building.

Might be be funny if it weren't tragic.


Mike

[edit on 18-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Before LC was "In Plane Sight," which had a lot more professional production but had a lot of the same crap information. And there were also other documentaries before Loose Change, and of course since. LC has just always been a favorite of "debunkers" BECAUSE it was produced by some college kids who should have spent more time refining their arguments before trying to make a case, so it's easy to understand why you would think it was so important to us "truthers" when it really wasn't that important at all. Nor are "we" (who question the official story of 9/11) a formal organization or movement that was recruited by anybody. Another thing you guys take for granted too often.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Before LC was "In Plane Sight," which had a lot more professional production but had a lot of the same crap information. And there were also other documentaries before Loose Change, and of course since. LC has just always been a favorite of "debunkers" BECAUSE it was produced by some college kids who should have spent more time refining their arguments before trying to make a case, so it's easy to understand why you would think it was so important to us "truthers" when it really wasn't that important at all. Nor are "we" (who question the official story of 9/11) a formal organization or movement that was recruited by anybody. Another thing you guys take for granted too often.

I stand corrected.

I don't consider myself a debunker. Critical of nay aspects of the US government, aware of complicity of key figures, combinations of complacency, negligence, ineptitude on the agencies. But squarely categorize the controlled demolition as complete bunk that deserves the derision it gets.

Also fascinated by the evolution of the mythology evolving under the loose banner of "Truth"

Now a marginal but growing sub-industry.

Very bad in something so serious becoming a form of interactive video game. Very sad for Americans that still active members of the Pakistani military, Saudi financiers and princes finance, plan, and co-ordinate an attack on the US killing thousands. And people are analyzing Youtube videos and paint chips because there's a bigger market for adolescent detective work as opposed to serious international politics.

Also amused by all the self-righteous indignation from the armchair James Bonds. Dealing with that is a videogame in itself.

Luckily there are serious knowledgeable people researching and writing on the deceptions and betrayals of trust that were part of 9/11. Their work does not show up on the first dozen pages of a Google search.

Simple-minded hero/villain fantasies and sensationalism are always more popular than troubling complex factual history.


But I'm just a government disinformation agent. What do I know?


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


I try to stay away from making such sweeping generalizations but how does the 9/11 conspiracy theory "industry" compare to the military industry which has received most of the money we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far? Do you think they're even anywhere close? Because the intelligent answer is "no." So if you want to follow money, why not follow the larger amount of money?

Speaking of which, I see you claim that you are familiar with key figures. What do you know about the Council on Foreign Relations?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael

 

I try to stay away from making such sweeping generalizations but how does the 9/11 conspiracy theory "industry" compare to the military industry which has received most of the money we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far? Do you think they're even anywhere close? Because the intelligent answer is "no." So if you want to follow money, why not follow the larger amount of money?

Speaking of which, I see you claim that you are familiar with key figures. What do you know about the Council on Foreign Relations?

With all due respect, I usually try not to make broad general statements, too.

I've seen good and bad things done by different governments, departments of them, and good and people running them. Something as vast as the US govt is impossible to makes summary judgements about.

I can't compare 9/11 conspiracy industry with US military budgets, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One is a sideshow entertainment business the other represents the military clout of the Western world trying to maintain relative political stability and ensure the unimpeded flow of resources to the advanced economies of North America, Europe, Japan, former Britsh colonies, etc.

We don't know how the world would be if Saddam Hussein were still in power. Possible he would have had an epiphanous revelation and become a great ruler leading his country to peace and prosperity. But also possible he would have done something even more brutal and lunatic than usual. Launched a reprisal dirty war with Iran, obtained nukes from North Korea, had his biological weapons hidden in Syria released on Israel? We'll never know.

The US admin in 2001-3 thought it was a strategic move to do what they did. Many factors, the very least of which was for cheap oil. infinitely cheaper to contract it at favourable future prices than to take over and administer a basket case state.

9/11 was he tipping point when the US decided being conciliatory with the cutthroat regimes in the Middle East was never going to work. Showing they meant business was the decision made. Who is wrong and who is right is not an easy answer. The US might not be Good Guys, but most of those guys are Really Bad Guys.

A lot of stupid moves all around. We have bad diplomacy, gross mismanagement, unsophisticated politics. Hopefully something positive will emerge out of it all some day. But even Great Satan Cheney would concede - in hindsight some really bad decisions.

CFR I'll decline from characterizing here. So much grossly uninformed speculation on their powers and control. If there was a secret cabal to rule the world they wouldn't go public and give press releases. Nothing necessarily devious about having meetings and co-ordinating their activities.

The organization to watch now is the Arab League. Where they throw their weight will have serious ramifications. And the countries to watch are Pakistan and Khazakstan. The prime political and economic focus has moved to Central Asia.


Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


I really hope you don't think I give a rat's ass about your opinions every time you go ranting off like that. You would only be fooling yourself. I was simply asking why you were choosing to ignore the BIGGEST money-winners from 9/11, when you try to sum all of us up here by saying someone or other is just trying to make money from us, that it's an industry, etc. Because very, very little money is being made, if any at all, by people such as Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, myself, 99.9% of the other members here who believe 9/11 was an inside job, etc. To say it's all just a money-making scam is a bad joke. I don't make ANY money from posting here, nor do I pay anyone else for it.


And no comment on the CFR. Of course. Ok, enough with the off-topic ranting. I can see well enough already that neither of my questions generated any critical thinking. Carry on with the topic, the discovery of a nano-composite eutectic in the WTC dust.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I really hope you don't think I give a rat's ass about your opinions every time you go ranting off like that. You would only be fooling yourself. I was simply asking why you were choosing to ignore the BIGGEST money-winners from 9/11, when you try to sum all of us up here by saying someone or other is just trying to make money from us, that it's an industry, etc. Because very, very little money is being made, if any at all, by people such as Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, myself, 99.9% of the other members here who believe 9/11 was an inside job, etc. To say it's all just a money-making scam is a bad joke. I don't make ANY money from posting here, nor do I pay anyone else for it.

And no comment on the CFR. Of course. Ok, enough with the off-topic ranting. I can see well enough already that neither of my questions generated any critical thinking. Carry on with the topic, the discovery of a nano-composite eutectic in the WTC dust.

Too bad you're such a chip-on-your-soldier reactionary. snip

I would discuss what I know about the CFR. Start a thread.

You diverged into Middle East politics and I followed up.

On Truther money, lets really talk. Non-entity profs earn maybe $50 - 75,000. A fraction of that in retirement. No status, no recognition, zero outside interest in them or their work. No new financial prospects aside from bagging groceries part-time.

Suddenly the mention of ant hoked up experiment with implications 9/11 was a controlled demolition puts them on the first 7 pages of Google. Conventions at a few thousand bucks as speakers, free hotel rooms, travel. Their names in newspapers, magazines, on TV, radio. Articles and book deals possible. Prestige, respect.

Comparing the money involve, maybe a few hundred thousand, to the American military's budget, as you want to do, is comparing a hot dog stand to MacDonalds. I addressed that at your request. you're too thick-headed to get it.

Your eutectic reaction has been addressed at least 3 times by knowledgeable people on a couple threads. I'n not a chemist, but as I recall, you refuse to factor in not only chemical reaction with heated drywall material, but also the fact that you're working from pictures of steel that had open exposure to the elements and the chemical soup of the rubble, sometimes for weeks.

If you want to go the Jones route of being a stand-up Truther performer, publish you findings in Bentham. Just pay the $800 and start doing the Website circuit.

Even if there is no nanothermite in the debris, and even if it doesn't work as an explosive or even an ignition source, a couple million high school physics level types will buy into it because it gives the illusion of credibility to their Big Bad Government fantasies.

The real science world will carry on, maybe snickering if they ever get to read the stuff being generated.


Mike


[edit on 18-7-2009 by mmiichael]



Civility and Decorum are Required
[Mod Edit - snip]

[edit on 18/7/2009 by Sauron]

reply to post by mmiichael


Ok, first of all, I used the word, but I didn't direct it at you. I directed it to the literal ass of a rat for which I do not care to give for your opinions. That's called "ad hominem," something I'm sure you learned before entering kindergarten but yet to grow out of it apparently.

First you said they were all doing it for money, now just for fame and prestige. I don't think someone would publish something they truly think is wrong (because I'm assuming you don't think these scientists actually believe what they are publishing, am I getting you right?) to become famous, but you know, try as I might, and knowing enough physics to be able to work free-body diagrams, transient AC circuit problems, and generally understand any technical term I look up by relation to the math and logic I learned from those to my own personal satisfaction (which is what I always seek -- NOT others' satisfaction, I only want explanatory facts from experts not biased opinions), I don't really see any problem with what these guys (Harrit, etc.) are saying. And so I don't mind giving them my respect, even though I think the majority of the case we still haven't been able to piece together accurately and a lot more research would still have to be done by others.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'd prefer to call a truce on personal insults. But if called an can really deliver devastating ones.

I think you missed my point or I didn't communicate it properly.

Jones, Harrit, and crew are nobodies in the scientific world. They haven't made it and know they never will. They have reached their earning peaks
with no future career prospects.

9/11 isn't movie star wealth but it's a windfall. Maybe only really something like $50-100,000 a year more, but when you have bills, a nagging wife, kids you want to do something for, it's highly significant. And then there's all the freebies and ego boost.

Most academics are sincere and attach importance to their credibility and their profession. But believe me, there are tens of thousands if you asked to authenticate the Turin Shroud with some bogus science, for a fee and ancillary revenue prospects, would do it without a second thought.

Believe me, I've know a few of these people and worked on projects where they laugh about it. Money is money. You can dismiss a loose cannon project if need be by qualifying how you were paid to deliver certain results.

I am particularly on Jones's case because he makes it unambiguously clear he knows he's pulling a fast one. His avoidance of the standard procedures and protocols leaves no room for doubt.

You will see this a heresy, and that's too bad. My impression is that you have immersed yourself in the world of Truther science and logic to the extent that you no longer exercise objectivity in your observations.

Rejecting Jones not embracing the US government, it's representatives or it's foreign policy. It's rejecting knowingly bad science for self gain.


Mike

Another total rant. And you have no idea what you are talking about when you go on blindly speculating reasons as to why there are so many people here to argue with.

So what was the problem with the authors' conclusion that a nano-composite eutectic is present in the WTC dust?