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

Well I haven't seen a good rebuttal yet. All of them seem to be incomplete in their arguments.

First it's claimed it's the primer paint, but when it's stated there's no zinc in four of the samples, all we get is they may have used a different paint, without any proof offered. This is like saying "There were explosives in the building because I just know there were." Where's the evidence the paint was changed during construction? Or is it just easier to "believe" it was changed?

Then it's pointed out that the paint that actually survived the collapse does not combust even at 650C for an hour, and we don't get a rebuttal for this.

We hear that the DSC should not have been run in air, but I have actually found many papers of others doing exactly this and then examining the remains to determine a thermitic reaction occurred. Why is this an acceptable method for some scientists and not others?

Then we are told that this is kaolinite, even though the paper states that after the MEK soak the elements separated. In fact on the previous page it's claimed "It will not "separate elements" in aluminosilicates. Neither will any other organic solvent. What an appropriate solvent will do is dissolve or disperse the organic matrix and allow separation and identification of the components." If I'm reading the paper right this is EXACTLY what they are claiming that happened, that the matrix was disrupted and the elements separated. So I don't see the difference whether a "hardware brand" of MEK or a highly refined MEK was used if in fact it disrupts the matrix and the elements separate. Are people claiming the elements did not separate in their experiments? Are people claiming that the graphs and photos after the soak are fabricated? On what basis are people making this claim? Or are they just ignoring sections of the paper?

We also hear that these iron rich spheres are from fly ash. Are people cliaming that they actually stuck some fly ash into the DSC along with the chips and that's what we're seeing the results of? On what basis are these people making this claim? Because these guys are "losers"? Because they're "charlatans"?

I would actually like to see a complete rebuttal to this paper but what I'm seeing is incomplete arguements on sections of this paper while other sections are ignored. This may be in fact "bad science" but I don't see it being proved from any of the rebuttals. So far what I'm seeing is these rebuttals are worse than "bad science" it's more like "negligent science."

Edited: "this very page" to "the previous page" as my post went to the next page...

[edit on 17-8-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
Well I haven't seen a good rebuttal yet. All of them seem to be incomplete in their arguments.

[...]

I would actually like to see a complete rebuttal to this paper but what I'm seeing is incomplete arguements on sections of this paper while other sections are ignored. This may be in fact "bad science" but I don't see it being proved from any of the rebuttals. So far what I'm seeing is these rebuttals are worse than "bad science" it's more like "negligent science."

Rebuttal analysis of, I think, the initial Jones paper was linked to in the thread - ones by Ryan Mackey and Enrico Manieri. I can't say how complete and satisfactory they are for what you want. Other refutations on many points have also been linked to.

I don't know if there has been thorough peer review covering all points for or against the Jones-Harrit claims. I'd say not. The difficulty of course is that the claims are forensic in nature, dealing with specific samples said to be recovered from WTC debris. This renders an objective third party reproduction elsewhere virtually impossible.

Example. Claims have been made about primer paint, but one would need not only the exact material aged and undergoing the conditions they went through with the intense heat and left in smouldering ruins for an extended period.

It is also difficult to determine how accurate the Jones-Harrit measurements actually are given the many problems with procedures pointed out. Until the same sampling can undergo rigorous independent testing to see if the same result do in fact show up, we are left with what the papers tell us.

Given the ramifications of their controversial findings, one would have expect a concerted effort to show controls to eliminate the questions being raised. Jones-Harrit could have given samples of the materials they were testing to a recognized third party lab if they wanted independent confirmation. In fact they have not even supplied the specifics of where their testing was done, who was present, etc.

So we are left with their claims of tests done and results found on a specific batch of 8 year old debris. No accounting for potential contamination in the interim, no real controls.

This is what the critics have had to face the parties doing the experiment have kept the ball in their court continually. This is one of the many reasons these results are brought into serious question.


Mike

Originally posted by NIcon

Then it's pointed out that the paint that actually survived the collapse does not combust even at 650C for an hour, and we don't get a rebuttal for this.

Then we are told that this is kaolinite, even though the paper states that after the MEK soak the elements separated. In fact on the previous page it's claimed "It will not "separate elements" in aluminosilicates. Neither will any other organic solvent. What an appropriate solvent will do is dissolve or disperse the organic matrix and allow separation and identification of the components." If I'm reading the paper right this is EXACTLY what they are claiming that happened, that the matrix was disrupted and the elements separated. So I don't see the difference whether a "hardware brand" of MEK or a highly refined MEK was used if in fact it disrupts the matrix and the elements separate. Are people claiming the elements did not separate in their experiments? Are people claiming that the graphs and photos after the soak are fabricated? On what basis are people making this claim? Or are they just ignoring sections of the paper?

Combustion of paint claim: If there is organic material present and oxygen at 650 C the material will combust. I say it combusted at 440 C or so. Jones says it was a reaction.
Organic solvents do not "separate elements." If that is what they claimed, then they were wrong, yet again. The red chips did not dissolve in MEK or there would be no red chips. There would only be a bunch of solids at the bottom of the extraction vessel. They would not have their elements separated; they would be what was dispersed in the coating. Iron oxide, kaolinite, and possibly gypsum would be there, elements intact and unseparated. If elemental aluminum were present in the coating, it would be there, too. They used hardware store MEK which is not how to do science because there is little control of what else is in hardware store MEK. Cured coatings are better dissolved by methylene chloride, DMF, DMSO, and the like. Laquer, not a cured coating, is dissolved by compounds such as acetone, ethyl acetate, and MEK. 'Paintman' Jones and loyal crew have no understanding of the chemistry involved and are biased toward finding thermite.
As to thermitic reactions, running a DSC in air will only confuse the issue in this case. If you are working in the area of thermitics and have synthesized a material, then you know what is in it and can run as you wish.
Running the red chip unknown in air confuses the issue because you don't know if you are seeing combustion of the matrix, oxidation of aluminum at temperatures below the thermite reaction temperature, or reaction. Given the shape of the curve, it looks like combustion, to me.
Explosives and thermites have peaks that are dependent on heating rate and response time of the instrument. Often, thermite peaks in inert gases are small and rounded, like an upside down "U." Explosives sometimes show as sharp spikes followed by noise because they have blown some of the heat exhanger material out of the DSC sample boat.
If an inert gas is sweeping the system and the thermite reaction temperature is above the melting point of aluminum, an endotherm at the melting point of aluminum [660C] will be seen as a "reverse peak" or valley. This is commonly seen in papers that use DSC to analyze thermitic materials.

reply to post by pteridine

Sorry, I should have used your term "components" rather than "elements". But they are claiming that with the hardware store MEK the matrix swelled and aluminum moved to one section and the silicon moved to another section. How could this happen if it was kaolinite? The MEK would not separate the aluminum and silicon would it? If this was kaolinite would we not see more silicon in Fig. 17? If this was kaolinite would we not see aluminum in Fig. 16? Or are these graphs somehow manipulated? Or do you just not believe this happened?

Didn't they also think they knew what was in the materials before hand? What was the purpose of all the XEDS and BSE images if not to reverse engineer these chips to find out what was in them? So weren't Dr. Jones' people and the other scientists doing sol-gel research in the exact same position when they put there samples into the DSC? (i.e. they knew what elements were in the sample) How would these other scientists know that the matrix they manufactured did not combust?

What does a thermite peak in an inert gas have to do with anything, since theirs was run in air? In fact, both these conditions you mention: "If an inert gas is sweeping the system and the thermite reaction temperature is above the melting point of aluminum" do not apply to Dr. Jones' paper or to the other papers that I'm finding that run their DSC in air. I'm finding their traces look pretty much the same and at a wide variety of temperatures.

reply to post by pteridine

"If there is organic material present and oxygen at 650 C the material will combust."

Also, I'd like to mention that the paint that survived the collapse did not combust at 650C. So there must have not been an organic material present in the primer paint.

So aren't you argueing against this being the primer paint when you contend it combusted at 440C?

Edit to add:
NIST agrees there was no organic binder to combust in the primer paint.
"The paint coating was not a paint in the traditional sense, but was actually a ceramic coating (Tnemic)(sic) containing no organic binders. Thus, when the coating was exposed to high temperatures, the coating did not burn as no organic binder exists to combust." - from NCSTAR 1-3C pg 219 (269/336)

[edit on 17-8-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by pteridine

 

Sorry, I should have used your term "components" rather than "elements". But they are claiming that with the hardware store MEK the matrix swelled and aluminum moved to one section and the silicon moved to another section. How could this happen if it was kaolinite? The MEK would not separate the aluminum and silicon would it? If this was kaolinite would we not see more silicon in Fig. 17? If this was kaolinite would we not see aluminum in Fig. 16? Or are these graphs somehow manipulated? Or do you just not believe this happened?

Didn't they also think they knew what was in the materials before hand? What was the purpose of all the XEDS and BSE images if not to reverse engineer these chips to find out what was in them? So weren't Dr. Jones' people and the other scientists doing sol-gel research in the exact same position when they put there samples into the DSC? (i.e. they knew what elements were in the sample) How would these other scientists know that the matrix they manufactured did not combust?

What does a thermite peak in an inert gas have to do with anything, since theirs was run in air? In fact, both these conditions you mention: "If an inert gas is sweeping the system and the thermite reaction temperature is above the melting point of aluminum" do not apply to Dr. Jones' paper or to the other papers that I'm finding that run their DSC in air. I'm finding their traces look pretty much the same and at a wide variety of temperatures.

Answer to your second post re: organic material. As we do not know the origin of the red coating, we can only look at the analysis and not what you assume to be the coating described by NIST.
Note the elemental map of carbon, fig 10c. This is likely an organic matrix as it did swell, but not dissolve in the MEK. "The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. p.17 line 6" Mantaining a 3 dimensional structure after treatment suggests a structural integrity which would preclude any significant migration of particles.

If migration happened at all, entire particles would move but elements would not separate, i.e., chemical reactions would not occur that would change aluminosilicate clays to elemental aluminum and silicon dioxide [silica]. As to the EDAX results, quantitation is sketchy. An easy way would be to use at x-ray diffraction which would show the minerals involved. Sample size may be a problem, based on what instrument was available.

Jones and the thermite researchers were not in the same position, at all. The researchers knew what they had put in the material and could look at the oxidation of Al in air to look at various loci for the Al particles. They didn't have to show reaction. Their matrix was an aerogel, not an organic compound.
Jones had no idea what was in the chips and his experiment in air didn't prove anything with resoect to thermitic reaction. He wanted to find thermite and, unfortunately, made claims not backed by his experiment. Running the DSC under inert would do several things:
1. It would show whether the 440C peak is an exothermic reaction or a combustion. If the peak persists under inert, it is a reaction, if it is not present, it was combustion.
2. It would show the presence of elemental aluminum with an endotherm at 660C if there was no exothermic reaction before 660.
3. Exotherms would be proof of reaction and the next step would then be to determine what the reaction was.

Not surprisingly, exotherms generally look alike in some sense. As I mentioned previously, exotherms from thermitic or explosive materials are unusual in shape.

reply to post by NIcon


Thank you NIcon for seeing through the incompetence of a select few in
this thread and asking the appropriate questions to rule out certain theories
(IE: Paint!).

It's obvious to those that have some basic grasp of science - not so obvious
to those that would rather come up with half-linked excuses than face reality.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by NIcon

 

Thank you NIcon for seeing through the incompetence of a select few in
this thread and asking the appropriate questions to rule out certain theories
(IE: Paint!).

It's obvious to those that have some basic grasp of science - not so obvious to those that would rather come up with half-linked excuses than face reality.

Turbo,
When you started this thread, you asked questions and tried to answer rebuttals. Now, you seem to be a cheerleader and shill for Jones who can only post the vituperative responses that we expect for one of the select few in this thread. It may be time for you to stop making excuses for Jones' bad science and face reality.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by NIcon

 

Thank you NIcon for seeing through the incompetence of a select few in
this thread and asking the appropriate questions to rule out certain theories
(IE: Paint!).

It's obvious to those that have some basic grasp of science - not so obvious
to those that would rather come up with half-linked excuses than face reality.

You just called pteridine incompetent.

Either elaborate which points in his refutation are incorrect - or admit what is painfully obviously to everyone.

You don't understand the points being made, you're a fanboy of someone making claims whose science IS demonstrably incompetent. And are Full of **it!

One can only expect a reply avoiding anything substantially scientific and the inevitable juvenile attempt at insults.

Given the source - it's a compliment.


M


[edit on 17-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by pteridine

In my last post I'm not assuming anything about the coating described by NIST except the fact they tested it under temperatures of 650C and it did not combust. The only reason I put their quote about the non-organic binder is because it confirms your statement "If there is organic material present and oxygen at 650 C the material will combust." Are we not allowed to compare test results from NIST to either confirm or deny if this stuff is the primer paint? Is there a particular problem with NIST's temperature tests? How else are we able to determine if this is the primer paint or not?

Also on page 17, the second sentence after the one you quoted says "It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of alumininum had occurred in the red-chip material." So you do not believe this statement is true?

But even if this migration did not happen and everything stayed put after the MEK soak, I still don't understand how figure 17 shows very little silicon and figure 16 shows no aluminum. If this were kaolinite I would think these would show more of each respective element.

Also, it's my understanding that aerogels can be created using many different components. As this page on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org...) states "Carbon aerogel is made from a resorcinol-formaldehyde aerogel by its pyrolysis in inert gas atmosphere, leaving a matrix of carbon. It is commercially available as solid shapes, powders, or composite paper." This is what I'm seeing people experiment with in these sol-gel papers I'm reading, in fact, they call them "organic sol-gel".

The NIST paint analysis says that there is no organic binder in the primer that they have information about. Jones' analysis shows what is likely an organic binder in this material. If both are correct, then it must be from some other source, although the photos of memorials with structural elements and wreckage photos of the beams seem to show them covered with red paint. This coating does not appear to be the primer that NIST calls out but comparison certainly should be done as a way of determining the source.
Migration as compared to what? The chip was not mapped before the soak so we don't know if anything moved. Quantitative analysis with EDAX is not pecise [usually +/- 5% or so] and one experiment is not conclusive. If XRD is not available, DSC under inert would show elemental aluminum as an endotherm at its melting point. The photomicrographs show structures that appear to be kaolinite [white faceted particles].
I haven't read the nanoparticulate abstract in a while but I thought that the reactants were suspended in a epoxide linked aerogel. If carbon was present, it would burn in air at those temperatures. I will get the paper and see if they claim reaction or combustion.

reply to post by mmiichael


I've already outlined these points and asked questions which neither of
you can answer.

All you can do is speculate and offer opinion. YOu do not source your
claims. That's BAD science. You'd rather believe a kid off JREF who
cannot connect the dots with fly-ash than confirmed scientific experiments.

Mackey knows nothing. I question his education level. I caught the guy
stating many errors that a NASA scientist should not make. It's almost
comical that you hold his word as gospel; a guy that thinks BIRD STRIKES
can knock out a main power bus on a 7x7!

When anyone here can answer the questions I've asked, especially the
one about iron spheres attached to partially reacted chips...I'll give you
a star on your post

Originally posted by turbofan
I've already outlined these points and asked questions which neither of
you can answer.

All you can do is speculate and offer opinion. YOu do not source your
claims. That's BAD science. You'd rather believe a kid off JREF who
cannot connect the dots with fly-ash than confirmed scientific experiments.

Mackey knows nothing. I question his education level. I caught the guy
stating many errors that a NASA scientist should not make. It's almost
comical that you hold his word as gospel; a guy that thinks BIRD STRIKES
can knock out a main power bus on a 7x7!

When anyone here can answer the questions I've asked, especially the
one about iron spheres attached to partially reacted chips...I'll give you
a star on your post

I pointed to responses I found that try to address issues raised. Questioning or attacking the scientific knowledge of these people is no more reasonable than pointing out Jones published a paper "Behold My Hands" attempting to prove Jesus Christ was in America and known to the Ancient Mayas.

All we have to go on here is his and associates tests. As I constantly stress, this is not straightforward chemistry analysis. 7 years after the fact we are looking at debris chip samples taken from a site where there had been extreme circumstances of temperatures and combining of material are under scrutiny.

Many anomalistic chemical reactions obviously occurred. No one could hope to explain each one. But the tremendous leap forward that Jones et al have made is to claim they have evidence of explosives used to destroy buildings. This is an extraordinary claim and requires the inevitable extraordinary proof.

There is an attempt to create serious doubt on the findings of NIST and others just by saying there are some outstanding questions on the chemistry of certain debris samples. And there are questions on how reliable the data being provided is in the first place. The unreproduceability brings it down to claims that cannot be substantiated independently.

No one has to be defensive because they cannot explain every chemical anomaly found, perceived or real. Those making contentious and exceedingly alarmist claims of explosives being used have to provide a wealth of evidence to support this. Questions on their provided results is not proof of the controlled demolition scenario being sought.


Mike


[edit on 18-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I pointed to responses I found that try to address issues raised. Questioning or attacking the scientific knowledge of these people is no more reasonable than pointing out Jones published a paper "Behold My Hands" attempting to prove Jesus Christ was in America and known to the Ancient Mayas.

This is equivalent to an 'ad hominem' when you are trying to criticize scientific work by attacking the author based on grounds that he has published religious papers as well. The first time you demonstrate a logical fallacy like that, and someone points it out, no harm no foul, but when you constantly repeat it, do you understand why people get tired of trying to have a discussion with you?

All we have to go on here is his and associates tests.

So are you going to make an 'ad hominem' about each of his associates, too, or is your 'ad hom' on Jones supposed to ride out and cancel all the other guys' legitimacy, too? Oh, in case you forgot, 'ad hom' is listed as a logical fallacy.

As I constantly stress, this is not straightforward chemistry analysis.

The other thing you constantly stress is that "twoofers" are always wrong, don't know anything about science, can't be trusted with any science, don't know what they're talking about. You only say it's not straightforward, that things are too complex, that something is over your head, when questions are asked that YOU can't answer.

There is plenty of reason to "doubt" NIST's work based on NIST's work alone. The science we are talking about now was never investigated by them, like so much else regarding the collapses and 9/11 in general.

reply to post by mmiichael

As I constantly stress, this is not straightforward chemistry analysis.

No, and look at how much open access the Gov gave to independent researchers, look at how much open access to all that Steel and Dust! The Gov oversaw the destruction of some key material. I mean, Come on! This is purely one sided. We still haven't even see key pictures of Bld-7 that they are sitting on and loads of other images. What Jones and others have done, is worked with what they had and the results are telling.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
I pointed to responses I found that try to address issues raised. Questioning or attacking the scientific knowledge of these people is no more reasonable than pointing out Jones published a paper "Behold My Hands" attempting to prove Jesus Christ was in America and known to the Ancient Mayas.

This is equivalent to an 'ad hominem' when you are trying to criticize scientific work by attacking the author based on grounds that he has published religious papers as well. The first time you demonstrate a logical fallacy like that, and someone points it out, no harm no foul, but when you constantly repeat it, do you understand why people get tired of trying to have a discussion with you?

You choose to ignore the obvious context. turbo dismissed previously supplied information supplied by others named with this response

That's BAD science. You'd rather believe a kid off JREF who
cannot connect the dots with fly-ash than confirmed scientific experiments.

Mackey knows nothing. I question his education level. I caught the guy
stating many errors that a NASA scientist should not make. It's almost
comical that you hold his word as gospel; a guy that thinks BIRD STRIKES
can knock out a main power bus on a 7x7!

And I replied accordingly, noting how we can't dismiss scientific criticism for someone because of their claims elsewhere. Essentially supporting what you're getting riled up about.

But on the issue of ad-honimem attack! All we ever get from the self-proclaimed independent researchers is how NIST made an error - so selectively throw out anything they provided. How every damn piece of metal and speck of dust was not available for every wannabe in the world to independently examine first hand.

Talk and talk and talk around the fact that there is no evidence of controlled demolition that even approaches viability. Endless explanations why it isn't forthcoming. Avoidance of salient questions on what were the materials used, why weren't demolition characteristics noted, explanations of how it was sequence executed, complete lack of residue, blasting caps, cabling, etc.

But if you link to an amateur video and attack something presented on a forum somehow the supposed controlled demolition will be magically become real.

None of us have much to again addressing the stream of issues constantly raised by conspiracists. Sometimes it's an interesting pastime to respond. But the reality sets in that there is no genuine interest in understanding what happened that day, just a dogged relentless pursuit to get some ego boost or self-validation attempting to prove government investigations are dishonest. But Steven Jones and the ilk are bastions of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Trying to create doubt is the only device in the conspiracy toolbox. Devising clever explanations why what they want to see never materializes.

Someone remarked a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Dealing with the mutually reinforced delusions of others can be an interesting exercise. But the results are always the same.

[Edit to add: I really would like to see open debate rather than the adversarial approach so prevalent around here. But it takes two to tango]


Mike


[edit on 18-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


'Ad hom' is never logical, it is always a logical fallacy, so not even your rant corrects the "logic" that was non-existent to begin with.

NIST's problems aren't proof of demolition. NIST's investigation had lots of blind spots and made lots of assumptions, failed to test or otherwise prove many things. Do not confuse this with positive evidence of what DID happen, or think we are trying to say NIST's failure is positive evidence of controlled demolition. There are really two separate issues: NIST's report, and circumstantial evidence of other things happening. Just get your head straight about what we are saying first (or at least what I am saying, I should stop using "we" because that's the whole problem -- you seem to think "we" all think the same thing!).


You always rant things like this:

Trying to create doubt is the only device in the conspiracy toolbox. Devising clever explanations why what they want to see never materializes.

Someone remarked a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Dealing with the mutually reinforced delusions of others can be an interesting exercise. But the results are always the same.

What do you honestly think is going through all of our minds when you can't help but repeatedly post garbage like this? I don't post this kind of crap. Everyone realizes you are just making thinly-veiled ad homs against them.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST's problems aren't proof of demolition. NIST's investigation had lots of blind spots and made lots of assumptions, failed to test or otherwise prove many things. Do not confuse this with positive evidence of what DID happen, or think we are trying to say NIST's failure is positive evidence of controlled demolition. There are really two separate issues: NIST's report, and circumstantial evidence of other things happening. Just get your head straight about what we are saying first (or at least what I am saying, I should stop using "we" because that's the whole problem -- you seem to think "we" all think the same thing!).

I'm sympathetic to your points. More detailed information is always welcome. What I object to is the absence of something being construed as malign intent.

The NIST investigation did not specifically look for evidence of thermitic material. Deception, negligence, or maybe just the reality they had no reason to.

If someone comes out with a new theory the towers were brought down by exploding chocolate sauce, will there be accusations there was no attempt to look for chocolate chips in the debris?

We have an increasingly solid handle on what happened as far as the building collapses. Some details still wanting, but nothing that will radically alter our understanding.

In a reasonable discussion environment stating this position would not be construed as attempingt to ram a government sanctioned interpretation down people's throats. Around here - it is.

This generates the strange dynamics of battling information sources. Frankly, if the US govt blew those building up or if they fell due to the plane crashes and structural failures does not reflect on me either ways.

I do say there's no evidence of controlled demolition because I have seen none. I don't like ridiculous accusations of myself or others who share that view.

We're here to increase our knowlwde and understanding, not win some contest.

Hope that clarifies things somewhat.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael
We have an increasingly solid handle on what happened as far as the building collapses. Some details still wanting, but nothing that will radically alter our understanding.

First of all, I appreciate the relative lack of arrogance and insults.

Nothing that will radically alter "our" understanding of the events will be changed. According to who again? You? A good thing to keep in mind.

In a reasonable discussion environment stating this position would not be construed as attempingt to ram a government sanctioned interpretation down people's throats.

You obviously find something pretty reasonable about it to return here everyday don't you? I mean it's not like you're changing anybody's mind either so there must be something that keeps bringing you back to ATS. At JREF the environment is much, much worse, but being on the other side of the fence, I don't guess you take issue.

I do say there's no evidence of controlled demolition because I have seen none. I don't like ridiculous accusations of myself or others who share that view.

Sorry, but you just called me insane and a number of other things in a string of posts, basically every post you make has something of that nature in it.

We're here to increase our knowlwde and understanding, not win some contest.

I'm glad you are slowly coming to this realization.

It would be mean much more to me if you avoided using any 'ad homs' in the future (including all the weasel stuff and thin-veiled blanket insults, arrogance in general), but I have a feeling this attitude you have is short-lived, and I can tell it isn't completely sincere.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
We have an increasingly solid handle on what happened as far as the building collapses. Some details still wanting, but nothing that will radically alter our understanding.

First of all, I appreciate the relative lack of arrogance and insults.

Nothing that will radically alter "our" understanding of the events will be changed. According to who again? You? A good thing to keep in mind.

In a reasonable discussion environment stating this position would not be construed as attempingt to ram a government sanctioned interpretation down people's throats.

You obviously find something pretty reasonable about it to return here everyday don't you? I mean it's not like you're changing anybody's mind either so there must be something that keeps bringing you back to ATS.

At JREF the environment is much, much worse, but being on the other side of the fence, I don't guess you take issue.

I do say there's no evidence of controlled demolition because I have seen none. I don't like ridiculous accusations of myself or others who share that view.

Sorry, but you just called me insane and a number of other things in a string of posts, basically every post you make has something of that nature in it.

We're here to increase our knowlwde and understanding, not win some contest.

I'm glad you are slowly coming to this realization.

It would be mean much more to me if you avoided using any 'ad homs' in the future (including all the weasel stuff and thin-veiled blanket insults, arrogance in general), but I have a feeling this attitude you have is short-lived, and I can tell it isn't completely sincere.

You really shouldn't presume too much. But I am guilty of typing away and sending overreactive messages without reconsideration. Accept an apology for anything unreasonable directed at you specifically.

If it means anything, I do get the impression you're changing in a positive way. Becoming more concerned with objective truth as opposed to reinforcement of what appealed emotionally.

The whole 9/11 phenomenon is fascinating. Initiated by an interest in a momentous event in history. It has become less about science and politics and more about conflicting approaches to the outside world. Those rejecting the accepted explanations as to the causes of the WTC building collapses seem to feel some sort of empowerment bestowed by superior knowledge. There's a constant denigration of anyone who tries to shatter this. This starts to feel like religious rifts. Protestants feeling superior to Catholics, Sunni Muslims thinking they're purer than Shiites, Atheist feeling intellectually above the religious, and so on.

Polarizations occur in populations and their sub-cultures. Conflicting information becomes gauged more by the sources and associations than the quality.

In a reasonable world among people just trying to make their way through life, things shouldn't be like this. But we're only too human. A lot of us tend to think with our gut rather than our heads. Works as a form of catharsis, but not for learning anything new.


Mike



[edit on 18-8-2009 by mmiichael]