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.

 

'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

page: 11
77
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

And this is a typical post by a government loyalsit desperately trying to fill the holes in the evidence, methodologies and conlusions left by NIST by weaseling out of the claims you made because they are just based on delusions.


Ah yes, the "government loyalist" canard.

I believe the whole thing started here www.abovetopsecret.com... in the "Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?" thread where you offered as positive evidence to a comment about no one looking for explosive residues the tests done by the City of New York in October of 2001 and studies by other medical groups.


So you are not even representing correctly how "this started" in that it did not start when "when another poster insisted repeatedly that 'testing the dust to determine what it's chemical components are" is not an accepted method for testing for the chemical signatures of explosives' but rather when you offered these tests as a rebuttal to that same poster claiming no on searched for explosive residue. When you said "Incorrect." and offered the tests as being correct, I believe that is a claim. And it's no one else's claim as I did not see any of them bring the dust sample tests before you.


Please review:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And to close, it's not my problem demonstrating the NIST report is wrong, it's NIST's problem to demonstrate they are correct. Which the fact that no one looked for explosive residue does not help one bit.


Both statements are fallacious. NIST has already presented their evidence, methodology, and conclusions in their report on WTC 7. They have nothing further to do unless and until overwhelming evidence to contrary is presented. None has been presented. No claims against NIST have been shown to be valid.

The fact that NIST itself did not look for "explosive residue" is a strawman. They presented their own evidence that invalidated any explosive demolition of any kind without the need to refer to any explosive residue test as you can quite plainly see.

Furthermore, since the methodology of testing samples for the chemical constituents is a standard test to determine the presence and type of explosives, if present, I have no reason to doubt that the dust study test I presented would not have found evidence of explosive residue had it been present.

You don't seem to understand that anyone is welcome to present evidence to the contrary and demonstrate that the methodology is not valid and when someone insists repeatedly that, "NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris....", then you understand that person should be able to support that claim - and why.

There is no mystery that the 9/11 Truthers are trying to prove that explosives were used. And, as such, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate their claims with evidence. There is no question that the burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on the shoulders of 9/11 Truthers.

I repeat, I welcome anyone to demonstrate that the methodology of testing for explosives by determining the chemical constituents of a sample is invalid. So far, no one has.




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, assuming that they both PE's, then they should be able to make a cogent argument about specific points.

If not, then that means that they're in over their head, and don't have the qualifications to be rendering an opinion.

I guess that's where the whole "just asking questions" thing comes from though. Unqualified folks that only THINK they are qualified to form an opinion.


They are both PEs. Valhall is still a member here, so feel free to contact her for details. I think she even said she fired a NIST employee from one of her engineering teams because she had lost so much faith in the agency after reading their 9/11 report. She had specific issues with it. One being NIST's theory about creep in the Twin Towers, occurring on an unprecedented level. This is criticism from one professional engineer. Griff had his own issues that he talked about on the forum if you look back through his posts.

I can even make sense of what the NIST report technically says, and I can give you specific issues with it. The main one being that through all their hypothesizing they never actually put their theories to the test, including the initiating mechanism that could be as simple as testing a single truss/perimeter column assembly, which they had already constructed for computer simulation calibrations (where they then increased parameters trial by trial) but was never used for testing their hypothesis. So in more simple terms and to the point, they didn't prove anything to begin with. They offered a theory with their guarantee that it was their best guess. When they could have at least tested their hypothesis physically with a single truss, and for the first time ever demonstrate how a building could fail this way.

You don't have any room to criticize two professional engineers for not being qualified. You're not an engineer. You have faith that their opinions are invalid. And speaking of these two, you know there is also an organization of about 1000 more of them as well, who would all raise that same issues to you, and wouldn't be any more satisfied as we are after reading your personal conjecture and excuses for the government.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



Ah yes, the "government loyalist" canard.


Yes it is a good canard when the old canard of Truth Movement is used in discussions with me.



Please review:


I'm not sure why you're asking for me to review a post from 13 days after "this started" unless you're trying to hide your claim from March 22nd. That's where it started... with your introduction of the dust sample test into the discussion.

Please review:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Furthermore, since the methodology of testing samples for the chemical constituents is a standard test to determine the presence and type of explosives, if present, I have no reason to doubt that the dust study test I presented would not have found evidence of explosive residue had it been present.


No reason to doubt? That doesn't sound like a true skeptic.

My take is that the dust study test you presented makes not a lick of difference in determining the cause of the collapses or the existence or not of explosives, unless and until someone uses it in an argument for or against the existence of explosive residue. If they ever do I would love to read their method of determining their results. After such a time, then perhaps I could see it being used as a rebuttal towards someone claiming no one looked for explosive residue. But that hasn't happened yet, so I believe your March 22nd post was just obfuscation of how the NIST investigation could have been more thorough by running a relatively simple test.



You don't seem to understand that anyone is welcome to present evidence to the contrary and demonstrate that the methodology is not valid and when someone insists repeatedly that, "NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris....", then you understand that person should be able to support that claim - and why.


Contrary to what? Your lack of doubt? Your royal declaration from on high with no reasoned argument? Why should anybody be required to present evidence of the test's validity when it makes not a bit of difference at this point on the question of explosive residue? Just because you have no doubt they would not be found if someone ever does use the test to determine their existence or not? Do you really find yourself that important that people should cater to your lack of doubt? What else have you presented other than your opinions and lack of doubt? My thought is, if you think it's valid, fine write up your reasons and then I'll read them and then I might agree with you.



There is no mystery that the 9/11 Truthers are trying to prove that explosives were used. And, as such, it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate their claims with evidence. There is no question that the burden of proof is, always has been, and remains on the shoulders of 9/11 Truthers.


Again with the 9/11 Truther canard. Why is it a canard? Because I clearly stated in this thread that I don't care a bit about them. But you keep bringing them up to me. I partly agree with you that they must present their case with evidence, but I require that of everyone including NIST, so that's not big point.



I repeat, I welcome anyone to demonstrate that the methodology of testing for explosives by determining the chemical constituents of a sample is invalid. So far, no one has.


Again, why should anyone bother? Because you have no doubt that they wouldn't show up in the tests that you brought up for apparently no reason? You have not presented anything. The tests are useless at this point. If you're so confident it seems like it would be quite an easy task for you to demonstrate the validity of the test and its results and actually make the tests useful in the question of explosive residue. Then people might demonstrate their opposing view.

But no, let me retract that, I suppose it is easier to pose as a self-important arbiter of what and what is not valid and damn anyone that questions claims that you make.


edit for spelling and some woe-begotten 's

[edit on 27-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 


Ah yes, the "government loyalist" canard.


Yes it is a good canard when the old canard of Truth Movement is used in discussions with me.


I wouldn't recommended using "government loyalist" lest those reading it conclude you are a 9/11 Truther. And the "9/11 Truth Movement" is a self-given name, not a canard.


I'm not sure why you're asking for me to review a post from 13 days after "this started" unless you're trying to hide your claim from March 22nd.


Hide? How would I hide a post here? My posts are open for all to see. I gave you that post so that it is clear to everyone where I stand.


That's where it started... with your introduction of the dust sample test into the discussion.

Please review:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Indeed, although you will find my posts on the same subject in threads from the past. Let's review what I wrote:


bsbray11:

No one looked for explosives or tested for residues at any point during any of the investigations.


Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were, followed by several other studies by medical research groups. No evidence of explosives was ever found.




Furthermore, since the methodology of testing samples for the chemical constituents is a standard test to determine the presence and type of explosives, if present, I have no reason to doubt that the dust study test I presented would not have found evidence of explosive residue had it been present.


No reason to doubt? That doesn't sound like a true skeptic.


I have no reason to doubt evolutionary biology either. I have reasons to doubt some things and not others.


My take is that the dust study test you presented makes not a lick of difference in determining the cause of the collapses or the existence or not of explosives, unless and until someone uses it in an argument for or against the existence of explosive residue.


Let's review again:


bsbray11:

NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris.

NIcon:Your right about that bsbray.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



If they ever do I would love to read their method of determining their results. After such a time, then perhaps I could see it being used as a rebuttal towards someone claiming no one looked for explosive residue. But that hasn't happened yet, so I believe your March 22nd post was just obfuscation of how the NIST investigation could have been more thorough by running a relatively simple test.


The claim bsbray11 made is clear: "...it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris." When you agree with him and I ask why not? and what is the accepted method? I would expect either one of you to be able to enlighten me. After all, skeptics like me are open to be shown wrong and to be corrected. I have asked for that several times in this thread, but we are left hanging with bsbray11's claim.



You don't seem to understand that anyone is welcome to present evidence to the contrary and demonstrate that the methodology is not valid and when someone insists repeatedly that, "NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris....", then you understand that person should be able to support that claim - and why.


Contrary to what?


That testing the dust to determine its chemical constituents is a valid method for detecting explosive residue, the very subject we are discussing.


Why should anybody be required to present evidence of the test's validity when it makes not a bit of difference at this point on the question of explosive residue?


No one is required to. NIST didn't use it. But when the methodology is called "invalid", without evidence, and that reasoning is used to "justify" the need for another investigation, then how would it not be pertinent?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


All you know how to do is shift the burden onto someone else. It never fails when you don't know how it's actually supposed to work, huh?

So we have anonymous internet genius "jthomas" on ATS saying that testing dust samples collected around Manhattan is a scientifically-accepted way of testing for explosives, when NIST says no such tests were ever done. And instead of backing up his extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence, he just tells us to prove him wrong by trying to shift the tables on his own claim.

All I'm left wondering is if the smoke and mirrors jthomas always uses are intentional or unintentional consequences of his mindset.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

This seems like a rather light response from you JThomas. And you are right, I will not use the "government loyalist" anymore, just as long as you don't bring the Truth Movement up with me in the future. As I stated before, I don't care about them at all. I hope that's clear for the future.

But as to bsbray's comment, yes I agree, it's never been determined to be acceptable. Is it an accepted method for the case of the WTC complex? Were their sample size large enough? Would the expected parts per million of these samples be sufficient enough to make a conclusive statement about the whole complex? What effect would the inclement weather have on the samples? All these questions and more should be answered either in a report about explosive residue or by the person who brings a report into the discussion about explosive residue.

So I think we are at the point in the discussion to review what you wrote on March 22nd.

The question I believe now is: why was a dust sample test that is completely useless in determining the state of the existence of explosive residue brought into the discussion in the first place? Why was it used as a rebuttal for a claim made that no one looked for explosive residue?

I think I established in my previous post, using your very own logic, that it is a fact that no one looked for explosive residue. I believe I did, because I still have yet to see a rebuttal, but I could be wrong.

So I believe the question is now as I said above. Why was the dust sample report brought into the discussion in the first place? Since it is so worthless in regards to explosive residue. Inquiring minds would like to know.

I stated before why I think it was brought up. I think it was just brought in to obfuscate the fact that the NIST report could have been more thorough. But since you are the one that brought the sample test into the discussion I believe only you know the absolute true reason and I'm hoping in the spirit of communal enlightenment here at ATS you would share why.

Edited to clarify a point

[edit on 27-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon


And I agree they are not idiots, they are smart enough to list it as a reason if in fact it was a reason.



They're smart enough to not bother anticipating what posters on conspiracy boards like ATS will come up with.

That is, unless someone can demonstrate that their collapse scenarios are both unlikely and couldn't happen without artifical means.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And speaking of these two, you know there is also an organization of about 1000 more of them as well, who would all raise that same issues to you, and wouldn't be any more satisfied as we are after reading your personal conjecture and excuses for the government.


As I pointed out before, if they have arguments to make, they should make them in a forum that will have some impact on the industry.

So ignoring the fact that your 1000 number is wrong (IIRC, it's closer to 400-500), it's also a fact that despite their belief, and faith type believers in their competance like you, that they have quals, it's also a fact that they have produced nothing.

That is a fact that cannot be disputed.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Really Joey Canoli?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Case in point here is the subsequent report on 7. By that time, NIST had received criticism from the irrational side of the fence that they didn't use explosive scenarios to explain the collapse of the towers. So they humored those kooks by demonstrating that explosives were not possible in the subsequent report.


So I guess you really do believe the are idiots.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


I am confused; if the analysis of Manhattan dust samples, collected close to the event, " is completely useless in determining the state of the existence of explosive residue " then why do truthers attach any importance to Steven Jones findings from dust of much poorer provenance ?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
And speaking of these two, you know there is also an organization of about 1000 more of them as well, who would all raise that same issues to you, and wouldn't be any more satisfied as we are after reading your personal conjecture and excuses for the government.


As I pointed out before, if they have arguments to make, they should make them in a forum that will have some impact on the industry.


This is just your opinion and meaningless. They might as well try to appeal to the public in general, just like they are doing.


So ignoring the fact that your 1000 number is wrong (IIRC, it's closer to 400-500)



1185 architectural and engineering professionals
and 7968 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.


cms.ae911truth.org...


it's also a fact that despite their belief, and faith type believers in their competance like you, that they have quals, it's also a fact that they have produced nothing.


That's big talk coming from someone who doesn't have anything but faith in what they themselves believe happened on 9/11. (Btw it's spelled "competence" not "competance"
) All AE911 is asking for is a better investigation, and yes, they are much more qualified than you are. So the best you can add personally is just cheer-leading to the story you've had faith in every since your TV first told you.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

I don't know Alfie you would have to ask a truther. I myself am expecting the same from Steven Jones and NIST and Jthomas and Joey Canoli... and now you. If you think the Manhattan dust samples are sufficient please post your reasons so I can examine them.

I stated my reason why I think they are completely useless, but I'll state it again.

My take is that the dust study test makes not a lick of difference in determining the cause of the collapses or the existence or not of explosives, unless and until someone uses it in an argument for or against the existence of explosive residue. Until someone does, I believe it's completely useless for this purpose.

So Steven Jones has his arguments. NIST has theirs. Jthomas has his. Joey Canoli has his. BsBray has his. And I have mine. They are all exclusive from each other.

But what I don't see is an argument that the dust sample test either shows explosive residue or does not show explosive residue. So at this point it's useless. But you are welcome to make it useful, if you so desire.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Did you really lower yourself down to the point that you must resort to the childish tactic of modifying my quote?

I really expected more from you Joey Canoli.... good bye.

Edited to add just for documentary purposes:




Is this not against the rules in some way?

[edit on 27-4-2010 by NIcon]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 


But as to bsbray's comment, yes I agree, it's never been determined to be acceptable.


I'm all ears. Please provide me with your source for that claim.


Is it an accepted method for the case of the WTC complex? Were their sample size large enough? Would the expected parts per million of these samples be sufficient enough to make a conclusive statement about the whole complex? What effect would the inclement weather have on the samples? All these questions and more should be answered either in a report about explosive residue or by the person who brings a report into the discussion about explosive residue.


Since you agree with bsbray11 that the methodology of testing the dust to determine the chemical composition is not an accepted method to detect explosive components, just simply provide the source(s) for your assertion. If you expect anyone to accept your claims you'll have to back them up.


So I think we are at the point in the discussion to review what you wrote on March 22nd.

The question I believe now is: why was a dust sample test that is completely useless in determining the state of the existence of explosive residue brought into the discussion in the first place? Why was it used as a rebuttal for a claim made that no one looked for explosive residue?


Bsbray11's assertion is pretty clear. Bsbray11 claimed: "No one looked for explosives or tested for residues at any point during any of the investigations." To which I replied: "Incorrect. The City of New York did in October of 2001 precisely to find what the chemical components of the dust were,..." To which bsbray11 responded: "NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris." To which you agreed, "Your right about that bsbray."

Again, I am perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong about testing the dust and I've invited anyone to do so. I would have expected either you or bsbray11 to be able to do so easily and most willingly. Since neither of you appear to be willing to do so after many posts, I have no reason to accept your claim that testing dust for chemical components would not reveal what is fundamentally the basis of explosives: chemical components.


I think I established in my previous post, using your very own logic, that it is a fact that no one looked for explosive residue. I believe I did, because I still have yet to see a rebuttal, but I could be wrong.


Not at all. I am waiting for you to demonstrate the claim wherein both you and bsbray11 agree that testing the dust is "not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris."

We both agree that NIST did not look for explosives. You disagree with me concerning the earlier dust study that the chemical signatures of explosives would have been found.


So I believe the question is now as I said above. Why was the dust sample report brought into the discussion in the first place?


Answered multiple times.


Since it is so worthless in regards to explosive residue. Inquiring minds would like to know.


I'm waiting for you to so demonstrate. Instead, you just assert that it's worthless. Please, as requested, provide your sources for the "correct" way of testing for explosives and demonstrate that the dust study couldn't.

It's a simple straightforward request.


I stated before why I think it was brought up. I think it was just brought in to obfuscate the fact that the NIST report could have been more thorough.


"Could have been more thorough" does not invalidate the conclusions unless so demonstrated.


But since you are the one that brought the sample test into the discussion I believe only you know the absolute true reason and I'm hoping in the spirit of communal enlightenment here at ATS you would share why.


I have many times. I have no doubt that the dust study would have revealed the chemical signatures of explosives had there been explosives. You both assert, "no, not possible." Since bsbray11's claim is used by him as one reason for another investigation, he will be wanting to back up his claim, show us where I am wrong, and show us the proper, acceptable method for detecting explosives.

After all, if he wants to attempt to get a new investigation, he'll want to back up his claims, won't he?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

They might as well try to appeal to the public in general, just like they are doing.


Yeah, that'll work....


1185 architectural and engineering professionals


That includes anybody that works in the profession. Like clerks and secretaries.


All AE911 is asking for is a better investigation


LOLZ. No, they're only looking for an investigation that results in an opinion that agrees with their delusions. Like Pegelow's nukes (one of your heroes, BTW).


they are much more qualified than you are.


They sure are. But I recognize the fact - which you cannot dispute - that they are apparently incapable of producing a technical paper that passes muster at something like the journal of engineering mechanics. And that there doesn't appear to be much scholarly work by ANY of their members.

And I also recognize the fact - that you cannot dispute - that there has been independent studies of the NIST report, and had their findings published. And it appears that those authors have MANY articles that have been published.

So it appears to this poor soul that the guys you like aren't up to snuff.


So the best you can add personally is just cheer-leading to the story you've had faith in every since your TV first told you.


Personally, I ve never seen a show about 9/11. Or read a newspaper or magazine article. All my research has been done online, on forums like this, where both sides of the story are presented.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
If you think the Manhattan dust samples are sufficient please post your reasons so I can examine them.



Again, you're off the mark here.

BsBray asserted many times that dust sampling is not a valid way.

He has zero proof of that.No cites. No sources. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Only his words.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Did you really lower yourself down to the point that you must resort to the childish tactic of modifying my quote?



What you wrote had a typo that made a hash of what you were trying to say.

I edited it to reflect what I thought you were trying to say.

AT any rate, what I wrote is obvious to the rational. NIST sees no reason to further waste their time with CTerz. The question about explosives was answered conclusively to everyone not afraid of their own shadows.

It's the same reason that NASA doesn't bother with the moon hoaxers. There is nothing to be gained from the exercise, unless and until there is a rational argument against the landings being true.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
The 1185 "professionals" at AE911Truth are a pretty uninspiring bunch. If you stuck a pin in the list at random you would be unlikely to find someone who you would trust to build a bridge, put it that way.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
They might as well try to appeal to the public in general, just like they are doing.


Yeah, that'll work....


Nice one.



1185 architectural and engineering professionals


That includes anybody that works in the profession. Like clerks and secretaries.


More brilliant research on your part. The number I just posted doesn't count people that are unverified as having a degree or license.

www.ae911truth.org...



All AE911 is asking for is a better investigation


LOLZ.


Great, I'm debating a 14 year old. This post just keeps getting better.



No, they're only looking for an investigation that results in an opinion that agrees with their delusions.


Regardless of what you think any of them are "looking for," we explain numerous unanswered questions about the investigations to you all the damned time and you just pretend like you don't need a real answer as to what was causing so many explosions or whatever the case may be. You just play dumb and apathetic when it comes to that, like suddenly needing to have evidence is boring and uninteresting to you. So it becomes obvious that you don't really give a damn what happened on 9/11, you just get off screwing with people like you're trying to show off some unrecognized genius. When you're ready to grow up a little more and realize that real people, including victims of what happened whose lives were altered by it, want real answers to questions and not just the best guess of someone living in a basement, regardless of what you (who??) think they deserve, maybe you will finally find a better way to waste your time.



they are much more qualified than you are.


They sure are. But I recognize the fact - which you cannot dispute - that they are apparently incapable of producing a technical paper that passes muster at something like the journal of engineering mechanics. And that there doesn't appear to be much scholarly work by ANY of their members.


Needing to have a paper through an academic journal just to show another investigation (ie NIST) was not peer reviewed or testable in the first place is not necessary. If you're talking about a technical paper proving that the towers were demolished, the exact method wouldn't be known anyway unless an investigation relevant to this was done. There are plenty of technical articles from professional engineers available online. If you are discerning you can read them for yourself. Otherwise I guess you just have to watch the other sheep and just hope they know better than you do.



So the best you can add personally is just cheer-leading to the story you've had faith in every since your TV first told you.


Personally, I ve never seen a show about 9/11. Or read a newspaper or magazine article. All my research has been done online, on forums like this, where both sides of the story are presented.


That doesn't change the fact that you're totally unqualified to dismiss anything professional engineers say, and all you do is cheer-lead.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join