It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes, the "government loyalist" canard.
Please review:
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.
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'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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
They might as well try to appeal to the public in general, just like they are doing.
1185 architectural and engineering professionals
All AE911 is asking for is a better investigation
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.
Originally posted by NIcon
If you think the Manhattan dust samples are sufficient please post your reasons so I can examine them.
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?
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....
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.
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.
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.