'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.

And what do we have to back up jthomas' original claim that the air contamination study was a valid test for explosives residues?

Zero proof of that. No cites. No sources. Zero. Zip. Nada. Kaput. A big "O." Nothing.

I'm not the one claiming someone tested for explosives residues. jthomas is. This was his claim. If you're going to defend him, does that mean you're going to show me the extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim that collecting dust no different than Steven Jones did is a valid method of testing for the use of conventional explosives?

reply to post by jthomas

And I believe we're at a stale mate as I believe it's the responsibility of the person who presents evidence (i.e. the NIH report which you presented) to show that evidence is valid. I don't believe you have at all. Nor have you shown that anyone has determined the report is valid concerning explosive residue.

So I guess we're at a stale mate as I am waiting for you to show that the dust sample test is valid in determining if there was any explosive residue or not at the WTC complex. Or if anyone has ever determined it is an accepted method for the WTC case. Sorry I don't except "I have no doubt"

I don't believe in fairies, until someone shows me otherwise. I don't believe in ghosts, until someone shows me otherwise. And I don't believe the NIH report is an accepted method for explosive residue, until someone shows me otherwise. I believe things are not anything until someone makes a case that yes in fact they are. So the NIH report may be valid or it may not be valid, but I believe, like a true skeptic, it's not valid until such a time that someone proves otherwise.

I outlined some of the previous questions which would be required to be answered in determining it's validity, so feel free to thank me for my minuscule input after you post your reasoning that the NIH report is valid.

So I'll wait for your argument that this was a valid test for explosive residue in the case of 911. But in the meantime I'll sit back and relish the thought that we did actually accomplish something so far... that no one tested for explosive residue.

reply to post by NIcon


NIcon, the NIH study was a chemical analysis. Like, say, an autopsy, it should not start out with any pre-conceptions, everything should be checked, and conclusions should follow the findings.

Can you suggest any reason why a complete chemical analysis should not produce a molecule of evidence for explosives? This was after all a health check and explosives are mostly toxic.

reply to post by bsbray11


Do you agree with NIcon that Steven Jones findings are as worthless as those of the NIH ?

Originally posted by NIcon
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.

Well, here's the post I got warned for after I edited it to make something understandable.

I have zero idea what "the" refers to. I guess it means they. So who is "they"?

Is it truthers, or NIST?

Anyways, I stand by what I said.

They aren't gonna waste more time with inane questions about explosives. The question was answered in the 7 report conclusively.

To continue to respond about why they didn't test the steel, when it's already proven that it's not possible, is a waste of time.

There's no debating that fact.

reply to post by Alfie1

NIcon, the NIH study was a chemical analysis. Like, say, an autopsy, it should not start out with any pre-conceptions, everything should be checked, and conclusions should follow the findings.

Alfie, I believe this 100%. But when a report is brought into a discussion about explosive residues my skeptical nature automatically says the report is not valid until proven otherwise. The person who brings the test into the discussion should demonstrate that this is valid evidence for the point being made. I have not seen that.

So this is actually the first time I had seen the NIH report, so I read it and saw nothing in it that validates this as an accepted method for testing for explosive residue at the WTC complex. Nor have I seen anyone here present a case that it is, either.

Can you suggest any reason why a complete chemical analysis should not produce a molecule of evidence for explosives? This was after all a health check and explosives are mostly toxic.

But the whole point is I have not seen anyone make the case that it did not produce a molecule of evidence. Neither have I seen anyone make the case that it did, either. I really would like to see it, but the person would have to include in his/her argument that the sample sizes and the sample locations were adequate for the size of the complex, the size of the debris pile, the depth of the debris pile, how the inclement weather affected the samples, if the results are negative they would need to demonstrate the above was sufficient enough to make a generalization to cover the whole complex and debris pile, etc., etc.

Basically what I'm saying is: someone would have to first come to a conclusion and then justify the conclusion in regards to explosive residue at the WTC complex, before I would even consider it may be valid. So that's why I say it's useless so far in this case.

edited to add a 'her' as really I'm not sexist... really, I'm not....

[edit on 27-4-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon

reply to post by jthomas

 

And I believe we're at a stale mate as I believe it's the responsibility of the person who presents evidence (i.e. the NIH report which you presented) to show that evidence is valid.

So you don't know if it is valid or not?

I don't believe you have at all. Nor have you shown that anyone has determined the report is valid concerning explosive residue.

So you question it's validity?

So I guess we're at a stale mate as I am waiting for you to show that the dust sample test is valid in determining if there was any explosive residue or not at the WTC complex. Or if anyone has ever determined it is an accepted method for the WTC case. Sorry I don't except "I have no doubt"

This makes little sense. You have already agreed categorically with bsbray11 that "...it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris."

I don't believe in fairies, until someone shows me otherwise. I don't believe in ghosts, until someone shows me otherwise. And I don't believe the NIH report is an accepted method for explosive residue, until someone shows me otherwise.

Why the change in your stance?

I believe things are not anything until someone makes a case that yes in fact they are. So the NIH report may be valid or it may not be valid, but I believe, like a true skeptic, it's not valid until such a time that someone proves otherwise.

A true skeptic does not assert something is "not valid" unless that person knows it is not valid.

I outlined some of the previous questions which would be required to be answered in determining it's validity, so feel free to thank me for my minuscule input after you post your reasoning that the NIH report is valid.

I'm glad I helped changed your stance from making an unsupported assertion you now know you cannot support to one in which you cannot categorically assert is invalid. Now, all you have to do is convince bsbray11 that he, too, cannot claim categorically that the dust study is an invalid methodology unless he can demonstrate it.

So I'll wait for your argument that this was a valid test for explosive residue in the case of 911.

You should now also understand why I can say, "I have no doubt" but bsbray11 cannot.

But in the meantime I'll sit back and relish the thought that we did actually accomplish something so far... that no one tested for explosive residue.

I guess you can't decide if you're a skeptic or not. But feel free to show us that no one tested for explosive residue anytime. I'm all ears.

reply to post by jthomas

A nice and short one, since you like playing word games:

Validity is a positive characteristic of an object. The term not valid refers to the absence of validness. Since no one has shown that the test as an accepted method has the characteristic of being valid, the test remains absent of validity, thus not valid.

Invalid is a positive characteristic of an object. When someone says an argument is invalid they are saying that the argument has the characteristic of not actually being valid.

I don't believe I have said the tests are invalid, having the characteristic of invalidness, but rather that they are absent of validity.

Are we clear now on my side of the argument? Crystal clear?

Now we can get back to your case, which I am still waiting for you to give the evidence you presented (i.e. the NIH report) the characteristic of validity. Until you do I will always maintain that they are not valid... but now I'll even be more specific and say absent of validity.

Edited to add:

Oh and by the way I all ready have demonstrated that no one tested for explosive residues.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I haven't seen a rebuttal yet.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

A nice and short one, since you like playing word games:

No, I showed quite clearly where you changed your position. You are welcome to address that fact. If you don't want to, so be it.

Originally posted by Reign02
I find it funny that people actually believe a nuke brought the buildings down LOL. Why aren't people sick from the fallout?? where is all the radiation??

they are dying from cancers related to ground zero, mr. aware, "lol".
many first responders are dead already, you blind, senseless mole.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

So we can consider it as a fact, based on your previous stated logic, that no one looked for explosive residue, because they never commented on it which then follows they never speculated on them which means they never looked for them. NIST is the only one that ever commented on them to state that they didn't conduct the tests, so it's still a fact that no one looked for explosive residue.

Your logic does not hold.

There is no necessity or requirement of any kind in any test to determine the chemical composition of a sample, in this case, the dust, to look for something specific, in this case, explosives, and thence on reporting on what they did find to "speculate" or "comment" on not finding what they weren't specifically looking for. By necessity, they report what they find, not having preconceived notions ahead of time of what they will find, but to determine what there is in the sample.

Had they found the chemical signatures of explosives, they would report on them, on the specific chemical components, and in what proportions of which chemicals to identify what type of explosive was used.

I'm sorry, but your logic does not hold.

Again, you are welcome to specify the exact testing methodology for "finding" explosives if you still insist that one cannot find the chemical signatures of explosives unless one specifically is looking for explosives.

reply to post by jthomas

I'm sorry, JThomas, that you are not reading my posts and comprehending them. But it's understandable as you are too busy running away from validating that the report you presented is an acceptable method for testing explosive residue at the WTC complex and too busy misconstruing and trying to twist my arguement to suit your purposes.

I have been consistent in saying the same thing throughout:

"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."


"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."

"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."

"Nor have you shown that anyone has determined the report is valid concerning explosive residue."

"Or if anyone has ever determined it is an accepted method for the WTC case."

"And I don't believe the NIH report is an accepted method for explosive residue, until someone shows me otherwise. I believe things are not anything until someone makes a case that yes in fact they are. So the NIH report may be valid or it may not be valid, but I believe, like a true skeptic, it's not valid until such a time that someone proves otherwise."

"Basically what I'm saying is: someone would have to first come to a conclusion and then justify the conclusion in regards to explosive residue at the WTC complex, before I would even consider it may be valid."


That's a lot of ways I tried to explain it to you and others. Please review them again, JThomas, and try to comprehend. I believe the second from the last is the most concise version. So please take the time read them and comprehend them rather than trying to twist my words.

reply to post by jthomas

Boy, now I know why you love the NIST report so much and defend it with everything you've got. I suppose anyone using logic like you just displayed in this post would think the NIST report is 150% accurate to the events that occurred that day.

And I suggest you read the report that you brought up again (i.e. the NIH report) which you still have not shown to be valid as a test for explosive residue at the WTC complex. It's obvious from this post you have not comprehended it.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Do you agree with NIcon that Steven Jones findings are as worthless as those of the NIH ?

I don't think his results are conclusive and more testing (that STILL hasn't been done) needs to be done.

To date, his study has been the ONLY ONE to have been actually looking for residues of any type of explosive or incendiary material, conventional or otherwise. There is no evidence that anyone else ever looked, and NIST admits outright that they never bothered to look because their minds were made up from the start.

reply to post by Alfie1


Just a quick one for today. I would kindly ask you, Alfie, to please not put words into my mouth.

I have never stated that Steven Jones findings are as worthless as those of the NIH. He has made his argument for the validity of his tests, so now people can discuss it.

No one has ever made the case that the NIH test is valid as an explosive residue test at the WTC complex. Even the person who brought it into the discussion about explosive residue has not made the case, but rather has left it floundering for it's last breath of air. So it still remains not valid.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

I'm sorry, JThomas, that you are not reading my posts and comprehending them.

Yes, I have.

But it's understandable as you are too busy running away from validating that the report you presented is an acceptable method for testing explosive residue at the WTC complex and too busy misconstruing and trying to twist my arguement to suit your purposes.

And Ii have addressed that claim repeatedly.

I have been consistent in saying the same thing throughout:

"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.

Irrelevant, as I just showed you.

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.

You claim, with Bsbray11, that it is "not an acceptable method."

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."

Just the opposite and already addressed. You have yet to demonstrate that "could have been more thorough" invalidates the conclusions of the NIST Report, particularly since NIST did not need any specific testing for "explosive residue" to invalidate explosive demolition to begin with.

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

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It is either "not an accepted method" or "it hasn't been determined." You cannot have it both ways. If you now claim it "hasn't been determined" then you cannot claim as fact that it is "not an accepted method."

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."

The specifics are detailed in the report itself. If you do not know that the methodology is correct or not, then we can safely discard bsbray11's claim that testing the dust to determine its chemical components is not an accepted method until bsbray11 is positively certain and can so demonstrate.

"Basically what I'm saying is: someone would have to first come to a conclusion and then justify the conclusion in regards to explosive residue at the WTC complex, before I would even consider it may be valid."

It's quite clear that bsbray11, bearing the burden of proof to provide the necessary evidence to bring to the table to convince someone of the reasons why there ought to be another investigation, will have to muster every bit of evidence he can to support his claims. It is he (and you) who claim that "no testing for explosive residue" was done.

So either you know the dust study was an invalid methodology and can so demonstrate, or you are uncertain and cannot say if it is a valid methodology or not.

Now, in which of those two positions should bsbray11 or you be if the NIH report is plopped in front of you as you sit at a hearing testifying about why there should be a new investigation: certain or uncertain?

Perhaps you might now better understand why I do not have to do anything but bsbray11 does.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Boy, now I know why you love the NIST report so much and defend it with everything you've got. I suppose anyone using logic like you just displayed in this post would think the NIST report is 150% accurate to the events that occurred that day.

I see that you do not yet understand that I don't have to defend the NIST report and why, but those, like bsbray11, who make claims against it, must refute it.

If you had understood this a little better you would see that I am not defending NIST at all but showing where the burden of proof lies and why no one has gotten anywhere - and will get nowhere - in trying to get a new investigation.

The NIST investigations have not been refuted. There are no prospects for another investigation 9 years after 9/11. Those are points of fact. Now, just how are 9/11 Truthers going to get a new investigation?

reply to post by jthomas

You are really desperate to avoid validating the evidence you present and trying to shift the burden onto others. If someone presents evidence in a discussion about explosive residues, it should be up to that person to demonstrate that the evidence is valid in regards to explosive residues. There is no other requirement until this is met.

So since it was YOU who brought the dust sample tests into the discussion about explosive residue, I believe it is you're responsibility to demonstrate the dust sample tests are valid in regards to explosive residue at the WTC complex. Until that time they are not valid.

But I believe you still are not comprehending what I am writing:

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It is either "not an accepted method" or "it hasn't been determined." You cannot have it both ways. If you now claim it "hasn't been determined" then you cannot claim as fact that it is "not an accepted method."

You are so close in this quote to maybe showing a sign that you may understand what I'm saying, if you'd just concentrate on the words, and try to see what I'm saying.

So I'll try helping you out with a little hint to get you over the hump: A thing can be absent of many qualities, all at the same time.

If you need more help I could give you a refresher course in basic reading comprehension. Just let me know if that's needed.

Edited to remove to clarify a point

[edit on 28-4-2010 by NIcon]

jthomas is the one who brought up the air contamination study as if it were relevant to looking for explosives residues.

Not even the people who wrote the same study mention anything about it being such a test. And NIST says no tests for explosive residues were done.

So jthomas has failed to show a single source demonstrating that this is a scientifically accepted method of testing for explosives residues. It isn't.

reply to post by jthomas

I see that you do not yet understand that I don't have to defend the NIST report and why, but those, like bsbray11, who make claims against it, must refute it.

I believe ultimately it would have to do with the fact that you are a freely independent carbon-based organism invested with free will wandering around this planet choosing what to do and what not to do for yourself, but I could be wrong. You could be a computer, in which case you would have been programmed that way. But I believe I have detected enough erratic behavior on your part to safely conclude that you are in fact a person.

As to your personal beliefs on that matter, I believe I really do not care as they have nothing to do with my own personal quest to determine what happened on 911 to my satisfaction.

But I'm glad to see that you did not say bsbray must refute the air contamination study. We may be getting somewhere.

If you had understood this a little better you would see that I am not defending NIST at all but showing where the burden of proof lies and why no one has gotten anywhere - and will get nowhere - in trying to get a new investigation.

I suppose we could at this point discuss the question of JThomas' lack of the psychological urge to defend the NIST report as opposed to his abundance of the psychological urge to show "where the burden of proof lies" to perfect strangers, but I would rather not, as it is way off topic. You say DEE-fend, I say DAH-fend.

But I fail to see how the introduction of reports that are not valid to the subject being discussed shows "where the burden of proof lies." I believe the simple act of the introduction of a report automatically shifts the burden of proof on to the person who did the introduction to show that what he introduced is, in fact, valid to the subject being discussed. Can you expand more on this?

And aren't there hundreds, perhaps thousands, of "new" investigations being performed all the time when people meet up to discuss the 911 investigation? Evidence is gathered, evidence is presented, evidence is examined (if it is valid, that is), evidence is discussed and sometimes conclusions are made. I think many people have gotten somewhere with all this, as in most cases they are aware of more information which allows them to then form more questions or perhaps come to their own conclusions. Why be so negative?

The NIST investigations have not been refuted. There are no prospects for another investigation 9 years after 9/11. Those are points of fact. Now, just how are 9/11 Truthers going to get a new investigation?

I suppose you would have to ask 9/11 Truthers about that. "Here, here Truthy Wuthies... come here boy... yes, that's a good boy... now sit, pappa's got a question to ask.. stop...no...no... I said NO!... bad boy! don't! pee! on! the! sofa!"

But in the meantime this is straying from the most pressing problem in this discussion: Can you please present your case that the dust sample studies which YOU introduced are valid in determining if there were explosive residues at the WTC complex? Until such a time that we can say you have done this, I say they are not valid and should be discarded.


Edited to get rid on an any way...for clarity purposes
[edit on 29-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by NIcon]