'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

You are really desperate to avoid validating the evidence you present and trying to shift the burden onto others.

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove bsbray11's claim that no testing was done that would reveal the presence of explosive residues. I have made it quite clear numerous times that I have no reason to doubt the dust study would have found the chemical traces of explosives. I have nothing to prove or demonstrate - bsbray11 does. I don't have to demonstrate I am right - bsbray11 has to demonstrate he is right if he intends to get a new investigation.

If I am wrong, bsbray11 and you can each put a feather in your caps.

Originally posted by NIcon
Until such a time that we can say you have done this, I say they are not valid and should be discarded.

That's fine. You can also say the exact same thing about bsbray11's claim that, NIST never even mentioned the testing of dust because it's not an accepted method for looking for explosives residues in the debris."

I wonder which one is more important...

reply to post by jthomas

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove bsbray11's claim that no testing was done that would reveal the presence of explosive residues.

And yet you took it upon yourself when you characterized his claim positively as "Incorrect" and offered the tests, which would then need to be validated in regards to the subject at hand. Until such time that they are determined to be valid, there is no way for debate to go forward.

That's how debates work. Someone makes a claim and offers proof, the other side responds by either asking for more information or by making a judgment on the first's claim and offering proof to support their own judgment. The simple fact is you could have said "Can you prove that?" in which case the burden of proof would still have rested with bsbray. But rather you made a claim which needs to be supported.

Unless of course it wasn't a claim at all, but rather just the babbling of an over-zealous incoherent person. Something comparable to "Balderdash! The King of England eats truffles in his grave!"

"I have made it quite clear numerous times that I have no reason to doubt the dust study would have found the chemical traces of explosives."

And if you were a true skeptic you would "have no reason to believe" either, unless of course you either came up with an argument yourself or read an argument in which to believe. And I just know you wouldn't hold out on us would you, if this were the case? You would happily share this argument with all of us wouldn't you?

But anyway, are you changing your stance from "I have no doubt" (posted on 27-4-2010 @ 03:53 PM) to "I have no reason to doubt"? I believe you said before "I have no doubt", which is what I will stick with until you explain yourself some more.

So is it sufficient in a debate to say "I have no doubt" and assume all sides must accept it? If it is then the scenario becomes: If a Truther walks into a bar and claims "I have no doubt that explosives were used on 9/11" does that mean that JThomas must remain at the bar nursing his warm beer and accept it?

I have nothing to prove or demonstrate - bsbray11 does. I don't have to demonstrate I am right - bsbray11 has to demonstrate he is right if he intends to get a new investigation.

You most certainly do have to prove and demonstrate your own position if we're to have civilized debates here at ATS. I really must tell you that I believe that all here on ATS are very grateful for the awesome, almighty presence of your holiness on these boards, but to have a proper debate here, you really must prove or demonstrate your position. Otherwise these boards would just be meek little weaklings making their irrelevant little utterances and then waiting for the almighty JThomas to swing by to finally bestow his untouchable holy verdict on their utterance. If this were the case, there would be no debate here.

One other interesting point is, I fail to see how one can show "where the burden of proof lies" without so proving it or demonstrating it. In the future are you going to keep your posts limited to "Martha, the burden of proof is yours," "Jimmy the burden of proof is yours"? So I believe you should retract this statement of having nothing to prove or demonstrate as you already have claimed you do concerning burden of proof. Unless of course one considers what they utter as gospel.

And I fail to see what bsbray's intention to get a new investigation has anything to do with this conversation between you and I. We must remember that in this conversation, it was not I that agreed with bsbray that we need a new investigation. It was not I that responded to my agreement with his statement about the dust sample tests. And it was not I that brought the previous conversation from the other thread into this discussion.

I bring these points up as I was perfectly content in this thread with my semi-conversation with bsbray until you responded. And rather than read and try to comprehend what I said, you have tried to paint me with broad strokes that I am in some way affiliated with the Truth movement, mischaracterized my position completely, tried to mix my argument with bsbray's and tried to always put the burden of proof on me about things I never mentioned. And rather than just asking me for clarification, you have been two-guns a'totin' shooting at everything BUT what I have been saying. From which, I do see a pattern emerging from all the times I have run into you. So one thing I'd like to make perfectly clear here as I really do see the need as it's not obvious to some, but I suppose some need the obvious stated to them before they realize it: I'm not that Craig guy from CIT and I'm not bsbray. I have been stating my case and only my case.

And I do understand that his holiness is beyond the need of forgiveness....... BUT his holiness is not beyond having to prove that what he offers is valid. If his holiness does not do that, then it is not valid. End of discussion.

So where I see this conversation now is one of two options:

1) you offer your case that what you submitted is valid, or
2) you retract what you submitted

If I am wrong, bsbray11 and you can each put a feather in your caps.

I don't care if bsbray wears a cap and if it has a feather. I myself don't wear caps and if I did, I wouldn't put feathers in it.

Edited to clarify a point again

[edit on 30-4-2010 by NIcon]

reply to post by jthomas

You are right, I could say the same thing if I want to, but I don't. I could say a lot of things if I want to.

But the cat is out of the bag now, the die has been struck. I believe we have now come upon the point in this discussion of why these tests were even introduced in the first place and what responsibility people have in regards to presented evidence that is not valid. I stated my case why I believe nobody except you has anything to do at this point. All I have seen in return is "I have no doubt" (or "I have no reason to doubt"... still waiting on clarification on this)

So I believe the most important thing now is to either validate the tests in regard to explosive residue at the WTC complex or have them retracted. Many could do the validating, but there really is only one person that can do the retraction.

Or I suppose we can always try to change the subject.

Or we could ignore each other, I suppose.

I personally prefer the first or second option.

What is a conspiracy nut? Someone is nuts for asking questions? Because the evidence says it was scientifically impossible for WTC7 to collapse on it's own furthermore thermite.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove bsbray11's claim that no testing was done that would reveal the presence of explosive residues.

And yet you took it upon yourself when you characterized his claim positively as "Incorrect" and offered the tests, which would then need to be validated in regards to the subject at hand. Until such time that they are determined to be valid, there is no way for debate to go forward.

I think you are confused what the discussion is about.

That's how debates work. Someone makes a claim and offers proof, the other side responds by either asking for more information or by making a judgment on the first's claim and offering proof to support their own judgment. The simple fact is you could have said "Can you prove that?" in which case the burden of proof would still have rested with bsbray. But rather you made a claim which needs to be supported.

This is not a debate.

"I have made it quite clear numerous times that I have no reason to doubt the dust study would have found the chemical traces of explosives."

Correct.

And if you were a true skeptic you would "have no reason to believe" either, unless of course you either came up with an argument yourself or read an argument in which to believe. And I just know you wouldn't hold out on us would you, if this were the case? You would happily share this argument with all of us wouldn't you?

I have no reason to believe that the methodology for testing the dust to determine the chemical constituents of the dust would fail to find chemical constituents of explosives. Bsbray11 insists, if you recall, that the methodology of testing the dust in the study I quoted is incapable of detecting the chemical components of explosives.

So is it sufficient in a debate to say "I have no doubt" and assume all sides must accept it?

Of course not. That is precisely why I invited you, bsbray11, and anyone else to show that I am wrong. You don't have to, of course.

I have nothing to prove or demonstrate - bsbray11 does. I don't have to demonstrate I am right - bsbray11 has to demonstrate he is right if he intends to get a new investigation.

You most certainly do have to prove and demonstrate your own position if we're to have civilized debates here at ATS.

It is not about us having a "debate."

One other interesting point is, I fail to see how one can show "where the burden of proof lies" without so proving it or demonstrating it. In the future are you going to keep your posts limited to "Martha, the burden of proof is yours," "Jimmy the burden of proof is yours"? So I believe you should retract this statement of having nothing to prove or demonstrate as you already have claimed you do concerning burden of proof. Unless of course one considers what they utter as gospel.

Your confusion is that we're having a debate. We are not. We are discussing where the burden of proof lies, not between bsbray11 and me, or you and me, but precisely about who bears the burden of proof in trying to get a new investigation, with NIST, as you claim, or with bsbray11.

And I fail to see what bsbray's intention to get a new investigation has anything to do with this conversation between you and I.

I just showed where your confusion lies. I have no dog in this game with NIST. Bsbray11 and others do. I don't have to prove to bsbray11 that the dust studies were valid or not; he has to demonstrate to whomever that he can refute ALL of the evidence, and lack of necessary evidence, that shows there is evidence of "explosives".

reply to post by jthomas


You make claims without any evidence whatsoever, telling us to prove you wrong instead, and call that a rebuttal.

Until you understand that it actually is your responsibility to support your own claims, as you hypocritically demand of us every time we make any claim, you are going to remain with your head stuck in the sand.

reply to post by jthomas

So I see we are going to change the topic rather than do what any other rational person would do.

I think you are confused what the discussion is about.

I'm perfectly aware what this discussion is about. It is you that are trying to pigeon-hole me into your conception of what this is about and I'm not going there. Sorry.

This is not a debate.

Then what is it? I think I know from your response later in your post.

Correct.

And I pointed out where you said "I have no doubt" and I asked for clarification. Can you expand upon this one word 'correct' and explain the quote I pointed out? Was that a just a flub? No problem, I can accept that if it were.

I have no reason to believe that the methodology for testing the dust to determine the chemical constituents of the dust would fail to find chemical constituents of explosives.

Good for you JThomas! But I've been pointing out that your beliefs or lack of beliefs mean nothing to me unless you state your case. Nor should they mean anything to anyone else.

Bsbray11 insists, if you recall, that the methodology of testing the dust in the study I quoted is incapable of detecting the chemical components of explosives.

But the whole question for me is why did you bring it up in the first place if it is NOT VALID. Should bsbray just trust that you actually made a point? From where I sit I don't see any point you made whatsoever. Besides of course that the almighty JThomas has no reason to doubt. Goody! Goody! Since it was you who "quoted" it, then it is you that should prove it is "capable". Unless it was just more blather from an incoherent poster comparable to "No Way Dude! Mega chicks from space have big knockers!"

But that's beside the point as, more importantly, what does Bsbray have to do with me again? Do you believe when I comment on one of his posts that we meld together into one entity?

Of course not. That is precisely why I invited you, bsbray11, and anyone else to show that I am wrong. You don't have to, of course.

But what would I be proving wrong? That you have no reason to doubt? What do I care if you doubt or not? So I'm not accepting your invitation until you explain further your position and validate your evidence. If "I have no reason to doubt" is your only position then I believe there is nothing further to talk about, is there?

It is not about us having a "debate."

Okay. I'll hold off on this until the next quote.

Your confusion is that we're having a debate. We are not. We are discussing where the burden of proof lies, not between bsbray11 and me, or you and me, but precisely about who bears the burden of proof in trying to get a new investigation, with NIST, as you claim, or with bsbray11.

Number one I would kindly refer you to dictionary.com's first definition of debate which states "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints." So I believe the terms are interchangeable and either one applies very well to this public forum. You say DEE-fend, I say DAH-fend, all over again.

And I don't think there is any confusion but rather there is one party trying to avoid his responsibility. I stated in my last post, what does a new investigation have to do with my argument in this deba... uh ... discussion? I've never brought a new investigation into this deba...uh...discussion. so that question about burden of proof, I don't care about at all, and no matter how much you bring it up in this deb...uh discussion. I'm not going there. Because that is not what I've been talking about. The only burden of proof I care about is the one in this debat... uh... discussion. Which I believe lies with you if it's to go forward.

I understand your over-zealousness about anyone questioning the sacred conclusions of NIST, but I believe this debat...uh...discussion between you and I shows quite clearly you are a one-trick pony in a multi-faceted forum. Not every deba... uh... discussion here on ATS is about getting a new investigation. You do realize that don't you? I really believe now that you always bring this "burden of proof in trying to get a new investigation" up, because you really don't have anything else. No... wait.. I retract that... you "have no reason to doubt" which I'm supposed to fall on my knees and respect and try to prove wrong. Please, JThomas, get over yourself.

I just showed where your confusion lies. I have no dog in this game with NIST.

Except, of course the dog to show the heathens where the burden of proof lies by introducing reports that are not valid into the debat...uh...discussion. We must not forget that little puppy pooping in the corner.

Also, I fail to see how a debat...uh...discussion between you and I is a game WITH NIST. Is NIST here on ATS? Are you a part of NIST? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. From what I see this is a "game" among many anonymous posters on a conspiracy forum. Is there something I'm not aware of????? Do you have illusions of grandeur that make you believe this is anything more than a bunch of twerps yapping about conspiracies on a website? Is it, Super JT comes to save the day for NIST? (And yes I consider myself the first twerp in my comment above... relax, it was said in all kindness.)

I don't have to prove to bsbray11 that the dust studies were valid or not; he has to demonstrate to whomever that he can refute ALL of the evidence, and lack of necessary evidence, that shows there is evidence of "explosives".

No you do not, you are free to do what you want. You also do not have to introduce dust sample tests that are not valid to bsbray and then refer me to that deba...uh...discussion. But you did. And I'm glad you said whomever, as the way I see it, bsbray doesn't have to prove anything to you until you validate what you presented to him.

And on the other hand, you're responding to me and not to bsbray, we must remember that, as I really think you don't know the difference. I have stated my case, the dust studies are worthless in a discussion about explosive residue at the WTC complex. Unless of course you want to make them useful.

Giddy up cowboy...



[edit on 30-4-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 30-4-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Good for you JThomas! But I've been pointing out that your beliefs or lack of beliefs mean nothing to me unless you state your case. Nor should they mean anything to anyone else.

Good for you! I've stated my case.

Bsbray11 insists, if you recall, that the methodology of testing the dust in the study I quoted is incapable of detecting the chemical components of explosives.

But the whole question for me is why did you bring it up in the first place if it is NOT VALID.

If it is not valid, then I am wrong. Why does that confuse you?

Should bsbray just trust that you actually made a point?

Neither he nor anyone else has to. He never has. I've repeatedly shown his claims to be invalid to begin with. It matters not to him nor that he cannot demonstrate his case. It is pointless replying to him.

But I already accept the fact that no evidence for explosives has been demonstrated while 9/11 Truthers are still trying to claim that a test that was not done, should have been done without being able to demonstrate why, explain the lack of explosive signs, or refute NIST.

From where I sit I don't see any point you made whatsoever.

Well, that's too bad, I've been pretty clear right along. I guess you forgot:

jthomas:

This started 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. Despite frequent and repeated requests for the poster to demonstrate why it wasn't and asked to point us to the supposed "accepted method", the poster never did.

Determining the chemical components of a sample to determine if there are signatures of explosives, themselves a mixture of different chemicals is how investigators rule in or rule out both the use of explosives and, importantly, what type of explosive was used if the chemical components for explosives are present.

No one has yet invalidated the dust study I presented earlier as incapable of detecting the signatures of explosives. I would welcome any evidence anyone has that invalidates the dust study for that purpose.

[...]

Let's examine what I am stating.

1. Testing the dust to determine the chemical components of the dust is a valid methodology. Tests were done before NIST's investigation started.

2. One poster claimed that testing the dust is not a valid methodology but he would not demonstrate how or why or present what IS a valid methodology.

3. The same poster concluded that NO testing for explosives was done. Period. Therefore, a new investigation is needed since "explosives have not been ruled out."

4. NIST did not itself test dust for explosives. It could have relied on the earlier testing of the dust until and unless someone demonstrates that the methodology is invalid.

5. As I showed you above, NIST devoted an entire section to considering explosive demolition. You can see that NIST relied on other evidence and did not need to rely on the dust studies.

Whether or not NIST did its own dust study or relied on earlier studies is irrelevant to the conclusion that no evidence of explosives ever materialized nor that evidence that should have been present ever showed up.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course not. That is precisely why I invited you, bsbray11, and anyone else to show that I am wrong. You don't have to, of course.

But what would I be proving wrong?

Apparently, nothing.

reply to post by jthomas

If it is not valid, then I am wrong. Why does that confuse you?

I still don't see why you may think I'm confused. I have always thought it was wrong of you to introduce the dust sample tests into the debate (discussion) about explosive residue at the WTC complex when they are not valid to the topic. No confusion there.

But thanks for the discussion.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

If it is not valid, then I am wrong. Why does that confuse you?

I still don't see why you may think I'm confused. I have always thought it was wrong of you to introduce the dust sample tests into the debate (discussion) about explosive residue at the WTC complex when they are not valid to the topic.

According to bsbray11, testing for explosive residue is valid to the topic. And to others who agree with him, too. Whether or not testing the dust samples is valid or not remains an open question.

Bsbray11 is free to back up his claim that it is not anytime since he apparently knows, but is unwilling to demonstrate, the proper methodology.






[edit on 2-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

And according to me bsbray's claims have nothing to do with me.

I agreed with him about the question of NIST relying on the dust samples. But I think we decided in this discussion that it's irrelevant if they relied on them or not.

And now I also believe we've determined the whole question as to if they used them or not should not have been brought up in the first place, as it was based on the erroneous introduction of the tests that are not valid in a discussion of explosive residue at the WTC complex.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

And according to me bsbray's claims have nothing to do with me.

Correct. They have to do with bsbray11 and 9/11 "Truthers" (a group of which you have stated you are not a part) refuting NIST, dust studies or not.

I'll keep waiting.

Originally posted by jthomas
Bsbray11 is free to back up his claim that it is not anytime since he apparently knows, but is unwilling to demonstrate, the proper methodology.

I'm doing my best to decipher the grammar and guess you are repeating once again that your claims stand until someone proves them wrong. You said the dust studies were for explosives. They weren't. They were about air contamination and its effect on public health, and they even lied about that.

If you're going to keep talking about me so damned much, why don't you respond to me directly?

reply to post by bsbray11

I believe it's been determined the test samples are not valid and they shouldn't have been introduced into the argument about explosive residue, so absolutely nothing needs to be said about it's methodology. Arguing against the methodology of a worthless test is like arguing against how explosive residues at the WTC could be detected by cleaning the toilets at Grand Central Station.

This has all amounted to nothing but to establish the fact that no one tested for explosive residues at the WTC complex.

science is ... systematic study .. only that
...
need not be called a scientist to do science

Originally posted by NIcon

This has all amounted to nothing but to establish the fact that no one tested for explosive residues at the WTC complex.

According to bsbray11, testing for explosive residue is valid to the topic. And to others who agree with him, too. Whether or not testing the dust samples to determine the chemical composition of the dust is a valid methodology to determine the existence of chemical signatures of explosives remains an open question.

Whether or not NIST did its own dust study or relied on earlier studies is irrelevant to the conclusion that no evidence of explosives ever materialized nor that evidence that should have been present ever showed up.

Bsbray11 is free to back up his claims anytime that it is not since he apparently knows, but is unwilling to demonstrate, the proper methodology. So far, he hasn't. Neither bsbray11 or anyone else has presented evidence of explosives.

I'll keep waiting.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


The discussion was over pages ago jthomas. The horse you are trying to revive is dead for good.

It was your burden to prove the study you mentioned was a valid test for explosives, ie the air contamination study. Instead you refused to prove it was a valid test and told us to prove you wrong. So now you have been proven wrong, even though that isn't how you make an argument in the first place.

Get over it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The discussion was over pages ago

Actually, 8 1/2 years ago.

Sane people understand why.

It is because truthers cannot bring any evidence to move the needle in their favor, and to get their new investigation.

This is not disputable.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Notice my post actually points out the fact that jthomas is misrepresenting data taken for an air contamination study.

Your post is just a generalizing and substanceless rant against "truthers."