9/11 demolition theory debunkers, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times

reply posted on 13-8-2010 @ 10:36 PM by impressme

reply to post by pteridine

If I acquired dust samples and analyzed them, I wouldn't know where to publish the

results.

Top Expert come forth:9/11 Bldg 7 downed with explosives

Originally posted by pteridine

I agree that facts are not important to you. You do not recognize the errors of the Jones

paper even when I explain them. Please go to all your favorite websites and ask the

questions about DSC in air and imbalances in energy output. I suspect that the people who

frequent such sites are no more competent than the Jones team and might not realize how bad

the Bentham paper is, but maybe someone will suggest that they have moved on and that Jones thermite paint is passe.

I have many publications in peer reviewed chemistry and technology journals

and regularly review papers for Analytical Chemistry and Catalysis.

That is why when I read Jones' paper, I had to tell the non-technical readers of ATS why it didn't prove

what it is claimed to have proved. If it had proved the claims, I would have so stated.

Jones and other such will not be able to buffalo ATS readers based on their reputations in

the CT communities.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You wouldn't know where to publish the results, looks to me you can,t tell the truth.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by impressme]

reply posted on 13-8-2010 @ 11:00 PM by impressme

reply to post by okbmd

Without turning this into a personal attack , suffice it to say , that I can point out several of your requirements that you have failed to meet , time after time .

We all can say the same for you as well.

And , not all of us are kids , as I am a retiree with grandkids .

Then learn to debate, and stop demanding everyone to accept your opinions as facts.
You want people to find you credible, then start posting sources. Anyone can give opinions.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by impressme]

reply posted on 13-8-2010 @ 11:04 PM by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by hooper
but really there are no monsters of that degree serving in government.

Are you really that stupid?

That is the most hilariously naive and insanely idiotic things I have ever read.

You are either an uninformed child or a seriously delusional moron.

9/11 would require a lot of monsters though, wouldn't it?

That is an assumptions based on personal speculation.

It is more important to focus on the fact that the official story is filled with anomalies and contradictions.

It is not necessary to have an alternate theory to understand that the official story is not possible.

reply posted on 13-8-2010 @ 11:13 PM by pteridine

reply to post by impressme

What I said is correct. Journals accept papers within certain limits as determined by the journal. There is little reason for a Journal to accept an analysis of WTC dust as the dust has already been analyzed. Jones' paper is not in a primary journal, so there is no way to rebut it in a primary journal. The rebuttal would have to come in the Bentham journal but that is suspect and would not be believed, anyway.
A proper analysis would require dust with a chain of custody that was found at the site and certified to be from the WTC, only. This may be difficult to get at any time as contamination levels from other sources would be unknown.

reply posted on 13-8-2010 @ 11:43 PM by impressme

reply to post by pteridine

You cannot talk your way out of this one.
The evidence speaks volumes, you made a false statement to Bones, it’s that simple.

reply posted on 13-8-2010 @ 11:51 PM by pteridine

reply to post by impressme

Show my false statement to bonez. I have made no false statements.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 02:13 AM by impressme

reply to post by pteridine

Show my false statement to bonez. I have made no false statements.

You did it for me.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 02:26 AM by PersonalChoice

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

A proper analysis would require dust with a chain of custody that was found at the site and certified to be from the WTC, only.

This may be difficult to get at any time as contamination levels from other sources would be unknown.

I gotta say, this is exactly what NIST ultimately falls back to when talking about (Jones)dust analysis. But following that line of thought, your second sentence is classic, because you and NIST both imply that IF by chance we or anyone legitimate does find thermate... it was planted.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 04:19 AM by okbmd

reply to post by impressme

That's it ? That's all you've got ? I haven't posted any requirements so , how can you say that I have failed to meet them ?

"Then learn to debate, and stop demanding everyone to accept your opinions as facts.
You want people to find you credible, then start posting sources. Anyone can give opinions. "

Please show me where I have demanded anyone to accept my opinions as fact . Pretty please ? You can't do that can you ?

And , I DO post sources .Maybe you just never link to them because you don't want to read anything that doesn't support your cherished conspiracy theory ?

Or , did you mean that I should post sources that would show that you are guilty of breaking most , if not all , of the truther credo that you so valiantly laid out above ?

I can get right on that , if you REALLY want me to .

It is painfully obvious that you are not going to be the victor in this debate with pteridine . Surely , you are aware by now , that he is much better informed and educated in this matter than you give him credit for ?

It's sad , really , to watch you do this to yourself over and over .

[edit on 14-8-2010 by okbmd]

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 04:39 AM by Solomons

Not to be a spoil sport people, but i did make this topic to mainly address what defines a truther and a debunker, and if the widely held beliefs of what define them are valid or invalid eg a truther has to believe in the demolition conspiracy and the debunker has to believe the OS 100%. It seems only one poster replied to this, now we are talking about NIST, steven jones and thermite...

[edit on 14-8-2010 by Solomons]

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 04:45 AM by impressme

reply to post by okbmd

People reading your praise for a debunker who cannot bring any sources to back his claims, need to ignore the poster opinions. There mostly based on what, their beliefs. When it come down to evidence he has produce nothing. Nothing but his opinions nothing more. This is what I was talking about demanding opinions as evidence. He lost this debate a long time ago, how does that work for you?

[edit on 14-8-2010 by impressme]

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 07:32 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
No-plane theories are not acceptable anywhere in the truth movement.

Apart from at P4T. And among a fairly significant minority of posters here.

The latter certainly self identify as Truthers. And I'm not sure anybody put you on the door with a remit to decide who's in and who's out.

So, you're just wasting both of our time. Moving on....

Actually you're saying that you have evidence that no planers are all disinformation artists in the pay of the government. You've altered that slightly now to suggest that some of them are mad. While I can accept the prima facie evidence of the latter, you're conspicuously failing to show me anything that proves the former. No surprise that you're keen to brush it under the carpet and move on.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 07:41 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

That is an assumptions based on personal speculation.

What else are assumptions based on other than speculation? When is speculation not personal?

You may not like the implications of your ideas, as is common in the Truth Movement, because they often show how far fetched the ideas are in the first place, but you can't prevent others from exploring them.

You realise that you're effectively saying that you don't want to think about the conclusions that might be drawn from what you're positing? This is an intellectually stillborn method.

It is more important to focus on the fact that the official story is filled with anomalies and contradictions.

It is not necessary to have an alternate theory to understand that the official story is not possible.

No, but it's pretty important to start forming one at some point. Otherwise you'll just float along for an eternity insisting that something called the "OS" is incorrect. When asked what actually happened you'll stand there in dumb silence.

Theories and hypotheses vie for public (or indeed academic) acceptance. That's how knowledge advances. If all you can bring to the table is a few anomalies in a narrative that most people accept is going to be flawed anyway then you're not going to have any success.

You're in the intellectual dead end that the TM fosters on a lot of its adherents. "Let's just focus on the problems in the OS". Because if you try to create a cogent counter narrative, to think through your ideas, you wind up confronting the bankruptcy of your thinking.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 07:52 AM by TrickoftheShade

reply to post by Solomons

My apologies.

I don't accept that the government's versions of events is exactly what happened, because I suspect they've whitewashed it to make themselves look better. That's the real conspiracy.

But I suppose I am a "debunker" because I find much of the TM's thinking on 9/11 to be little short of ridiculous.

Furthermore I don't think there really is an "OS" - it's truther shorthand for a variety of traditional narratives from a slew of agencies and media sources - and I certainly don't expect it to be right all the time.

Let me give you an example. Say the FBI released a report about them tracking a 9/11 terrorist pre September 11, and it suggested that they did all they could to arrest him. But a CIA report disagreed and pushed the blame towards the FBI and away from the CIA. What then is the "OS"? Both are official sources. And both are clearly bending the truth to benefit themselves. Hence it's simplistic to say that there is one single, monolithic "OS" that can be critiqued in a vacuum.

Truthers are often confused on this. They scour the mainstream media - any media in fact - and when something disagrees with them it is lumped in a box marked "OS". When they find something that concurs with their ideas it is held up triumphantly an thrown in the opposite box. This is a rather simplistic - and basically flawed - way of handling evidence. Indeed it's only possible if you are predisposed to a conclusion. In other words, if you're biased.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 09:39 AM by Jezus

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Many alternative explanations could be possible.

While it might be interesting to speculate on these ideas it is ultimately unnecessary to have a specific theory to prove that a conspiracy took place.

The fact remains that the official story is not physically possible.
The fact remains that information has been manipulated.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 10:23 AM by Whyhi

reply to post by Jezus

The fact remains that the official story is not physically possible.

How so?

What was manipulated...?

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 10:25 AM by pteridine

reply to post by PersonalChoice

I don't suggest that anything was planted. I spoke of how things should have been done and remarked on the difficulties of acquiring a pristine dust sample. Note that handfuls of dust from various places in the city just might have some material not related to the WTC attacks.
If we assume that the paint chips were from the WTC, then we must analyze them properly to determine their properties. This is where Jones completely failed. I have posted why he failed on many occasions and invited intelligent discussion on the subject from those who disagree with me. That was expecting too much, of course.
Jones does not invoke thermate, per se, because the elements are not there. He claims nanothermite.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 10:58 AM by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

While it might be interesting to speculate on these ideas it is ultimately unnecessary to have a specific theory to prove that a conspiracy took place.

You see, you're flat wrong with this sort of thinking. You may be able to decide to your own satisfaction that some sort of conspiracy occurred by critiquing fragments garnered from the government and MSM, but to supplant the traditional view of 9/11 in the minds of the public at large you're going to need an alternative hypothesis.

The fact remains that the official story is not physically possible.
The fact remains that information has been manipulated.

I've seen some evidence that information has been manipulated, yes. But none that suggests bombs in the buildings or government involvement. Read my post above about what actually constitutes the "OS".

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 11:27 AM by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
to supplant the traditional view of 9/11 in the minds of the public at large you're going to need an alternative hypothesis.

I don't care to convince people or really even debate.

I can't change a person's mind who is not willingly to think critically.

Anyone that wants to comprehend the truth has all the available information.

If you are honest with yourself and willingly to put in the research time the answer is extremely obvious and unavoidable.

I wouldn't get into an argument of the details with anyone here because I can't be sure that they actually want the truth uncovered. I can't be sure they are actually representing their true thoughts.

Anyone that spends so much time with the evidence but has not come to the extremely obvious conclusion must have some kind of personal issue.

reply posted on 14-8-2010 @ 12:34 PM by Amaterasu

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Solomons

The controlled demolition of 3 WTC buildings on 9/11 has NOT been proven well beyond any reasonable doubt and is ONLY accepted as the most plausible and possible theory of 9/11 amongst truthers .

Otherwise , there would have been a new investigation already .

LOL! Not if the PTB don't want another investigation. They might do all they could to avoid such an investigation... In fact, I would expect there to have been great effort in impeding an investigation to begin with - and if forced to "investigate," a hand-picked "jury" would be put in place.

That didn't happen, of course; we jumped right on that investigation with open information flow...

Oh. Wait. Heh. It took over a year to begin any investigation, and then the "jury" was hand-picked.

Hmmm.