Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

page: 19
306
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Read what I have posted...

Oh and btw, since you have accepted the claim from the other false research that "they found thermite", not to mention the several other claims which have been debunked for years, we can easily say that you do not know how to properly research this topic, and that you rather believe lies instead of the facts.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I don't believe I'm showing any double standards, and I doubt you can find support for that claim.


Well on one thread you are being picky as hell with a civilian engineer who actually went out and tested something on his own free will, and then in this thread you say "Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere" in regards to government reports that were commissioned by the US Congress.

I'll let people make up their own minds about that.


Every test you listed had instrumentation and was superficially valid.


Okay, can you explain to me how shooting spray-on fireproofing directly with a shotgun is scientifically accepted as comparable to the vibrations from an aircraft impact?

I am very interested in how you think this is any less ridiculous than setting a steel hamster cage on fire to test the effects of fire on structural steel, or any other irrelevant experiment.


Therefore, using your rules, they provide absolute proof. The fireproofing would have been completely dislodged, and the floors undoubtedly sagged under any fire load.


Using my rules? What rules are those again? I just told even NIST itself does NOT say this is absolute proof. Including in regards to the fireproofing issue. They also state that is a hypothesis and not proven. And I will be waiting for you to explain how shooting something with a shotgun is the same as experiencing vibration from an aircraft impact.



Was the free-fall acceleration confirmed for the given period of time or not?

It was estimated using a regression.


Do you know what the margin of error in this case was, according to NIST? Do you have a more accurate estimate?


There's no such thing as 'gravitational kinetic energy'.


Yes, there is. You are familiar with gravitational potential energy? (If not, do a Google search... though a physics 101 class would be much more appropriate.) When that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, what is the force that is causing the kinetic energy, or that caused the potential energy in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's a fundamental force of nature, and there are only 4 of those. Go ahead and tell me what force you think is causing the falling to the Earth, the kinetic energy. You know I am always amazed by the answers I get when I ask these common sense questions. I figure you won't fail to disappoint now either.


We've been through this before when you had problems with understanding the term 'free fall'.


Are you sure that was me? Can you find the post?


It means that very little kinetic energy is lost to heating and friction, and that the majority of gravitational potential energy is being converted into potential energy.


No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.



Well if you accept any theory then you would be obligated to back it with something, even if it was evidence provided by someone else.

Sure, and both FEMA and NISTs analysis show nothing suspicious about either occurence.


And neither of them claimed they had actually proven anything. Maybe you would like to read them again to see for yourself. I am always welcome to you showing me a quote from one of them that states otherwise.



I don't quite have a JCB and a bunch of land to spare (it is at a premium here in the UK) but I might experiment with heating some steel in the presence of sulphur. I own thermocouples for example, so I can easily do a better job on that part of the test


Do it! I'm not afraid of the results, more actual experimentation would be exciting if you have the means to do it. Do it, videotape it if you can, and put it up for us to see if you get a chance.



1) NIST itself never claimed in their reports that they have actually proved why any of the buildings fell, only offered the hypotheses they claimed were "most probable" in their opinion.

Because proof is for mathematicians.


So according to you proof is impossible for physicists and physical scientists?

That's an interesting admission. So you don't think gravity has been proven then. Gravity is not mathematics you know. It's Newtonian physics.


While I agree that they should release the information, it's certainly not going to stop any debate. The release of more information from NIST has always been followed by attempts at picking every hole in the data, without analysing it to see if it is remotely convincing.


If you're really a proponent of analyzing data to see if it's convincing, just explain to me what is convincing about shooting spray-on fireproofing with a shotgun, watching a chunk of it fall off as a result of this, and then declaring therefore the vibrations from the aircraft impacts knocked all the fireproofing off? Please differentiate between blind faith in NIST and real science in your answer.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Read what I have posted...

Oh and btw, since you have accepted the claim from the other false research that "they found thermite"


You are not quoting me, buddy. If you are going to debate something with someone the FIRST thing you need to learn is to correctly interpret what they are saying and not put words in their mouth. That is called a straw-man.


not to mention the several other claims which have been debunked for years, we can easily say that you do not know how to properly research this topic, and that you rather believe lies instead of the facts.


Alright, now where in this vitriolic rant is the proof I asked from you?

It's sad we've went to 2 wars over this farce and you can't even show me what evidence we went for.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
Unless you are a hypocrite, I assume you will be able to show me the REAL EVIDENCE that proves conclusively it was the planes and fires alone that totally destroyed those towers.


How about you show REAL EVIDENCE it was thermite, or explosives, or whatever silly conspiracy theory you claim it was. That is, unless you are a hypocrite...


What a cute game. I ask you for proof, and you ask me for proof back. Wow, this could go on forever huh?

Well too bad I never claimed I had conclusive evidence of what brought the towers down. That's the whole point of needing further investigation first. Are you saying you don't have conclusive proof either? Then we must agree!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I am not the hypocrite, the hypocrite is the person, you, who has posted many times the same claims which have been debunked every time...


I read through this rant and didn't see the proof that the towers came down from fires and planes alone either.

You keep asking us for proof, do you know what proof actually is?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well too bad I never claimed I had conclusive evidence of what brought the towers down.


So you have no clue at all.... no surprises there!


Are you saying you don't have conclusive proof either?


No, I have proof, all you have are silly conspiracy theories!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well on one thread you are being picky as hell with a civilian engineer who actually went out and tested something on his own free will, and then in this thread you say "Nobody should expect complete accuracy everywhere" in regards to government reports that were commissioned by the US Congress.

Oh come on. I'm not being picky as hell. All I ask for is basic instrumentation and rigor. The type that would be expected of any science student in any classroom. With regard to the reports, the figures you're quoting are from non technical and non analytical sections. If you want to know how long it took the towers to actually fall, you look at the technical sections that deal with the tower falling. It's not much to ask really I think.


Okay, can you explain to me how shooting spray-on fireproofing directly with a shotgun is scientifically accepted as comparable to the vibrations from an aircraft impact?

Sure, they actually used a modified shotgun to shoot different types of projectiles. These projectiles were calibrated so that their kinetic energy was within the same order of magnitude as the aircraft debris would be. They also used representative materials, that is metal shot, nuts, washers etc. They experimented on a couple of different profiles of material to determine what effect that kinetic energy would have. Their results speak for themselves.


I am very interested in how you think this is any less ridiculous than setting a steel hamster cage on fire to test the effects of fire on structural steel, or any other irrelevant experiment.

The difference is that this test was calibrated and metered. The projectiles had known kinetic energy, we know the adhesion and cohesion strengths of the fireproofing, we know that the steel was prepared appropriately. This is what is missing, scientific rigor.


Using my rules? What rules are those again?

In the other thread, you summarised that because the burning video was superficially similar to a potential situation in the WTC, then that was sufficient enough to prove a case. If all that proof requires is a superficial similarity, then all of NISTs experiments fit this bill. Of course, I disagree, but I am not using my standards of proof as you find them picky.

If you disagree with my interpretation of your standards, please provide some explicit benchmarks we can test an experiment against that will either accept both the ae911truth video and NISTs tests, or the ae911truth video alone.


Do you know what the margin of error in this case was, according to NIST? Do you have a more accurate estimate?

Unfortunately I do not. I asked you here if you had any idea of the original source of the images, as my search had been fruitless. That was over 10 months ago. I take it you have not managed to find it in your research.


Yes, there is. You are familiar with gravitational potential energy? (If not, do a Google search... though a physics 101 class would be much more appropriate.) When that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, what is the force that is causing the kinetic energy, or that caused the potential energy in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's a fundamental force of nature, and there are only 4 of those. Go ahead and tell me what force you think is causing the falling to the Earth, the kinetic energy. You know I am always amazed by the answers I get when I ask these common sense questions. I figure you won't fail to disappoint now either.

The force is gravity, however, there is no difference between kinetic energy caused by gravitational force or any other force, it is simply kinetic energy. That was my point.


Are you sure that was me? Can you find the post?

Yes: www.abovetopsecret.com... (a little way down in my reply and throughout the thread we discuss it)


No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.

There is no need to patronise me, I have repeatedly demonstrated I understand the physics of the collapse equally as well as yourself. I do understand how acceleration due to gravity works, and if you care to read through the thread I linked you will find I explained the regression to you at that time also.


And neither of them claimed they had actually proven anything. Maybe you would like to read them again to see for yourself. I am always welcome to you showing me a quote from one of them that states otherwise.

I'm not claiming they proved anything, i'm claiming that they provided a feasible mechanism for the damage to have occured over a prolonged period of burning. A mechanism that does not have any indication of controlled demolition at all. Nobody has yet proposed an alternate mechanism that could produce the same results, and nobody has undertaken to replicate these results. Faced with this, I can hardly turn around and just ignore the conclusion these scientists came to.


Do it! I'm not afraid of the results, more actual experimentation would be exciting if you have the means to do it. Do it, videotape it if you can, and put it up for us to see if you get a chance.

I'm having a bit of a clear out shortly, so I will see what I can do. I do not know if I have the facility to heat a chunk of steel up to the appropriate temperatures, but we will see. My interest wanes quickly in conspiracies these days.


So according to you proof is impossible for physicists and physical scientists?

In the mathematical sense yes, proof in physics is done by finding a theory which more accurately explains the evidence. No theory is considered 'finished'.


That's an interesting admission. So you don't think gravity has been proven then. Gravity is not mathematics you know. It's Newtonian physics.

Gravity certainly has not been 'proven'. The very existence of a divide between relativistic and quantum theories proves that much. The existence of the effect of gravity is of course certain, but the mechanisms behind it are by no means proven.


Please differentiate between blind faith in NIST and real science in your answer.

Just to make sure we understand each other. I answered this question above, and in my answer I detailed specifically what it was about the NIST tests that differentiate them from tests such as the steel + drywall on fire / steel bird cage on fire type tests.

I believe I have answered all of your questions as fully as I can repeatedly, but it seems that at nearly a year since I last posted, your understanding of 911 has barely advanced, if at all. Can you tell me in that time, what experiments have been conducted, or facts uncovered that contradict the 'official story'. Please be explicit.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



wow... so i have a question..

if this is just the tip of the iceberg of MSM reporting about 9.11 truth...

makes one wonder... don't you think TPTB already had planned an obviously expected upsurge of people demanding proof?
control all sides.. already prepared reactionary MSM side?
glen beck gonna take this on?
i bet they've already drawn up his script for what he's gonna say..

then when official hearings and trials happen with a guilty verdict?

hmmm?

mass worldwide riots anyone?

expected as well?

clampdown police state ready as hell for that one...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well too bad I never claimed I had conclusive evidence of what brought the towers down.


So you have no clue at all.... no surprises there!


There is a difference between having no conclusive evidence, as neither of us do, and having no clue at all.


No, I have proof, all you have are silly conspiracy theories!


Put up or shut up, as they say.

I'll be waiting for this. You've never come through with evidence before.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
makes one wonder... don't you think TPTB already had planned an obviously expected upsurge of people demanding proof?


Well if you want my personal opinion they would have had contingencies for that from day 1, other scapegoats and excuses. Probably would have said that al Qaeda also bombed it with car bombs like they did in 1993 if they were immediately exposed. But that's just my opinion obviously.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Oh come on. I'm not being picky as hell. All I ask for is basic instrumentation and rigor.


Yes, you apparently demand that from citizen investigators who take the burden upon themselves on their own free will. Yet when the government doesn't demonstrate this in their reports you make excuses for them.



Okay, can you explain to me how shooting spray-on fireproofing directly with a shotgun is scientifically accepted as comparable to the vibrations from an aircraft impact?

Sure, they actually used a modified shotgun to shoot different types of projectiles. These projectiles were calibrated so that their kinetic energy was within the same order of magnitude as the aircraft debris would be. They also used representative materials, that is metal shot, nuts, washers etc. They experimented on a couple of different profiles of material to determine what effect that kinetic energy would have. Their results speak for themselves.


So in other words you are saying they were testing actual aircraft debris impact upon the the spray-on fireproofing and not the actual reverberations through the structure that they claimed may have dislodged fireproofing, correct? Their own report speaks for itself, and not even they claim their tests were conclusive. There were also other types of fireproofing besides spray-on in that building.


The difference is that this test was calibrated and metered


You can "calibrate and meter" setting a hamster cage on fire, but it wouldn't make it any more relevant because of the differences in the actual materials and physical processes that are being measured. You are missing the entire point of the scientific process. It isn't just an opportunity to hook up equipment, and the equipment itself making it suddenly scientific. There is an underlying logic that must be fulfilled.



Using my rules? What rules are those again?

In the other thread, you summarised that because the burning video was superficially similar to a potential situation in the WTC, then that was sufficient enough to prove a case.


It was enough to demonstrate the inefficiency of what little of a case was presented in the first place. Like I said there, if you can come up with a more precise theory to test then there is nothing stopped anyone from testing that more specific theory to more specific standards. It wasn't "truthers" that came up with the "drywall caused the melting" nonsense. Whoever came up with it should have tested it, but no one bothered, and no one even bothered to refine it to specifics, so when someone decided he was done listening to all the baseless babbling, this is what he went out and did. If you think you can tinker with it and make it work somehow then go and show us all.


If you disagree with my interpretation of your standards, please provide some explicit benchmarks we can test an experiment against that will either accept both the ae911truth video and NISTs tests, or the ae911truth video alone.


You're asking me to set criteria for testing a theory that I don't agree with in the first place. How could I even begin? If you think it would work somehow, then obviously you would have a better idea of how to make it work then I would.


Unfortunately I do not. I asked you here if you had any idea of the original source of the images, as my search had been fruitless. That was over 10 months ago. I take it you have not managed to find it in your research.


You are asking me for sources for NIST's images that NIST used for their analysis? If it isn't in their report then you can line up behind the rest of us that want additional investigation.


The force is gravity, however, there is no difference between kinetic energy caused by gravitational force or any other force, it is simply kinetic energy. That was my point.


So if kinetic energy caused by gravity exists just like kinetic energy by any other source, why did you just tell me gravitational kinetic energy doesn't exist? Just because you've never seen the word "gravitational" preceding "kinetic energy"? Either way we are both in agreement about what force is pulling the building down, so that's good.


Are you sure that was me? Can you find the post?

Yes: www.abovetopsecret.com... (a little way down in my reply and throughout the thread we discuss it)

So where exactly did I describe free-fall incorrectly? Show me exactly what you are referring to in that thread.



No, a true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.

There is no need to patronise me, I have repeatedly demonstrated I understand the physics of the collapse equally as well as yourself. I do understand how acceleration due to gravity works, and if you care to read through the thread I linked you will find I explained the regression to you at that time also.


When you tell me that a true free-fall acceleration means any significant amount of kinetic energy is being used to do work (ie any amount worth mentioning at all) then YOU are not talking about a true free-fall acceleration and have misunderstood the phrase. But that is exactly what NIST is even showing: no significant amount of work was done by the falling mass, because it accelerated right along with the acceleration of gravity in a vacuum. Again, not me showing this, NIST showing this, and many other independent measurements also showing this. You say "little" energy is lost. That is a weasel word and you are trying to say that some amount of energy was still being used to do work during the free-fall. Well where is it? There was obviously no significant amount of work being done, because ALL of the potential energy was being converted to kinetic according to NIST's measurement of the free-fall acceleration.

Unless you are being intellectually dishonest you at least rephrase the word "little" to "insignificant" to acknowledge that NIST's measurements do not show any indication of WTC7's kinetic energy performing work during the ~2 second period of verified free-fall acceleration. If a significant amount of kinetic energy were used to perform work, you would not have a free-fall acceleration curve. Period.


I'm not claiming they proved anything, i'm claiming that they provided a feasible mechanism for the damage to have occured over a prolonged period of burning.


"Feasible" is a fuzzy word. NIST never tested the theoretical mechanism they came up with, let alone validate it rigorously and scientifically. That is not up to your own standards for experimentation. Now you'll come up with an excuse for them too?



So according to you proof is impossible for physicists and physical scientists?

In the mathematical sense yes, proof in physics is done by finding a theory which more accurately explains the evidence. No theory is considered 'finished'.


Before a theory can be considered proof of anything it's understood that it has to be experimentally validated. Since NIST never bothered to do this you still have no proof even with this less stringent definition.


The existence of the effect of gravity is of course certain


You mean proven?


I believe I have answered all of your questions as fully as I can repeatedly, but it seems that at nearly a year since I last posted, your understanding of 911 has barely advanced, if at all.


You know I'm just going to say right back at ya.


Can you tell me in that time, what experiments have been conducted, or facts uncovered that contradict the 'official story'. Please be explicit.


Well I could refer you to what the AE911 engineer did but of course it isn't up to your standards, not by the fault of the engineer conducting it but because of the lack of substance to the theory he was testing in the first place. You admit NIST never proved anything and I suppose you admit that the "drywall caused the melting" theory is not prove either. Well have YOU established anything in the past year to settle up any of this?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, you apparently demand that from citizen investigators who take the burden upon themselves on their own free will. Yet when the government doesn't demonstrate this in their reports you make excuses for them.

How can you reply like this and then type the paragraph below? You're saying that I don't require instrumentation, right above a paragraph in reply to me saying that I definitely do require instrumentation and that NIST provided it.

How can you hold these two contradictory ideas at the same time?


So in other words you are saying they were testing actual aircraft debris impact upon the the spray-on fireproofing and not the actual reverberations through the structure that they claimed may have dislodged fireproofing, correct?

It was both, a mixture of items ensures a mixture of kinetic energies throughout the scale, and as they shot it as some rather slender targets, the items impacting are randomly selected.


Their own report speaks for itself, and not even they claim their tests were conclusive. There were also other types of fireproofing besides spray-on in that building.

So now you agree that a plane impact is likely to largely dislodge SFRM from the towers. Perhaps you think gypsum wallboard can survive a plane impact? If not, what other fire protection existed to protect the towers?


You can "calibrate and meter" setting a hamster cage on fire, but it wouldn't make it any more relevant because of the differences in the actual materials and physical processes that are being measured.

That depends on what's being measured doesn't it! If you're measuring the decreasing strength of steel due to heat, then as long as you measure compressive or tensile load and the heat of the steel, plus you know the construction and thermal properties of the steel, it shouldn't be a problem.


You are missing the entire point of the scientific process. It isn't just an opportunity to hook up equipment, and the equipment itself making it suddenly scientific. There is an underlying logic that must be fulfilled.

No, the point of the scientific process is not some hidden logic that only you can apply to determine which experiment is acceptable. The point of the scientific process is repetition. Tell me, in the ae911 burn test, how can you know you've repeated it accurately? What measurements can you take from your repeated experiment and compare them against the original.

Frankly I can't believe you're still arguing this, I said I would stop in the other thread and if you don't stop claiming that an elaborate bonfire was a better scientific test than NISTs efforts I will stop here. You are just making a fool out of yourself by showing your selection bias incredibly clearly.


You're asking me to set criteria for testing a theory that I don't agree with in the first place. How could I even begin? If you think it would work somehow, then obviously you would have a better idea of how to make it work then I would.

Yet whenever I try and set criteria, you accuse me of favouritism, even though I apply identical criteria to both sides. How can I win?


You are asking me for sources for NIST's images that NIST used for their analysis? If it isn't in their report then you can line up behind the rest of us that want additional investigation.

Wait so your opinion is that if it's not in the NIST report it's not worth investigating on your own?


So if kinetic energy caused by gravity exists just like kinetic energy by any other source, why did you just tell me gravitational kinetic energy doesn't exist? Just because you've never seen the word "gravitational" preceding "kinetic energy"? Either way we are both in agreement about what force is pulling the building down, so that's good.

If it is identical to any other imparted kinetic energy, there is no need to use the word 'gravitational', it has no meaning in this context.


So where exactly did I describe free-fall incorrectly? Show me exactly what you are referring to in that thread.

I'm not about to enter this debate again, if you really want to you can PM me or start a new thread.


But that is exactly what NIST is even showing: no significant amount of work was done by the falling mass, because it accelerated right along with the acceleration of gravity in a vacuum. Again, not me showing this, NIST showing this, and many other independent measurements also showing this. You say "little" energy is lost. That is a weasel word and you are trying to say that some amount of energy was still being used to do work during the free-fall. Well where is it? There was obviously no significant amount of work being done, because ALL of the potential energy was being converted to kinetic according to NIST's measurement of the free-fall acceleration.

Except exactly the same as 10 months ago and rather predictably, you're ignoring both the period before and after the brief period of free fall acceleration, and ignoring the experimental error we discussed.


Unless you are being intellectually dishonest you at least rephrase the word "little" to "insignificant" to acknowledge that NIST's measurements do not show any indication of WTC7's kinetic energy performing work during the ~2 second period of verified free-fall acceleration. If a significant amount of kinetic energy were used to perform work, you would not have a free-fall acceleration curve. Period.

That of course depends on error bars, but I'm fine with changing 'little' to 'insignificant'. In the end there was very little significant resistance due to the laws of motion.


"Feasible" is a fuzzy word. NIST never tested the theoretical mechanism they came up with, let alone validate it rigorously and scientifically. That is not up to your own standards for experimentation. Now you'll come up with an excuse for them too?

No I'll just repeat exactly what I did before. FEMA and NIST employed competent scientists to analyse this phenomena, they identified the mechanism of attack and NIST speculated as to the potential cause. What evidence do we have to refute this?


Before a theory can be considered proof of anything it's understood that it has to be experimentally validated. Since NIST never bothered to do this you still have no proof even with this less stringent definition.

I think my point was that you never have proof, you have experiments which match observation.


You mean proven?

Well you can call it proven if you like, but being able to say "heavy things attract other heavy things" is hardly a rigorous scientific proof now is it? That's what I am talking about, the macro scale effect is certain, but the actual physical mechanism, what you are asking for in other examples, is not proven.


You know I'm just going to say right back at ya.

I am not the truther here. I am not the one demanding answers. Do you really think it's acceptable that your only example of 10 months worth of research into the murder of thousands is this:


Well I could refer you to what the AE911 engineer did but of course it isn't up to your standards, not by the fault of the engineer conducting it but because of the lack of substance to the theory he was testing in the first place. You admit NIST never proved anything and I suppose you admit that the "drywall caused the melting" theory is not prove either. Well have YOU established anything in the past year to settle up any of this?


I mean, when you have to accuse someone who doesn't agree with you of not working hard enough because I don't believe that your government killed their own people then you are getting desperate. If you haven't done much research then just come out and say it. Why do you think I started the 'State of the Truth Movement' thread? Because I know that very few truthers organise to experiment, and that there are not very many good resources on how these experiments should be carried out.

I want to help but you seem to take the viewpoint that you don't need my help, despite the apparent sum of work done by the movement in the last 10 months is to have a large back garden bonfire.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
How can you reply like this and then type the paragraph below? You're saying that I don't require instrumentation, right above a paragraph in reply to me saying that I definitely do require instrumentation and that NIST provided it.


I never said you don't "require" instrumentation. I even just said instrumentation is NOT the sole criteria of making an experiment scientific. I said NIST's experiments were still not acceptable as proof of anything because they didn't actually prove anything by the underlying logic of what they were doing.

How can you keep putting words in my mouth and trying to change what I say every time you can't argue with it?



So in other words you are saying they were testing actual aircraft debris impact upon the the spray-on fireproofing and not the actual reverberations through the structure that they claimed may have dislodged fireproofing, correct?

It was both, a mixture of items ensures a mixture of kinetic energies throughout the scale, and as they shot it as some rather slender targets, the items impacting are randomly selected.


Then prove that the aircraft reverberations would have been equivalent to being shot with a shotgun. I assume there was another scientific study done to verify this, otherwise the assumption is trash and renders the whole experiment trash.



Their own report speaks for itself, and not even they claim their tests were conclusive. There were also other types of fireproofing besides spray-on in that building.

So now you agree that a plane impact is likely to largely dislodge SFRM from the towers.


No, again you are putting words in my mouth. That is what NIST said, not me. And I am telling you the way they "tested" this was ridiculous. Shooting a piece of steel with a shotgun. Come on man. If a "truther" did that you would have a field day and you know it.


Perhaps you think gypsum wallboard can survive a plane impact? If not, what other fire protection existed to protect the towers?


All the types of fireproofing present in the WTC towers is dealt with in the NIST report. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what kinds there were, except that there were other cementitious forms of fireproofing. Yes, some/most of the gypsum wallboard would have also inevitably survived the aircraft impacts. There is no reason to believe the airplanes would have knocked it all out and I find it absurd to make such an assumption.



You can "calibrate and meter" setting a hamster cage on fire, but it wouldn't make it any more relevant because of the differences in the actual materials and physical processes that are being measured.

That depends on what's being measured doesn't it!


More importantly it depends on what you are trying to demonstrate. This is what you keep trying to avoid talking about. The scientific method is a different process than just sticking a meter on something. This is what you can't seem to get through your head. There is an underlying LOGIC behind the whole process that must be satisfied. Do you accept this or not? If not can you please explain how there is NO underlying logical process behind the scientific method, besides just sticking a measuring device on something?


No, the point of the scientific process is not some hidden logic


I never said it was "hidden logic." It is out in the open and is the scientific method itself. Is the scientific method "stick a measuring device on something and THERE YOU GO!"? This is the third time you've put words in my mouth in a single post.



Tell me, in the ae911 burn test, how can you know you've repeated it accurately?


By watching what he does in the video. Does it give you that much trouble? Do you want me to take notes on the video and explain step-by-step what you are looking at? Are you going to make me repeat the fact that the theory he was testing was vague to begin with and originated from you "debunkers"?


What measurements can you take from your repeated experiment and compare them against the original.


Measurements with your eyes. You look at the material. Is it drywall? Is it aluminum? Is that a steel I-beam? Are these things very difficult for you to tell?

Does he put the drywall on the I-beam? Is it crushed up? Does he put the aluminum on it? Does he build a fire all over it? Does he keep adding fuel to it? Is it burning very well? How long does it burn?

You are telling me you can't verify any of that simply by watching the video? Have you had your eyes checked recently? How can you see to type these posts, but not see what's going on in the video to reproduce it? Do you not trust your lying eyes?


Frankly I can't believe you're still arguing this


No kidding. Anyone else who doesn't have a problem of putting so many words in my mouth and being so intellectually dishonest would have at least agreed to disagree that the sole criteria of scientific proof is that you stick a measuring device on any irrelevant process.


I said I would stop in the other thread and if you don't stop claiming that an elaborate bonfire was a better scientific test than NISTs efforts I will stop here.


Honestly and realistically what the AE911 engineer did was much more reasonable and proved much more as to what he was demonstrating, than NIST shooting fireproofing with a shotgun and saying it was aircraft reverberations. Like I said, you'd have a field day if it was a "truther" conducting such a baseless experiment. He COULD HAVE used thermometers in his fire, but it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference because you don't know what temperatures you would be looking for anyway! That's one of the very good reasons the theory he was testing was trash to begin with. You don't even know how to get the alleged natural reaction to start at all. That's not his fault, that's YOUR fault for not producing a well-defined theory to defend the NIST's reports shortcomings. And NIST came up with their OWN THEORY and still didn't verify it rigorously. Once again this demonstrates NIST was even worse.



You're asking me to set criteria for testing a theory that I don't agree with in the first place. How could I even begin? If you think it would work somehow, then obviously you would have a better idea of how to make it work then I would.

Yet whenever I try and set criteria, you accuse me of favouritism, even though I apply identical criteria to both sides. How can I win?


This is not what we're talking about here. You are twisting the conversation again. If you came up with a better defined "drywall caused the melting" theory and tested it then I wouldn't be complaining. Instead, you have no clue how to go about testing the theory because it's not well-defined in the first place. So you ask me how to prove it? And I said, no, it's not my theory, it's the "debunkers'" theory and you have to figure it out for your own damned self if you want to go around claiming that's what happened. That's how you win. You figure out what you are speculating happened first of all, THEN you go do what you need to do to verify that.



You are asking me for sources for NIST's images that NIST used for their analysis? If it isn't in their report then you can line up behind the rest of us that want additional investigation.

Wait so your opinion is that if it's not in the NIST report it's not worth investigating on your own?


No. What is this... the 5th time you've put words in my mouth? This is getting really old. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. The quote is above for anyone to read.


If it is identical to any other imparted kinetic energy, there is no need to use the word 'gravitational'


That's saying something quite different than denying gravitationally-imparted kinetic energy exists at all. You're changing your arguments as you go.



So where exactly did I describe free-fall incorrectly? Show me exactly what you are referring to in that thread.

I'm not about to enter this debate again, if you really want to you can PM me or start a new thread.


Enough said. You shouldn't have brought it up and made the accusation if you didn't want to back it up.


Except exactly the same as 10 months ago and rather predictably, you're ignoring both the period before and after the brief period of free fall acceleration


Do you know what instantaneous values are in physics? You do realize that instantaneous values have to follow the laws of physics just like values that change over time, correct? You are not allowed to do something impossible for any amount of time (performing work collapsing while not losing ANY detectable amount of kinetic energy) and then say "oh well the average over time isn't free-fall so it's all good." So during this whole free-fall period the building can NOT be having a "progressive collapse" and accelerating at free-fall at the same time. This is YOUR fundamental misunderstanding. You are trying to average everything together to smooth-over the time period that completely and instantly debunks the official theory. It's trash science.



Unless you are being intellectually dishonest you at least rephrase the word "little" to "insignificant" to acknowledge that NIST's measurements do not show any indication of WTC7's kinetic energy performing work during the ~2 second period of verified free-fall acceleration. If a significant amount of kinetic energy were used to perform work, you would not have a free-fall acceleration curve. Period.

That of course depends on error bars, but I'm fine with changing 'little' to 'insignificant'. In the end there was very little significant resistance due to the laws of motion.


The laws of motion don't necessitate that something moving experiences no resistance and loses no kinetic energy as it hits other objects. That is blatantly and 100% wrong, the exact opposite of real conservation of energy and momentum where some energy must ALWAYS lost. In this case it was insignificant and not even detectable when measured. WTC7 was free-falling because its structure had been instantly compromised exactly as in the most coordinated controlled demolitions, yet at the same time it was somehow supposed to be "progressively collapsing" which necessarily implies impact events.



"Feasible" is a fuzzy word. NIST never tested the theoretical mechanism they came up with, let alone validate it rigorously and scientifically. That is not up to your own standards for experimentation. Now you'll come up with an excuse for them too?

No I'll just repeat exactly what I did before. FEMA and NIST employed competent scientists


That's more than debatable. It is very doubtful at this point. Not bothering to test your primary hypothesis at all is not a hallmark of ANY truly competent scientist.


to analyse this phenomena, they identified the mechanism of attack and NIST speculated as to the potential cause. What evidence do we have to refute this?


You don't need evidence to refute something that had none to begin with.



Before a theory can be considered proof of anything it's understood that it has to be experimentally validated. Since NIST never bothered to do this you still have no proof even with this less stringent definition.

I think my point was that you never have proof, you have experiments which match observation.


They didn't have that either. Their computer models were the only thing to match observation, after they kept pushing parameters around until they got their desired result. If you think that's good science then you could fall for any superficial study. And that's just for the initiation event, they didn't even TRY to model 99% of the rest of the collapses. That's also very important to remember when you are talking about what NIST did or didn't prove.



You mean proven?

Well you can call it proven if you like


You just told me you can't prove physics, only mathematics. Yet now you are saying I can call verification of the effect of gravity on Earth proof. Once again you are shifting around as you please and changing what you are saying as you go along.


I am not the truther here. I am not the one demanding answers. Do you really think it's acceptable that your only example of 10 months worth of research into the murder of thousands is this


No, which is exactly why I'm still complaining and still wanting a real investigation. The experiment you're referring to was still infinitely more than any "debunker" or NIST themselves provided on this issue. And let me take the opportunity to pre-emptively reiterate that this was the "debunkers'" ill-defined theory to begin with. It's sad when you can't even test your own theories and expect us to do it for you, on our own free will.


I mean, when you have to accuse someone who doesn't agree with you of not working hard enough because I don't believe that your government killed their own people then you are getting desperate.


I never asked you to come on here and defend the official government reports. You took that burden upon yourself. If you want to back out of it and don't actually want to verify anything then you have no reason to even be talking to me right now.


I want to help but you seem to take the viewpoint that you don't need my help


How are you helping? You'll be helping when you actually come up with a solid theory and test it and demonstrate it. So far all I've seen is a bunch of excuses being made on NIST's behalf. I don't want that.

edit on 14-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
To: bsbray11

This debate has already become incredibly tedious. You seem to be happy to stick your fingers in your ears and deny that you are applying a double standard here, but I am quite sure that it is evident to anyone reading this.

You repeatedly accuse me of distorting what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is what you are saying is contradictory. You claim on one side that an experiment needs a certain logic to it and that no instrumentation or measurement is needed at all. Yet when you are presented with an experiment which had both the basic logic and instrumentation, you attempt to pick holes in it in the most illogical manner. For example:


Then prove that the aircraft reverberations would have been equivalent to being shot with a shotgun. I assume there was another scientific study done to verify this, otherwise the assumption is trash and renders the whole experiment trash.

You seem to be saying that the debris from an aircraft impacting steel with specific energy is different from nuts or pellets impacting steel with the same energy. Think about it, it would seem that the only way for you to accept this evidence is for NIST to fly a plane into a building just to see if impacts with the same energy are equivalent.

This is absolute nonsense, absolute ignorance of the highest order. How you can believe both things at once is absolutely beyond me. Not only this, but you deliberately distort what actually happened in your narrative, in order to present a superficially more plausible case for your side. For example:

And I am telling you the way they "tested" this was ridiculous. Shooting a piece of steel with a shotgun. Come on man. If a "truther" did that you would have a field day and you know it.

This attempt at ridicule would work if I was not aware that you know for a fact that what was used was infact a universal receiver, an air powered cannon firing a sabot type shell. Not only is this explicitly documented in the report with the debris and shell picture, but I have told you about this before.

What possible reason do you have for distorting the experimental procedure other than to provide a superficially more plausible case?

This gets even worse when you make claims which honestly I don't believe can make sense even to yourself, you state this:

By watching what he does in the video. Does it give you that much trouble? Do you want me to take notes on the video and explain step-by-step what you are looking at? Are you going to make me repeat the fact that the theory he was testing was vague to begin with and originated from you "debunkers"?

I mean I would expect this to be a joke if I was not on a conspiracy forum. You think you can watch a couple of minutes of over a day's worth of a fire, and then reproduce it with any accuracy? I'm afraid you just do not understand how to conduct an experiment. 'it looks the same' is not an appropriate metric for judging a test, and would not be accepted even in high school science lessons.

I'll try and address some of the points in your post that make more sense:

All the types of fireproofing present in the WTC towers is dealt with in the NIST report. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what kinds there were, except that there were other cementitious forms of fireproofing. Yes, some/most of the gypsum wallboard would have also inevitably survived the aircraft impacts. There is no reason to believe the airplanes would have knocked it all out and I find it absurd to make such an assumption.

The aircraft impacting the towers were travelling at over 500mph. If you don't think that an aircraft at that speed will destroy gypsum fireproofing then you must be badly mistaken about its strength. How strong do you think drywall is exactly? I'm assuming you've put your foot through some at some point? The thickest in the towers was I believe 2 inches, and that is easily taken out with any sort of bar or bat.


That's saying something quite different than denying gravitationally-imparted kinetic energy exists at all. You're changing your arguments as you go.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading my posts instead of using terms you have decided are appropriate. I told you the exact same thing 10 months ago. Why are you still trying to debate this?


Do you know what instantaneous values are in physics? You do realize that instantaneous values have to follow the laws of physics just like values that change over time, correct? You are not allowed to do something impossible for any amount of time (performing work collapsing while not losing ANY detectable amount of kinetic energy) and then say "oh well the average over time isn't free-fall so it's all good." So during this whole free-fall period the building can NOT be having a "progressive collapse" and accelerating at free-fall at the same time. This is YOUR fundamental misunderstanding. You are trying to average everything together to smooth-over the time period that completely and instantly debunks the official theory. It's trash science.

Once again, the data you are using is a regression. You do not know the error margins, so trying to make grandiose claims about other people's misunderstandings is irrelevant. I explained this to you 10 months ago. Have you really not learned what error margins exist, or attempted to define them? I mean this is a point that you are making, but you seem to be happy to take the most basic simplistic and inaccurate version and repeat that, because it appears the most superficially convincing.

You know science is about the truth, and not what we want to be right, right?


You don't need evidence to refute something that had none to begin with.

I just detailed to you the testing that was done and the conclusions that were reached. Are you literally denying that this exists or something?


You just told me you can't prove physics, only mathematics. Yet now you are saying I can call verification of the effect of gravity on Earth proof. Once again you are shifting around as you please and changing what you are saying as you go along.

No, I'm saying that I am not about to dictate what goes on in the pseudoscientific world you seem to believe in. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, the fact that there is no universal 'theory of gravity' is undeniable.


No, which is exactly why I'm still complaining and still wanting a real investigation. The experiment you're referring to was still infinitely more than any "debunker" or NIST themselves provided on this issue.

Uh, NIST and FEMA provided the results that this person used to perform this experiment, and they did so in a rigorous manner. Once again what you are posting literally does not make any sense. How could they have done infinitely more, if they used FEMA and NISTs work in the first place?


I never asked you to come on here and defend the official government reports. You took that burden upon yourself. If you want to back out of it and don't actually want to verify anything then you have no reason to even be talking to me right now.

Hey look, if you don't want to find out 'the truth' then you don't have to, but you're the one who apparently is a member of the truth movement. Despite this you can't name a single significant advance in the 10 months since we last talked, and you don't seem to think this is a problem at all. That someone else will eventually do your work for you if you just shout loudly enough and put your fingers in your ears.

I'm not trying to force you to do a real investigation, but it's hard for you to have a go at me when you're the one who believes in this stuff and you seem content to just post endlessly on a forum repeating topics we went over 10 months ago. I am more interested in actual progress.


How are you helping? You'll be helping when you actually come up with a solid theory and test it and demonstrate it. So far all I've seen is a bunch of excuses being made on NIST's behalf. I don't want that.

I asked you to cooperate with me on doing this in another thread, you refused. So yes when you refuse my help, it is quite hard for me to help. I can't do anything about this.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crimelab
......
Those buildings sure look "disintegrated" to me. A steel frame building turns to dust as it is falling. It looks more like an eruption than a collapse, and that is what I can't understand at all.


The steel frames did not disintegrate, you just can't see them falling because of the dust.

Do you not understand that much of the insulation, plaster, cement, etc, was crushed, and crushed again, and crushed again, and crushed again for 1,300 feet until it reached the ground? The steel did not pulverize, it broke , and bent in different parts, and there was NEVER any thermite found.

The claim that some scientists had found thermite was proven to be false. The website was a fake, and they would send emails to people asking them to join the website, and then they claimed those people were scientists, but in fact they were not scientists.

There were even reports from some of the people the website had contacted, and they explained quite clearly that despite the claims from the website they were not scientists.

I wish I could find that thread, but the new search option is even worse than the last one, and yes that thread exists.

If i remember correctly BSBray was the one to either create that thread, or he put the link as a response in another thread. But of course, he will probably deny it, just like he ignores all the evidence that contradicts his fantasies...

Even REAL demolition experts state the WTC collapse was not a controlled demolition.

www.implosionworld.com...

edit on 15-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I read through this rant and didn't see the proof that the towers came down from fires and planes alone either.

You keep asking us for proof, do you know what proof actually is?


... You did not read what was provided, AND IT DOES SHOW YOUR FANTASIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN EXAGGERATIONS AND LIES...

I showed a video that CLEARLY demonstrates the differences between controlled demolitions, and what happened to the WTC.

Other members have also shown how wrong you are in your claims..but like always, and like people like you always do, you ignore the FACTS when they contradict your FANTASIES...


Check the LINKS already provided in previous post.... It seems that you want me to be warned for re-posting links and information...

The only person RANTING away is you, and some others like you... You do not provide ANY EVIDENCE to support your claims, except more claims WHICH HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED...

Anyway, here is AGAIN, the video showing the differences between REAL controlled demolitions, and the WTC collapse...

www.youtube.com...

You do know how to click a link don't you?... Or do you need a scientific explanation on how to click a link?...

Here are more FACTS showing that the "molten steel pools" were once again exaggerations.

www.911myths.com...

Here is a link from controlled demolition experts who show that the WTC collapses were not controlled demolition...

www.implosionworld.com...

And here are the many other different links I have posted, AGAIN, despite your new lie that i didn't...

www.911myths.com...

In the following link you will find at the bottom right a table of content from MIT discussing the WTC collapse.
web.mit.edu...

www.nae.edu...

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

sydney.edu.au...

web.mit.edu...

www.fema.gov...

winterpatriot.pbworks.com...

Not to mention that governments in EUROPE found that the 9/11 terrorists, which were Islamic extremists, planned the attack in European cities such as Spain, and Germany...

The government of Spain even indicted Osama Bin Laden in absence.


Posted 9/17/2003 9:02 AM Updated 9/17/2003 4:01 PM

Spanish judge indicts Osama bin Laden, 34 others for terrorism

MADRID, Spain (AP) — Spains leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks on Wednesday, accusing al-Qaeda of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.

The indictment charged bin Laden and nine others with membership in a terrorist organization and "as many crimes of terrorist murder ... as there were dead and injured" in the deadly Sept. 11 attacks.

Investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon indicted 35 people for terrorist activities connected to bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. In a nearly 700-page document, Garzon wrote that Spain served "as a place or base for resting, preparation, indoctrinating, support and financing" of al-Qaeda.

www.usatoday.com...

And you people, the left for the most part, claim this evidence doesn't exist...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by bsbray11
I read through this rant and didn't see the proof that the towers came down from fires and planes alone either.

You keep asking us for proof, do you know what proof actually is?


... You did not read what was provided, AND IT DOES SHOW YOUR FANTASIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN EXAGGERATIONS AND LIES...


It's hard to read what isn't there.

I keep asking for you to show me the proof and you keep giving me the run-around, and vitriolic rants.

Are you just here to troll or are you going to actually post the scientific evidence? I thought basing "proof" on watching YouTube videos and throwing your hands was what "truthers" did?



911myths? Give me a break. A JREF troll runs that site. If that's the best you can do then your best isn't nearly good enough for invading 2 countries.

www.ae911truth.org...

911research.wtc7.net...

stj911.org...



Want to try again?

edit on 15-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


LOL Again you post that BS research from Bentham Science Publishers?... THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE?...



Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48
in

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Here's an excerpt

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

Read the rest here. www.newscientist.com...

So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared..

www.dailypaul.com...

BTW, the first time you posted this SCAM, I proved that it was a HOAX and you still are posting it as if it was real?...


As the Newscientist article explains Bentham Science Publishers have accepted utter nonsense in the past, and they don't even confirm the identity of the people publishing papers through Bentham Science Publishers...

This publishing company even sends unsolicited emails inviting people to be editors of journals in subject on WHICH THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER...

This journal accepts papers, without verifying either the authors, or whether the content of such papers is real, JUST TO MAKE MORE MONEY...

Let's read some more about the activities of Bentham Science Publishers shall we?...


After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.

So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.

www.earlham.edu...

But hey, you seem to be using the same practices of this SCAM Publishing Company... I already demonstrated to your first thread about this research that this company ACCEPTS NONSENSE ARTICLES JUST FOR MONEY...

So that nonsense article about "thermite" found at the WTC is nothing more than crap...

The editor in chief of Bentham, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned because she says that the "nano-thermite" paper was not reviewed, and that instead it is obvious the paper has political motives.


911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett
.....
Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement:I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period. Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.
...

www.opednews.com...


BTW, do you want to know what Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni credentials, and topics of research are?...


Marie-Paule Pileni

Adjunct Professor

Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni

Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory

Chair of Institut Universitaire de France

University P & M Curie, Paris VI

Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05

Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16

Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15

Website: www.sri.jussieu.fr...

E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni
...
Research Interests

Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties
Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties

Chemical modification of enzymes
Physical chemistry in condensed matter
Colloids sciences
Solar energy
Photophysic and photobiology
Photochemistry in gas phase

www.chemistry.gatech.edu...

Don't you think she would know a thing or two about "nano-thermite"?...

I am wondering what BS the believers will come up with next...

BTW BSbray, LEARN TO STAY ON TOPIC... the war has NOTHING to do with this topic...but of course since you have no real argument to back your claims you try to derail YOUR OWN THREAD....



edit on 16-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
LOL Again you post that BS research from Bentham Science Publishers?... THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE?...


Where in my post are you seeing this?

What, do you type out your responses before I even post and just guess what I'm going to say? Because you guessed wrong. Or else you can't even respond to the right person.


BTW BSbray, LEARN TO STAY ON TOPIC... the war has NOTHING to do with this topic...but of course since you have no real argument to back your claims you try to derail YOUR OWN THREAD....


Oh the irony.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
And the TM slips further down the plughole of irrelevance.

It's becoming amusing to have people demand a walk through of absolute proof to their invented standards, as though it is some kind of right. Especially when it's they who think that a monstrous crime has been perpetrated and covered up. Surely if one believed that a mass murder had been carried out by the government one would want to do a bit more about it than have an argument on the internet?






top topics



 
306
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join