are HERE any non-american 9/11 Official Story Believers?

reply to post by Darkwing01


I would love to "reproduce" some of Dr. Jones' results - think I can get some of his dust samples? Can't reproduce his experiments without his material. If not, well then - no science.

Originally posted by Darkwing01


You can reproducibly make thermite can you not?
You can reproducibly cut vertical columns with it can you not?
You reproducibly produce a demolition by cutting vertical columns can you not?
You can reproducibly find at least the products of thermitic reaction in the WTC dust (remember that Jones was not the first to report this, FEMA was) can you not?

So what? The important thing is that Jones' results are apparently not reproducible. Therefore the presence of "active thermitic material" is unproven.

You may dislike judging the quality of evidence by the provenance (indeed this is a requirement of the TM, since so much of its evidence comes from disreputable sources) but it remains true that Jones is a fringe scientist, probably a crackpot, who published his work in a vanity journal. True that doesn't of itself make it untrue. But it hardly counts in its favour.

You can reproducibly make molten iron look like the stuff that was pouring out that window can you not?

You can make anything look like anything with CGI. You seem to be saying that because something might be true there is some value in discussing it. Unfortunately - for you - the way in which accepted opinion is formed requires much more than "this is a possibility".

Every step is A) logical B) falsifiable and C) reproducible.

Possibly. But they are not a series of steps which have anything to do with proving foul play or CD at the WTC.

Contrast that to the OS where not a single elements meets this criteria, it is special pleading all the way.

You've constructed a series of steps which prove nothing except that it is possible to make thermite and produce stuff that looks like molten iron.

Compared to your pointless foray the "OS" looks positively watertight.

reply to post by -PLB-
It would be too unfair for me to engage in a battle of wits, with an unarmed man. Get back up on the porch where you belong, you're not ready to run with the big dogs.

reply to post by dillweed


Yeh, there you got me. Congratulations with your victory.

reply to post by -PLB-

There is a physical model that reproduces NIST's theory, which is that planes and fires initiated the collapse.

That is a story, not a physical experiment.

Physical means things that exist outside your imagination fyi and because it is foundational to the scientific method that it is hard or impossible to establish absolutely what exists only in your imagination and what is real there is a little technique called reproducible falsifiable experiment which serves as arbiter.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You can make anything look like anything with CGI.

Yeah, again. Reproducible refers to things in the physical universe, not drawings.

Possibly. But they are not a series of steps which have anything to do with proving foul play or CD at the WTC.

If what came out of the side of the building was molten iron the only reasonable source was thermite right? If there was thermite it must have been put there deliberately beforehand right (please don't tell me you think plane + steel beams = thermite).

If thermite was placed there deliberately the only people who had the required access, time and technical ability were not the however many hijackers were actually on the planes, n'est-ce pas?

So that stuff coming out the side of the building is prima facie enough to establish the conspiracy version. Unless you can "please explain" WITH A PHYSICAL REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENT what else it may have been.

It doesn't mean that thetruther version is true, it just means that it is the only story that is scientifically supported at this time.

reply to post by hooper

I would love to "reproduce" some of Dr. Jones' results - think I can get some of his dust samples? Can't reproduce his experiments without his material. If not, well then - no science.

Last I checked Jones wasn't stopping you from getting access to samples of WTC dust, which is all you need. You don't need HIS samples.

If you want samples either go find them yourself or ask U.S. government, they are the ones not releasing data.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
If what came out of the side of the building was molten iron

What makes you think it was molten iron? It was more likely molten lead, or aluminium

So that stuff coming out the side of the building is prima facie enough to establish the conspiracy version

No, first you have to prove it was molten iron, which you are unable to do, so no conspiracy theory!

reply to post by spoor

What makes you think it was molten iron? It was more likely molten lead, or aluminium

Again, that is a story, not physical experiment.

You can reproducibly show that molten iron behaves like that and you cannot reproducibly show that anything else looks like that.

The claims of aluminium and/or lead have been falsified by reproducible experiment, if you wish you can go do the experiment in your backyard that fails to falsify it. Until then your idea is nothing but an idea, it has no more connection to reality than the planet Niburu.

No, first you have to prove it was molten iron, which you are unable to do, so no conspiracy theory!

Science NEVER proves ANYTHING, it simply repeatedly fails to falsify prediction by experiment.

Science supports what can be falsified by experiment but is not, and therefore science supports that this was iron and does not support that it was anything substantially different from iron.

That does not mean that it WAS iron, just that that is the only thing that is currently supported by evidence.

If it IS iron then the conspiracy theory is proven eo ipso, unless you have an alternative explanation supported by physical experiment.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The claims of aluminium and/or lead have been falsified by reproducible experiment

no they have not been .

science supports that this was iron

Wrong, that is just another truther claim, not backed up by any facts or evidence.

just that that is the only thing that is currently supported by evidence.

What evidence? Apart from you claiming it is iron, there is zero evidence for that claim.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Jones also claimed that Jesus visited the USA can you reproduce that!

The things I wrote re the planes ie

Did aircraft impact the towers, they are not question they are STATEMENTS OF FACT!!!!

Have a look at this pictucre care to tell everyone what happened to the aluminium body of this plane that went on fire.



Only source of heat the fuel and contents, many pictures on the net like this.
So what could have happened to the aluminium cladding panels of the towers AND THE PLANE WREAKAGE!!!!

Some of us on here work in the construction industry or are engineers etc others the most technical question they have to ask during the day is , do you want fries with that.

So whats your expertise!!! I WONDER!

Some of us oh here work

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The claims of aluminium and/or lead have been falsified by reproducible experiment

no they have not been .

science supports that this was iron

Wrong, that is just another truther claim, not backed up by any facts or evidence.

just that that is the only thing that is currently supported by evidence.

What evidence? Apart from you claiming it is iron, there is zero evidence for that claim.

Well when you do an experiment which you claim will make molten aluminium look and behave like what fell out those windows and it looks and behave nothing like what was observed what else would you call it but falsified?

Maybe you have a technical term for that that is really impressive, but what you are saying just looks like putting your fingers in your ears and going "nyahnyah" to me.

Jones also claimed that Jesus visited the USA can you reproduce that!

Informal logical fallacies do not support your argument.

Did aircraft impact the towers, they are not question they are STATEMENTS OF FACT!!!!

So what?

Thermite cutting vertical columns is also a STATEMENT OF FACT!!!!

What is not a statement of fact is that there is any PURELY scientific reason to believe the OS, and there are many PURELY scientific reasons (i.e. excluding everything that cannot be reproduced in PHYSICAL experiment) that support assistance.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
That is a story, not a physical experiment.

Physical means things that exist outside your imagination fyi and because it is foundational to the scientific method that it is hard or impossible to establish absolutely what exists only in your imagination and what is real there is a little technique called reproducible falsifiable experiment which serves as arbiter.

If you had looked at the real science instead of that truther nonsense, you would have known that an experiment with an actual physical model was done. Physical as in real existing, not what is in your imagination. That kind of physical. Again, ignorance is not an argument. The fact that you do not know of the existence of such an experiment just shows you did not do your homework and don't really know what you are talking about. You opinion is based on something else than science.

Since you were hammering so much on the logic of wmd_2008, lets review your logic in some more detail, lets explore your fallacy a bit more. You claimed that the OS COULD NOT under any circumstances have happened. Your line of reasoning:

Because the OS defies the laws of physics. We have strong grounds for asserting that because no one has been able to produce a sensible physical model that can reproducibly do what NIST requires.

Your reasoning goes like this:

There is no physical model that proves that A is correct.
Therefore A defies the laws of physics and A can not under any circumstances have happened.

Even if you were right and there really is no physical model (which there is), do you realize your logic is completely flawed?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
You can reproducibly show that molten iron behaves like that and you cannot reproducibly show that anything else looks like that.

The claims of aluminium and/or lead have been falsified by reproducible experiment, if you wish you can go do the experiment in your backyard that fails to falsify it. Until then your idea is nothing but an idea, it has no more connection to reality than the planet Niburu.

Argument from incredulity. The only explanation for A I can think of is B, therefor B is true.

Science NEVER proves ANYTHING, it simply repeatedly fails to falsify prediction by experiment.

Yes it does. Science can prove something to be false.

That does not mean that it WAS iron, just that that is the only thing that is currently supported by evidence.

The only evidence is that it looked similar. That isn't scientific.

If it IS iron then the conspiracy theory is proven eo ipso, unless you have an alternative explanation supported by physical experiment.

And why not, another logical fallacy. First of you use double standards. An alternative explanation requires to be supported by a physical experiment, but your conspiracy explanation is true be default and does not require to be supported by a physical experiment. Secondly, just because there is no alternative explanation does not mean the first thing we can think of must be true. That is, an argument of incredulity, and a logical fallacy. If we used that line of reasoning in science we would still think that Thor was responsible for lightning.

reply to post by roboe


Except that 15 of the 19 hi-jackers were Saudi Arabians and 4 were Afghani.

And one plane didn't respond to communications from the tower before take-off, somehow receiving permission to still proceed with it's flight.

Does anyone see a problem with that? Nah...not us.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
And one plane didn't respond to communications from the tower before take-off, somehow receiving permission to still proceed with it's flight.

Do you have a valid source for that claim?

reply to post by spoor

American Airlines Flight 11 FAA Awareness. Although the Boston Center air traffic controller realized at an early stage that there was something wrong with American 11, he did not immediately interpret the plane's failure to respond as a sign that it had been hijacked. At 8:14, when the flight failed to heed his instruction to climb to 35, 000 feet, the controller repeatedly tried to raise the flight. He reached out to the pilot on the emergency frequency. Though there was no response, he kept trying to contact the aircraft.106 At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a "no radio" aircraft.107 The controller checked to see if American Airlines could establish communication with American 11. He became even more concerned as its route changed, moving into another sector's airspace. Controllers immediately began to move aircraft out of its path, and asked other aircraft in the vicinity to look for American 11.108

Source

Source 108 is Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 22, 2003); John Schippani interview (Sept. 22, 2003)

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
Source

Source 108 is Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 22, 2003); John Schippani interview (Sept. 22, 2003)

There is nothing there backing up the claim
"And one plane didn't respond to communications from the tower before take-off, somehow receiving permission to still proceed with it's flight. "

reply to post by spoor


Clearly I have distorted history through my faded memory. I rescind my previous statement of the plane. However, 3 out of the 4 planes turned off their transponders.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


Always good to refresh your memory every now and then. For example, there were 15 Saudi, 2 UAE ,1 Lebanese, 1 Egyptian hijackers. Not 15 Saudi and 4 Afghan.