It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Remember you are impeaching him on the basis of acquiescence, not factual distortion.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
We are not impeaching anyone. This is not a court of law. We are not trying to prove anything.
All that I am doing is saying that someone who to all appearances was willing to allow a study that he was co-author of to be quashed on the basis of political disapproval.
No, we don't know the specifics, but stop pretending it is relevant, because it is not.
The only thing that is relevant is that he failed to disclose this piece of information which can lead a reasonable person to suspect (not prove or know without a doubt, but suspect) that he was willing to put politics before science in certain circumstances. Saying he is independent in this context and in relation to the specific study he is rebutting is a gross distortion of fact.
PS. Please, no bickering, if you want to insult the truth movement please don't bother posting just that. I really want to have a dialogue about what has changed, not what has stayed the same.
Originally posted by maxella1
So posting insults only is a no no, but insults with something else is ok?
His name, previous employers and research history seems to have been published from the start
There's no evidence he was even aware of the posting of the report, never mind its removal
There's no evidence of any falsification of work or political intrigue, indeed the report was damning to the EPA at the time
There's no evidence of any outstanding connection to the EPA in any way
There's no evidence that he would want to cover up a controlled demolition + 3000 murders
Look, if you want to be credulous about it, be my guest.
All I am saying is that my standards of proof is a bit higher than yours and involves actual asking question about the possible motivation of the researchers and evidence of such in their methods and past work.
There is nothing unusual about following this route in science and broader academia. Only a fool takes every article in a journal at face value, never mind "science" articles news-papers.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by maxella1
So posting insults only is a no no, but insults with something else is ok?
Sure, as long as someone posts actual content I don't mind. Notice that neither of us have just posted any content, and that we are now bickering over definitions. Exactly what i don't want.
Surely there must be more that's changed in the last year, literally nothing of consequence has been posted and the most work seems to have been done on the 'debunker' side.
One potentially positive test but with a hasty conclusion
Promises of further diagnostic tests and independent research which have now been explicitly abandoned
One video of 'ignition' which shows some burning but does not compare to similar tests
One failed repetition of the burning effect and a lack of confirmation of any other reaction results
One analysis indicating that the substance does not contain thermite requirements and closely matches paints known to be in the towers
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I don't know if I would agree that the conclusion is hasty.
It isn't "absolute", but that is true of all good science, so I see that as a positive not a negative. There is of course grounds for healthy doubt, but again, this is a sign of good research, not bad, and as such tends lends additional credence to the finding in my eyes.
There will always be more tests required. But at some point you have to ask yourself whether it is worth the time, given the specious nature of the objections to the initial work it is no surprise to me that he should have abandoned it.
What does surprise me is that none of the OS'ers who claim that this further work should be a cakewalk has contacted a government source to get samples for research and do it themselves if it is so easy. Now the guy who was PAID also failed to do the same, so I have to ask...
I am not sure which video you are referring to, or which similar tests you mean.
All I know is that the metal sphere argument is sound, has not been empirically refuted with any test in that no "paint" has been shown to behave this way, or look like this.
The only thing that the products resemble was this experiment:
there is good reason to think that the underlying for thinking it may be paint is severely flawed at best. The argument seems to hinge on the idea that energy content/mass is what is key for explosives and/or accelerants, which of course is utter nonsense. But whether it is true or not there is no empirical basis for the paint theory, it is pure unsubstantiated conjecture.
Are you referring to the French study? That was like a joke study. I don't think you should be putting much weight on that one.
Whatever flaws you can find in the Harritt paper are amplified a thousandfold in the French one, you can't in all seriousness ask me to take THAT at face value...
And besides, that one reproduced all the main findings but NOT the ignition, unless we are talking about different things here.
It doesn't look or behave anything like any paint and there is no empirical basis for thinking that it is paint.
Show me a paint that produces these products and looks this way under a microscope and then we may be talking, until then the only empirically supported conclusion is that it is thermite, whatever it ACTUALLY turns out to be.
Originally posted by maxella1
Let me ask you something..
What changed in the OJ Simpson murder case in the past few years? Did OJ admit his guilt? Did any new evidence become public? Nope! Because the case was closed a long time ago. Same with 9/11, with your help the case was closed a long time a go.
The truth is still true, and the debunkers are still lying to protect the criminals.
I know my post doesn't fit your guidelines, so I won't post anymore, wouldn't want to upset anybody, you know.
The researcher was provided the chips directly by Kevin Ryan iirc?
If this truly is a nanothermite that has remained unreactive (still has iron oxide present) then if it is unable to be ignited we have a serious issue with the theory.
It has identical chemical composition to paint.
It's formulated in a matrix identical to paint.
It exists as a thin layer on top of a layer of steel scale
It exists in voluminous quantity throughout the tower dust
Please don't accuse me of things without having evidence. Thanks.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
The researcher was provided the chips directly by Kevin Ryan iirc?
And...
...I don't see your point here...
Ah, but you see here is the rub.
That result can only be trusted if we are convinced that there was nothing done in the preparation of those chips which would ensure such an outcome, and conversely that every precaution was taken to avoid damaging the chips in this process such that but for that ignition would have occurred.
That is where trust come into science.
I'm sorry, but I have not seen paint that looks and behaves as described. It does not have a chemical composition identical to any known paint, it is merely similar in some respects to some paints.
The main identification was made on the products of the reaction, and no convincing alternative source has ever been demonstrated. Lots have been proposed, but every one turns out to be a dud in the end.
Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1
Sure, but I'm not stopping anyone collecting any new information and I helped close no official case. I simply argue my viewpoint as I see it. To accuse me of being partially responsible in any way is just silly.
Originally posted by maxella1
There is no more new information to collect. Any self respecting person willing to look at the evidence available can see how obvious it is that the real criminals are still walking around free. And you are defending their lies.
I simply argue my viewpoint as I see it. You are part of the problem and that is disgusting not silly.
Tell me, which theory do you subscribe to? Was it thermite? Normal or nano? Small quantities or large? Maybe explosives? Did they use cutter charges or did they use giant explosives to blow huge panels out of the side of the WTC?
Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by exponent
The theory I subscribe to is very simple. Innocent people do not go out of their way to cover up their activities leading up to the crime. Innocent people do not intentionally destroy documents related to the information about the accused criminals.
In the real world people who failed to do their jobs and other people lost their lives as the result suffer some kind of consequences. In the case of 9/11 that didn't happen, and i don't think Bin Laden was and is still protecting these people.
In a real crime scene investigation where huge buildings were completely destroyed explosives are actually looked for in the rubble by the investigators. But NIST couldn't hear explosions in the videos and ignored eyewitnesses who reported explosions, and therefor concluded that explosives were not used . And that is obviously stupid.
So that is what theory i subscribe to .
WTC Crime Scene
And although this is a fire scene, it is also a crime scene, which means a large unit of crime scene investigators is present, working from a tent at the corner of West St. and Liberty. (p. 194)
NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman: "At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.
If you step on a fly ten times there will be nothing left. And here we have no couches, no computers, no chairs, no glass. Any small trace of anything is evidence. Anything to bring closure to the families. Human body part, clothing, jewelry, equipment and tools, anything. If there ever is a trial, we will be prepared. We've been here from day 1, and we'll be there well after the regular police officers go home, when everyone is packed up and gone." (p. 326-327)
There are two dump sites. One is in Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, and the other is in Great Kills, Staten Island. At each location police Investigations Unit detectives and FBI agents are spotting and sifting through every truckload, searching for the flight recorders of the planes and for any remains of the victims.
"Law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the NYC Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal."–
The "cover up" was not evidence of a "LIHOP", but one to cover up the mistakes and incompetence of many of the agencies within the government.
NIST, along with 99.9999 percent of the population did not hear or see anything that would lead them to believe there were bombs going off. There are a few videos out there that validate this fact. I do know that there were explosions within the towers. This is typical in any large building fire. I am sure this has been explained to you countless times.
The steel was taken to Fresh Kills Land fill where it was examined for explosives.