• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chris Mohr's YouTube Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth

Criteria said:
I see you have gone silent after my initial response to your above post.

Mr. Thomas, I already told you that I am asking about the original source. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10959309&postcount=975

Chris bases his YouTube claims on partial quotes from Dr. Farrer. He relies on an alleged email that potential skeptics are not allowed to check for verification and proper context.

Would you teach your university students to accept this as reputable research and good journalism?

Is this something you do not want to talk about?

I do see the blur of moving goalposts but you appear to be the one hastily moving them.

Your old anemic proof regarding iron-rich microspheres and your disreputable promotion of burning steel wool does make your claims far from trustworthy, IMHO.

Your five-legged aligator is a splendid example of a logical fallacy. I can understand why you need to change the subject away from what Farrer said about Millette's chips.

My pointing out previous examples of you poor workmanship is not an hominem fallacy. And what has Dr. Farrer said. Searching the thread, I can see that Ziggi tried to talk to you about that and you walked away from the discussion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10728934&postcount=219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10737482&postcount=303
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10738266&postcount=309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10739739&postcount=316

So Mr. Thomas, by all means talk about how come Chris gives the impression in his video that Farrer is saying that they decided to keep TEM data done on the aluminum plates prior to publication away from the published paper, even though Farrer did not do that particular TEM analysis until after the paper had been published!

Or do you not want people to think about that?

I will address more of your post when and if you respond to this one.
Click to expand...

As regards Chris using portions of Farrer's emails in his video, which were originally sent to another person as well, he did that because the quotes were quite relevant to the technical aspects of the thermite debate. As a journalist, Chris chooses to adhere to the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which sets guidelines on using material from anonymous and/or confidential sources. Chris did not simply publish Farrer's emails, as that would have included material from sources which should have remained confidential. Chris is a public person, and has shown nothing but integrity in his dealings with 9/11 truth. If Chris says Farrer sent him that email, that's enough for me -- I believe him. That is in contrast to anonymous posters on the internet, who choose to hide behind pseudonyms like "Criteria" and "Notconvinced". Why should anyone trust the pronouncements of such phantoms?

Secondly, Chris forthrightly included in his video repeated mentions that Farrer stands behind the results of his DSC test, and the conclusions of his paper (see segments at 8:30 and at 21:45 of Chris's video).

Thirdly, regarding 5-legged alligators:
Your five-legged aligator [sic] is a splendid example of a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Your problem is that it is you who is committing the Logical Fallacy. Remember, you are in the group which says that ONLY thermite can create iron-rich microspheres.

I was able to create a splendid iron-rich microsphere simply by burning a painted steel beam. I took precautions to ensure that the beam never contacted the metallic sides of the burn barrel, and etc. I am quite confident that the nice microspheres I found on the burned beam were in fact the direct result of a normal wood fire. I am absolutely certain that no thermite had ever come anywhere near that burn barrel.

Your fallacy is one of Moving the Goalposts - you start by saying that only thermite can an iron-rich microsphere make, and when I showed that was plain wrong (my "5-legged alligator"), you said
And then there is your infamous lone iron-rich microsphere from an old trash barrel incinerator and a pile of scrapped paint and steel. JUST ONE LONELY MICROSPHERE FROM A POTENTIALLY HUGE SAMPLE BASE AND A DIRTY ENVIRONMENT!
Click to expand...

I could have looked for more iron-rich microspheres, but didn't see the point after finding more than one. It is you who commits the fallacy, changing your tune from "5-Legged Alligators Don't Exist" to "What, so you found a 5-legged Alligator? Why didn't you find a HUGE number of 5-legged alligators?"

And before you start running on about how my burn barrel was a "dirty" environment, think about this: dirty or no, it was a thermite-free environment, and as such would not be expected to have any iron-rich microspheres if what Truthers say about only thermite being able to produce these was "true." (Which it's Not.)

If you are now conceding that there are TWO ways to get iron-rich microspheres: use of Thermite, OR a "dirty environment", then please explain how the World Trade Centers and Manhattan in general are pristine, "clean" environments. (Hint: they are not.)
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
As regards Chris using portions of Farrer's emails in his video, which were originally sent to another person as well, he did that because the quotes were quite relevant to the technical aspects of the thermite debate. As a journalist, Chris chooses to adhere to the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which sets guidelines on using material from anonymous and/or confidential sources. Chris did not simply publish Farrer's emails, as that would have included material from sources which should have remained confidential. Chris is a public person, and has shown nothing but integrity in his dealings with 9/11 truth. If Chris says Farrer sent him that email, that's enough for me -- I believe him. That is in contrast to anonymous posters on the internet, who choose to hide behind pseudonyms like "Criteria" and "Notconvinced". Why should anyone trust the pronouncements of such phantoms?

Secondly, Chris forthrightly included in his video repeated mentions that Farrer stands behind the results of his DSC test, and the conclusions of his paper (see segments at 8:30 and at 21:45 of Chris's video).

Thirdly, regarding 5-legged alligators:


Yes it is. Your problem is that it is you who is committing the Logical Fallacy. Remember, you are in the group which says that ONLY thermite can create iron-rich microspheres.

I was able to create a splendid iron-rich microsphere simply by burning a painted steel beam. I took precautions to ensure that the beam never contacted the metallic sides of the burn barrel, and etc. I am quite confident that the nice microspheres I found on the burned beam were in fact the direct result of a normal wood fire. I am absolutely certain that no thermite had ever come anywhere near that burn barrel.

Your fallacy is one of Moving the Goalposts - you start by saying that only thermite can an iron-rich microsphere make, and when I showed that was plain wrong (my "5-legged alligator"), you said


I could have looked for more iron-rich microspheres, but didn't see the point after finding more than one. It is you who commits the fallacy, changing your tune from "5-Legged Alligators Don't Exist" to "What, so you found a 5-legged Alligator? Why didn't you find a HUGE number of 5-legged alligators?"

And before you start running on about how my burn barrel was a "dirty" environment, think about this: dirty or no, it was a thermite-free environment, and as such would not be expected to have any iron-rich microspheres if what Truthers say about only thermite being able to produce these was "true." (Which it's Not.)

If you are now conceding that there are TWO ways to get iron-rich microspheres: use of Thermite, OR a "dirty environment", then please explain how the World Trade Centers and Manhattan in general are pristine, "clean" environments. (Hint: they are not.)
Click to expand...

Yes wood alone will produce microspheres because of pyrite like compounds in the wood.

However oxidizing iron works better and can create larger microspheres.
 
Saying Goodbye to Truth

DaveThomasNMSR said:
”As regards Mr. Mohr using portions of Dr. Farrer's emails in his video, which were originally sent to another person as well, he did that because the quotes were quite relevant to the technical aspects of the thermite debate.

As a journalist, Mr. Mohr chooses to adhere to the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which sets guidelines on using material from anonymous and/or confidential sources.

Mr. Mohr did not simply publish Dr. Farrer's emails, as that would have included material from sources which should have remained confidential.

Mr. Mohr is a public person, and has shown nothing but integrity in his dealings with 9/11 truth. If Mr. Mohr says Dr. Farrer sent him that email, that's enough for me -- I believe him…”
Click to expand...
FTFY

You are dodging the issue here Mr. Thomas.

I am not disputing whether or not Mr. Mohr had some email correspondence with Dr. Farrer. My chief concern is Mr. Mohr posted only 'partial quotes' from alleged emails which potential skeptics are forbidden to see in order to verify both the content and the context.

It was not necessary for Mr. Mohr to publicly disclose his private correspondence. It would have sufficed if he had some reputable representative of 9/11 Truth view his correspondence in private and then vouch for their authenticity. Mr. Mohr does not even provide such basic information as; what were the questions that Dr. Farrer was replying to, and when did the correspondence occur. There is no context at all provided.

Of course it is easy for you to believe Mr. Mohr’s presentation because you know him, and he is on "your side”, but that does not answer my question.

Mr. Mohr most certainly did not follow “the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists”. Unless you interpret the code as supporting the use of partial quotes by Dr. Farrer and taking them completely out of context?

A few statements from the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists;

“Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”
“Act independently” “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.“
“Be accountable and transparent”
“Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”
“Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
“Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

Do you also support Mr. Mohr’s behaviour when he acts as if no one has noticed his error, and when he makes the decision to let his mistake stand uncorrected?

So I ask you again, is this what you would teach your university students to accept as reputable research and good journalism?

Is this something you do not want to talk about?

Criteria said:
My pointing out previous examples of your poor workmanship is not an hominem fallacy. And what has Dr. Farrer said. Searching the thread, I can see that Ziggi tried to talk to you about that and you walked away from the discussion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10728934&postcount=219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10737482&postcount=303
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10738266&postcount=309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10739739&postcount=316

So Mr. Thomas, by all means talk about how come Mr. Mohr gives the impression in his video that Dr. Farrer is saying that they decided to keep TEM data done on the aluminum plates prior to publication away from the published paper, even though Dr. Farrer did not do that particular TEM analysis until after the 2009 Bentham paper had been published!

Or do you not want people to think about that?…
Click to expand...
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Secondly, Chris forthrightly included in his video repeated mentions that Farrer stands behind the results of his DSC test, and the conclusions of his paper (see segments at 8:30 and at 21:45 of Chris's video).
Click to expand...

You can’t have it both ways.

By doing that, Mr. Mohr contradicts and debunks his video’s presentation of Farrer´s TEM quotes which gave the clear impression that Farrer did not stand behind the conclusions of the paper!

When Mr. Mohr supported his aluminum section of the video with out of context quotes by Dr. Farrer, he was most certainly violating the “code of ethics”. It was shoddy journalism of the worst kind as it erroneously alleges serious scientific misconduct by the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

Mr. Mohr has known for months that he was in the wrong and he has done nothing to correct it.

When you finally respond seriously to this issue, we can discuss your alligator.
 
Criteria said:
It was not necessary for Mr. Mohr to publicly disclose his private correspondence. It would have sufficed if he had some reputable representative of 9/11 Truth view his correspondence in private and then vouch for their authenticity.
Click to expand...

The problem is, who would this be?

How do you define "reputable"? Do you consider Chris to be reputable?

The obvious solution is for you to contact Dr. Farrer, have you done this? If not, why?
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
...
When you finally respond seriously to this issue, we can discuss your alligator.
Click to expand...
That showed him... a zero evidence post for thermite with extra BS. When is the Pulitzer coming... , never. Newspaper will not team with zero evidence claims born in fantasy and BS.


Why is there no damage to WTC steel from thermite?
 
Criteria said:
FTFY

You are dodging the issue here Mr. Thomas.

I am not disputing whether or not Mr. Mohr had some email correspondence with Dr. Farrer. My chief concern is Mr. Mohr posted only 'partial quotes' from alleged emails which potential skeptics are forbidden to see in order to verify both the content and the context.

It was not necessary for Mr. Mohr to publicly disclose his private correspondence. It would have sufficed if he had some reputable representative of 9/11 Truth view his correspondence in private and then vouch for their authenticity. Mr. Mohr does not even provide such basic information as; what were the questions that Dr. Farrer was replying to, and when did the correspondence occur. There is no context at all provided.

Of course it is easy for you to believe Mr. Mohr’s presentation because you know him, and he is on "your side”, but that does not answer my question.

Mr. Mohr most certainly did not follow “the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists”. Unless you interpret the code as supporting the use of partial quotes by Dr. Farrer and taking them completely out of context?

A few statements from the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists;

“Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”
“Act independently” “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.“
“Be accountable and transparent”
“Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”
“Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
“Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

Do you also support Mr. Mohr’s behaviour when he acts as if no one has noticed his error, and when he makes the decision to let his mistake stand uncorrected?

So I ask you again, is this what you would teach your university students to accept as reputable research and good journalism?

Is this something you do not want to talk about?




You can’t have it both ways.

By doing that, Mr. Mohr contradicts and debunks his video’s presentation of Farrer´s TEM quotes which gave the clear impression that Farrer did not stand behind the conclusions of the paper!

When Mr. Mohr supported his aluminum section of the video with out of context quotes by Dr. Farrer, he was most certainly violating the “code of ethics”. It was shoddy journalism of the worst kind as it erroneously alleges serious scientific misconduct by the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

Mr. Mohr has known for months that he was in the wrong and he has done nothing to correct it.

When you finally respond seriously to this issue, we can discuss your alligator.
Click to expand...

This conversation is useless until, (one) thermites are conclusively proven.

(Two) the thermites can be proven a construct harmful to steel or a trigger mechanism for
something else.

Otherwise Thermites of any type are and will remain nonsense!
 
Criteria said:
I am not disputing whether or not Mr. Mohr had some email correspondence with Dr. Farrer. My chief concern is Mr. Mohr posted only 'partial quotes' from alleged emails which potential skeptics are forbidden to see in order to verify both the content and the context.
Click to expand...
Haven't followed the whole issue with this but:

Has anyone suggested that if you do not trust Mr. Mohr to faithfully recount the correspondence with Dr. Farrer, that you might ask Dr. Farrer for his copy of the very same exchange, or at least ask him if he has issues with the way it has been reported on by Mr. Mohr.

In fact if Farrer has no great issue (Re: "Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”) with the manner in which he has been quoted, then why would you, or anyone for that matter?
 
Last edited:
Hello Criteria,
Criteria said:
You are dodging the issue here Mr. Thomas
Click to expand...
How ironic! You are dodging this:


BenjaminTR said:
Based on Harrit's paper "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT" and its sources, I conclude that every item on Oystein's list is correct. Here's why.

First:
In "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT," Harrit only mentions one primer paint: Tnemec red. Figures 3 and 4 give information about its composition. Harrit does not name or list a single property of any other paint. All of his arguments refer to the properties of Tnemec red. Either his argument is fallacious, or he is assuming Tnemec red is the only primer paint that could have been present.

This assumption is false, not just because there could have been paint from other sources, but also because we know a LaClede primer paint was also use in WTC.

Second:
Harrit's paper is about whether "the red/gray chips" are paint. We can take "the red/gray chips" to mean "the red/gray chips studied in the Bentham paper." Addressing this assumption then requires analysis of the Bentham paper, which others in this thread and related threads have already done. For now, I will simply refer back to their arguments about this assumption and its falsity.

Third:
Harrit says (page 3), "Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4." (emphasis added) He explicitly states that the data sheet gives the composition of the proprietary pigment. I don't see another way to interpret this.

This assumption is false, as the data sheet (http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf) is for Tnemec Primer Red, not pigment.

Fourth:
In Table 1, there is a column labeled "Composition in wet paint." The value given for zinc chromate is 20.3%, which is the value for zinc chromate given in Sramek 1967. Thus, Harrit treats Sramek 1967 as if the wet paint mass is 100%.

This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Zinc chromate is this 20.3% of the pigment alone, not of the wet paint.

Fifth:
On page 3 Harrit says, "After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) ~ 40 %. If we subtract these from the composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint." (emphasis added) The value of 32.3% for thinners is taken from Sramek 1967. In order for subtracting this (along with the extra assumed pigment spirits) from 100% to give the hardened composition, we must assume Sramek 1967 treats wet paint mass as 100%.

This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Thinners are 32.3% of the vehicle alone, not of the wet paint.

Sixth: The conclusion follows from the above. Harrit overestimates how much of each pigment is present in the wet paint, and he overestimates how much of the wet paint mass evaporates away. These errors combine to produce an even greater overestimation of how much of each pigment is in the dry paint.

It is easy to verify each of these (especially the fourth and fifth, which alone justify Oystein's conclusion); it does not require specialist knowledge of chemistry.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, my post saying essentially the same:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10980038#post10980038


Please address the reasons and arguments BenjaminTR and/or I present with reason and arguments of your own, and not the usual empty handwaving!
Thx.
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
FTFY

You are dodging the issue here Mr. Thomas.

I am not disputing whether or not Mr. Mohr had some email correspondence with Dr. Farrer. My chief concern is Mr. Mohr posted only 'partial quotes' from alleged emails which potential skeptics are forbidden to see in order to verify both the content and the context.

It was not necessary for Mr. Mohr to publicly disclose his private correspondence. It would have sufficed if he had some reputable representative of 9/11 Truth view his correspondence in private and then vouch for their authenticity. Mr. Mohr does not even provide such basic information as; what were the questions that Dr. Farrer was replying to, and when did the correspondence occur. There is no context at all provided.

Of course it is easy for you to believe Mr. Mohr’s presentation because you know him, and he is on "your side”, but that does not answer my question.

Mr. Mohr most certainly did not follow “the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists”. Unless you interpret the code as supporting the use of partial quotes by Dr. Farrer and taking them completely out of context?

A few statements from the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists;

“Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”
“Act independently” “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.“
“Be accountable and transparent”
“Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”
“Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”
“Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

Do you also support Mr. Mohr’s behaviour when he acts as if no one has noticed his error, and when he makes the decision to let his mistake stand uncorrected?

So I ask you again, is this what you would teach your university students to accept as reputable research and good journalism?

Is this something you do not want to talk about?

You can’t have it both ways.

By doing that, Mr. Mohr contradicts and debunks his video’s presentation of Farrer´s TEM quotes which gave the clear impression that Farrer did not stand behind the conclusions of the paper!

When Mr. Mohr supported his aluminum section of the video with out of context quotes by Dr. Farrer, he was most certainly violating the “code of ethics”. It was shoddy journalism of the worst kind as it erroneously alleges serious scientific misconduct by the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.

Mr. Mohr has known for months that he was in the wrong and he has done nothing to correct it.

When you finally respond seriously to this issue, we can discuss your alligator.
Click to expand...

I have responded seriously to this issue already. When you pressed me to show the source for Farrer's admission that Millette's chips looked just I his, I supplied the best such reference I have, Chris Mohr's video (which happens to be the OT for this thread.)

If you need more than that, perhaps you should be asking Chris Mohr (a member of this forum, BTW) rather than me? We are different people. Or, as others have suggested, you could show Farrer the quotes (all in image form on page 4 of this thread, for convenience) and ask him if he was misquoted, and follow things from there.

When you finally respond seriously to this issue, we can discuss your alligator.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, when pigs fly, I imagine. You will not answer this straightforward question, because you can't answer honestly without making 9/11 TruthTM look foolish. That is your modus operandi. You do not respond when your issues are disputed; rather, you throw out ad hominems, change the subject, and do whatever else you need to in your desperation to avoid answering inconvenient questions.

To avoid answering my question, you have climbed upon a pedestal and proclaimed yourself Judge of the Forum, exerting your power to rule over which members have answered your questions adequately enough for you to deign to answer their questions. Rest assured, anyone that's not a mindless 9/11 Truth sycophant can see right through your cheesy polemics.

Case in Point: you demanded proof of a member's claim, proclaiming
Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.
Click to expand...

What do you do when confronted by, not just one, but TWO detailed answers to your demand for proof? (Here and here). Well? What are you waiting for? What is the imaginary "criteria" you are using now to justify your refusal to discuss the very proof you demanded?

I think you need a new avatar, Criteria. I remember JFK from the 60s. The Jack Kennedy I knew would not be running from the inconvenient questions as you have; he would have tackled them head on. Here's a suggestion for a more suitable avatar for you.
 
Last edited:
Thanks

I rarely post here because I've learned that many hear are more qualified that I am to debate these matters. However, I thought that Chris' video was superb and I want to thank him for it. I read with amazement this morning at the extent of the ad hominem attacks on him. It's no wonder that real scientists rarely if ever want to get into discussions with the "truth" movement. What a rebuttal to their arguments about "taboo" subjects, "political pressure" and the general idea that everyone who knows that truth will be murdered if they come clean.

My personal favorite post in the thread is from the poster who decided that since Chris is a journalist his responsibility ends with simply stating what Harrit says. That's probably the best example of pretzel logic I've ever seen on the internet. When I read it I kept thinking - "This guy is joking" but then I realized that he was actually serious. He thinks that an investigative journalist or any interested party is somehow banned from commenting on what are simply errors in logic, reasoning or methodology. Glad to have spent my morning looking at the video.

Rgrds-Ross
 
Criteria said:
FTFY
Click to expand...

I wondered what you "fixed", and realized you had changed my wording from "Chris" to "Mr. Mohr."

Were you seriously worried that people reading my comments would not realize that "Chris" was indeed Chris Mohr, the thread starter?

And if this is such a big deal - worth "fixing for you" - then why do you, yourself, refer to "Chris" instead of "Mr. Mohr"?

Example:
Chris bases his YouTube claims on partial quotes from Dr. Farrer. He relies on an alleged email that potential skeptics are not allowed to check for verification and proper context.


Physician, heal thyself? Cast the beam out of your eye before complaining about the mote in mine?

Oh well, when you're neck-deep in the pseudoscience river, Mr. Criteria, I suppose fairness is the last thing you're thinking about.
 
rgsalinger said:
...I thought that Chris' video was superb and I want to thank him for it. I read with amazement this morning at the extent of the ad hominem attacks on him. ...
My personal favorite post in the thread is from the poster who decided that since Chris is a journalist his responsibility ends with simply stating what Harrit says. That's probably the best example of pretzel logic I've ever seen on the internet. When I read it I kept thinking - "This guy is joking" but then I realized that he was actually serious. He thinks that an investigative journalist or any interested party is somehow banned from commenting on what are simply errors in logic, reasoning or methodology. Glad to have spent my morning looking at the video.

Rgrds-Ross
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing and telling then that one of the leading brains of the Truth Movement, one of the few engineers on "Architects & Engineers for 9/111 Truth" who has ever accomplished at least the little bit of having something published in a real engineering journal, a man who accompanies the greatest leader of the TM (Gage) to face real engineering departments, singles out Criteria, of all people, as his best current example of people making "sense" here?
Tony Szamboti said:
I would say the waste of time is any time I spend here, but there might be some merit to it as occasionally I see someone who actually makes sense here like Criteria and others. Most of you are just clucking around without a clue or are actually making your living this way. Everybody knows.
Click to expand...
 
Ego vs Ethics

DaveThomasNMSR said:
I have responded seriously to this issue already.

When you pressed me to show the source for Farrer's admission that Millette's chips looked just like his, I supplied the best such reference I have, Chris Mohr's video (which happens to be the OT for this thread.)
Click to expand...

No Mr. Thomas, all you have done is acknowledge that indeed the issue is quite serious. So serious that you felt compelled to point out that Mr. Mohr firmly abides by the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.

In response to my earlier post, you selected as your best reference, Mr. Mohr’s last video, which we all know, or should know, is the primary topic of this thread.

How good can your reference of choice be when the source, Mr. Mohr, repeatedly violates that code of ethics? A standard for professional behaviour, which by failing to adhere to, not only undermines the credibility of Mr. Mohr’s last video, but all of his journalistic endeavours.

In your own words, you acknowledge and refer to places in Mr. Mohr’s video, where Dr. Farrer makes it absolutely clear that he “stands behind the results of the DSC test, and the conclusions of the 2009 Bentham paper.”

Yet Mr. Mohr, conveniently quoting from emails that only he can vouch for, also has Dr. Farrer not standing behind the conclusions of the 2009 Bentham paper. Snatched quotes that offer zero context, cherry-picked from a tree we are not allowed to see.

We do not know what questions Dr. Farrer was replying to. Take your favoured quote where he talks about the similarity of Millette’s chips. Dr. Farrer starts by saying; “At first read, it looks…” When I hear that, I know there is a “but” coming. Only Mr. Mohr never lets us read the “but”. Since Dr. Farrer qualified the statement he was about to make as based on a reaction to a “first read”, it is clear that he had a second read and a second response. Mr. Mohr withholds that second response.

What does the Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists say;
“Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”

Either Dr. Farrer does, or does not, stand behind the conclusions of the 2009 Bentham paper written by himself and his fellow scientists. Mr. Mohr isolates wording from his private correspondence with Dr. Farrer to show Dr. Farrer saying he is in disagreement with the 2009 Bentham paper, but then Mr. Mohr shows Dr. Farrer in solid agreement with the same paper. Mr. Mohr is arguing something is both black and white at the same time.

What does the Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists say;
“Never deliberately distort facts or context…”

Mr. Mohr, in his video, creates the strong impression that Dr. Farrer is saying that, not only was the TEM data done on the aluminum plates prior to publication of the 2009 Bentham paper, but that the scientists decided to keep TEM data out of that published paper.

Long ago, Mr. Mohr was informed that those ‘non-specific’ TEM tests that Dr. Farrer performed prior to the publishing of the 2009 Bentham paper, were not the TEM analysis of the aluminum plates. Mr. Mohr was informed that Dr. Farrer performed that particular analysis after the 2009 Bentham paper was published, yet he refused to remove the misrepresentation from his video.

What does the Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists say;
“Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”

“Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”

“Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

For me, these are the important issues. If Mr. Mohr’s work cannot be trusted it casts doubt on the credibility of everything sourced to it.

It appears Mr. Thomas, that you are not willing to address this issue because you don´t want to embarrass Mr. Mohr.

If not obvious to Mr. Mohr, it must be obvious to you, that if the test had not yet been performed, Dr. Farrer could not have those results ready for the 2009 Bentham paper.

Dr. Farrer was instead referring to a general TEM analysis he did before that paper was published, not analysis on the plates. Mr. Mohr´s decision to cut out the context left his viewers with the wrong idea. The links to Ziggi’s posts which I provided previously;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=303
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=316

go over in detail, other errors and misrepresentations which were pointed out to Mr. Mohr. For some reason he ignored them as well, letting them remain uncorrected. As I said, this “..is shoddy journalism of the worst kind as it erroneously alleges serious scientific misconduct by the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.”

Again I ask you, is this what you would teach your university students to accept as reputable research and good journalism?

Mr. Mohr is free to weigh in on this conversation any time he wishes. I know from my ongoing PM correspondence with him that he is watching this thread very closely.

For the moment, your red herring alligators can wait.
 
Criteria said:
No Mr. Thomas, all you have done is acknowledge that indeed the issue is quite serious. So serious that you felt compelled to point out that Mr. Mohr firmly abides by the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.
:words:

For the moment, your red herring alligators can wait.
Click to expand...

Humph. Exactly as I predicted!

Oh sure, when pigs fly, I imagine. You will not answer this straightforward question, because you can't answer honestly without making 9/11 TruthTM look foolish. That is your modus operandi. You do not respond when your issues are disputed; rather, you throw out ad hominems, change the subject, and do whatever else you need to in your desperation to avoid answering inconvenient questions.

To avoid answering my question, you have climbed upon a pedestal and proclaimed yourself Judge of the Forum, exerting your power to rule over which members have answered your questions adequately enough for you to deign to answer their questions. Rest assured, anyone that's not a mindless 9/11 Truth sycophant can see right through your cheesy polemics.

...

I think you need a new avatar, Criteria. I remember JFK from the 60s. The Jack Kennedy I knew would not be running from the inconvenient questions as you have; he would have tackled them head on. Here's a suggestion for a more suitable avatar for you.
Click to expand...
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Humph. Exactly as I predicted!
Click to expand...

What a pathetic and childish response Dave. Criteria is answering issues you brought up: What Farrer said according to Reverend Chris Mohr, and Mohr´s relationship with a certain code of ethics. You originally accused Criteria of changing the subject when he answered your silly little alligator fable, and you accused him changing the subject because he did not want to talk about what Dr. Jeffrey Farrer said:

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
I can understand why you need to change the subject away from what Farrar said about Millette's chips, though. Wouldn't want people thinking about that, would we?
Click to expand...

But when Criteria answers back and says "let´s talk about what Farrer said" ..

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
...And what has Dr. Farrer said. Searching the thread, I can see that Ziggi tried to talk to you about that and you walked away from the discussion:
Click to expand...

...it turns out you do not want to talk about what Farrer said, or more precisely what Chris Mohr falsely led people to believe he said. You avoided answering Criteria´s questions about Chris Mohr´s MO by bringing up Mohr´s alleged adherence to a certain code of ethics:

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
As a journalist, Mr. Mohr chooses to adhere to the code of ethics of the Society of Professional
Click to expand...

..But it turns out you do not really want to go into that little topic either. You are VERY mistaken if you think you can save Rev. Mohr from major embarrassment by avoiding to talk about the MO of one Reverend Chris Mohr. That´s because everyone with at least half a brain knows that, as Criteria put it:
..he was most certainly violating the “code of ethics”. It was shoddy journalism of the worst kind..
Click to expand...

Your silence to Criteria´s question is an obvious NO:
So I ask you again, is this what you would teach your university students to accept as reputable research and good journalism?
Click to expand...

In my opinion Criteria should expand this question about Chris Mohr and his MO to add this: Regarding the examples of Mohr´s research MO that Criteria brought up, "do you yourself use the same MO when you make your own 911truth "debunking" YouTube videos?"

That you avoid talking to Criteria about the shoddy practices that Reverend Mohr displayed in his YouTube video comes as no surprise to me since I also tried talking to you about this months ago and you disappeared. And as I said:

Chris may not know the meaning of terms such as "lying by omission," "misrepresentation of data," and "academic misconduct," but you do, at least you should do because of your credentials and university work.
Click to expand...

Your silence certainly indicates that you do know. But you should also know that you would be expected to demand from your friends that they withdraw faulty work and apologize...if you were known as an honest researcher yourself. That none of you "skeptics" challenged Mohr to withdraw and apologize is of course typical for this forum. Perhaps my fellow truther friends should try to go a little easy on Mohr, knowing that his work never had a chance with such colleagues.
 
Last edited:
Asked above. Can anyone answer this please:

Haven't followed the whole issue with this but:

Has anyone suggested that if one does not trust Mr. Mohr to faithfully recount the correspondence with Dr. Farrer, that one might ask Dr. Farrer for his copy of the very same exchange, or at least ask him if he has issues with the way it has been reported on by Mr. Mohr.

In fact if Farrer has no great issue (Re: "Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”) with the manner in which he has been quoted, then why would anyone
 
Ziggi said:
What a pathetic and childish response Dave. Criteria is answering issues you brought up: What Farrer said according to Reverend Chris Mohr and Mohr´s relationship with a certain code of ethics. You originally accused Criteria of changing the subject when he answered your silly little alligator fable, and you accused him changing the subject because he did not want to talk about what Dr. Jeffrey Farrer said:



But when Criteria answers back and says "let´s talk about what Farrer said" ..



...it turns out you do not want to talk about what Farrer said, or more precisely what Chris Mohr falsely led people to believe he said. You avoided anwering Criteria´s questions about Chris Mohr´s MO by bringing up Mohr´s alleged adherence to a certain code of ethics:



..But it turns out you do not really want to go into that little topic either. You are VERY mistaken if you think you can save Rev. Mohr from major embarrassment by avoiding to talk about the MO of one Reverend Chris Mohr. That´s because everyone with at least half a brain knows that, as Criteria put it:


Your silence to Criteria´s question is an obvious NO:


In my opinion Criteria should expand this question about Chris Mohr and his MO to add this: Regarding the examples of Mohr´s research MO that Criteria brought up, "do you yourself use the same MO when you make your own 911truth "debunking" YouTube videos?"

That you avoid talking to Criteria about the shoddy practices that Reverend Mohr displayed in his YouTube video comes as no surprise to me since I also tried talking to you about this months ago and you disappeared. And as I said:



Your silence certainly indicates that you do know. But you should also know that you would be expected to demand from your friends that they withdraw faulty work and apologize...if you were known as an honest researcher yourself. That none of you "skeptics" challenged Mohr to withdraw and apologize is of course typical for this forum. Perhaps my fellow truther friends should try to go a little easy on Mohr, knowing that his work never had a chance with such colleagues.
Click to expand...
Did you forget the evidence for thermite does not exist?

With the overwhelming evidence for CD and the inside job... What on earth is stopping you or 911 truth from teaming with a newspaper and applying for the biggest Pulitzer Prize since Watergate?

LOL, you don't have any evidence? Oh my, maybe you should switch the paranoid conspiracy theories of 911 with the better no mocking the murder of thousands Bigfoot stuff.

Instead of evidence for the big inside job CD fantasy you support blindly, you make illogical weak attacks on others based on your failed fantasy exposed as BS. Got any steel damaged by thermite on 911? No steel damaged by thermite, 911 truth has big talk based on zero science, zero logic, and complete ignorance. If you had something, we would see your name with newspaper sharing credit for a Pulitzer.... but you don't have evidence, you have blind faith in some BS claims. What is Jones doing now? What cities is Gage traveling to? Gage fund any studies with his 500,000 dollar travel club for one funds? no? Why not?

How does 911 truth do it; find followers who fail to realize 911 truth is evidence free? Based on BS opinions, 911 truth fools a fringe few. Where is the evidence? List it.

Then we have flights 77 and 93; how do they fit in the twisted fantasy of CD and thermite? Is your fantasy made up of silent explosives or no damage to steel magic thermite? What is your plot you never explained? I got the reality of 19 terrorists, why are you fooled by the delusion of thermite?
 
Criteria said:
...Long ago, Mr. Mohr was informed that those ‘non-specific’ TEM tests that Dr. Farrer performed prior to the publishing of the 2009 Bentham paper, were not the TEM analysis of the aluminum plates. Mr. Mohr was informed that Dr. Farrer performed that particular analysis after the 2009 Bentham paper was published, yet he refused to remove the misrepresentation from his video.


.... other errors and misrepresentations which were pointed out to Mr. Mohr. For some reason he ignored them as well, letting them remain uncorrected. As I said, this “..is shoddy journalism of the worst kind as it erroneously alleges serious scientific misconduct by the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper.”

...Mr. Mohr is free to weigh in on this conversation any time he wishes. I know from my ongoing PM correspondence with him that he is watching this thread very closely..
Click to expand...

Oh dear Criteria, you do obviously not know the drill: Rest assured that Reverend Mohr is currently trying hard to come up with a story about you somehow insulting him to such a degree that he can no-longer muster the patience to talk to you. He cannot be expected to answer people like you, you with your insulting questions. How do you think he gave himself an excuse to ignore the same questions months ago when I brought them up? And for that matter all the other questions and challenges that have been brought up about all the other BS in that video? That video is a collection of the same kind of absurd misrepresentations and errors and most if not all of them have been pointed out to him in articles and emails. What makes you think he will come clean this time? Because you are so special?
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
Oh dear Criteria, you do obviously not know the drill: Rest assured that Reverend Mohr is currently trying hard to come up with a story about you somehow insulting him to such a degree that he can no-longer muster the patience to talk to you. He cannot be expected to answer people like you, you with your insulting questions. How do you think he gave himself an excuse to ignore the same questions months ago when I brought them up? And for that matter all the other questions and challenges that have been brought up about all the other BS in that video? That video is a collection of the same kind of absurd misrepresentations and errors and most if not all of them have been pointed out to him in articles and emails. What makes you think he will come clean this time? Because you are so special?
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Asked above. Can anyone answer this please:

Haven't followed the whole issue with this but:

Has anyone suggested that if one does not trust Mr. Mohr to faithfully recount the correspondence with Dr. Farrer, that one might ask Dr. Farrer for his copy of the very same exchange, or at least ask him if he has issues with the way it has been reported on by Mr. Mohr.

In fact if Farrer has no great issue (Re: "Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”
“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”) with the manner in which he has been quoted, then why would anyone
Click to expand...
Then will you tell me if you or Criteria has asked Farrer if HE has any issues with Mr.Mohr, or if either of you asked Farrer for his copies of the exchange?
 
Asked to show damage by thermite to WTC steel; 911 truth follower posts BS

Criteria said:
You have created a reality that does not exist but is comforting all the same.
Click to expand...

When asked to show the damage to WTC steel, you make up more BS.

This is your evidence, a delusion I created the reality of 19 terrorists and four planes responsible for all the damage on 911. I have evidence, you have BS. You have created the reality of a fringe few fooled by BS artist old men like Gage, Jones, and Harrit. Anyone can debunk 911 truth, why can't you?



Did you forget the evidence for thermite does not exist?

This is a simple yes or no question; not a taunt for you to make up BS about me. Where is your evidence for thermite? Tell me it is not locked up tight in the paranoid minds of Jones and Harrit. Lost in a fantasy world of old men, who fooled people with BS.
 
Last edited:
The Bottomless Pit

Criteria said:
”Mr. Mohr is free to weigh in on this conversation any time he wishes. I know from my ongoing PM correspondence with him that he is watching this thread very closely.”
Click to expand...
Ziggi said:
Oh dear Criteria, you do obviously not know the drill: Rest assured that Reverend Mohr is currently trying hard to come up with a story about you somehow insulting him to such a degree that he can no-longer muster the patience to talk to you. He cannot be expected to answer people like you, you with your insulting questions. How do you think he gave himself an excuse to ignore the same questions months ago when I brought them up? And for that matter all the other questions and challenges that have been brought up about all the other BS in that video? That video is a collection of the same kind of absurd misrepresentations and errors and most if not all of them have been pointed out to him in articles and emails. What makes you think he will come clean this time? Because you are so special?
Click to expand...

I have tried to be fair to Mr. Mohr, and in our PM exchange I have given him every opportunity to explain his position.

Regretfully, he appears to have chosen pride over humility.

As the old adage goes, once you start digging a hole, the deeper you make it, the harder it is to extract yourself from it.

I believe Mr. Mohr has dug himself a very deep hole by refusing to defend his work.
 
jaydeehess said:
Then will you tell me if you or Criteria has asked Farrer if HE has any issues with Mr.Mohr, or if either of you asked Farrer for his copies of the exchange?
Click to expand...
Not going to happen. They don't want to know, they just want a reason to cast doubt.

If Dr. Farrer confirms it, then what?
 
DGM said:
Not going to happen. They don't want to know, they just want a reason to cast doubt.

If Dr. Farrer confirms it, then what?
Click to expand...

thumb-up-arnold.jpg
 
DGM said:
Not going to happen. They don't want to know, they just want a reason to cast doubt.

If Dr. Farrer confirms it, then what?
Click to expand...

"They" will find another bit of minutia to troll with.

I remember seeing this comment somewhere: "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution." :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm slow in comprehension but isn't this discussion simply going round in circles?

And won't it continue whilst it is feeding time at troll house?

The whole "thermXte" discussion has always been a sidetrack from the perspective of WTC 9/11 discussion. Interesting science. The Millette study organised by C Mohr was IMO a justifiable attempt to bridge to understanding with members of the Truth Movement. I supported that objective out of respect for Chris - despite my preferences to not engage on "ground of the enemies choosing". But any minor successes are long faded into history. The dying rump of the Truth Movement rolls steadily onwards to a destination asymptotic with zero out near infinity. We are providing a significant bit of "life support" to the resident patients - my own preference would be euthanasia - switch of the life support.
 
DGM said:
Not going to happen. They don't want to know, they just want a reason to cast doubt.

If Dr. Farrer confirms it, then what?
Click to expand...

Criteria complains about journalistic integrity and research techniques. Yet cannot demonstrate that the very author which he claims has been misrepresented, has any issue with it. I find that somewhat hypocritical, or at least ironic.
Instead of harping on Mohr to produce, they have recourse to simply contact Farrer. If Farrer has no issue with Mohr, end of discussion. If he does then it can continue.
 
Last edited:
Criteria said:
You have created a reality that does not exist but is comforting all the same.
Click to expand...

If only you could explain how paint-thin layers of thermitic material might have damaged WTC steel then I'd be very discomfited indeed.

But after numerous requests you never have, and neither did the Bentham team. Even Jones abandoned the very idea.

The concept is plain silly.
 
Criteria said:
...
What does the Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists say;
“Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”

“Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”

“Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.”

For me, these are the important issues. ...
Click to expand...

Is this honest and true? Or does Criteria employ double standards?

He wrote this eight days ago:
Criteria said:
Oystein said:
Reason based?
You consistently run away from reason, facts and argument such as

Most recently abandoned: A question about the validity of Harrit's conclusions in "Why the paint chips ain't paint"
  1. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to thew Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE
  2. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magner is of identical elemental composition is FALSE
  3. Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE
  4. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  5. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  6. As a result of these FALSE assumptions, he gets his math WRONG and grossly overestimates the percentage of Zn, Mg and Cr in the dry Tnemec 99 primer.
Is there anything wrong with any of these statements?
Click to expand...
Yes. They are all assumptions wrongly attributed to Dr. Harrit. You presume to understand what Dr. Harrit wrote but your list reveals that you do not.

Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.

Should I be squirming from the discomfort generated by list generating skill?
Click to expand...

The very next day, BenjaminTR as well as myself responded at length to this assertion that my six statements were "all assumptions wrongly attributed to Dr. Harrit", and we both satisfied Criteria's demand by "making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes".

It is therefore, ackording to Criteria's latest standard, incumbent upon him to
“Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.”​
and to
“Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”​

Five days later, on Nov 19th, Criteria reapeared and - ignored both BenjaminTR's and my post!
The same say, I reminded him to not dodge the issue and address the very proof that he had demanded on Nov 13th.
Dave Thomas reminded him, too, of both posts.

And then, the day after, Criteria had the audacity to post the Code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists and demand that others do what he is so very keen on avoiding: “Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.” and “Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.”



Criteria, you must now, without hesitation, fully acknowledge and address my post #1193 and / or BenjaminTR's post #1188!
And then, when you have seen that you were totally mistaken; that all my statements about Harrit's assumptions are entirely true, you need to correct yourself and write unequivocally that I was right and you were wrong.
And it follows that you are duty-bound by your own criteria to prominently clarify and explain that Dr. Harrit's White Paper "Why the red/gray chips arent't paint", since it is resting entirely on false assumptions, is a useless piece of crap, and abject failure.

Failing to do so will reveal, to all who didn't know yet, what a lowly hypocrite you are.
 
A few comments: there are four things I said about Farrer in my video:
1-3) the three email excerpts I quoted, with minimal comment on my part. I think the email excerpts speak for themselves, and no, they are not out of context. For example, Criteria accused me of possibly cutting out the rest of the email, which after the "at first glance" or whatever, ends with the part about how he thought he was looking his own chips. After that, he says nothing more about the chips. There is no "however" or "but" or any other qualifier that I cut out. Nothing I have ever read or heard from him afterwards, either personally or publicly, contradicts the statement he made in that email. Nothing he has ever said to me or that I have seen in public contradicts anything he said in those three email excerpts.
4) Farrer made it clear to me that he still believes the DSC results show evidence of thermite, and he stands behind the conclusions of the thermitic paper of 2009. I reported that too, twice, in the video (Dave Thomas has the timings in a post above).
Criteria seems to think that is a contradiction. It is not. Farrer agrees with the conclusions of the thermitic paper. However, Farrer contradicts Harrit when he says the burden of proof rests on the authors of the paper. He also has a differing opinion about whether Millette had the right chips, as two examples. I never said he disagrees with the fundamental conclusion of his own paper. There is nothing in the paper that asserts who has the burden of proof, or (obviously) Millette's chips.
Criteria can't believe Farrer said these things I quote in the email. Therefore he demands that I retract what I said. Farrer did say them, and I did not quote him out of context. And those quotes do nothing to change the fact that, to my knowledge, he still believes there is thermite in the dust.
Some people could argue that I overemphasize or journalistically overdramatize the differences between Farrer and the rest of the research team. That's a matter of opinion, and it's an accusation that journalists get constantly. But to say that I leave people with the impression that Farrer fundamentally disagrees with the thermite conclusion is over the top.
I really don't want to carry on another endless go-around on this. I made many corrections and clarifications in my video, which anyone can see. Ziggi reamed me months ago and I dropped the whole subject, giving him the last word. I know what will happen if I keep giving in to demands for more information. Some of you may remember MirageMemories demanding that I release the name of Millette's intern, and saying that I was a poor journalist for withholding this! There is no end to this discussion, but as much as possible I want to end my side of it.
I think the core issue here is whether the WTC buildings were brought down by CD or not. A secondary issue is whether thermite was somehow used to do this. The "debunkers" here sort of dropped the whole Farrer issue and went back to either 1) mocking the twoofies or 2) arguing the technical questions around thermite in the dust (or some combination of the two). As everyone knows, when the "mocking the twoofies" starts to get out of hand, I often splash cold water on it. Several debunkers have gotten really mad at me about this. I wish I could find a way to splash cold water on all this, but so far, no luck. In the meantime, several people here have tried to remind us that by wasting time flogging the messenger (me), the fact that there is no evidence for thermite (much less CD) is sidestepped.
What Farrer thinks about me is not really central to the question of thermite in the dust. I suggest we leave him, and this "debate" about my integrity, alone.
Since that may well not happen, the best I can do at this point is try not to feed it.
 
ozeco41 said:
"They" will find another bit of minutia to troll with.

I remember seeing this comment somewhere: "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution." :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm slow in comprehension but isn't this discussion simply going round in circles?
Click to expand...



It's not really a circle per say, at least in these last few years.

What happens is a truther makes an idiotic assertion, then he's asked several, very specific questions regarding this assertion, which he blatantly dodges.
After several requests to answer these questions, the truther runs away, only to return a few days later acting as if these questions never existed.
When it's brought to his attention once again that he has yet to provide answers to these queries, he continues his act of ignorance and the answers are never forthcoming.

Criteria and Ziggi are prime examples of these people.

This is a good thing though as they are unwittingly helping us debunk their nonsense.
When someone visits this forum interested in finding out more about what happened that day. They must ask themselves why truthers like the two mentioned above have so much trouble answering straight forward questions.
 
chrismohr said:
Criteria seems to think that is a contradiction. It is not. Farrer agrees with the conclusions of the thermitic paper.... I never said he disagrees with the fundamental conclusion of his own paper.... Farrer did say them, and I did not quote him out of context..
Click to expand...

Chris, let me state this so a 10 year old could understand: The contradiction is that you say Dr. Farrer still agrees with his finding of elemental aluminum in the 2009 paper, yet you also cite him and his TEM tests as a source that completely disagrees and actually agrees with you instead that no elemental aluminum was found in the chips studied in that same paper! You are quoting Farrer as having not only contradicting views but two perfectly opposing views. Are you going to claim you can´t figure this one out Chris?

This contradiction of skyscraper proportions is only there because you misquoted Farrer out of context and misrepresented his TEM results as agreeing with Millette´s finding of no elemental aluminum, which neither Farrer nor Jones or any other member of the team ever said. That claim was your fabrication and I know you have known that for months because I explained this to you in emails and posts here. That you and Sunstealer and Oystein et al run away from the discussion, or "dropped the Farrer issue" as you put it, once such things are exposed does not make the problem go away.

chrismohr said:
I think the core issue here is whether the WTC buildings were brought down by CD or not. A secondary issue is whether thermite was somehow used to do this. The "debunkers" here sort of dropped the whole Farrer issue and went back to either

.... I suggest we leave him, and this "debate" about my integrity, alone.
Since that may well not happen, the best I can do at this point is try not to feed it.
Click to expand...

Dave Thomas would also like to not talk about your integrity, or lack thereof, but that of course is the core issue. This thread is dedicated to your video which features Farrer and the discussion should of course be about the credibility of the many absurd claims you make in it. For some reason though, your buddies here have flooded the thread with comments about other topics. They "sort of dropped" the real issue for some reason that I am sure you will claim is a complete mystery to you.
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
Chris, let me state this so a 10 year old could understand: The contradiction is that you say Dr. Farrer still agrees with his finding of elemental aluminum in the 2009 paper, yet you also cite him and his TEM tests as a source that completely disagrees and actually agrees with you instead that no elemental aluminum was found in the chips studied in that same paper! You are quoting Farrer as having not only contradicting views but two perfectly opposing views. Are you going to claim you can´t figure this one out Chris?

This contradiction of skyscraper proportions is only there because you misquoted Farrer out of context and misrepresented his TEM results as agreeing with Millette´s finding of no elemental aluminum, which neither Farrer nor Jones or any other member of the team ever said. That claim was your fabrication and I know you have known that for months because I explained this to you in emails and posts here. That you and Sunstealer and Oystein et al run away from the discussion, or "dropped the Farrer issue" as you put it, once such things are exposed does not make the problem go away.



Dave Thomas would also like to not talk about your integrity, or lack thereof, but that of course is the core issue. This thread is dedicated to your video which features Farrer and the discussion should of course be about the credibility of the many absurd claims you make in it. For some reason though, your buddies here have flooded the thread with comments about other topics. They "sort of dropped" the real issue for some reason that I am sure you will claim is a complete mystery to you.
Click to expand...

The Data speaks for itself, there was no Elemental Al, in the TEM data, and the other data is suspect, and the authors failed the easiest and quickest way to falsification.
An inert ignition test, they failed to point out any logical usage of the material.
That makes the work pesudo science, more witch craft than reason!
 
jaydeehess said:
Have you or Criteria contacted Farrar for his opinion on Mr.Mohr's reporting?
If not why not?
If so, what did he say to you?
Click to expand...
+1
@Ziggi and Criteria - jaydeehess has asked these questions a few times now, could both of you please answer them or explain why you won't answer them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom