ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories , Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 1st March 2011, 11:34 AM   #361
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Can you please list the papers you have published? I don't mean to doubt you, and you may well have published, but you don't sound like a true scientist. You claim to be a critical thinker, but your mind is already made up before even looking. You make prejudicial statements such as "The reason is: I know it's a waste of time" and "I don't care what they find in the dust". Those are the statements of a dogmatist. Conclusion follows observation, not vice versa. A scientist does care what is found and is willing to make observations.

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 1st March 2011 at 12:13 PM.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 11:36 AM   #362
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,148
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Specify means list specifics.
Nothing we say is going to convince you, right?

Do this, bring the paper to any collage/university chemistry professor (someone that's not associated with 9/11 in anyway is best). It's that simple.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 1st March 2011 at 11:38 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 11:44 AM   #363
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>It was a vanity journal which would publish your shopping list for $700.
OK you're on with this bet. Submit your shopping list to the Bentham Open Chemistry and Physics Journal, and if it is accepted and published, I'll pay your $700 fee.
Not exactly a shopping list, but in this case thats just semantics:

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

The paper, entitled "Deconstructing Access Points" (pdf) made no sense whatsoever, as this sample reveals:

In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].
Quote:
Davis and Anderson, writing under the noms de plume David Phillips and Andrew Kent, also dropped a hefty hint of the hoax by giving their institutional affiliation as the Center for Research in Applied Phrenology, or CRAP.
Quote:
"This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

Last edited by Panoply_Prefect; 1st March 2011 at 11:46 AM.
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:07 PM   #364
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>You'll have to trust me on that, because the paper itself is no longer available online.
Google shows the Bentham study is online at www.NielsHarrit.org

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 1st March 2011 at 12:25 PM.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:09 PM   #365
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,453
Niels Harrit is a paranoid loon who published a dishonest, inaccurate paper. You need better reading material.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:19 PM   #366
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Please provide at least specific example to substantiate each general claim that the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate". Dishonest would mean that Dr. Harrit knew X and claimed Y. Inaccurate would mean Dr. Harrit reported X, but you found it was really Y.

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 1st March 2011 at 12:24 PM.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:24 PM   #367
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Please specify how the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate".


Why make up a fantasy of thermite, look what has more energy!

Who knew when they tested each chip they proved it was no thermite. Those who know the energy thermite has in a chemical reaction. Which you don't.

Just like a failed paranoid conspiracy theorist to bring thermite to a office fires, where jet fuel and wood, even paper have more energy. Plastic beats thermite for heat energy in a fire; check you facts before supporting a paper that no one would publish in a real journal.

Last edited by beachnut; 1st March 2011 at 12:29 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:36 PM   #368
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>Not exactly a shopping list
Then why did you say shopping list?
Tell you what. Instead of a shopping list, go ahead and make a SCIgen paper and submit it to Bentham, get it published, and our bet is still on.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:37 PM   #369
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Please provide at least specific example to substantiate each general claim that the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate". Dishonest would mean that Dr. Harrit knew X and claimed Y. Inaccurate would mean Dr. Harrit reported X, but you found it was really Y.
I know i'll probably get a ridiculous answer but i'm going to ask you, why do you think they didn't submit their paper to a more reputable and well known journal instead of such a pathetic little unknown and shady one???
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:42 PM   #370
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>Nothing we say is going to convince you, right?
Specifics will. General accusations and unsupported claims won't.
>bring the paper to any collage/university chemistry professor
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:44 PM   #371
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,453
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>Nothing we say is going to convince you, right?
Specifics will.
Here is a thread full of specifics. Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...

P.S. I've already debunked the SEM data and others have debunked the DSC data. I suggest you use the search function.

Now I know you won't, so read this and my sig. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ight=thermitic
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 12:46 PM   #372
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
FYI, the study by Dr. Lioy et al. has been responded to at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html

Anyone have a response to their response?

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 1st March 2011 at 12:52 PM.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:26 PM   #373
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Please provide at least specific example to substantiate each general claim that the paper is "dishonest" or "inaccurate". Dishonest would mean that Dr. Harrit knew X and claimed Y. Inaccurate would mean Dr. Harrit reported X, but you found it was really Y.
I'll go one better and and show they were incompetent. I'll assume you have read the paper in depth and therefore know about the red and gray layers.

Here I show that the gray layer is highly likely to be oxidised steel, notably ASTM A36 for samples a-d. Note the abundance of Iron in the spectra.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=183

Nowhere in the paper do they determine what the gray layer is in their chip samples. Infact they say on page 28

Quote:
In addition, the gray-layer material demands further
study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers, as seen in Fig. (32).
And for chip in fig 31

Quote:
the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and
oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen
, too light to
be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears
between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding
a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material.
One might speculate that the red thermitic material has
been attached to rusty iron by an adhesive.
No Iron.

Yet previously the gray material has huge quantities of Iron in it!! Just compare fig 6 and 33. They are saying that this is the same material! It can't be.

Blimey I don't think I got as far in 2008 with comparing gray layers.

The problem is they have actually analysed two different materials - one will be an epoxy/adhesive/filler/organic material (and it looks like it) see fig 33 and fig 31 and the other is rusted steel - fig 6. Their own paper shows that the mysterious gray layer isn't consistent yet they seem to think it is!

So there you go, there is a specific for ya.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 01:26 PM   #374
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
I love how they call anyone that doesn't buy their crap a "debunker", it's pretty much an admission that they are spewing "bunk" in the first place.
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.

Last edited by The Platypus; 1st March 2011 at 01:38 PM.
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:01 PM   #375
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>Not exactly a shopping list
Then why did you say shopping list?
I didn't. You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper?
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:18 PM   #376
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>I didn't. (say Bentham would post a shopping list)
OK. TruthersLie said that on March 1, 2011 at 08:02 AM.

>You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper.
There was definitely a problem, and a bigger one if they haven't fixed the hole.
We'll find out if Bentham fixed it or not, if they published TruthersLie's paper.
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:27 PM   #377
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Bentham has split their "Chemistry & Physics" journal into two separate journals, causing a broken link. Their webmaster@bentham.org has been notified.
http://www.bentham.org/open/JrnlsBySub.htm
TruthMakesPeace is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:29 PM   #378
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
>I didn't. (say Bentham would post a shopping list)
OK. TruthersLie said that on March 1, 2011 at 08:02 AM.

>You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper.
There was definitely a problem, and a bigger one if they haven't fixed the hole.
We'll find out if Bentham fixed it or not, if they published TruthersLie's paper.
Your failure to use the quote button, is that indicative of the comprehension of the paper in question, which proves it was not thermite?

>
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
I didn't. You don't see a problem with a publisher that accepts a fake paper?
TruthersLie's paper.
>
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
didn't. ...
Quote button?


Bentham is a vanity journal where fake papers like Jones' work can be published with no real peer review. The paper is only useful for people who can't comprehend what they read and use the article as proof of some thermite delusion on 911.

Last edited by beachnut; 1st March 2011 at 02:32 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:35 PM   #379
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,353
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Bentham has split their "Chemistry & Physics" journal into two separate journals, causing a broken link. Their webmaster@bentham.org has been notified.
http://www.bentham.org/open/JrnlsBySub.htm
You'd better tell their webmaster that the editors also "split"!

Bwhahahaha!!! Great post, bro!

/The quote button really that hard to wrap your mind around?
__________________
CNN: Don't Doxx Me Bro!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:52 PM   #380
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,442
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
yes, there is something called academic standards. [/url]

you either missed or wished to obfuscate my point. hmmm I wonder which
Indeed! And Jone's repeatedly runs from them.

1. He ran away from academic review at his own university.

2. He created his own peer review process concocted of nothing but people who already agreed with his conclusions

3. Went to a fake pay to play journal to get his research "published".

Trust me there is no need to obfuscate your ramblings.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:59 PM   #381
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
No explosive seismic signatures were detected on 9/11.

It's physically impossible for explosives to have played a role in the buildings collapses.

(Hint: a cutter charge is a shaped charge that is designed to rend structural members with as little energy expenditure as possible. Since structural members are connected to the pilings that run into the buildings foundation, cutter charges are also the most efficient means of generating seismic signatures with minimal amounts of explosives.)
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/cutter-charges-would-leave-no-seismic-record-t331.html

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 03:08 PM.
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:34 PM   #382
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
That is supposed to be some sort of proof? "I'll guess" "seems plausible" "from wikipedia" "I guesstimate" "if you assume"
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:41 PM   #383
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...nlinkstoscenes
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 1st March 2011 at 03:42 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:50 PM   #384
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
A cutter charge is a shaped charge that is designed to rend structural members with as little energy expenditure as possible. Since structural members are connected to the pilings that run into the buildings foundation, cutter charges are also the most efficient means of generating seismic signatures with minimal amounts of explosives.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:14 PM   #385
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
On a more serious note, the link is to a truther JAQ-off session where they try to explain the lack of sound from the demolitions charges by speculating (without evidence) that the charges were encased in a tamping agent.

If you knew anything about thermodynamics, you'd know that you can't just get rid of energy like that. If the cutter charges aren't able to bleed off some energy into the surrounding atmosphere as sound waves, then it is going to go into the structural column and then down into the foundation, through the pilings, into the earth and then get picked up by seismographs.

Short version: Your excuse for why there would be no seismic signatures would actually make the seismic signatures stronger.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:17 PM   #386
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
On a more serious note, the link is to a truther JAQ-off session where they try to explain the lack of sound from the demolitions charges by speculating (without evidence) that the charges were encased in a tamping agent.

If you knew anything about thermodynamics, you'd know that you can't just get rid of energy like that. If the cutter charges aren't able to bleed off some energy into the surrounding atmosphere as sound waves, then it is going to go into the structural column and then down into the foundation, through the pilings, into the earth and then get picked up by seismographs.

Short version: Your excuse for why there would be no seismic signatures would actually make the seismic signatures stronger.
the graph in that link went right through you didn't it
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:21 PM   #387
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
"The vertical structure has to reach the elastic capabilities before it breaks. Hence, a lot of energy has to travel down the columns into the foundation. Once the support in the collapse zone is crushed that energy transfer stops until the next resistance is in the way of the upper portion. Nevertheless, just a small portion of the energy transferred to the lower part will also be transformed into seismic energy. Therefore only small vibrations were measurable during the collapse and prior to falling debris hitting the ground. These huge chunks of mass assembled a lot of kinetic energy that impacted the ground directly." -link



why do you disagree with this science?
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:23 PM   #388
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,453
Just throwing this out there, but metamars' musings being "peer reviewed" by achimspok's soft-porn graphics aren't exactly science.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:26 PM   #389
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
if you know what's wrong with that analysis I'm sure they will want to know so they can fix it
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:34 PM   #390
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,442
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
"The vertical structure has to reach the elastic capabilities before it breaks. Hence, a lot of energy has to travel down the columns into the foundation. Once the support in the collapse zone is crushed that energy transfer stops until the next resistance is in the way of the upper portion. Nevertheless, just a small portion of the energy transferred to the lower part will also be transformed into seismic energy. Therefore only small vibrations were measurable during the collapse and prior to falling debris hitting the ground. These huge chunks of mass assembled a lot of kinetic energy that impacted the ground directly." -link

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8575/shaped.gif

why do you disagree with this science?

So your quoting metamars as an expert on seismology now? Wow. Weren't you the same clown who was just babbling about how there must be a real peer review to refute Jones? And you bring this as "science"?
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:35 PM   #391
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
...why do you disagree with this science?
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Just throwing this out there, but metamars' musings being "peer reviewed" by achimspok's soft-porn graphics aren't exactly science.
What science?

AND what relevance to "The sad case of Niels Harrit" which technically relates to fantasy claims about thermXte which S Jones - the originator of the fantasies - has distanced himself from.

As for why shaped charges don't go bang I have no comment except the memory of the ones I used in the Australian Army - but they did go "BANG"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:39 PM   #392
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
So your quoting metamars as an expert on seismology now? Wow. Weren't you the same clown who was just babbling about how there must be a real peer review to refute Jones? And you bring this as "science"?
I didn't quote metamars
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:41 PM   #393
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,442
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
I didn't quote metamars
Wow...I can't believe you just corrected me by admitting you quoted amchispok. Oh woe is me.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:47 PM   #394
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
I'll mark you down for "No" beachnut
Failure is 911 truth, 911 truth can't get anything right, let alone 911.

Thermite is a lie; if you have some evidence for thermite you will need to use it now to save 911 truth from the pit of ignorance.

Did not expect you could tie your failure to understand models to the thermite scam; I was right. No chemistry, no engineering. what else can't 911 truth do? 911

Better get some patridiots who can't figure out 911 to help you with this. http://patriotsquestion911.com/ The biggest dummies on 911 issues, visit this web site to see morons in, no action, failures who made failed comments on 911. A long list of people who can't figure out 911. Some of them put there without permission! Some listed have no clue they have no clue on 911.

Four matches of thermite, one of the top ten dumbest claims on 911 on the first page of nitwits. http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Got any comments on topic?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:50 PM   #395
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
So your quoting metamars as an expert on seismology now? Wow. Weren't you the same clown who was just babbling about how there must be a real peer review to refute Jones? And you bring this as "science"?
Actually it was achimspok and the sequence of posts on the911forum is worth a read - there are a couple of laughs in there. One example being this: "That's because a cutter charge burns through metal so quickly, that the energy that gets directed to the column along the cutting charge's edge can't do much work on the column."

That sure reads like someone who has thermite and RDX confused

(BTW there is some good material on 911forum but being a small closed shop some rubbish can go unchallenged - not scrutinised by the hundreds who frequent JREF and which usually means a dozen or so capable of spotting technical errors.)

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st March 2011 at 04:51 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:52 PM   #396
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,453
"Proof by throbbing graphic" is a bit of a theme there, no?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 04:57 PM   #397
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
"The vertical structure has to reach the elastic capabilities before it breaks. Hence, a lot of energy has to travel down the columns into the foundation. Once the support in the collapse zone is crushed that energy transfer stops until the next resistance is in the way of the upper portion. Nevertheless, just a small portion of the energy transferred to the lower part will also be transformed into seismic energy. Therefore only small vibrations were measurable during the collapse and prior to falling debris hitting the ground. These huge chunks of mass assembled a lot of kinetic energy that impacted the ground directly." -link

why do you disagree with this science?
It is not science it is failed opinions. Like all of 911 truth, lies and delusions based on failed opinions. It is nonsense to back in the moronic demolition delusion. Add science to your "to do list".
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 05:09 PM   #398
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
"Proof by throbbing graphic" is a bit of a theme there, no?
Yes.

However I am not opposed to either making points by graphics OR reinforcing some explanation.


....provided the underlying thesis is sound.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 05:30 PM   #399
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
the graph in that link went right through you didn't it
Nope, not in the slightest.

It was the same graph originally printed in Popular Mechanics along with the professional opinions of Dr Arthur Lerner-Lam and Dr. Won Young Kim of the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.

Since Dr. Kim and Dr. Lam are experienced and educated siesmologists and achimspok and metamars are anonymous
Edited by LashL:  Removed word.
with no experience or education the opinions of Kim and Lam automatically overrule achimspok and metamars.

Last edited by LashL; 1st March 2011 at 07:06 PM.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 05:31 PM   #400
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Actually it was achimspok and the sequence of posts on the911forum is worth a read - there are a couple of laughs in there. One example being this: "That's because a cutter charge burns through metal so quickly, that the energy that gets directed to the column along the cutting charge's edge can't do much work on the column."

That sure reads like someone who has thermite and RDX confused
I'll get to you other question, but who says matamars wasn't talking about RDX?

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
(BTW there is some good material on 911forum but being a small closed shop some rubbish can go unchallenged - not scrutinised by the hundreds who frequent JREF and which usually means a dozen or so capable of spotting technical errors.)
vs. jref's 9/11 subforum which is characterized by a lack of cooperation, stalling and apathy towards evidence based research from a huge group of people. on the plus side, the negative element at jref actually inspires people to work harder

I'll reply to your other post later
Patriots4Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.