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 28th February 2011, 03:19 PM   #241
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
"Finally, the scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements." -911research link

Here's a link to Lioy's paper. I reached the same conclusions as 911research this time around. Furthermore when Nist admits to not searching for explosives it's easy to imagine Lioy et al not performing a full (or any) search for explosives.
Harrit is claiming thermite, not explosives.
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 28th February 2011, 03:37 PM   #242
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Harrit is claiming thermite, not explosives.
And he didn't find that either. His own data proves it.


Patriots4Truth :

Why do you think they had to make-up their own test to find something that could be found using standard lab tests?
__________________
"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
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 28th February 2011, 03:41 PM   #243
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Well, I was referring to thermitic materials under a broad definition of explosives.

Lioy's report doesn't appear to have sufficient detail to use as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives thermitic materials.
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 28th February 2011, 03:51 PM   #244
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And he didn't find that either. His own data proves it.
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper. If anyone doesn't like the results of his tests or wishes to challenge the paper then they are encouraged to publish a paper doing just that.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why do you think they had to make-up their own test to find something that could be found using standard lab tests?
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). -Niels et al

You do realize that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get a hold of these instruments and that many scientists use these instruments quite regularly?
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 28th February 2011, 03:53 PM   #245
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,623
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Harrit is claiming thermite, not explosives.
Depends on the time of day.

Last I heard, Harrit had joined the Jones camp in thinking that therm*te was used as fuse to set off actual explosives. I think he said something along the lines of "many, many tonnes" of explosives.
KDLarsen 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 28th February 2011, 04:03 PM   #246
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper. If anyone doesn't like the results of his tests or wishes to challenge the paper then they are encouraged to publish a paper doing just that.



The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). -Niels et al

You do realize that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get a hold of these instruments and that many scientists use these instruments quite regularly?
This is old news.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017
__________________
"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
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 28th February 2011, 04:29 PM   #247
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Depends on the time of day.

Last I heard, Harrit had joined the Jones camp in thinking that therm*te was used as fuse to set off actual explosives. I think he said something along the lines of "many, many tonnes" of explosives.
That's right. Thank you for the reminder. Many, many tonnes of explosives. Harrit almost makes me ashamed of my danish-ness. An akvavit should fix that.

Patriots4Truth - Why would they test for explosives in the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings?
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 28th February 2011, 04:30 PM   #248
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Depends on the time of day.

Last I heard, Harrit had joined the Jones camp in thinking that therm*te was used as fuse to set off actual explosives. I think he said something along the lines of "many, many tonnes" of explosives.

Hundreds of tons, actually (Harrits exact words):
Niels Harrit: Actually, within this group of authors behind this paper, which we published in April, there are diverging opinions about what this nano-thermite was used for. And my opinion is: we should not speculate on a scenario for the demolition. There is no doubt that the three towers were demolished on 9/11. But beyond that there is very solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.

RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
To see what "hundreds of tons" of explosives looks like, google "Operation Sailor Hat".

Last edited by Sword_Of_Truth; 28th February 2011 at 04:32 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 28th February 2011, 04:33 PM   #249
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,623
Looking at the end of the last sentence, I wasn't far off

Carlitos, I'm more of a Gammel Dansk person myself
KDLarsen 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 28th February 2011, 04:36 PM   #250
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes the paper is getting to be old. Almost 2 years since the paper was published and no one else has written a paper that refutes the presence of active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance.
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 28th February 2011, 04:36 PM   #251
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
...Patriots4Truth - Why would they test for explosives in the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings?
That is the key question.

We become so accustomed to bending over backwards to answer truther idiocies that we can lose sight of the basics.

There was no use of explosives in the 9/11 WTC Tower collapses so why test for explosives?

Very simple really.
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 28th February 2011, 04:40 PM   #252
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Yes the paper is getting to be old. Almost 2 years since the paper was published and no one else has written a paper that refutes the presence of active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance.
Why should anyone with professional standing waste time responding to idiocies?

There was no thermXte used at WTC on 9/11 and no thermXte in Jones dust. Even if there had been thermXte on site it wasn't used so it is a non-issue twice over.
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 28th February 2011, 04:45 PM   #253
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Patriots4Truth - Why would they test for explosives in the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings?
Q: Why would anyone test for explosives?
A: The original story doesn't add up. It would be irresponsible and immodest to not test for explosives.
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 28th February 2011, 04:50 PM   #254
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Why should anyone with professional standing waste time responding to idiocies?
To shut up truthers. To have a peer-reviewed scientific paper under your belt...

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
There was no thermXte used at WTC on 9/11 and no thermXte in Jones dust. Even if there had been thermXte on site it wasn't used so it is a non-issue twice over.
That's like finding condoms in your significant other's carry-on bag after they returned from a business trip and saying that it's a non issue because the condoms weren't used.

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 28th February 2011 at 04:51 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 28th February 2011, 04:54 PM   #255
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Yes the paper is getting to be old. Almost 2 years since the paper was published and no one else has written a paper that refutes the presence of active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance.
Any given pile of crap only needs to be refuted once.

Your implicit concession that Sunstealers article does refute the Harrit/Jones paper is noted.
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 28th February 2011, 05:01 PM   #256
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
To shut up truthers. To have a peer-reviewed scientific paper under your belt...
Waste of time trying to shut up truthers - they only shift the goalposts. And who is this mysterious "your" whose belt needs padding with a peer reviewed paper? There was no demolition. There was no use of thermXte. The whole thermXte issue is a truther scam. So what reasonable person needs reinforcing against liars?
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
...That's like finding condoms in your significant other's carry-on bag after they returned from a business trip and saying that it's a non issue because the condoms weren't used.
Nothing like a false analogy to confuse those who cannot think clearly.
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 28th February 2011, 05:02 PM   #257
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Q: Why would anyone test for explosives?
A: The original story doesn't add up. It would be irresponsible and immodest to not test for explosives.
Respectfully, that doesn't make any sense. In Fall of 2001 there was no "original story." The planes hit the buildings. The buildings wobbled a bit, then burned for a while. The two buildings hit by planes eventually fell down. A couple of other buildings not hit by planes eventually fell down. No explosives were observed.
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 28th February 2011, 05:30 PM   #258
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,446
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
They are not his samples.

He shared his sources.

What more could you ask of him.

MM
Except thats not what he said. He flat out refused. Take note, MM is retreating to semantics.
__________________
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 28th February 2011, 05:36 PM   #259
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,446
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper. If anyone doesn't like the results of his tests or wishes to challenge the paper then they are encouraged to publish a paper doing just that.
Except what Jones & Harrit have done is the equivalent of writing something on the internet. But of course its demanded anyone contradicting them should meet the real standards of academia.


FYI- There was CD experts & teams of structural engineers at ground zero starting the day after. Maybe NISt didn;t do chemical tests because the people who were actually examining the steel saw no signs of incendiaries or explosives involved in the collapse? Nor did the collapses yield anything even remotely close to the sound of an explosive. They also didn't test for mini nukes or space beams. But I guess since this is your choice pet theory its different.


Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
That's like finding condoms in your significant other's carry-on bag after they returned from a business trip and saying that it's a non issue because the condoms weren't used.
More appropriate analogy would be finding a rubber glove & clalming he/she planned on cheating because condoms and gloves are made both of rubber.
__________________
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)

Last edited by grandmastershek; 28th February 2011 at 05:39 PM.
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 28th February 2011, 05:50 PM   #260
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Waste of time trying to shut up truthers - they only shift the goalposts. And who is this mysterious "your" whose belt needs padding with a peer reviewed paper?
Who would want to publish a scientific paper debunking the active thermitic materials claim? You are still asking? How about someone who doesn't have any scientific papers under their belt and could pop one out easily after acquiring dust samples. All you would have to do is the exact things that Niel et al did and suddenly you got a scientific paper on your resume. Employers that know jack **** about 9/11 truth will be all "good, a patriotic paper dispelling them damn truth freaks that I heard about".
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
There was no thermXte used at WTC on 9/11 and no thermXte in Jones dust.
By thermXte do you mean the "active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance" that Neil et al discovered?

You are saying that there wasn't any of that? If you or anyone are so sure about that then why don't you test the dust, write the paper and publish it. Because right now you lack the evidence to make this claim. It's impossible for you to be 100% certain about this. You have committed a "formal fallacy"
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 28th February 2011, 06:01 PM   #261
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Except what Jones & Harrit have done is the equivalent of writing something on the internet. But of course its demanded anyone contradicting them should meet the real standards of academia.
yes, there is something called academic standards. maybe you aren't aware of them. here's what you need to know about the purpose of scientific papers

Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
More appropriate analogy would be finding a rubber glove & clalming he/she planned on cheating because condoms and gloves are made both of rubber.
you either missed or wished to obfuscate my point. hmmm I wonder which
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 28th February 2011, 06:03 PM   #262
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Who would want to publish a scientific paper debunking the active thermitic materials claim? You are still asking? How about someone who doesn't have any scientific papers under their belt and could pop one out easily after acquiring dust samples. All you would have to do is the exact things that Niel et al did and suddenly you got a scientific paper on your resume. Employers that know jack **** about 9/11 truth will be all "good, a patriotic paper dispelling them damn truth freaks that I heard about"....
Don't be ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
...By thermXte do you mean the "active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance" that Neil et al discovered?

You are saying that there wasn't any of that? If you or anyone are so sure about that then why don't you test the dust, write the paper and publish it. Because right now you lack the evidence to make this claim. It's impossible for you to be 100% certain about this. You have committed a "formal fallacy"
Hogwash. You are constructing a rambling path of diversion which I refuse to follow. Whether or not there was "X" in some dust is of no relevance to this 9/11 conspiracy sub-forum unless it is part of support for a demolition claim.

So I cut to the chase - there was no demolition and no point exploring every truther inspired side tack which implicitly pretends that there was then tries to pass burden of (dis)proof to me or anyone else who is sufficiently clear thinking to call you on your game.
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 28th February 2011, 06:03 PM   #263
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
To shut up truthers. To have a peer-reviewed scientific paper under your belt...
Why don't you guys get one first.

Then we'll talk.
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 28th February 2011, 06:08 PM   #264
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,721
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Who would want to publish a scientific paper debunking the active thermitic materials claim? You are still asking? How about someone who doesn't have any scientific papers under their belt and could pop one out easily after acquiring dust samples. All you would have to do is the exact things that Niel et al did and suddenly you got a scientific paper on your resume. Employers that know jack **** about 9/11 truth will be all "good, a patriotic paper dispelling them damn truth freaks that I heard about".
I found your problem. Most people haven't heard about any truth freaks. No offense.
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 28th February 2011, 06:08 PM   #265
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
...More appropriate analogy would be finding a rubber glove & clalming he/she planned on cheating because condoms and gloves are made both of rubber.
...Good one.

However to be pedantically accurate the analogy should be more along the lines "Starting with the assumption that he/she planned on cheating then lying about finding a rubber glove & claiming..etc"


Last edited by ozeco41; 28th February 2011 at 06:10 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 28th February 2011, 06:16 PM   #266
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41
Why should anyone with professional standing waste time responding to idiocies?
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth
To shut up truthers. To have a peer-reviewed scientific paper under your belt...
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Why don't you guys get one first.

Then we'll talk.
Ahh so you're on the high horse like Mackey now: god forbid you talk to fellow members of a public forum if they haven't published a scientific paper
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 28th February 2011, 06:22 PM   #267
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Don't be ridiculous.
Hogwash. You are constructing a rambling path of diversion which I refuse to follow.
Learn to recognize your "formal fallacy" and then we'll talk
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 28th February 2011, 06:27 PM   #268
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,721
I expect Patriots4Truth to ignore my last 2 posts and this one.
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 28th February 2011, 06:32 PM   #269
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Ahh so you're on the high horse like Mackey now: god forbid you talk to fellow members of a public forum if they haven't published a scientific paper
No horses, just facts.

Your side has never published a peer reviewed paper. Why should we do what you refuse to?
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 28th February 2011, 06:33 PM   #270
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I expect Patriots4Truth to ignore my last 2 posts and this one.
I expect him to ignore damn near everything.
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 28th February 2011, 07:02 PM   #271
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Depends on the time of day.

Last I heard, Harrit had joined the Jones camp in thinking that therm*te was used as fuse to set off actual explosives. I think he said something along the lines of "many, many tonnes" of explosives.
Lol. In that interview with a Dutch or something TV show, he said that it was most likely brought in on pallets. LMAO! When the reporter asked him how they got it in, Harrit said "you're the journalist here, it's your job to figure that out" or something to that effect.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 28th February 2011, 07:30 PM   #272
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation. No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically. We quickly had NASA scientists and Nobel Prize physicist Dr. Richard Feynman. Who was on the 9/11 Commisssion? A bunch of politicians. And one (Senator Max Cleland) quit, saying it was a farce. At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives. At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it. Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 28th February 2011 at 07:34 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 28th February 2011, 07:47 PM   #273
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation. No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically. We quickly had NASA scientists and Nobel Prize physicist Dr. Richard Feynman. Who was on the 9/11 Commisssion? A bunch of politicians. And one (Senator Max Cleland) quit, saying it was a farce. At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives. At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it. Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
No you have no grounds for a better investigation, your shallow research is showing.
You missed the investigation done by the FBI. You missed investigations done by NIST, by schools, by industry. You have failed to research 911. Why?

The 911 Commission was political in a sense, but not the only investigating into 911, you are mistaken. The farce here is you have no clue there were other investigations.

There was no thermite used on 911 and the paper in question was fake, made up nonsense which proves no thermite.

Last edited by beachnut; 28th February 2011 at 07:48 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 28th February 2011, 07:53 PM   #274
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation. No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically. We quickly had NASA scientists and Nobel Prize physicist Dr. Richard Feynman. Who was on the 9/11 Commisssion? A bunch of politicians. And one (Senator Max Cleland) quit, saying it was a farce. At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives. At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it. Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
Not real familiar with the Challenger investigation either, are you?

There have been five independent, full-scale investigations of the disaster -- six if you count FEMA's work. All came to the same conclusion.

You're welcome to start your own if you don't like the results. Go to work. Tell us what you find.

Or, you're welcome to remain behind your keyboard doing nothing productive, if you prefer.
R.Mackey 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 28th February 2011, 07:56 PM   #275
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Yes, it is an exaggeration to say there was "no investigation". But we can all agree there should have been a better investigation....
We "can" but we won't until someone puts up a sound reason to do so.
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
...No one is calling for a new Challenger Investigation, because it was done correctly and scientifically....
Actually it's "engineeringly" but let that pass. Not so your false analogy. Define the purpose of the Challenger Investigation then ask if the analogous functions for WTC collapse were performed. The "technical part" was "find why the damage caused the collapse" and that occurred. No need to investigate irrelevancies such as truther lies about explosives. Q. Were explosives used? A. No! -- end of investigation into explosives. Same goes for "mini-nukes" and "death rays from space". They weren't used either.
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
...At least the investigators should follow standard procedures to check for explosives....
Bullcrap! Standard procedures for what? There were no explosives nor any real evidence to establish a prima facie case. 9 years later still no prima facie case.
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
...At least the evidence should not be shipped to Asia to be melted down, so NIST could have fully analyzed it....
The need is for adequate analysis not some pie in the sky implication of whatever you are not prepared to say by "...fully analysed..."

Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Is it too much to ask, to have an investigation commission of scientists and no one quits?
Not only is it too much you have lost track of what you want analysed... - it's called "changing horses in mid-stream".

EDIT: PS I'd better learn to type faster. Thanks Beachnut, R Mackey

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th February 2011 at 07:58 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 28th February 2011, 08:11 PM   #276
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Why do truthers continue forget that the steel was forensically examined at Fresh Kills by thousands of agents? No explosives, and yes, no thermite according to a bomb-sniffing dog expert. http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/l...s/recovery.pdf
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com
TexasJack 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 28th February 2011, 08:17 PM   #277
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,320
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
There is actually a difference between publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal and posting something anywhere on the internet.
It's roughly the same as the difference between publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal and publishing a paper in the Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics, apart from the publication fee and the fact that you can't do the last one any more.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th February 2011, 08:19 PM   #278
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,320
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper.
His own data doesn't prove any such thing. In fact, as we've pointed out ad nauseam, his own data specifically refutes the claim that the reaction they observed was a thermite reaction. The title of the paper is either a mistake or a lie.

Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
If anyone doesn't like the results of his tests or wishes to challenge the paper then they are encouraged to publish a paper doing just that.
Since the publication of the original appears to have been withdrawn, there seems little point.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th February 2011, 08:25 PM   #279
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,320
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Well, I was referring to thermitic materials under a broad definition of explosives.
And this is the sort of thing that destroys any credibility truthers might have. Would it kill you to say "OK, minor mistake, I meant thermite", instead of pretending that you're always right and the English language is the one who's at fault?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th February 2011, 08:52 PM   #280
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
ok minor mistake - in that particular quote I left off "active". "Active thermitic materials" is used by Neil et al to describe the materials to makes thermite while in a stage where it's still charged and has explosive potential.
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 11:24 PM.
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.