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 911 conspiracy theory , thermite , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 4th April 2009, 05:40 AM   #81
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
What the hell is the International Center for 9/11 Studies?
Some investigative Googling for anything 9/11-related in that zip finds only this.
9-11 Hair & Nail Salon
10340 Ferguson Rd
Dallas, TX 75228
(214) 327-9609
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 05:51 AM   #82
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,014
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

I have no expertise whatsoever on this, but every thermite video I have seen has used substantial amounts of thermite to attack a fairly small amount of metal. A paint-chip thickness seems... insignificant. Obviously, though, I could be wrong. Does anybody here know?

I would agree. You need alot of thermite to cut through steel.

Here is a video of a few actual thermite reactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Pay attention to the second part of the video, where they burn a hole in the hood of a crappy french car.

Notice how much thermite they have to use just to make a small hole. Notice how the hole is only where the flower pot held the thermite in place long enough to fully react. Notice how the thermite was set off..with a blasting cap. Notice how the entire hood of the car, made of thin sheet metal is completely covered with molten iron at one time, but it just runs off and only scorches the metal...the only hole is where the thermite was held in place. Notice how ****** energetic the reaction is and how much molten iron is created, and how bright it burns. Notice how long the reaction takes.

If it takes a flower pot full of thermite just to burn a hole in a car...how much does it take to cut through steel beams? How do you get it to flow sideways?
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 05:53 AM   #83
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,014
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Some investigative Googling for anything 9/11-related in that zip finds only this.
9-11 Hair & Nail Salon
10340 Ferguson Rd
Dallas, TX 75228
(214) 327-9609
LOL..a hair salon. I know where that is too. Ferguson road isn't too far from me. That's kinda a shady part of town.
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 06:15 AM   #84
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
I would agree. You need alot of thermite to cut through steel.

Here is a video of a few actual thermite reactions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM
These are my two best Thermite videos.
Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
(notice slag falling off hood and that the SUV isn't melted into a puddle of liquid steel.)

4 pounds of thermite doesn't even melt a PC chassis
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...47319296070400
(Fast forward the first 0:2:30)
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 06:34 AM   #85
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,014
Wow..BigAl ..ive never seen that mythbusters one before...that was cool. 1000 lbs of thermite going off. Not even bags of the stuff was able to cleanly cut through the roof of the suv. Took a really long time too. I wonder how the insiders managed to hide all that extra smoke when the thermite when off in the tower?
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 07:36 AM   #86
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,034
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Vanity publications?

Sorry to hear about you reading disability. The name of the journal is: The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

The highly regarded scientist R. Mackey, who recently proved that a 757 traveling at 500 mph will not bounce off a building, has stated that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is just a vanity publication.

BTW: What are R. Mackey's qualifications? Does he have a PhD in physics?
Wow, hey Chris, next time yourself a favor and read the thread before you post, m-kay? Because you just got freaking owned.

Did you see Mackey's post where freaking Bentham asked Mackey "Based on your eminent contributions in the field of space technology, we would like to consider your possible nomination to the Editorial Board Membership of the journal."

As the kids say PWNED!

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the tons of Super Thermite works sideways. I see Metamars had a fantastic suggestion that super thermite paint could be used to heat up one side of a beam. Hey metamars, just how thick is this paint, six inches? Further, your hero knucklehead jones disagrees, please see his very scientific bic lighter experiment (snicker)
__________________
jesus wept
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:12 AM   #87
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,901
Dr. Jones has posted some prescient follow up notes. He must be reading jref:

Quote:
I predict that debunkers will mostly ignore the detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite), not just thermite!
http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:20 AM   #88
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Has he presented his data to the scientific community yet?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:22 AM   #89
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Dr. Jones has posted some prescient follow up notes. He must be reading jref:


http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1
Quote:
I predict that debunkers will mostly ignore the detailed results from the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, the two Figures with DSC plots, which show that the energy release from two chips in kJ/gram EXCEEDS the maximum output available from THERMITE alone.

And let's see if they address our evidence for NANO-thermite (as opposed to the straw-man arguments against ordinary thermite). In the past, NIST and others seem to have been incapable of acknowledging that we have evidence for super-thermite (nano-thermite), not just thermite!

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1

My investigoogling of energetic nano-compounds finds that they are all described in one way or another as having high values of brisance. That means they go "boom". I welcome any reality check by anyone that actually knows something about this.

For instance:
Quote:
A lot of work has been accomplished recently
with nanopowders in energetic materials. For
example, it has been proven that because of their
large surface area, the nanopowders can increase the
burn rate in some types of propellants1,3,8-10. There
were also significant developments made in the
“super thermite” area with mixes of nanometric
aluminum and metal oxides11. Those compounds are
said to react at rates approaching (and under
particular conditions even equivalent to) those of
high explosives.

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp200...usseau-193.pdf
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:27 AM   #90
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 868
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
"it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal."

OH. MY. STARS!

That is ridiculous!

Publish the free one to get a free year, then tell them to get stuffed after that.

Maybe he'll get lucky and learn for sure what kind of a sham they are and be able to provide evidence/ instances of just that.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:33 AM   #91
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Maybe he should focus on what other chemists think instead of worrying about "debunkers".
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:33 AM   #92
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,901
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
My investigoogling of energetic nano-compounds finds that they are all described in one way or another as having high values of brisance. That means they go "boom". I welcome any reality check by anyone that actually knows something about this.

For instance:
Are you sure about that?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:38 AM   #93
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by redibis View Post
are you sure about that?
boom
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:47 AM   #94
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
My investigoogling of energetic nano-compounds finds that they are all described in one way or another as having high values of brisance. That means they go "boom". I welcome any reality check by anyone that actually knows something about this.
Yup. The article that Dr. Jones references to nano-thermite suggests its use in precision gas generation, i.e. as a microexplosive or one-shot microthruster, with high resistance to external temperature. There's nothing about that technology that suggests suitability for large-scale demolition or weakening of any kind.

The fact that the energy content is significantly higher than any ordinary thermite is, in fact, one of the arguments that proves the stuff is not thermite. Dr. Jones is a funny man.

Again, ordinary paper has about six times the energy content of thermite. Never knew paper was such a dangerous substance, did you? Your houses could explode and burn down at any moment!

It's comments like these which make this paper nearly indistinguishable from those extolling the dangers of oxidane. Poe's Law strikes again.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 08:47 AM   #95
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,034
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Dr. Jones has posted some prescient follow up notes. He must be reading jref:

http://911blogger.com/node/19761?page=1
Yeah, too bad you are not, because in fact that has been addressed in this thread.

Hey Dr. Jones, couple of questions: 1. how much did you pay to have this published or was this your freebie?

2. please share with us the comments from your peer reviewers.

3. what other Journals did you submit this article to and what were their responses.
__________________
jesus wept
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:06 AM   #96
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Fail. They didn't publish in the the legitimate Chemical Physics journal or the Journal of Chemical Physics (yes, they are two different ones). They published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. See R.Mackey's posts on their editorial policies to understand why this is a fail.
Mackey's posts have not been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

The findings in the other journals you cite are consistent with what is found in this paper.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:08 AM   #97
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Mackey's posts have not been published in a legitimate scientific journal.
He's not the one making the claims.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:22 AM   #98
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Mackey's posts have not been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

The findings in the other journals you cite are consistent with what is found in this paper.


Neither Chemical Physics nor Journal of Chemical Physics have any articles which speak towards Jones's paper.

Galileo, it's important not to make things up in debate. If I were feeling meaner, I could've asked you for a specific citation knowing that you couldn't provide any. But that's too snarky, and I don't feel like being snippy right now. Instead, some advice: What you post should be supportable in some reasonable fashion. In what I've posted so far, I've either indicated where I'm unsure or based what I've written on verifiable sources. You should to the same, unless it's your goal here to never be taken seriously. Now please, from here on out don't just pull things from your backside in order to make a point refutation. Address substance. And do your best to avoid committing logical fallacies, such as unsupported appeals to authority. We all fail at this at some moments in our lives, but it's important to make the effort. All right?
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:30 AM   #99
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
He's not the one making the claims.
He is making claims, and people here are citing his nutball claims that have not been peer reviewed.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:33 AM   #100
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
He is making claims, and people here are citing his nutball claims that have not been peer reviewed.
His claims are the peer review.

Maybe you can provide the (real) peer review of Jonesey's paper?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:34 AM   #101
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,988
So ordinary thermite is now a straw man argument? In other words, Jones proposes it, it gets debunked, Jones comes up with something wackier and says his opponents only have straw men arguments.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:35 AM   #102
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post


Neither Chemical Physics nor Journal of Chemical Physics have any articles which speak towards Jones's paper.

Galileo, it's important not to make things up in debate. If I were feeling meaner, I could've asked you for a specific citation knowing that you couldn't provide any. But that's too snarky, and I don't feel like being snippy right now. Instead, some advice: What you post should be supportable in some reasonable fashion. In what I've posted so far, I've either indicated where I'm unsure or based what I've written on verifiable sources. You should to the same, unless it's your goal here to never be taken seriously. Now please, from here on out don't just pull things from your backside in order to make a point refutation. Address substance. And do your best to avoid committing logical fallacies, such as unsupported appeals to authority. We all fail at this at some moments in our lives, but it's important to make the effort. All right?
That's right, they don't have any peer reviewed papers that claim there wasn't any thermite at ground zero. Hence these journals, although not as authoritative on the topic, are consistent with this paper.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:38 AM   #103
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
So ordinary thermite is now a straw man argument? In other words, Jones proposes it, it gets debunked, Jones comes up with something wackier and says his opponents only have straw men arguments.
Kind of like Creationism who changed their theory to Intelligent Design, typical strategy of kooks.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:38 AM   #104
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
So ordinary thermite is now a straw man argument? In other words, Jones proposes it, it gets debunked, Jones comes up with something wackier and says his opponents only have straw men arguments.
you are the one who has been debunked by a peer reviewed paper, bolobuffoon.

Mod WarningDo not alter usernames as an insult.
Posted By:prewitt81

Last edited by prewitt81; 4th April 2009 at 12:37 PM.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 09:58 AM   #105
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,901
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
boom
From a quote in the paper:

Quote:
At this point in time, all of the
military services and some DOE and academic
laboratories have active R&D programs aimed
at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials
that have potential to be used in
energetic formulations for advanced explosives….
nanoenergetics hold promise as useful
ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX)
and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to
their high degree of tailorability with regards to
energy release and impulse management [20].
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:02 AM   #106
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
You fail. Mass murder is not a joke. You lose. The days of the debunkers are numbered.
I'm shaking in my Merrills.

Oh what will you do with us....great master?

Put us in a concentration camp? Forced re-education?

Firing squad?
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:07 AM   #107
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
That's right, they don't have any peer reviewed papers that claim there wasn't any thermite at ground zero. Hence these journals, although not as authoritative on the topic, are consistent with this paper.
Worst. Tortured. Logic. Ever.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:08 AM   #108
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
From a quote in the paper:
You left out the good bit:
"equivalent to those of high explosives."
That means that pound-for-pound nano-thermite makes a an explosive noise as loud as any explosive compound used for man-made demolition.

It appears to me that nano-thermite is used for igniters and actuators, tiny devices that are used to set off a big conventional explosive.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.

Last edited by BigAl; 4th April 2009 at 10:25 AM.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:10 AM   #109
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
The age..of the debunker..is over.

The time..of the truther...has begun!!!!!





Be honest "Galileo", you want to see us all imprisoned or killed.

Last edited by Thunder; 4th April 2009 at 10:11 AM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:10 AM   #110
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
They found proof of explosives.
No, they did not.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:11 AM   #111
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,358
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
I'm shaking in my Merrills.

Oh what will you do with us....great master?

Put us in a concentration camp? Forced re-education?

Firing squad?
Force us to write "I will not ask those accusing people of mass murder for actual evidence" on the chalkboard 1000 times
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:12 AM   #112
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Force us to write "I will not ask those accusing people of mass murder for actual evidence" on the chalkboard 1000 times
No, I think he wants to see us put in prison or shot dead.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:21 AM   #113
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
No, I think he wants to see us put in prison or shot dead.
not unlike what you want done to bin Laden and KSM.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:22 AM   #114
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
No, they did not.
They did, it is in the paper. When you get home, have your mom explain it to you.
Galileo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:27 AM   #115
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
They did, it is in the paper. When you get home, have your mom explain it to you.
No, they exposed gullible people like you believe whatever nut case idea they put out. You are following the nut case ideas of a group of dolts who make up whatever they like and you push it as gospel without checking the facts and evidence.

Not very Galileo of you; as you grasp delusions instead of science and the irony is this is a skeptic forum. You are not a skeptic; you are a follower of nut case ideas. It could use science to cure your affliction. Why have you failed again?

I see you are using your best science with your fancy retort.
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 Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:31 AM   #116
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
 
1337m4n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,510
Galileo, please address posts #62, #71, and #74.
__________________
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2b728514ea.gif

"The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job just keeps not coming in." --pomeroo
1337m4n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:35 AM   #117
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,858
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
not unlike what you want done to bin Laden and KSM.
And Jeff Dahmer, and John Gacy, and Richard Speck, etc etc.

Know what these people all have in common?
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:38 AM   #118
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,672
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And Jeff Dahmer, and John Gacy, and Richard Speck, etc etc.

Know what these people all have in common?
None of them has ever been in my kitchen?
AZCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:42 AM   #119
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
 
stilicho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,759
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Oh, my, what a laugh that gave me. They need me to submit and pay for papers (at a discount, natch) to verify that I'm a "potential productive scientist??" Why the heck are they extending the offer if I'm not? Why don't they look at my other publications to make this determination?

I participate in peer review all the time. Just last week I reviewed a paper for the ASME, and I'm not even a member there; I got hit up out of the blue for my actual contributions which were similar to the paper under consideration. Next week I'm going to AIAA Infotech to present, and our paper there was reviewed properly. This stunt Bentham is pulling is a scam. I have never run into anyone professionally associated with them, and if I do, it will lower my respect for them enormously.
I love reading your stuff, Mackey. This is pure comedy gold. It's almost as though the plot is being ghost-written as a screenplay. I just wonder what thought processes are going on in the minds of these Bentham people. They latch on to the fact that you are a scientist because you question them about their peer review P&P. So the light bulb goes on:

Hey, this guy seems sciency. Let's hit him up for some money!

Ever get the feeling you're trapped in an Evelyn Waugh novel?
__________________
"Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue... It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN

LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite."
Rolfe: "I really hate lawyers."
stilicho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th April 2009, 10:54 AM   #120
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Mods:

Please move this to the mental pygmies section.

The people here have no interest in rational or scientific discussion.

I am very disappointed in the quality of the James Randi forum.
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
What I say is backed up by peer reviewed science.
No it is backed up with money to pay for published tripe. You 911Truth delsion believers need to think for yourself and stop posting a paper in a vanity journal for woo.


You can't see fraud when it is pointed out. Skeptic forum and you post junk. Why are you the non-skeptic at this forum; you can’t figure out simple fraud by Jones? Good luck

Last edited by beachnut; 4th April 2009 at 10:56 AM.
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 10:27 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.