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 debunking , 911 debunking resources , ae911truth , controlled demolition , richard gage , world trade center , wtc 7

Closed Thread
Old 12th December 2011, 09:17 AM   #3401
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Well it did not have to be all thermitic, all the time. Once a significant collapse display is initiated, convention explosives can be introduced with their noise effectively disguised by the sound of the collapsing floors.
Ah... so the charges were set off after the collaspe began?

What exactly is the purpose of that?

Quote:
But that aside, maybe the truth of the matter is that such major ejections are not a common expectation in an imploding building, disciplined controlled demolition or otherwise.
Again, you're saying everything that happened prove your theories. It's patently stupid.

Major ejections = controlled demo
But
Major ejections aren't a common expectation in a controlled demo.

Friggin bizarre.
NoahFence 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 12th December 2011, 09:17 AM   #3402
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Well it did not have to be all thermitic, all the time. Once a significant collapse display is initiated, convention explosives can be introduced with their noise effectively disguised by the sound of the collapsing floors.MM
No, they can't, because they would be orders of magnitude louder. They would be audible across Manhattan, and possibly off of it. The quietest explosive NIST could find would do that. Not to mention the highly visible, y'know, explosions produced by the conventional explosives.

You're just trying to duct-tape anything onto your argument that looks solid or plausible, and it's actually making it weaker.

Quote:
...[WTC 7], which we all know suffered a bottom-down, high speed implosive collapse.
We do? Since when?


Quote:
...Thirdly, those responsible wanted to be absolutely certain that the WTC Twin Towers would be leveled....
They also wanted to try and produce as little evidence as possible. That's directly at odds with the idea of overkill, no matter how much you ignore it.

Quote:
...Under the blanket of noise created by the toppling upper sections, conventional, loud explosives could be employed en masse.

Hence you have multi-ton steel frames ejected 600 feet laterally....
I love how you seem to keep ignoring the people telling you why that would be physically impossible, and unnecessary. All they need to do is damage the columns so they can't stay up. You're effectively arguing that they put enough explosives to throw the beams out of the building at subsonic speeds--which, again, would be physically impossible--for no reason.

Just give up.
000063 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 12th December 2011, 09:24 AM   #3403
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Ah... so the charges were set off after the collaspe began?

What exactly is the purpose of that?
To throw the beams. We never would have agreed to go to war if beams weren't thrown.

__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 09:26 AM   #3404
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
To throw the beams. We never would have agreed to go to war if beams weren't thrown.

Well, to be fair, there was one that hit a building I went in a few years before 9/11, so it became personal to me. Those bastards.
NoahFence 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 12th December 2011, 09:28 AM   #3405
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Well, to be fair, there was one that hit a building I went in a few years before 9/11, so it became personal to me. Those bastards.
Yeah, I kind of pictured you as a beam sympathizer.




__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 09:35 AM   #3406
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
One of Jeremy's comments is that thermitic materials can be made to be explosive. Richard Gage has made that point too. But if it works as an explosive, then... noise. Lots of it. If it works as thermite and melts, then how can it create a precise collapse when it takes so long for thermite to burn through steel? How can melting thermite cause lateral ejection of heavy steel beams 600 feet? Or do you now agree that lateral ejection may not have happened at all? The challenge with my debate has always been having a hard time even knowing what I am debating because the sands keep shifting.
This is a feature, not a bug. Which is why you should stop debating and ignore them like nearly everyone else does. Having smart people legitimize their "movement" by acting as though it's a subject for "debate" isn't helping anything. Take the hours you've wasted on this and do something productive.
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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 10:19 AM   #3407
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by miragememories
Regarding the lateral ejection of heavy steel beams, as far as 600 feet.

Many Official Story supporters have proffered explanations that attempt to dismiss such occurrences as being reasonable and not an indication that explosives were used.

It has been said that the enormous amount of kinetic energy created when the potential energy of the WTC towers was converted during the collapses, was sufficient to propel multi-ton steel frames such huge distances.

But I have a problem with this.

In commercial, disciplined controlled demolitions, large ejections of structural steel is not an expectation.

Yes, I know, the counter-argument is that those buildings are pre-engineered with strategically placed cuts to the steel to prevent such an occurrence.

Well, that does sound a bit risky and it does not eliminate the threat. The cuts merely shorten the steel when it breaks. The kinetic energy is still there.

But that aside, maybe the truth of the matter is that such major ejections are not a common expectation in an imploding building, disciplined controlled demolition or otherwise.
Your argument amounts to IF A THEN B, IF NOT A THEN B. Therefore A is irrelevant.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 12th December 2011, 10:21 AM   #3408
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
=Miragememories;7837945]

Well there are at least two explanations that I can think of.

Firstly, they were topdown collapses. Too crush the lower building, an enormous amount of the upper core had to be demolished.
Unsupported assertion. Its been shown that dropping a single floor would destroy the building.

Quote:
Secondly, they were not disciplined controlled demolitions in the sense that there was no requirement for concern over things like; peripheral damage, overkill, and expense.
Very Good. The terrorists had no interest in things like; peripheral damage, overkill, and expense.

Quote:
Thirdly, those responsible wanted to be absolutely certain that the WTC Twin Towers would be leveled.
unsupported assertion. I have seen no evidence that the terrorists knew with certainty the towers would collapse. None of them were structural engineers and whilst they probably hoped the towers would fail it seems unlikely they were scertain they would.

Quote:
In both of the WTC Twin Towers, the upper sections began to topple over on their pre-weakened aircraft impacted sides.
stating the obvious. if one side is missing large number of sporting members it seems likely that would be the side most likely to fail first.

Quote:
As a noteworthy aside, you might look at the interesting timeline for the corner of WTC2 that displayed a long period of streaming molten steel. About a minute or less after this stream stopped flowing, WTC2's upper section began to topple.
Stop lying. there is no credible evidence that the burning material was steel.

Quote:
In both cases, the topples were mostly countered, and arrested, by the rapid undermining removal of vertical supports.
Do you want to try that again? how would removing supports arrest or counter anything?


Quote:
Under the blanket of noise created by the toppling upper sections, conventional, loud explosives could be employed en masse.
unsupported assertion.

[quote]Hence you have multi-ton steel frames ejected 600 feet laterally.

stop lying. There were no 600 foot lateral ejections of heavy steel sections, merely the laying out of a 600 foot sections of the perimeter columns as they peeled off


Last edited by sheeplesnshills; 12th December 2011 at 10:24 AM.
sheeplesnshills 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 12th December 2011, 11:30 AM   #3409
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,863
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The challenge with my debate has always been having a hard time even knowing what I am debating because the sands keep shifting.
That's been my experience reading into it... the explanations even differ between individuals in the movement. MM probably surmised the position best, that he likely believes conventional devices were used in mid-collapse under the assumption that the noise of the collapse would "dampen" the "bang" sounds. An explanation which to say the least, makes little sense to me given the audio record that exists of the entire timeline...

I did find it interesting that they took issue with you using The Delft University fire over it's construction when they were happy to ignore it whilst comparing the Madrid tower to the WTC. From what I saw of your debate you made it fairly clear where your comparison was relevant and where it wasn't.
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 12th December 2011, 12:31 PM   #3410
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
This is a feature, not a bug. Which is why you should stop debating and ignore them like nearly everyone else does. Having smart people legitimize their "movement" by acting as though it's a subject for "debate" isn't helping anything. Take the hours you've wasted on this and do something productive.
You sound like my wife!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 12th December 2011, 12:40 PM   #3411
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Sheeplesnshills said, "unsupported assertion. I have seen no evidence that the terrorists knew with certainty the towers would collapse. None of them were structural engineers and whilst they probably hoped the towers would fail it seems unlikely they were certain they would." I think I remember Osama bin Laden saying, in that videotape the American soldiers found, that he was surprised to see the buildings collapse; he expected that the planes would hit the buildings and create havoc but not collapse entirely. He was not a structural engineer, but his attitude was slam the hell out of them, create a monster fire, kill a bunch of people, and let the chips fall where they may.

I don't debate people who don't respect me. Jeremy Hammond has publicly accused me of being either ignorant or willfully dishonest, so I have said discussion over for me personally. But this article appeared on ae911truth.org and I wanted people to see what he said. No need for me to hide what my opponents have said, and Hammond expresses his views clearly and forcefully so I thought some of you on both sides would like to see what he said. But as for me, I'm not willing to debate my worthiness to even weigh in on this subject. I know it pretty well so no direct debate with Jeremy.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 12th December 2011 at 12:42 PM. Reason: spellcheck
chrismohr 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 12th December 2011, 12:54 PM   #3412
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
No need for me to hide what my opponents have said, and Hammond expresses his views clearly and forcefully so I thought some of you on both sides would like to see what he said. But as for me, I'm not willing to debate my worthiness to even weigh in on this subject.
Chris:

Sometimes I question your sanity when you give these guys the leeway you do. But this.......

__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 01:58 PM   #3413
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
You sound like my wife!
She sounds like a smart lady.
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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 02:06 PM   #3414
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Well firstly, its on the front page.

Secondly, Let Me Google That For You. First result.

Damn that was hard. I think I may have to have a lie down.
Thanks.

Can you read laying down?

Quote:
We’ll come to free-fall shortly, but the fundamental point Mohr fails to address is that NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis requires—bear with me here—that there be fires burning in the northeast corner of the twelfth floor in order to cause the thermal expansion of 13th floor beams, which pushed a girder off of its seat at critical Column 79, causing a series of cascading floor failures that caused Column 79 to buckle and fail due to the lack of lateral support, which led to a progressive series of column failures that resulted in a “global collapse” where the entire structure fell “as a single unit.” Got that? There are numerous problems with this hypothesis, but when it comes to the fires in WTC 7, there’s one problem in particular that stands out, which is that according to NIST’s own analysis of the available photographic and video evidence, the fire on the 12th floor had already burned through the northwest area and had moved on to the western end of the building by the time of its collapse at 5:20 p.m. (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1, Chapter 5).

So how did NIST deal with this little problem? Simple! They ignored their own evidence and falsified the data they input into their computer model by inserting raging fires in the northeast area of the 12th floor at the time of collapse. Mohr makes no effort to address this fatal flaw in the fire-induced collapse hypothesis or the evidence off scientific fraud on the part of NIST.
Read the link's contents. Chris Mohr's explanations are rent asunder.


http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...molitions.html

Last edited by Clayton Moore; 12th December 2011 at 02:07 PM.
Clayton Moore 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 12th December 2011, 02:24 PM   #3415
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for Rule 12.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

Last edited by jhunter1163; 12th December 2011 at 04:52 PM.
TheRedWorm 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 12th December 2011, 02:41 PM   #3416
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
Edited by jhunter1163:  Moderated content removed.
Who does?

__________________
"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 jhunter1163; 12th December 2011 at 04:53 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 02:51 PM   #3417
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

In commercial, disciplined controlled demolitions, large ejections of structural steel is not an expectation.


"Not an expectation?"

How about:
THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

Demolition companies never even try and use explosives capable of flinging heavy steel around, least of all large heavy pieces "hundreds of feet" away from building like Gage claims.

On 911, we have no evidence of any sounds even approaching that of a conventional demolition explosive, let alone one as absurdly powerful as people like you and Gage claim were used.

It simply isn't possible in this universe for explosives to have the power to fling heavy steel around and yet the collapse to look and sound the way it did. They would have to be magic explosives.

Last edited by Edx; 12th December 2011 at 02:57 PM.
Edx 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 12th December 2011, 02:56 PM   #3418
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post

Read the link's contents. Chris Mohr's explanations are rent asunder.
Words mean different things to you than they do to me.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 12th December 2011, 03:20 PM   #3419
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Who does?


No one here, and I want to make sure he knows it
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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 12th December 2011, 03:28 PM   #3420
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
No one here, and I want to make sure he knows it
Circle get's the square (and I'm dating myself).


__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:32 PM   #3421
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I don't debate people who don't respect me. Jeremy Hammond has publicly accused me of being either ignorant or willfully dishonest, so I have said discussion over for me personally. But this article appeared on ae911truth.org and I wanted people to see what he said. No need for me to hide what my opponents have said, and Hammond expresses his views clearly and forcefully so I thought some of you on both sides would like to see what he said. But as for me, I'm not willing to debate my worthiness to even weigh in on this subject. I know it pretty well so no direct debate with Jeremy.
To be fair, no one owe's you respect. Civility, yes, but it's a bit disingenuous to cease discussion because of indignity. Either your arguments are strong or they're not. Either Hammond's points are strong or they're not.

He is only suggesting that you're leaving him with these last two possibilities because of your refusal to acknowlege and correct your error. I'd have to agree with him that it's a bit strange since you've been willing to do so in the past.
__________________
(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 12th December 2011, 04:34 PM   #3422
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
He is only suggesting that you're leaving him with these last two possibilities because of your refusal to acknowlege and correct your error. I'd have to agree with him that it's a bit strange since you've been willing to do so in the past.
Your bias is showing. What makes you so sure he is in error?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 12th December 2011, 04:39 PM   #3423
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Your bias is showing. What makes you so sure he is in error?
I read the comments exchange following the article.
__________________
(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 12th December 2011, 04:56 PM   #3424
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
To be fair, no one owe's you respect. Civility, yes, but it's a bit disingenuous to cease discussion because of indignity. Either your arguments are strong or they're not. Either Hammond's points are strong or they're not.

He is only suggesting that you're leaving him with these last two possibilities because of your refusal to acknowlege and correct your error. I'd have to agree with him that it's a bit strange since you've been willing to do so in the past.
Don't make me laugh.

When was the last time Gage and his cronies (Of which Hammond is apparently one) EVER corrected an error?

Lord knows they have plenty to choose from.
NoahFence 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 12th December 2011, 10:49 PM   #3425
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
To be fair, no one owe's you respect. Civility, yes, but it's a bit disingenuous to cease discussion because of indignity. Either your arguments are strong or they're not. Either Hammond's points are strong or they're not.

He is only suggesting that you're leaving him with these last two possibilities because of your refusal to acknowlege and correct your error. I'd have to agree with him that it's a bit strange since you've been willing to do so in the past.
Hi Red Ibis,

For what it's worth, in my exchanges with Jeremy I acknowledged and corrected two errors: that Delft wasn't steel frame but steel reinforced concrete (which I considered not that important because Gage et al use the Madrid fire and other buildings which are not constructed identically to WTC either, so I considered Delft fair game and still do), and a bad footnote (for how NIST dealt with the sulfidized steel, where I acknowledged his complaint gave an improved citation, a fact which he never bothered to acknowledge in his recent rebuttal on the ae911 webpage).

Other mistakes weren't mistakes at all, except in his mind. They were distortions of what I said. Why, for example, should I correct my explanation of the freefall of Building 7 when it's the best layperson's explanation I've ever heard of it, his mockeries notwithstanding?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 13th December 2011, 04:56 AM   #3426
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,776
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
To be fair, no one owe's you respect. Civility, yes, but it's a bit disingenuous to cease discussion because of indignity. Either your arguments are strong or they're not. Either Hammond's points are strong or they're not.

He is only suggesting that you're leaving him with these last two possibilities because of your refusal to acknowlege and correct your error. I'd have to agree with him that it's a bit strange since you've been willing to do so in the past.
This coming from the guy who accused me of using the word "twoofer", yet never conceding that I do not use the term when called on it. You are a strange bird, red.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 20th December 2011, 07:05 AM   #3427
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Wait...so explosives powerful enough to produce a shockwave that allegedly hurls steel beams hundreds of feet are silenced by some rumbling? How does that work? It moves steel through air but it does not move through air itself?

Also, have any of our saviors figured out how big of charge would be needed to accomplish such a feat? Especially considering CD's don't do that.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 20th December 2011 at 07:20 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st January 2012, 07:34 AM   #3428
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi all, Most of my recent posts have been on this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...19#post7893219. This is where I talk at length about a new scientific study where Dr. James Millette will be looking for evidence of thermitic material in the WTC dust (summarized in post 1257). I keep checking this thread as well, so posts either place are fine.
Chris Mohr
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 9th January 2012, 01:25 PM   #3429
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
This guy is not on JREF but his response to my YouTube videos is worth quoting:

"thank-you for all the tremendous work you've carried out investigating the 911 wtc collapses. I have to admit that I was previously convinced by Richard Gage's arguments. Having watched your videos I am now much more aware of the alternative arguments."

This was definitely encouraging!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 13th January 2012, 12:32 PM   #3430
Xero
Thinker
 
Xero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 172
Good work Chris. Getting even 1 person to see reason and logic is definitely progress.
Xero 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 27th February 2012, 05:07 PM   #3431
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Just a heads up that this thread will be reactivated very soon. I'm just checking to make sure it's still receiving posts!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 27th February 2012, 05:22 PM   #3432
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Just a heads up that this thread will be reactivated very soon. I'm just checking to make sure it's still receiving posts!
Are you gonna make a video concerning the RJ Lee letter that Ron Wieck got the other day?

I asked this in the microspheres thread but it seemed to have gotten overlooked: has anyone told Gage about this letter and requested Gage to stop making those claims or at least stop citing the RJ Lee report?
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe 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 27th February 2012, 07:06 PM   #3433
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by fourtoe View Post
Are you gonna make a video concerning the RJ Lee letter that Ron Wieck got the other day?

I asked this in the microspheres thread but it seemed to have gotten overlooked: has anyone told Gage about this letter and requested Gage to stop making those claims or at least stop citing the RJ Lee report?
No. But my current Iron Microspheres Rebuttal video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
In the written "description" part of the video I include the Rich Lee letter so people can read it. Maybe I can also clip it into the body of the video too.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 27th February 2012, 07:10 PM   #3434
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Wouldn't you want to wait first to hear the answers to our questions about that letter? Shouldn't be too long now...
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 29th February 2012, 12:03 PM   #3435
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Kevin Ryan’s Claim that Millette is Deceptive because of Dust Hazards Report

The announcement of the independent February 2012 WTC dust study by Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants and his search for thermitic materials in the dust following up the Bentham paper of 2009 by Niels Harrit et al has generated both interest and controversy. Here’s the JREF thread focusing on the science of this paper:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=231314

Some 9/11 Truth activists have been very excited to see this study; others have rejected it out of hand before its appearance. The best-known vehement opponent of this study is Kevin Ryan, a signatory to the 2009 Bentham paper.

Kevin Ryan’s public attack against James Millette’s professional integrity and my honesty appeared in his blog two weeks before the test results were released in February 2012:

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when...ls-at-the-wtc/

Kevin Ryan accused Millette of being deceptive because a dust report he put out didn’t specifically mention iron microspheres. I read the report, and Millette reported on large amounts of very small iron particles in the dust; he didn’t mention their spherical shape:

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/20.../abstract.html

This was a study of the environmental hazards of the World Trade Center dust. As many know, on September 18, 2001, EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman said that "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink." This patently false declaration has made many in the 9/11 Truth movement deeply mistrustful of the EPA.

Does Jim Millette’s study of the health risks of the dust perpetuate this false statement by the EPA in any way? Not at all; it courageously contradicts it with cold scientific facts, identifying and quantifying a laundry list of potential health hazards in the dust:

“…metals, radionuclides, ionic species, asbestos, and inorganic species. In the organic analyses, we identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate esters, brominated diphenyl ethers, and other hydrocarbons. .. many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton)... polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate esters, brominated diphenyl ethers, and other hydrocarbons...”

Regarding accusations that the EPA changed the pH data of the dust, self-described “EPA whistleblower” Cate Jenkins accuses the EPA of taking Millette’s original measurements and bringing them down, as we shall see. Millette wrote, “The pH of… the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5.” 11.5 is a dangerously high level and Millette reported it!

As far as I can tell, Kevin Ryan accuses Millette of “deception” because Millette’s study fails to mention the iron-rich microspheres. That’s misleading. In talking about the dust-sized particles he studied, Millette writes in his article, “…the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials.” He reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron but didn’t specifically use the term “iron-rich microspheres.” Is it fair to call that “deception”?

In conclusion, I’m willing to address legitimate concerns about Dr. Millette and why I chose him, but I am unwilling to engage in endless debates about my honesty or whether Dr. Millette is “deceitful.” I was spoiled in my debate with Richard Gage, where we stuck to the issues. My YouTube videos (keyword chrismohr911) lists 238 debating points, almost all around the technical issues. In some ways the Millette dust study is the final stage of my long debate with Richard Gage. I defended my technical position against Richard Gage 238 different ways. Gage himself has called for independent replication of the 2009 thermitic dust study. I will not defend my integrity 238 times, and if anyone wonders about my non-response to a personal attack in the future, know that it is because I consider such repeated attacks to be verbal bullying which I will not dignify with a response.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 29th February 2012, 12:07 PM   #3436
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Kevin Ryan Attacks Jim Millette’s Integrity by Referring to Cate Jenkins’s EPA Compla

Here again is Kevin Ryan’s blog attacking the credibility of Dr. James Millette (and me):

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when...ls-at-the-wtc/

Even more amazing is Kevin Ryan’s attempt to attack the credibility of Dr. Millette by referencing the claims of Cate Jenkins, PhD, who has complained in court that the EPA purposely altered the pH readings of the WTC dust to bring them into an acceptable range for public health officials. But in Jenkins’s long complaint against the EPA, Jim Millette’s name barely comes up, except in four footnotes (not in the main text). When I first checked out Kevin Ryan’s reference to Cate Jenkins in support of his attack against Millette, I was simply baffled. I literally couldn’t figure out what he was talking about.
Ryan asserts, “Millette’s name shows up in Jenkins’ report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud. Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the government-sponsored studies.” Remember this charge; it’s a tellingly incomplete version of what Cate Jenkins said.

Ryan claims that Cate Jenkins’s controversial long court complaint against the EPA for allegedly falsifying pH readings of the WTC debris is a damning indictment of Millette’s work. But as I said, Millette is mentioned in Jenkins’s long complaint in four footnotes only, never in the main text:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nOnWTCdust.pdf

There is one photo of Millette in here, with no reason given for its appearance.

Not only that: In in support of her allegations, Cate Jenkins, in her discussion of WTC concrete, praises Millette and MVA as credible and prestigious (pages 33,34 of the report):

http://peer.org/docs/ny/9_8_11_PEER_...t_petition.pdf

“Another independent research group, MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc., also found that the smallest WTC dust particles (0.5 to 2.5 microns) contained 26.5% cement particles in samples about ˝ mile away from Ground Zero.
“There are 2 credible studies that determined the concentration of concrete in the smallest WTC dust particles, and the concentrations of concrete in the larger particles.

“Both the Delta Group at the University of California at Davis, and MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. are highly prestigious groups, having received numerous EPA grants for similar studies on fine particulates.

“MVA was a major contract laboratory to EPA in the evaluation of WTC dust after 9/11, but performed its study of the concrete content of WTC dust independently. Dr. Millette of MVA was an expert witness on behalf of the Department of Justice and EPA suit against W.R. Grace for the Libby, MT asbestos Superfund site.”

So Cate Jenkins calls Millette’s lab “highly prestigious” and uses the results of his studies as contrasting markers of reliability in her complaint against the EPA. As mentioned above, the Lioy/Millette study (with its dangerously high pH reading of 11.5 in some of the dust) is then allegedly reduced in the EPA report (according to Jenkins) to 11.0. If there’s deception at the EPA, it’s unclear to me but it doesn’t look like Jenkins is claiming it came from the “highly prestigious” Millette. How can Kevin Ryan justify his attack against Millette’s integrity by quoting someone who praises his work?

I stand by my assertion that Jim Millette is a credible scientist, and I hope Kevin Ryan stops publicly attacking his professional integrity -- and stops telling people to disregard the results of Millette’s WTC dust study. In an email to Kevin Ryan, I warned him that I will be watching his public responses to this study to “see if you write another ad hominem attack or claim he [Millette] was just looking at paint chips without mentioning your own refusal to participate in any way.” Since Kevin was offered a place at the table with a “highly prestigious” dust analyst and vehemently turned down the offer, if he claims that Millette found the wrong chips in the dust samples, his claim will ring especially hollow (since he refused to provide any samples he believed were thermitic). In addition, he can now contribute to the peer-review process by submitting his technical observations to Dr. Millette, rather than publishing more blog entries trashing the entire enterprise and writing it off as “pathetic” (as another signatory to the Bentham study has recently claimed).

And as for Cate Jenkins herself, even if she had lambasted Dr. Millette, I would question the objectivity of her accusations after reading the decision of a judge who threw out a different 1998 complaint of hers against the EPA (see page 21 of this decision):

http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/AL...7_cadec_sd.HTM

As I said: I’m willing to address legitimate concerns about Dr. Millette and why I chose him, but I am unwilling to engage in endless debates about my honesty or whether Dr. Millette is “deceitful.”
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 29th February 2012, 12:16 PM   #3437
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Kevin Ryan’s Allegations of Chris Mohr’s Dishonesty

One more time, here is Kevin Ryan’s blog attacking Dr. James Millette’s credibility and my honesty:

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when...ls-at-the-wtc/

It’s worth mentioning that the phrase “Mohr is Less” was first thrown at me from Bob the Junior High School Bully. I never expected I would hear that term used in a public attack against me some 45 years later. Kevin, how old are we anyway?

Here are some of Kevin Ryan’s accusations against me as being “dishonest” (from his blog) and my responses: “…Jim Millette, a long-time government scientist who worked for the EPA and now runs his own business called MVA Scientific Consultants. Unfortunately, although Mohr took months to find this new champion, it took him only seconds to decide that he would say nothing about Millette’s leadership of the government studies on WTC dust. When Mohr wrote to me in a mass email asking for pre-processed samples to use in his new project, he failed to mention anything about Millette’s past work on WTC dust.”

My initial email to Kevin Ryan and a handful of 9/11 Truth leaders (in no way a mass email) was an initial inquiry for Kevin to participate in a new dust study. I asked him for a sample of red-gray chips he believed had unignited thermitic materials in them for a truly independent analysis. I was open to answering any and all questions. It was not easy to find a knowledgeable dust analyst who was willing to take seriously such a study. There was no intention to deceive, just to make a simple request and open up dialogue.

[Concerning my Skeptic magazine article about the controlled demolition theory]: “While providing utterly unconvincing and vacuous answers to a dozen straw man questions, Mohr’s article ignores essentially all the evidence presented in ten years by real 9/11 skeptics.”

I got the “straw man questions” from my debate with Richard Gage: free-fall collapse speeds, squibs, iron microspheres, sulfidized steel, unignited nanothermites, accounts of explosions, etc. “Straw man questions”? Kevin should know better; I dealt directly with some of the core technical claims of the 9/11 Truth movement. “Utterly unconvincing and vacuous”? Not to the dozens of physicists, metallurgists, chemists, structural engineers, explosives experts, forensic scientists, heavy equipment operators, foundry workers, fire safety experts and other specialists who congratulated me on my accurate and patient reportage (and mercilessly corrected mistakes I made in my first drafts). Kevin Ryan has offered nothing more than an insulting hand waving dismissal of me, not a rebuttal. This tells us much more about Kevin Ryan than it does about me. It certainly hurts to be on the receiving end of such a blatant, unsupported ad hominem attack. Kevin, you’re better than this! My 9/11 Truth friends tell me I should be more compassionate towards Kevin because he takes so much flack for his courageous stands. This is true, but when he makes public attacks like this, he needs to be called to account.

“Of course, Mohr won’t tell you about the accusations of fraud either… In any case it is very interesting that it took Mohr several months of contacting dozens of labs to find the one person who did all the government laboratory work on the WTC dust. We might wonder about the other dozens of labs. Wouldn’t they take Mohr’s money? In the end, why did Mohr insist on using this one lab that had been implicated in charges of fraud related to WTC dust analysis?... We might never know.”

The “charges of fraud” is in reference to Cate Jenkins’s complaint against the EPA which peripherally mentions Jim Millette (see the post above). I already answered this charge in a private email to him but Kevin Ryan went ahead and attacked me publicly, implying I would never answer his questions even though I already had!

One of the many things I did when checking out Jim Millette was to look him up and google keyword phrases like “Jim Millette 9/11 Truth” to see if there had been any accusations against him. I found none. I was only dimly aware of the Cate Jenkins complaints against the EPA, and the accusation that I was being “dishonest” because I somehow should have known that there were four benign footnotes regarding Jim Millette in an obscure failed complaint against the EPA is patently unfair. It’s even more unfair when you consider that Dr. Jenkins actually praises Millette’s work (see post above)!

Kevin Ryan et al’s 2009 Bentham paper was met with deafening silence by the mainstream scientific community, a fact which all 9/11 Truth researchers bemoan: “The simple fact that professional scientists could publish such evidence, and over a period of three years be met with no answer from government and academic leaders, is an astounding fact that speaks volumes about the mindlessness that pervades society today… Three years without a response is response enough.”

What baffles me is that I have made it clear in my debates and interactions with 9/11 Truth activists that I take this study very seriously and have never stated it was worthless junk science. I have said that the record of followup studies has been abysmal, and I have been in contact with many 9/11 activists who share my frustration that no serious attempt has been made to replicate the findings of this paper. Since no one on either side was taking the initiative to organize such a study, I took it upon myself to do it. For many in 9/11 Truth, this has been a “Halleluliah” moment, that someone in traditional scientific circles has made a serious effort to find unignited thermitic materials in the dust. No longer can Kevin Ryan or anyone else complain that no one is taking them seriously.

Everyone should know that among the financial supporters of this study are four 9/11 Truth activists. Other top 9/11 truth people are also supportive of this project and think I have done a good job of organizing a good study. It’s controversial, even within the 9/11 Truth movement. Each individual must be very careful to keep your eyes open going forward here.

Did I make mistakes in this process? Yes, I did. I was afraid of Kevin’s growing impatience with me and I did the search for an independent verifier of his study without him. In hindsight I wish I had asked Kevin if he wanted to work together with me to find a researcher and a verification process both he and the “skeptics” could agree on. It’s never too late to do that. The Jim Millette study turned up no thermitic materials, but as they say, you can’t prove a negative. I am open to helping broker yet another study both sides could sign off on in advance, using Kevin’s samples. If Kevin doesn’t trust me, I know at least one other person who might consider doing this (on the 9/11 Truth side).

“Ad hominem” is not adult behavior and it’s past time Kevin Ryan be called out for what he is doing. He’s gotten away with it because people in the traditional scientific community have ignored his attacks. He won’t get away with it with me.

There are two other accusations I have heard against my conduct in this whole matter. A 9/11 activist pointed out that Millette’s results were due out February 15 but asserted that he was going to wait until after the forensics convention so he and forensics experts worldwide can massage the data together. In fact, Dr. Millette called me on February 15 and apologized that the report wasn’t ready, that he was overwhelmed with all the data he collected, and asked for one more day. I asked him if it would help if he got peer review input from the forensics experts and he said yes, very much, so we agreed on a two week delay. The idea that forensic scientists from around the world would conspire with Dr. Millette to willfully distort data in violation of their Code of Ethics is outside the limits of credibility for me. It’s part one of his protocol for peer review, nothing more.

People who have been following my posts on JREF have also complained that I called Dr. Millette “Lab Guy” until December, when I finally made my formal request for contributions to support this study. Why so secretive? Hiring decisions are not like data collection; human beings are involved, and it is not wise to name candidates to do controversial work until you are confident they can do the job. I had two major concerns, which I openly shared with people:

1) Can Lab Guy actually report on thermitic materials if he finds it, or will he cower and misrepresent the data out of fear of being ridiculed by his peers? (His response: "If I find it I'll publish it.")
2) Can Lab Guy deal with the personal attacks he will receive from some people in 9/11 Truth?

I needed someone who could take the heat from both sides. We talked about both issues and more. I also needed time to research his credentials, background, find out what he suggested as a protocol, get personal recommendations from his past clients, etc. All of this I did without naming him. I thought he might fail one of my “tests,” and I saw no point in naming him and then rejecting him.

One last time: I’m willing to address legitimate concerns about Dr. Millette and why I chose him, but I am unwilling to engage in endless debates about my honesty or whether Dr. Millette is “deceitful.” So now I hope you’ll go back to the thread which focuses on the scientific evidence against thermitic materials in the dust so we can talk about what’s really important:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=1#post8069213
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 29th February 2012, 12:21 PM   #3438
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I stand by my assertion that Jim Millette is a credible scientist, and I hope Kevin Ryan stops publicly attacking his professional integrity -- and stops telling people to disregard the results of Millette’s WTC dust study.
That isn't going to happen Chris. Millette's study puts Kevin Ryan's already glaring dishonesty & incompetence to the test. The only way he can deal with it is hand waving away the results. He and his "colleagues" have repeatedly run from legitimate academic scrutiny. Their only hope now is to keep BSing the willfully ignorant.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 01:23 PM   #3439
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Chris
Excellent rational posts.

Whereas your epistemology (How do you know you're right?) is Scientific Epistemology (hypothesis testing, precise definition of terms, verification, falsification, reason, logic, math, integration), the truther side uses another- Metaphysical/Political Epistemology (Beliefs, reality and truth are subjectively created, variable and negotiable, pseudoscience, meaning well, the end justifies the means).

As everyone here knows, the truther side will not accept the results of Millette's study if it doesn't show thermitic materials. By using the wrong epistemology they don't know how to tell when they are right.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 29th February 2012 at 02:07 PM.
BasqueArch 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 29th February 2012, 05:58 PM   #3440
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
9/11 Truth isn't about respect, trust in science and rational thinking. It's based on the opposite of all those things, just as BasqueArch outlined.

You cannot expect the 9/11 Truth community to respond in an adult, rational way to a new study, particularly if it seems to undermine their positions. Kevin Ryan is demonstrating just how paranoid, angry and disrespectful he is by grasping at such straws in his attempt to smear Dr Millette and (he intends) the results of the study.

He's not even bothering to address the issues of the study, rather he's trying to perform a character assassination on Dr Millette so he can then handwave away the results. That seems to be his tactic here - roughly the same level of mentation as the average schoolyard bully, as Chris recalled.

Time to grow up, Kevin, and also the other screaming teenagers out there who make up your failing 'truth' movement.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 07:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.