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.
Reply
Old 14th October 2011, 02:31 AM   #1
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
The Dark Side of Gravity

Find here
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf
a summary of my 911 researches
if you find this interesting make it known ...

F Henry-Couannier
Physicist

Mod InfoSplit from here
Posted By:kmortis

Last edited by kmortis; 19th October 2011 at 07:06 AM.
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2011, 04:07 PM   #2
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Find here
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf
a summary of my 911 researches
if you find this interesting make it known ...

F Henry-Couannier
Physicist
Wow.

Terrible translation to english but the message is quite clear.

Henry agrees that it was an inside job.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2011, 04:17 PM   #3
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Wow.

Terrible translation to english but the message is quite clear.

Henry agrees that it was an inside job.

MM
What's he think about "therm*te" and most of the major players in your "movement"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2011, 04:47 PM   #4
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What's he think about "therm*te" and most of the major players in your "movement"?
Who cares.

He acknowledges that the Official Story is a load of crap.

Read his paper for yourself.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2011, 04:57 PM   #5
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Who cares.

He acknowledges that the Official Story is a load of crap.

Read his paper for yourself.

MM
I did. Do you agree with what he says about therm*te or conventional demolition? Any ideas on what "special physics" means?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2011, 11:16 PM   #6
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,023
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Who cares.

He acknowledges that the Official Story is a load of crap.

Read his paper for yourself.

MM
I did, in depth. He's a total kook. You really should ally yourself with some less whacky people, MM.

One insane excerpt from many magnificent candidates:

"The concrete and steel structures was actually submitted to an intense flux of microlighting-balls (also called Ectons, Eve, Charged Clusters, monopoles or Strange Radiations by their numerous and independent co-discoverers). In short, the huge temperatures and pressures are most
often only reached inside the micro-lighting-balls, but all the elements the evaporating mlbs release in the environnment are instantaneously cooled down to much lower temperatures. The existence of these objects and the new phenomenology actually ensues from a new theoretical frame which I proposed and published in 2004, that of the Dark Gravity theory which I also popularize in my web site, www.darksideofgravity.com where the readers are invited to find the details."

It was cold fusion/Dark Gravity what did it, folks.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 12:19 AM   #7
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Find here
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf
a summary of my 911 researches
if you find this interesting make it known ...

F Henry-Couannier
Physicist
That paper must rank as the silliest bit of truther fabrication I have seen for some time.

All the hallmark characteristics - outright lies, distortions, execrable misapplication of physics overlaid with pure fantasy surmise.

...and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 01:05 AM   #8
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Find here
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf
a summary of my 911 researches
if you find this interesting make it known ...

F Henry-Couannier
Physicist
Thanks, Henryco. I would not be so strict as Sunstealer or ozeco41 and I think that your contribution to "red chip matter" is still valuable (although I do not agree with your conclusions and hypotheses regarding causes of WTC collapses). At least, you have proceeded some real investigation on real chips and proved that such chips were really abundant in WTC dust.
Interestingly, it seems that you have not found any new "shiny microspheres" in burned chips, which is in direct contradiction with Bentham paper. Btw, what do you think about our "paint theory" (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...214739&page=17 , (start with post No 104, if you are interested)?

It is a pity that you probably do not possess any more of red chips...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th October 2011 at 01:17 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 01:30 AM   #9
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,023
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Thanks, Henryco. I would not be so strict as Sunstealer or ozeco41 and I think that your contribution to "red chip matter" is still valuable (although I do not agree with your conclusions and hypotheses regarding causes of WTC collapses). At least, you have proceeded some real investigation on real chips and proved that such chips were really abundant in WTC dust.
Interestingly, it seems that you have not found any new "shiny microspheres" in burned chips, which is in direct contradiction with Bentham paper. Btw, what do you think about our "paint theory" (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...214739&page=17 , (start with post No 104, if you are interested)?

It is a pity that you probably do not possess any more of red chips...
I find it interesting that Henryco claims to have tested the chips, yet also states

"....they try to focus our attention on a study under the
pretext that it gave rise to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal whereas this study cannot actually be independently verified simply because the WTC dust is not accessible in self-service: as for me, just because i declared my interest in exploring another explanation than nanothermite, in particular processes of new physics, and refused to publish with the others, the punishment decided by the authors against me was an immediate and definitive embargo on the WTC dust."

(my bolding) which raises the question of why he's complaining about lack of dust for his own studies when he claims to have studied it anyway. Did he get some or not? If so, where and how

And the sheer number of gross errors of fact and analysis contained in that essay mark it out as a work that hasn't come from a capable scientist.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 16th October 2011 at 01:33 AM.
GlennB 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 06:24 AM   #10
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Find here
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf
a summary of my 911 researches
if you find this interesting make it known ...

i lack the chemistry background to read some of that spectra cvharts.

Do any of them indicate presence of strontium chromate?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 07:36 AM   #11
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth.
I believe he's a physicist, but he's developed his very own pet theory of gravity and is having trouble getting his papers published.

Jonathan Swift wrote:
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
That (satirical) statement confirms henryco's genius, so he's already fighting one conspiracy. By attributing the WTC collapses to double top secret weapons that rely on his theories of physics, he can fight an even wider conspiracy that provides even more proof of his true genius.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Wow.

Terrible translation to english but the message is quite clear.

Henry agrees that it was an inside job.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What's he think about "therm*te" and most of the major players in your "movement"?
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Who cares.

He acknowledges that the Official Story is a load of crap.

Read his paper for yourself.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I did. Do you agree with what he says about therm*te or conventional demolition? Any ideas on what "special physics" means?
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 07:37 AM   #12
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by henryco
"A summary of my conclusions
Find here
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/nexus_gb.pdf
a summary of my 911 researches
if you find this interesting make it known ...

F Henry-Couannier
Physicist"
Originally Posted by GlennB
"I did, in depth. He's a total kook. You really should ally yourself with some less whacky people, MM."
Originally Posted by ozeco41
"That paper must rank as the silliest bit of truther fabrication I have seen for some time.

All the hallmark characteristics - outright lies, distortions, execrable misapplication of physics overlaid with pure fantasy surmise.

...and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth."
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek
"Thanks, Henryco. I would not be so strict as Sunstealer or ozeco41 and I think that your contribution to "red chip matter" is still valuable (although I do not agree with your conclusions and hypotheses regarding causes of WTC collapses)..."
Now we have henryco, [F Henry-Couannier. Physicist] who was a popular reference for arguing against Dr. Jones's 'thermite in the WTC red-gray chips findings', being discredited.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 07:55 AM   #13
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,023
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now we have henryco, [F Henry-Couannier. Physicist] who was a popular reference for arguing against Dr. Jones's 'thermite in the WTC red-gray chips findings', being discredited.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?

MM
Good for him. That he spotted Jones' errors or simply observed different behaviour in the chips doesn't confirm his own theories, however.

Henryco concludes (probably from the Lioy dust study, judging by the figures he uses) that the WTC dust was 40% by weight 'rock wool', and that that much rock wool was produced by the action of his mystery weapons on the WTC concrete. What he hasn't noted is that Lioy took samples distant from GZ, deliberately to analyse the nature of the drifting plume, not the larger and denser debris at GZ itself. Naturally that plume contained more fibres and small particles than the GZ debris. That's why the plume was drifting. 10kg lumps of concrete don't drift on the breeze.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 16th October 2011 at 07:56 AM. Reason: typos
GlennB 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 08:01 AM   #14
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?

MM
The only "cherry picker" here is you. My (and others) comments concern his volume of work. (that happens to be called "conclusions" but contains none).

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2011, 09:30 AM   #15
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
i lack the chemistry background to read some of that spectra cvharts.

Do any of them indicate presence of strontium chromate?
No, there was no strontium and chromium detected/marked in XEDS spectra of red chips recorded by Henryco. But (discussing "Laclede paint" containing 4 % of strontium chromate) this can be easily explained by capabilities of used XEDS device/probe and low concentration of these elements. Even in Harrit's whitepaper "WHY ARE THE RED/GRAY CHIPS NOT PRIMER PAINT", Sr and Cr peaks were on the level of noise (but still marked).

On the other hand, XEDS spectra of red chips recorded by Henryco clearly indicate Fe, Al, Si, O and C in concentrations apparently quite close to the composition of Lalcede primer paint. Also, I like Henryco's sentence "These chips dont react even when heated up to 900C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion." (Behavior typical for red primer paint, e.g. with an epoxy binder, I would say.)

Btw, carbon (from polymer binder) strongly prevails in Henryco's spectra of red chips, i.e. it should be a paint. And since Henryco did not clearly observed any new shiny microspheres richer in iron ((which is the last defense of nanothermite truthers)) in the chips heated up to 900 oC, this guy indirectly supports us in almost all points. I think

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th October 2011 at 09:59 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2011, 10:12 AM   #16
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now we have henryco, [F Henry-Couannier. Physicist] who was a popular reference for arguing against Dr. Jones's 'thermite in the WTC red-gray chips findings', being discredited.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?

MM
yes, right here.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Who cares.

He acknowledges that the Official Story is a load of crap.

Read his paper for yourself.

MM
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Dont get me loln off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2011, 02:43 PM   #17
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek
"...Also, I like Henryco's sentence "These chips dont react even when heated up to 900C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion." (Behavior typical for red primer paint, e.g. with an epoxy binder, I would say.)..."
So when this source (henryco), previously characterized a few posts back in this very thread, by GlennB as a "total kook" and "whacky", and his research characterized by ozeco41 as "That paper must rank as the silliest bit of truther fabrication I have seen for some time. All the hallmark characteristics - outright lies, distortions, execrable misapplication of physics overlaid with pure fantasy surmise....and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth."; says something you like, want to hear, henryco's research now becomes quite credible.

And you folks have the gall to besmirch the work of Dr. Jones & Dr. Harrit et al.

Too funny.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2011, 03:33 PM   #18
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So when this source (henryco), previously characterized a few posts back in this very thread, by GlennB as a "total kook" and "whacky", and his research characterized by ozeco41 as "That paper must rank as the silliest bit of truther fabrication I have seen for some time. All the hallmark characteristics - outright lies, distortions, execrable misapplication of physics overlaid with pure fantasy surmise....and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth."; says something you like, want to hear, henryco's research now becomes quite credible.

And you folks have the gall to besmirch the work of Dr. Jones & Dr. Harrit et al.

Too funny.

MM
What part did you like best? Was it the "special physics"? I bet you hate how he feels about "therm*te".

Personally, I couldn't care less what he says about anything. "Therm*te" is a fantasy created to suck in the flock and keep them donating..
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2011, 03:55 PM   #19
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So when this source (henryco), previously characterized a few posts back in this very thread, by GlennB as a "total kook" and "whacky", and his research characterized by ozeco41 as "That paper must rank as the silliest bit of truther fabrication I have seen for some time. All the hallmark characteristics - outright lies, distortions, execrable misapplication of physics overlaid with pure fantasy surmise....and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth."; says something you like, want to hear, henryco's research now becomes quite credible.

And you folks have the gall to besmirch the work of Dr. Jones & Dr. Harrit et al.

Too funny.

MM

There's no way you could have known this, but...

Scientists routinely criticize shoddy work by other scientists, even as they praise good work by the same scientists. (For some famous examples, consider the careers of Nobelists Linus Pauling and Hannes Alfvn.)

Indeed, scientists routinely criticize excellent work by other scientists. If those criticisms can be answered, then the work may become influential.

If criticisms cannot be answered, as has been the case with most criticisms of the paper by Harrit et al., then the work will have no impact on science.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2011, 04:21 PM   #20
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
There's no way you could have known this, but...

Scientists routinely criticize shoddy work by other scientists, even as they praise good work by the same scientists. (For some famous examples, consider the careers of Nobelists Linus Pauling and Hannes Alfvn.)

Indeed, scientists routinely criticize excellent work by other scientists. If those criticisms can be answered, then the work may become influential.

If criticisms cannot be answered, as has been the case with most criticisms of the paper by Harrit et al., then the work will have no impact on science.
I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism.

And I have met Linus Pauling a few times. A very nice man (R.I.P.) who was aware of being criticized for his work but he never suggested it ever approached the extreme level of intolerance exhibited here.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2011, 04:46 PM   #21
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism.
GlennB's criticisms were measured. Yes, they went beyond "normal" professional criticism, because henryco's Q&A blurb is hardly a "normal" sample of scientific prose.

ozeco41 (who is not himself a professional scientist) questioned whether henryco was telling the truth about being a physicist. On that issue, I defended henryco.

The rest of ozeco41's criticisms were directed against henryco's Q&A blurb, not against henryco himself. By advertising his Q&A blurb here, henryco was inviting criticism of it. Although I don't necessarily agree with everything ozeco41 said, and I might not have stated my criticisms in such colorful language even if I had agreed, I don't see how the substance of his criticisms could be construed as unprofessional. It might be more productive for you to argue that some of ozeco41's or GlennB's criticisms were incorrect or unjustified.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 07:21 AM   #22
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories
"I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism."
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
"... It might be more productive for you to argue that some of ozeco41's or GlennB's criticisms were incorrect or unjustified."
Productive for whom?

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 09:51 AM   #23
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Henryco concludes (probably from the Lioy dust study, judging by the figures he uses) that the WTC dust was 40% by weight 'rock wool', and that that much rock wool was produced by the action of his mystery weapons on the WTC concrete. What he hasn't noted is that Lioy took samples distant from GZ, deliberately to analyse the nature of the drifting plume, not the larger and denser debris at GZ itself. Naturally that plume contained more fibres and small particles than the GZ debris. That's why the plume was drifting. 10kg lumps of concrete don't drift on the breeze.
The Lioy dust study was done on 3 samples: one of them from Cortlandt street only one block away from WTC. Two others much more distant (700 meters : Cherry and Market street) ... and yet the results are homogeneous among the three.

Cortlandt street: Non fiber 50 %, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Cherry street: Non fiber 49.2%, Glass Fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Market street: Non fiber 37%, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 20%

So 1) you are disinforming! 2) your explanation explains an inexistent fact (more fibers far away)

As is said the article is only about the conclusions, the raw data and demonstration are in my web site (videos and pdf)

F H-C
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 03:01 PM   #24
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
The Lioy dust study was done on 3 samples: one of them from Cortlandt street only one block away from WTC. Two others much more distant (700 meters : Cherry and Market street) ... and yet the results are homogeneous among the three.

Cortlandt street: Non fiber 50 %, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Cherry street: Non fiber 49.2%, Glass Fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Market street: Non fiber 37%, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 20%
You just contradicted yourself.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 03:07 PM   #25
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
You just contradicted yourself.
Maybe that's part of the "special physics".

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 04:28 PM   #26
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Maybe that's part of the "special physics".

This thread is given some credibility to MM's nonsense because, true to form, we, the "debunkers", are coming from two camps and failing to allow for it.

The two camps are not exclusive but they include

1) The group of folks who like me are interested in the big picture issues of WTC 9/11 - where the question is "Was there demolition?" To me and many of like mind, the whole "what were the chips?" question is a red herring. Unrelated to demolition because there was (almost certainly) no demolition - the proof lying in multiple areas other than "chips". So much so that I have repeatedly claimed "It would not matter if there was 100 tonnes of thermXte on site. It wasn't used."

2) The second group who are interested in technical detail. Currently the best example here being Ivan Kminek who, with sunstealer, is interested in those chips. Sunstealer in particular has done some great work in rebutting Jones, Harrit et al and the claims for thermXte. I comment his effort. It is not my area of interest or expertise but I admire those who can deploy the expertise. However entering into discussion about "thermXte or not?" can be misused by truthers as they deliberately try to fog the boundaries of issues such as "demolition or not?"

So I have no issue with the group 2 detail folks except that it tends to give the appearance of support to the truthers and trolls when they are engaged in debate.

Both groups are legitimate. But we have before us henryco's paper.

I gave my opinion, possible in somewhat more hyperbole that I would normally use. But the bulk of the paper is an emotive rant making claims about demolition which it does not support and expressed in stock standard truther language and style.

Samples include these:
Quote:
The first surprise however is that the exclusive collapse scenario supported by NIST, is completely different from that supported previously by another official study, the FEMA ($600k) one but also differs from those of all other independent engineers studies who thought that the weakening of steel columns by the fires would suffice to produce the conditions for an unavoidable collapse.
Quote:
As for the North Tower, the destruction front is only a bit late on free-falling steel columns, and that is also an obvious violation of the laws of physics because the fastest theoretical collapse one can
imagine, taking into account conservation of momentum, should be much slower than what we observe.
It would not take many paragraphs to rebut those two bits of distortion and fantasy - the "NIST v FEMA" contradiction and the untrue but many times made "violation of the laws of physics" canard being bread and butter debunker topics as are most of the demolition big picture claims in henryco's paper. Since there have been a couple of references to my professionalism let me put a rhetorical question. "Is it professional to represent the differences between NIST, FEMA and unnamed other 'big players' as if those differences were fundamental rather that representing later thinking (NIST v FEMA) or different approaches to conservatism (NIST v some academic institutions)? I suggest that employing the truther tactic of "lie by innuendo" is not professional.

And most of the first pages of henryco's paper is in like style. That is what I object to.

As a minor (by number of words used) part of the paper henryco raises the issue of chips and thermXte. Ivan Kminek with his strong interest in detail is able to ignore all the truther styles context setting nonsense and focus on the detail which is of interest to him.

So we have a baby and bathwater issue. 'cept we disagree on which is baby and which is bathwater.

Easiest solution would be a split to two topics "henryco's paper alleging demolition" and "henrico's paper about those chips?"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 04:33 PM   #27
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
i lack the chemistry background to read some of that spectra cvharts.

Do any of them indicate presence of strontium chromate?

I couldn't see any but there were inexplicably high levels of Unobtainium 395.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 04:41 PM   #28
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism.

And I have met Linus Pauling a few times. A very nice man (R.I.P.) who was aware of being criticized for his work but he never suggested it ever approached the extreme level of intolerance exhibited here.

MM
That good coming from someone who theory requires the NYFD to be complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent people and hundreds of their own friends. Collegues and Families. IMO we are way too tolerant of people like you.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2011, 05:20 PM   #29
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism.

And I have met Linus Pauling a few times. A very nice man (R.I.P.) who was aware of being criticized for his work but he never suggested it ever approached the extreme level of intolerance exhibited here.

MM
That good coming from someone who theory requires the NYFD to be complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent people and hundreds of their own friends. Collegues and Families. IMO we are way too tolerant of people like you.
Remember also that MM was attempting to imply that the standards of academic professional publishing also apply to this Internet forum.

Then, to reinforce the false analogy, he tries name dropping Linus Pauling. And follows up with a mendacious attribution to Pauling (RIP dec'd 1994) of familiarity with today's Internet forums.

So I can make true claims also. Queen Victoria never told me what she thought of impolite language on JREF.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 12:23 AM   #30
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,023
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
The Lioy dust study was done on 3 samples: one of them from Cortlandt street only one block away from WTC. Two others much more distant (700 meters : Cherry and Market street) ... and yet the results are homogeneous among the three.

Cortlandt street: Non fiber 50 %, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Cherry street: Non fiber 49.2%, Glass Fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Market street: Non fiber 37%, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 20%

So 1) you are disinforming! 2) your explanation explains an inexistent fact (more fibers far away)

As is said the article is only about the conclusions, the raw data and demonstration are in my web site (videos and pdf)

F H-C
The Lioy samples - and I'm supposing now that the figures in your Q+A are derived from Lioy - were deliberately taken from covered locations. The dust drifted in there, it didn't precipitate down. It's unremarkable that the samples are reasonably similar.

The scientific point you have ignored is that you cannot take those "rock wool" %ages from the Lioy samples and extrapolate them back to calculate how much rock wool was present in the standing towers. The Lioy samples are not, and cannot be, representative of the composition of the Towers. Lioy et al. set out to analyse the nature of the WTC plume and collected samples appropriate to their aim.

To illustrate - if I took all the contents of my kitchen cabinets, put them in a box and dropped it from a great height on a windy day, I could go downwind and find the remains of some of my stuff. But at a distance from the impact area I would find mostly flour, spices and other lightweight or very fine material. To conclude that my cabinets had been loaded with flour and spices would be to ignore the fact that the cans, beans and macaroni just weren't able to blow that far and stayed closer to the impact area.

Your "rock wool" calculations are wretched science and to use them to support a notion of exotic weapons converting concrete into rock wool simply bizarre, especially coming from a trained and experienced scientist.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 19th October 2011 at 12:52 AM. Reason: added stuff
GlennB 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 04:57 AM   #31
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Cortlandt street: Non fiber 50 %, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Cherry street: Non fiber 49.2%, Glass Fiber 40%, Cellulose 10%
Market street: Non fiber 37%, Glass fiber 40%, Cellulose 20%

So 1) you are disinforming! 2) your explanation explains an inexistent fact (more fibers far away)
Balderdash. You have a slight reduction in the amount of "non-fiber (can we assume that this means "granular") particles from Cortland to Cherry, and a marked reduction from Courtland to Market. At the same time, cellulose doubles at market.

I would expect this. Fibers stay airborne longer than non-fibers, less dense fibers longer than dense ones. Of course, glass fiuber will settle out faster than cellulose. Now tell me whether the wind, during and one hour after the collapses tended more toward the location on Cherry or that on Market.

And where is this "rock wool?"

You know that it was installed into the building during construction, don't you?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 05:17 AM   #32
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now we have henryco, [F Henry-Couannier. Physicist] who was a popular reference for arguing against Dr. Jones's 'thermite in the WTC red-gray chips findings', being discredited.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?

MM
Besides yours? You're trying to play both ends against the middle; "either Henryco is credible, which means that his paper is credible, or he is wrong, meaning his critique of Jones is wrong!" Problem is a)either way, a conspiracy theorist is wrong, and b)people aren't often right about one thing but wrong in another. I'm an expert on what's in my jeans pockets right now, but don't ask me about nuclear physics. What you're presenting is a False Binary; "X is either wrong about everything or right about everything."
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 05:38 AM   #33
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories
"I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism."
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills
"That good coming from someone who theory requires the NYFD to be complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent people and hundreds of their own friends. Collegues and Families. IMO we are way too tolerant of people like you."
As their defender, you might like to get their name correct. It is FDNY.

For the record, in no way, shape, or form, do I find there to be knowing complicity by the rank-n-file members of FDNY in the events of 9/11.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 06:18 AM   #34
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,442
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As their defender, you might like to get their name correct. It is FDNY.

For the record, in no way, shape, or form, do I find there to be knowing complicity by the rank-n-file members of FDNY in the events of 9/11.

MM
So is Kevin McPadden a liar?
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 06:29 AM   #35
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by ozeco41
"That paper must rank as the silliest bit of truther fabrication I have seen for some time.

All the hallmark characteristics - outright lies, distortions, execrable misapplication of physics overlaid with pure fantasy surmise.

...and henryco claims to be a physicist? He should get a refund for his course of study - if he is telling the truth."
Originally Posted by Miragememories
"It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?"
Originally Posted by ozeco41
"...And most of the first pages of henryco's paper is in like style. That is what I object to.

As a minor (by number of words used) part of the paper henryco raises the issue of chips and thermXte. Ivan Kminek with his strong interest in detail is able to ignore all the truther styles context setting nonsense and focus on the detail which is of interest to him.

So we have a baby and bathwater issue. 'cept we disagree on which is baby and which is bathwater.

Easiest solution would be a split to two topics "henryco's paper alleging demolition" and "henrico's paper about those chips?""
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
"...Scientists routinely criticize shoddy work by other scientists, even as they praise good work by the same scientists. (For some famous examples, consider the careers of Nobelists Linus Pauling"
Originally Posted by Miragememories
"I think those public comments made here about henryco went far beyond normal professional criticism.

And I have met Linus Pauling a few times. A very nice man (R.I.P.) who was aware of being criticized for his work but he never suggested it ever approached the extreme level of intolerance exhibited here."
Originally Posted by ozeco41
"Remember also that MM was attempting to imply that the standards of academic professional publishing also apply to this Internet forum."
If I was "attempting to imply anything", it was an elucidation of the hypocrisy that exists here among the Official Story supporters.

Physicist henryco, has authored a paper (opposes the Official Story), that has been severely criticized here, yet he has also made statements regarding the WTC dust that some here want to believe supports the Official Story.

In a nutshell, the Official Story supporters, people like yourself ozeco41, are quite prepared to totally and viciously discredit henryco's credibility as a scientist, but where he makes statements that support what you wish to believe (the Official Story), you are quite prepared to cherry pick those observations as credible.

Originally Posted by ozeco41
"Then, to reinforce the false analogy, he tries name dropping Linus Pauling. And follows up with a mendacious attribution to Pauling (RIP dec'd 1994) of familiarity with today's Internet forums.

So I can make true claims also. Queen Victoria never told me what she thought of impolite language on JREF."
Dr. Linus Pauling was referenced as an example in the post I was replying to.

You have the audacity ozeco41 to lie about the credibility of my association with him.

I never said he had any involvement with the Internet or its forums. In the years prior to his death, he was a frequent guest at the TV Network where I was employed. Often I met him prior to the start of recording and edited the material for broadcast afterwards. He was a very warm and engaging individual, though I thought he placed too much faith in the healing attributes of vitamin C. He did encourage me to be more conscientious about proper nutrition.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 06:48 AM   #36
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,092
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As their defender, you might like to get their name correct. It is FDNY.

For the record, in no way, shape, or form, do I find there to be knowing complicity by the rank-n-file members of FDNY in the events of 9/11.

MM
Ah.. so the NWO infiltrated the upper echelon of the FDNY. Obvious.

__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 06:53 AM   #37
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories
"Now we have henryco, [F Henry-Couannier. Physicist] who was a popular reference for arguing against Dr. Jones's 'thermite in the WTC red-gray chips findings', being discredited.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Do I hear the cherry pickers gathering?"
Originally Posted by 000063
"Besides yours? You're trying to play both ends against the middle; "either Henryco is credible, which means that his paper is credible, or he is wrong, meaning his critique of Jones is wrong!" Problem is a)either way, a conspiracy theorist is wrong, and b)people aren't often right about one thing but wrong in another. I'm an expert on what's in my jeans pockets right now, but don't ask me about nuclear physics. What you're presenting is a False Binary; "X is either wrong about everything or right about everything.""
There is no problem.

It is not me who is using henryco as a supporting reference to advance a particular theory.

The fact that he supports the cause of 9/11 Truth is the only thing I draw from him.

I am only interested in the truth.

If it means discrediting other 9/11 Truth advocates who are also no-planers, space ray adherents, whatever, then I have no problem with that.

It is not just enough to believe that the Official Story is a lie. It is important to have a foundation for that belief that is credible.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 07:05 AM   #38
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
There is no problem.

It is not me who is using henryco as a supporting reference to advance a particular theory.

The fact that he supports the cause of 9/11 Truth is the only thing I draw from him.

I am only interested in the truth.

If it means discrediting other 9/11 Truth advocates who are also no-planers, space ray adherents, whatever, then I have no problem with that.

It is not just enough to believe that the Official Story is a lie. It is important to have a foundation for that belief that is credible.

MM
Is it true he's the only one that Jones/Harret gave samples to for "independent analysis"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 07:23 AM   #39
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories
"There is no problem.

It is not me who is using henryco as a supporting reference to advance a particular theory.

The fact that he supports the cause of 9/11 Truth is the only thing I draw from him.

I am only interested in the truth.

If it means discrediting other 9/11 Truth advocates who are also no-planers, space ray adherents, whatever, then I have no problem with that.

It is not just enough to believe that the Official Story is a lie. It is important to have a foundation for that belief that is credible."
Originally Posted by DGM
"Is it true he's the only one that Jones/Harret gave samples to for "independent analysis"?"
No that is not true.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 07:39 AM   #40
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
No that is not true.

MM
Who else did they release samples to. I only remember reading the one. Would you mind linking them for me?

Thanks
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:44 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.