| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Mislead in what way?
Want some more photos?
A nice little film perhaps? |
There were reportedly fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28, (although not all at the same time) yet the photo you post suggests smoke pouring out of the windows on almost every floor.
Almost as if you are trying to give the impression the whole building was ablaze and ready to fall down.
|
Er, I'm not suggesting smoke was pouring out of almost every floor. Smoke was pouring out of almost every floor.
I'm not trying "to give the impression" of anything. The photo shows the entire building was ablaze.
How do you explain the discrepancy between the clear visible evidence of the photo and the "limited fires on a few floors" idea that CT films and sites so often quote? |
Presumably these other links you've been brandishing will show that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
He was specialist enough to detect its physical presence though, huh?
So apart from continuously and futilely claiming its total unsuitability,
how do you explain the presence of a chemical compound used
for hi-speed steel cutting being present?
You never seem to have even a semi-plausible explanation for that, which is odd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Er, I'm not suggesting smoke was pouring out of almost every floor. Smoke was pouring out of almost every floor.
I'm not trying "to give the impression" of anything. The photo shows the entire building was ablaze.
How do you explain the discrepancy between the clear visible evidence of the photo and the "limited fires on a few floors" idea that CT films and sites so often quote? |
Presumably these other links you've been brandishing will show that? |
You haven't yet given your opinion of the photo I've already posted.
How do you explain the discrepancy between the clear visible evidence of the photo and the "limited fires on a few floors" idea that CT films and sites so often quote?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
He was specialist enough to detect its physical presence though, huh?
So apart from continuously and futilely claiming its total unsuitability,
how do you explain the presence of a chemical compound used
for hi-speed steel cutting being present?
You never seem to have even a semi-plausible explanation for that, which is odd. |
Didn't he find the constituent parts? Such as sulphur, which is found in fuel, which is found in cars, which are often found in car parks, one of which could be found under the WTC towers.
Or iron oxide, which is rust, which can be found on steel, which held the WTC up.
Or iron, which is found in steel, which held the WTC up.
Or aluminium, which faced the WTC towers.
Or aluminium oxide, which forms on the surface of aluminium, which faced the WTC towers.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
He was specialist enough to detect its physical presence though, huh?
So apart from continuously and futilely claiming its total unsuitability,
how do you explain the presence of a chemical compound used
for hi-speed steel cutting being present?
You never seem to have even a semi-plausible explanation for that, which is odd. |
Didn't he find the constituent parts? Such as sulphur, which is found in fuel, which is found in cars, which are often found in car parks, one of which could be found under the WTC towers.
Or iron oxide, which is rust, which can be found on steel, which held the WTC up.
Or iron, which is found in steel, which held the WTC up.
Or aluminium, which faced the WTC towers.
Or aluminium oxide, which forms on the surface of aluminium, which faced the WTC towers. |
Plus don't forget oxygen nitrogen and hydrogen.
How is a scientist to know where he is in that maze?
I bet you could hardly tell one energetic nanocomposite from another.
Sheesh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes. |
Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little. |
Which of my comments here are uninformed?
Gypsum exists?
There was gypsum used as part of the construction of the world trade centre?
A delivery system for thermate that will allow it to be used to cut vertical steel columns is pretty unlikely to exist? |
Hello? I don't want to have to get all Danish on you. |
I think I'll have to preserve this section of 'dialogue' to illustrate the meaning of 'troll', should I ever need to illustrate it that is. |
It's not my fault that you backed yourself into a corner. I have been nothing but polite to you, you however suggested right at the start of our conversation that I was undergoing "braindeath." I really don't see how you hope to use "the last check and balance...the power of public opinion," if you are unable to engage civily with the general public and even then refuse to answer their questions about what you believe the truth to be. I don't see what you are trying to achieve here. Perhaps you are the troll, trying to discredit the truth movement with your rudeness and your merry little dance of avoiding the questions that are put to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination. |
Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes. |
Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little. |
Which of my comments here are uninformed?
Gypsum exists?
There was gypsum used as part of the construction of the world trade centre?
A delivery system for thermate that will allow it to be used to cut vertical steel columns is pretty unlikely to exist? |
Hello? I don't want to have to get all Danish on you. |
I think I'll have to preserve this section of 'dialogue' to illustrate the meaning of 'troll', should I ever need to illustrate it that is. |
It's not my fault that you backed yourself into a corner. I have been nothing but polite to you, you however suggested right at the start of our conversation that I was undergoing "braindeath." I really don't see how you hope to use "the last check and balance...the power of public opinion," if you are unable to engage civily with the general public and even then refuse to answer their questions about what you believe the truth to be. I don't see what you are trying to achieve here. Perhaps you are the troll, trying to discredit the truth movement with your rudeness and your merry little dance of avoiding the questions that are put to you. |
Sounds like a classic antisophist or antisockpuppet or whatever the name is summation. I do hope its not contageous.
I would suggest YOU stop dancing around and at least make a pretence of having read the supplied links. Otherwise you're trolling, it's that simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
See, I still don't see what you are trying to achieve here. Is it to mobilize public opinion in order to provoke a new investigation in to the events of 11/9, or is it to try and score cheap points on a message board? Because you aren't really doing very well at either.
Look I'll help you out. It is a fact that gypsum exists. It is a fact that it was used in the construction of the WTC. I'll give you those for free. Now that leaves one statement where I might possibly be uninformed. I was hoping you would deign to enlighten me, but it seems that you are unwilling or perhaps unable to.
If you are unable to, then that's fine there's plenty of things I am unable to do, it's no big deal, you just admit it and move on. If you are unwilling then, well, I am at a loss. 'Cos if that infomation is out there it really would help your cause to disseminate it as much as you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | See, I still don't see what you are trying to achieve here. Is it to mobilize public opinion in order to provoke a new investigation in to the events of 11/9, or is it to try and score cheap points on a message board? Because you aren't really doing very well at either.
Look I'll help you out. It is a fact that gypsum exists. It is a fact that it was used in the construction of the WTC. I'll give you those for free. Now that leaves one statement where I might possibly be uninformed. I was hoping you would deign to enlighten me, but it seems that you are unwilling or perhaps unable to.
If you are unable to, then that's fine there's plenty of things I am unable to do, it's no big deal, you just admit it and move on. If you are unwilling then, well, I am at a loss. 'Cos if that infomation is out there it really would help your cause to disseminate it as much as you can. |
Yet AGAIN you refuse to read the material, and prefer to prattle on about plaster walls as if to signify something. If you won't read then there's nothing to discuss. Whaddya want me to do?
Well, if you have no worthwhile technical input, maybe there's something else.
You know after the trial - you know the one that'll make Nuremberg look like a magistrate's misdemeanors court?
Do you think the post-trial de-nazification program will be severe or worse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
He was specialist enough to detect its physical presence though, huh?
So apart from continuously and futilely claiming its total unsuitability,
how do you explain the presence of a chemical compound used
for hi-speed steel cutting being present?
You never seem to have even a semi-plausible explanation for that, which is odd. |
I generally don't try to explain things that are the product of someone's over-active imagination.
Jones did not detect the presence of thermite/thermate. He found common, abundant substances (such as sulfur) some of which can be used to make thermite/thermate. If I'm wrong, please summarize the aspects of Jones's findings that point to thermite/thermate as the most plausible explanation for those findings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
He was specialist enough to detect its physical presence though, huh?
So apart from continuously and futilely claiming its total unsuitability,
how do you explain the presence of a chemical compound used
for hi-speed steel cutting being present?
You never seem to have even a semi-plausible explanation for that, which is odd. |
I generally don't try to explain things that are the product of someone's over-active imagination.
Jones did not detect the presence of thermite/thermate. He found common, abundant substances (such as sulfur) some of which can be used to make thermite/thermate. If I'm wrong, please summarize the aspects of Jones's findings that point to thermite/thermate as the most plausible explanation for those findings. |
1. Read the material.
2. Re-read, then try and understand it.
3. Think about it.
Goodnight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.) |
I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper. |
Right. A type of thermite.
Jones is not a specialist. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist? |
He was specialist enough to detect its physical presence though, huh?
So apart from continuously and futilely claiming its total unsuitability,
how do you explain the presence of a chemical compound used
for hi-speed steel cutting being present?
You never seem to have even a semi-plausible explanation for that, which is odd. |
I generally don't try to explain things that are the product of someone's over-active imagination.
Jones did not detect the presence of thermite/thermate. He found common, abundant substances (such as sulfur) some of which can be used to make thermite/thermate. If I'm wrong, please summarize the aspects of Jones's findings that point to thermite/thermate as the most plausible explanation for those findings. |
1. Read the material.
2. Re-read, then try and understand it.
3. Think about it.
Goodnight. |
1. I've read it.
2. I understand it.
3. I've thought about it.
4. It's wrong.
(5. Even Jones doesn't go as far as to say he's proven thermate. He just thinks further testing should be done.)
If we're merely going to play Read The Links, here's my contribution:
http://wtc.nist.gov/
I get the feeling that you don't understand Jones's work. You simply like his conclusions and thus latch onto it as a substitute for thinking. Otherwise, you would be able and willing to restate his strongest points in your own words. Or maybe you suspect that the whole idea is silly, so you don't want to think too hard about it, much less put it into words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="chipmunk stew]
1. I've read it.
2. I understand it.
3. I've thought about it.
4. It's wrong.
(5. Even Jones doesn't go as far as to say he's proven thermate. He just thinks further testing should be done.)
If we're merely going to play Read The Links, here's my contribution:
http://wtc.nist.gov/
I get the feeling that you don't understand Jones's work. You simply like his conclusions and thus latch onto it as a substitute for thinking. Otherwise, you would be able and willing to restate his strongest points in your own words. Or maybe you suspect that the whole idea is silly, so you don't want to think too hard about it, much less put it into words.[/quote]
I get the impression you have little idea of chemical analysis.
How can one tell whether thermite
reactions were used? MEI answers.
• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to
ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern
[recall white ash, white-yellow how liquid metal, intense
white reaction zone -- WTC 2!]
• and leave behind evidence. These compounds are
rather unique in their chemical composition, containing
common elements such as copper, iron, calcium,
silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual
elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and
manganese. While some of these elements are
consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the
residue.”
It was very long so you probably got tired before getting far enough, but check out pages 32-50 then see if you can explain thje statement 'he's wrong'.
In what way is he 'wrong'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mkpdavies wrote: | | Quote: | Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.
Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea? |
Show me evidence to the contrary. All I have seen if tiny amounts of fire from ALL of the pictures I have seen.
Happy to see you contrary evidence.
Shoot. |
The photo is contrary evidence, evidence of huge amounts of fire at WTC7.
Perhaps you missed it, though it was quite big.
Shall I post it again?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | mkpdavies wrote: | | Quote: | Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.
Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea? |
Show me evidence to the contrary. All I have seen if tiny amounts of fire from ALL of the pictures I have seen.
Happy to see you contrary evidence.
Shoot. |
The photo is contrary evidence, evidence of huge amounts of fire at WTC7.
Perhaps you missed it, though it was quite big.
Shall I post it again? |
A huge cloud of dust and smoke granted - but not evidence of massive fire at Building 7.
So that's the new strategy is it?
Massive - no enormous - no, make that humungous fire at WTC7.
Good luck spinning that one into believeability.
Perhaps this will shine a light on the situation a little better than we seem to be able to expect from your non-show links we were promised.
(Scroll down to the similar photo and analysis)
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/wtc7-short.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
I get the impression you have little idea of chemical analysis.
How can one tell whether thermite
reactions were used? MEI answers.
• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to
ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern
[recall white ash, white-yellow how liquid metal, intense
white reaction zone -- WTC 2!] |
Used to ignite a fire? That's different to cutting through steel. Where is the characteristic burn pattern displayed? Photos please. White ash? Many things produce white ash. Liquid metal? That's not proof of thermite, that would be evidence of heat. Intense white reaction zone? Where?
| Quote: |
• and leave behind evidence. These compounds are
rather unique in their chemical composition, containing
common elements such as copper, iron, calcium,
silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual
elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and
manganese. While some of these elements are
consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the
residue.”
|
vanadium is one of the 26 elements commonly found in living things
titanium found in paint pigment, and aircraft
flourine found in air conditioning units
manganese is used in batteries
So why do we need to invoke thermite to explain the occurance of these elements, when there are other, logical, rational explanations?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: |
I get the impression you have little idea of chemical analysis.
How can one tell whether thermite
reactions were used? MEI answers.
• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to
ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern
[recall white ash, white-yellow how liquid metal, intense
white reaction zone -- WTC 2!] |
Used to ignite a fire? That's different to cutting through steel. Where is the characteristic burn pattern displayed? Photos please. White ash? Many things produce white ash. Liquid metal? That's not proof of thermite, that would be evidence of heat. Intense white reaction zone? Where?
Applied to the steel columns would be logical, but as far as I know they got sent to China on Rudy's express orders.
| Quote: |
• and leave behind evidence. These compounds are
rather unique in their chemical composition, containing
common elements such as copper, iron, calcium,
silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual
elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and
manganese. While some of these elements are
consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the
residue.”
|
vanadium is one of the 26 elements commonly found in living things
titanium found in paint pigment, and aircraft
flourine found in air conditioning units
manganese is used in batteries
So why do we need to invoke thermite to explain the occurance of these elements, when there are other, logical, rational explanations? |
Gee Professor, I dunno.
Do you think it may have something to do with compounds and proportions and the temperatures? Just a guess.
Maybe the flourine component wasn't an explosive accellerant at all - it was from all the vanity packs of toothpaste!
Write up a brief paper on your theory and I'll forward it to Jones.
He replies to emails. I'd love to read his analysis of your theory, so sharpen up your best crayons and get to it.
You can do this! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is the same paper that he's afraid to submit to a real journal and get a proper peer-review, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | This is the same paper that he's afraid to submit to a real journal and get a proper peer-review, right? |
If you mean he hasn't been peer reviewed in the traditional academic sense - by which I take it you mean subjecting his work to be scrutinised by the likes of intellectual giants such as Thomas 'spaghetti steel' Eager, then the current state of fear in many professions about getting involved in 911 politics in the 'security state' that is the US today, may go some way to clarify your implication.
If however you're suggesting his work does not use transparent methods, is unpublished, impervious to criticism and suggestion, does not perform experiments and publish results, then you would be totally, absolutely and completely wrong.
Since Bush personally leaned on BYU to suspend him, his work is being peer reviewed now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, I see. We need to presuppose a conspiracy in order to have evidence of it. Excellent work. I didn't realize all of the scientific community was in on the conspiracy, the numbers are growing.
"Publishing" a paper... in a book... or online.. means exactly nothign in the scientific community (you know, full of people who do science). When he has the courage to get his paper peer-reviewed properly and published in respected scientific journals, let me know. He's done it before, and I see no reason why he'd be afraid to now, except for paranoid delusions of the entire scientific establishment out to get him.
| Quote: |
Since Bush personally leaned on BYU to suspend him, his work is being peer reviewed now.
|
Bush? Any proof of that? (I won't hold my breath). Also, who is peer-reviewing it? A reputable journal? Do you know what the word "peer-review" means to a scientist? Hint: peer-review, in science, isn't just a review from some peers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | This is the same paper that he's afraid to submit to a real journal and get a proper peer-review, right? |
If you mean he hasn't been peer reviewed in the traditional academic sense - by which I take it you mean subjecting his work to be scrutinised by the likes of intellectual giants such as Thomas 'spaghetti steel' Eager, then the current state of fear in many professions about getting involved in 911 politics in the 'security state' that is the US today, may go some way to clarify your implication.
If however you're suggesting his work does not use transparent methods, is unpublished, impervious to criticism and suggestion, does not perform experiments and publish results, then you would be totally, absolutely and completely wrong.
Since Bush personally leaned on BYU to suspend him, his work is being peer reviewed now. |
Oh, his work was reviewed by his peers all right. Judy "Billiard Balls & Keebler Elves" Wood, Jim "Suitcase Fu" Fetzer, Morgan "Hologram Planes" Reynolds, and the whole Junkyard Gang. Hey hey hey! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | See, I still don't see what you are trying to achieve here. Is it to mobilize public opinion in order to provoke a new investigation in to the events of 11/9, or is it to try and score cheap points on a message board? Because you aren't really doing very well at either.
Look I'll help you out. It is a fact that gypsum exists. It is a fact that it was used in the construction of the WTC. I'll give you those for free. Now that leaves one statement where I might possibly be uninformed. I was hoping you would deign to enlighten me, but it seems that you are unwilling or perhaps unable to.
If you are unable to, then that's fine there's plenty of things I am unable to do, it's no big deal, you just admit it and move on. If you are unwilling then, well, I am at a loss. 'Cos if that infomation is out there it really would help your cause to disseminate it as much as you can. |
Yet AGAIN you refuse to read the material, and prefer to prattle on about plaster walls as if to signify something. If you won't read then there's nothing to discuss. Whaddya want me to do?
Well, if you have no worthwhile technical input, maybe there's something else.
You know after the trial - you know the one that'll make Nuremberg look like a magistrate's misdemeanors court?
Do you think the post-trial de-nazification program will be severe or worse? |
Actually I was wondering about how you think the thermate was delivered? You know, so that it could cut through vertical steel columns.
I read the paper when you first posted it. I was actually quite shocked at how poorly written and layed out it was. No wonder he won't send it to a proper journal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | chek wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | See, I still don't see what you are trying to achieve here. Is it to mobilize public opinion in order to provoke a new investigation in to the events of 11/9, or is it to try and score cheap points on a message board? Because you aren't really doing very well at either.
Look I'll help you out. It is a fact that gypsum exists. It is a fact that it was used in the construction of the WTC. I'll give you those for free. Now that leaves one statement where I might possibly be uninformed. I was hoping you would deign to enlighten me, but it seems that you are unwilling or perhaps unable to.
If you are unable to, then that's fine there's plenty of things I am unable to do, it's no big deal, you just admit it and move on. If you are unwilling then, well, I am at a loss. 'Cos if that infomation is out there it really would help your cause to disseminate it as much as you can. |
Yet AGAIN you refuse to read the material, and prefer to prattle on about plaster walls as if to signify something. If you won't read then there's nothing to discuss. Whaddya want me to do?
Well, if you have no worthwhile technical input, maybe there's something else.
You know after the trial - you know the one that'll make Nuremberg look like a magistrate's misdemeanors court?
Do you think the post-trial de-nazification program will be severe or worse? |
Actually I was wondering about how you think the thermate was delivered? You know, so that it could cut through vertical steel columns.
I read the paper when you first posted it. I was actually quite shocked at how poorly written and layed out it was. No wonder he won't send it to a proper journal. |
How you must be looking forweard to the return of the middle ages.
But we and millions of others aren't gonna let that happen.
Here's an example of the way your country suppresses the truth.
"USNews.com: Nation & World: BYU takes on a 9/11 conspiracy professor
'I know we all know what happened to Dr. Jones recently but U.S.
News and World Reports has a recent article about it and low &
behold, what do they slip in there, barely, in the last paragragh?
Oh, just this big whopper of a fact!: Prof. James Fetzer, the
cofounder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, noted that President Bush met
with Gordon Hinckley, head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints, in Utah on August 31, and both Fetzer and Barrett
suggested government involvement in the decision to stop Jones'
teaching.
Dudes, the Church of Latter Day Saints OWNS BYU!'
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still avoiding the question I see. It really is OK to admit that you don't know the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | A huge cloud of dust and smoke granted - but not evidence of massive fire at Building 7.
Perhaps this will shine a light on the situation a little better than we seem to be able to expect from your non-show links we were promised.
(Scroll down to the similar photo and analysis)
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/wtc7-short.htm |
Yeah - I've seen that 'analysis' of that photo before. Other CT sites make that same mistake/deception. Those photos are taken well after the collapse of WTC1 when the dust has settled as is obvious from my original. Later ...
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mkpdavies
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The photo is contrary evidence, evidence of huge amounts of fire at WTC7.
Perhaps you missed it, though it was quite big.
Shall I post it again? |
No fire what so ever in the picture you posted. Come on, it was supposed to be so big a fire, that it made the whole building collapse in one go. Surely you must have some pictures of the raging inferno to show me.
Give me some real evidence. It shouldn't be hard if the major fire you claim was raging. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | A huge cloud of dust and smoke granted - but not evidence of massive fire at Building 7.
Perhaps this will shine a light on the situation a little better than we seem to be able to expect from your non-show links we were promised.
(Scroll down to the similar photo and analysis)
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/wtc7-short.htm |
Yeah - I've seen that 'analysis' of that photo before. Other CT sites make that same mistake/deception. Those photos are taken well after the collapse of WTC1 when the dust has settled as is obvious from my original. Later ... |
So say you. Excuse me not taking that on trust.
So your contention, against all the evidence, is that the building was on fire from top to bottom?
That remains to be shown, but as I guess the reason you haven't shown that is because you can't, one is left wondering a bigger question.
Ignatz isn't just questioning information at this point, he is actively misleading.
Why would anyone want to do that?
Who would have a motive for actively covering up?
Was he in on the plot?
Possible but unlikely.
Does he work for someone who prefers that the real events of September 11 don't become public knowledge?
That may be a guess but he (and his following self-supporting tribe of
sock-puppets) sure do give that lingering impression.
I wonder how it feels to be actively participating in the cover-up of the mass murder of 3000 innocent people, and worrying how far the de-nazification program will pursue those implicated at so many levels? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Again Chek does not seem to be able to address the arguments put forth so instead tries to discredit the person making the arguments with unfounded assumptions and allegations. It is quite frankly laughable that he thinks this strengthens his case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | Again Chek does not seem to be able to address the arguments put forth so instead tries to discredit the person making the arguments with unfounded assumptions and allegations. It is quite frankly laughable that he thinks this strengthens his case. |
The 'argument' put forward by Ignatz was two pronged:
That WTC7 was ablaze from top to bottom, as evidenced by his photo of lots of smoke and dust.
and:
that somehow the 911 CT sites didn't want us to see such pictures, as they would obviously prove that there was nothing suspicious about its collapse.
I posted a link in response where a similar photograph was discredited in what it purports to show.
Ignatz claimed he had had plenty more photos (and video) which despite his bravado at the time, have not materialised.
Then along comes a member of the self-supporting managerie making ludicrous claims denying any of that.
You're a waste of bandwidth guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
