| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | There is no point going through the point by point process, we know what we each would say, and that we would not convince the other. |
Funny you say that as you do tend to keep repeating the same dry old mantra of NIST said this and we know this and that and well you're not qualified are you! It's get even funnier when we keep answer each point you make in a straight talking simple down to earth manner. Really, get a grip man.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Looking at the overall picture though, what I honestly fail to understand is that whether or not the buildings could fall in the time they did from a combination of damage and fire is an entirely technical matter on which you are prepared to say that the "official" version is absurd, although the vast weight of technical opinion is against you. How can you seriously contend that it is absurd, under those circumstances? You are certainly entitled to say that you do not accept it, despite the technical opinion supporting it, but surely it cannot be absurd? If it were it would imply that every structural engineer in the world, for example, had either given not the slightest thought at all to the matter, or had decided to keep quiet for some reason. |
So is it “entirely” a technical matter? I mean the buildings fell down right? If we are talking about the speed of collapse that can be understood by everybody. I'm sure most people will find it very difficult to believe those buildings fell at almost free fall speeds. I'm sure if “every structural engineer in the world” was made aware of the nature of the collapses they would have an opinion. But as you know BW the truth movement is pretty small but I'm sure I can find a few email addresses for the structural engineering governing bodies of the US, UK and Europe etc.
Thanx for the heads-up on that one as it does make sense to contact the people that can see the anomalies straight off.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | You give weight to the fall of the buildings being unprecedented, to which the standard reply of course is that what occurred to the buildings is also unprecedented, in terms of the combination of damage and fire. But look at what is unprecedented in the alternative theories put forward by the only technically qualified people who are prepared to dispute the "official" version. Prof Jones suggests that thermite was used, unprecedented in demolition, and cut through vertical columns, unprecedented for thermite which is normally used horizontally, and he has not yet suggested how in fact it could be used vertically. He also suggests a nano-thermate derivative with the necessary properties was used, certainly unprecedented as it has not been demonstrated that it exists. Dr Wood suggests that a high energy beam weapon was fired from a satellite, and you cannot get much more unprecedented than that! Would any plotters really decide that they could rely on using such unproven techniques? If technical people have to resort to such theories to explain how a demolition was conducted, what does it tell us? |
Jones does provide a method for cutting vertical columns using thermite on page 95 of his question and answers PDF here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCent er.pdf
Nano-thermite exists alright but you just don't want to accept it do you Bushworker?
| Quote: | Aluminum nanoparticles have gained importance in the recent years because of their potential application as an energetic material, and thus knowledge of the reactivity of these particles and the effect of particle size on reactivity is of considerable interest. Here we have reported the size-resolved oxidation rates of aluminum nanoparticles using a quantitative single particle mass-spectrometer (QSPMS). Aluminum nanoparticles obtained from various sources were oxidized at a specified temperature (25o C – 1000o C) for a specified residence time (~ 1 sec) and were subsequently sampled by the QSPMS. The mass spectra were used to quantitatively determine the elemental composition and size of the individual particles. The observed oxidation rate was found to be consistent with the diffusion controlled oxidation reaction model. We also found the size-dependent diffusion controlled reaction rate constant in Arrehenius form, and showed that the rate constant increases with decrease in particle size.
We have also developed a phenomenological model to describe oxidation of aluminum nanoparticles. This model is based on the assumption that unlike micron sized particles, which burn with a boundary layer and a flame sitting on top of the particle, nanoparticle oxidation in free molecular regime is more of a surface phenomenon and depends on the transport of oxygen through the passivating oxide shell present around the nanoparticle. Physical and transport properties data, taken from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and experimental measurements were incorporated in the model. MD simulations have also demonstrated the presence of large negative pressure gradients inside a coated nanoparticle at elevated temperatures. This causes a convective flux of oxygen which acts opposite to the diffusive flux and thereby reduces the oxidation rate. This effect has been taken into account using the Nerst-Einstein theory for oxygen transport.
http://ci.confex.com/ci/2005/techprogram/P1576.HTM |
AND:
| Quote: | Nanocomposite energetic materials composed of thermite materials are attractive because of their high exothermicity and extremely fast reactivity. While the possible combinations of fuel and oxidizer are nearly infinite, remarkably few combinations of nano-based thermites have been investigated. The most studied combinations are nano-Aluminum combined with Fe2O3, CuO and MoO3. These Al-oxidizer combinations are also termed as MIC (Metastable Intermolecular Composite). In this article, we present the synthesis of KMnO4 nanoparticles as a new high intensity oxidizer. We present a comparison of reactivity of the new MIC formulation (Al/KMnO4) with other traditional formulations. Reaction kinetics of MIC ignition was measured under confined combustion in terms of pressurization rate of a constant volume pressure vessel. The observed pressurization rate for the Al/KMnO4 (290 psi/µs) nanocomposite was about two orders of magnitude higher than that for Al/CuO and Al/MoO3 (~8 psi/µs) and several orders of magnitude higher than Al/Fe2O3 (0.01 psi/µs). We have attempted to explain our experimental observations with thermodynamic calculations of equilibrium species composition, which suggests that, at adiabatic flame temperatures of combustion, the pressurization rates are very strongly correlated to the fraction of nascent oxygen present in the reaction product.
http://ci.confex.com/ci/2005/techprogram/P1663.HTM |
| Quote: | During early 2006, i informed the 911Scholars about unconventional weaponry,
who could have additionally forced the collapse.
There wasn't much response, but they added at least the TechReview link, i
added in my letter.
Since the recent overhype on Professor Jones new "findings", i'm less confused,
but more surprised, why Professor Jones didn't go a step further with his latest
paper.
In case, it gets lost again, here are all my sources. I'm not following up this right now,
so maybe someone else can pick it up and go from there.
(*thx also to "Mr. Thomas Potter" for original inspiration)
The current "RENSE" collection doesn't go deep enough and as usual does not mention any suspects.
The suspects for "nanoenergetics" aka superthermite as part of the unconventional part of the controlled demolition should be instead located at the "Center for NanoEnergetics Research" (created in Spring 2001, only a few months before 9/11), Department of Defense Contractor "NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc." (also founded during 2001), Sandia and Lawrence Livermore.
Center for NanoEnergetics Research
http://www.me.umn.edu/~mrz/CNER.htm
CNER is an Army funded center created in the spring of 2001 and exists at four university sites, with the University of Minnesota as the lead institution.
http://www.me.umn.edu/~mrz/CNER.htm
External Advisors-Collaborators
Dr. Alex Gash,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Dr. Carl Melius,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
Dr. Andrzej Miziolek,Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
Dr. Betsy Rice,Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
Prof. Mintmire Oklahoma State University
link to www.cdc.gov
...Very little is known about the safety risks presented by engineered nanomaterials. From currently available information, the prevalent safety risks are most likely to involve catalytic effects or fire and explosion hazards....
"....Although insufficient information exists to predict the fire and explosion risk associated with nanoscale powders, nanoscale combustible material could present a higher risk than a similar quantity of coarser material...
...The greater activity of nanoscale materials forms a basis for research into nanoenergetics. For instance, nanoscale Al/MoO3 thermites ignite more than 300 times faster than corresponding micrometer-scale material...
link to www.bizjournals.com
November 25, 2005
A Texas company that has developed a powerful alternative to conventional lead-based munitions says it will commercialize and market its explosive compound through a spin-off company it plans to establish in New Mexico.
During a recent visit here, executives from Nanoenergetics Inc. said New Mexico's research and testing assets, economic incentives, growing private investment scene and accessible political leaders make it an ideal place to establish their new startup.
Nanoenergetics is being spun off from Austin-based Nanotechnologies Inc....
http://www.nanoscale.com/about.asp
Unique nanoparticles, reactor technology and enabling applications
NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of precision-engineered nanoparticles, with average particle sizes between 10 to 50 nanometers. Our expertise is in metal and metal oxide powders that are pure, discrete, spherical, and highly crystalline nanoparticles. NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc.'s materials allow customers to build new classes of products that we have labeled ANEASM, or "Advanced Nanoparticle Enabled ApplicationsSM".
NANOTECHNOLOGIES Inc. management team
http://www.nanoscale.com/about_team.asp
Dr. Dennis Wilson - Chief Technology Officer, Chairman of the Board and Founder
Dennis is co-founder of NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc. and co-inventor of the proprietary process. He received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas in 1977, and has more than 30 years of experience in industry, government, and university research. Dennis' expertise is in hypervelocity physics, plasma dynamics, aerothermodynamics, and materials synthesis...
...Dennis has eight years of technology management as founder and president of Applied Sciences, Inc. He has also served as director of special projects at the Institute for Advanced Technology. In addition, Dennis has been awarded a NASA Faculty Research Fellowship on three occasions, a DoE Research Fellowship twice, and an AFOSR Research Fellowship...
Darrin Willauer - Vice President, Engineering
Darrin joined NANOTECHNOLOGIES, Inc. in 2000 and is responsible for engineering development activities for all projects and research programs.
...project engineer with Dowell Schlumberger,
Dr. Kurt Schroder - Chief Scientist
Dr. Schroder joined NANOTECHNOLOGIES Inc. in 2000 and is a co-inventor of the core processes. He holds an S.B. in Physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Texas at Austin. He has over 15 years experience in plasma physics and pulsed power and has worked for industry, government, and academia. Kurt has numerous publications, 2 patents, and several patents pending in the following technology areas: vibration reduction and impact physics in hammers and sports rackets; blackbody radiation diagnostics and magnetic fluctuation measurements in tokamak plasmas; and onboard optical telemetry systems and launch package design and diagnostics on railguns.
link to www.cnanotech.com
Houston, Texas, January 24, 2002 -
Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc. (CNI) said today that it has stepped up efforts to develop applications utilizing single-wall carbon nanotubes for defense and national security purposes. CNI has engaged the noted consulting firm of Technology Strategies & Alliances (TSA), headquartered in Burke, Virginia, near Washington, D. C., to assist in the strategic market development of national defense directed products. The company believes that an accelerated research effort will bring new and significantly improved products to market that can enhance national defense.
"The U.S. Department of Defense, the Navy, Air Force, Army, and NASA have been involved for some time in extensive research using single-wall carbon nanotubes or 'Buckytubes'," said Bob G. Gower, President of CNI. "We believe that Buckytubes can significantly enhance the ability of defense products to shield, absorb, or otherwise modify electro-magnetic signals, key needs in many mission-critical areas...
Molecular Nano Weapons: Research in China and Talk in the West
link to www.newsmax.com
Friday, Feb. 27, 2004
The Impact of Emerging Technologies
link to www.technologyreview.com
January 21, 2005
Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs...
...With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs)...
From a CNER 2002 "workshop":
http://www.msi.umn.edu/general/Symposia/nanosim.html
Bruce C. Garrett
Molecular Sciences Research Center
Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Battelle Blvd
P.O. Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Title: Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Aqueous Nanoparticles Important in Homogeneous Gas-to-Liquid Nucleation
Sean Garrick
Mechanical Engineering Department
University of Minnesota
125 Mechanical Engineering
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Tentative Title: Modeling and Simulation of Nanoparticle Formation and Growth in Turbulent Reacting Flows
LINK FOR THIS QUOTE: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/338241.shtml |
Go shopping for nano particles here: http://www.stanfordmaterials.com/nano.html
Sorry but most people including Jones have distanced themselves from Wood's so we are therefore not guilty of your claim. Read here: http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/060825_JonesReplytoRW.pd f
| Bushwacker wrote: | | If the theory supported by NIST is absurd, the implication is that they have not simply supported one plausible theory rather than another, but they have deliberately proposed something self-evidentally absurd, so they must all have colluded in the plot. No doubt you are right that 200 Americans could eventually be found willing to take part in mass murder, but could the staff of NIST all also be persuaded? For them all, the operatives and the colluders, imagine the difficulty of the recruitment process, when anyone you approach who was not willing to join you could blow the whistle on you, at the time or later. The only explanation for the hijacking of the planes that does not involve huge technical problems or an army of conspirators is that they really were hijacked by patsy Arabs, so they and their handlers have to be added to the list of conspirators, rather than exist as an alternative. |
I would expect the test criteria for most of the NIST report would have been devised by only a handful of people. The likelihood of creating a corrupt or biased report when only a small group of people are calling the shots would be possible. The problem is that they had to massage the figures so much that they are noticeably different in their conclusions, measurements and data in the NIST report when compared to the FEMA report. These differences seem to have occurred in an attempt to explain the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 without the use of explosive devices. We therefore find very large differences in the, possible, temperatures of the fires in all three buildings when comparing the two reports.
So we may ask how could the FEMA report have been so wrong about the basic elements involved in the collapse of the towers and building 7 i.e. Temperature and available combustibles?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | It seems to me the scales of plausibility are tipped so heavily towards the "official" theory that it must be infinitely preferable to the demolition theory. But I doubt you agree! |
Your scales are as fake as the OCT. As for plausibility are you talking about WMD? 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | To an extent you have a point there, John. I did try to find smelly foot's original post to refresh my memory, but failed to do so. If I had, I would have phrased my comment differently. The true position is that the original post from which he picked up the billiard ball article was full of references to the beam weapon which he simply ignored at the time but later rejected, along with the good lady herself. |
Here's one of my posts relating to Wood's: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35626#35626
And I think it's easy to read her “Billiard Balls” theory and not feel the need to trawl through her whole site. Of course if you hadn't heard about her “Beam Weapon” theory you probably would just ignore those links as just some unrelated research.
The page I viewed is here: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
I know you want a sniff really! 
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with the billiard ball analysis is the very first line. Assuming each floor is a billiard ball introduces fundamentally incorrect assumptions. It assumes elastic collisions when the reality of the situation is much more likely to be more inelastic than elastic.
Neither elastic nor inelastic collisions are difficult concepts to understand, and I trust that anyone who has read through Judy's work would want to understand them. Wikipedia would do a good job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
The scientist working for NIST (or whoever) isnt involved in strategic decisions about the course of the investigation. Even if he had quibles, he's got that powerful consensus trance keeping him from taking the risk of expressing his doubts. Hes asked to "test this", "analysis that", "run this experiment", and thats all he's required to do: he runs the results, writes the numbers down, passes the report up the chain, takes his labcoat off, and drives home to dinner with his wife and kids. And thats ALL he does. Its the bare handful who set the direction of the investigation and decide what to include in the final report who are the only ones required to be willing to do a job. And there are no end of cover stories those people can be sold to make them conform to supporting the Lie: again with a clean conscience. |
And this is precisely the story of Kevin Ryan the man-in-a-thousand who - through the proper channels no less - pointed out something wasn't right. The conspiracy was rumbled.
Next thing the CEO who confirmed in writing that UL had done the testing is 'resigned', Ryan is terminated as 'unreliable', and the original paperwork conveniently gets lost.
But there's nothing suspicious about any of that in 'critical thinking' land.
The OCT sails on, for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no evidence, at all, that UL performed the tests that Kevin has claimed happened. Zero. He wasn't even working for that division of UL and has no first-hand knowledge.
As usual, poor interpretation and quote-mining are the weapons de jour for the delusional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | John White wrote: |
The scientist working for NIST (or whoever) isnt involved in strategic decisions about the course of the investigation. Even if he had quibles, he's got that powerful consensus trance keeping him from taking the risk of expressing his doubts. Hes asked to "test this", "analysis that", "run this experiment", and thats all he's required to do: he runs the results, writes the numbers down, passes the report up the chain, takes his labcoat off, and drives home to dinner with his wife and kids. And thats ALL he does. Its the bare handful who set the direction of the investigation and decide what to include in the final report who are the only ones required to be willing to do a job. And there are no end of cover stories those people can be sold to make them conform to supporting the Lie: again with a clean conscience. |
And this is precisely the story of Kevin Ryan the man-in-a-thousand who - through the proper channels no less - pointed out something wasn't right. The conspiracy was rumbled.
Next thing the CEO who confirmed in writing that UL had done the testing is 'resigned', Ryan is terminated as 'unreliable', and the original paperwork conveniently gets lost.
But there's nothing suspicious about any of that in 'critical thinking' land.
The OCT sails on, for now. |
Damn good point there chek
Mind you, I was illustrating the general theme rather than wanting to reference a particular case
After all, its easy to rubbish someone's character when they do break ranks, its a very common occurance in all "whistleblower" cases, as can be found when one backtracks the story of anyone who makes the attempt, even when their evidence is later proved correct: look at what happened to Shayler for example, and hes still having to fight through the courts to this day
And there's always some cover story serving jerk popping in @ 7 minutes afterwards to try and shore up the lie....
| Quote: | | Next thing the CEO who confirmed in writing that UL had done the testing is 'resigned' |
Does that letter still exist, by some chance?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The assumption that he was fired because he was a whistleblower is premature. Another equally valid choice is he was fired because he is incompetent or a liar. You can't overlook this possibility because you don't like it.
Kevin worked for the wrong department and was making claims he couldn't back up and had no firsthand knowledge of. There is absolutely no corroborating evidence for his claims, and there is absolutely no evidence that he even COULD have known, let alone actually knew, the things he is claiming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neither can this be overlooked becuase people don't like it:
| Quote: | | After all, its easy to rubbish someone's character when they do break ranks, its a very common occurance in all "whistleblower" cases, as can be found when one backtracks the story of anyone who makes the attempt, even when their evidence is later proved correct: look at what happened to Shayler for example, and hes still having to fight through the courts to this day |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
The correct course of action is for the case to be brought to trial, or a comparable due process
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Neither can this be overlooked becuase people don't like it:
| Quote: | | After all, its easy to rubbish someone's character when they do break ranks, its a very common occurance in all "whistleblower" cases, as can be found when one backtracks the story of anyone who makes the attempt, even when their evidence is later proved correct: look at what happened to Shayler for example, and hes still having to fight through the courts to this day |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
The correct course of action is for the case to be brought to trial, or a comparable due process |
"Marc Hodler, International Olympic Committee (IOC) member who, in December 1998, blew the whistle on the Winter Olympic bid scandal for the 2002 Salt Lake City games."
"Karen Kwiatkowski - a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force who worked as a desk officer in the Pentagon and in a number of roles in the National Security Agency. Has written a number of essays on corrupting political influences of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has said that she was the anonymous source for Seymour Hersh and Warren Strobel on their exposés of pre-war intelligence."
So why hasn't Kevin Ryan gone to the authorities?
_________________
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: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | John White wrote: | Neither can this be overlooked becuase people don't like it:
| Quote: | | After all, its easy to rubbish someone's character when they do break ranks, its a very common occurance in all "whistleblower" cases, as can be found when one backtracks the story of anyone who makes the attempt, even when their evidence is later proved correct: look at what happened to Shayler for example, and hes still having to fight through the courts to this day |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
The correct course of action is for the case to be brought to trial, or a comparable due process |
"Marc Hodler, International Olympic Committee (IOC) member who, in December 1998, blew the whistle on the Winter Olympic bid scandal for the 2002 Salt Lake City games."
"Karen Kwiatkowski - a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force who worked as a desk officer in the Pentagon and in a number of roles in the National Security Agency. Has written a number of essays on corrupting political influences of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has said that she was the anonymous source for Seymour Hersh and Warren Strobel on their exposés of pre-war intelligence."
So why hasn't Kevin Ryan gone to the authorities? |
What authorities, precisely, do you have in mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | John White wrote: | Neither can this be overlooked becuase people don't like it:
| Quote: | | After all, its easy to rubbish someone's character when they do break ranks, its a very common occurance in all "whistleblower" cases, as can be found when one backtracks the story of anyone who makes the attempt, even when their evidence is later proved correct: look at what happened to Shayler for example, and hes still having to fight through the courts to this day |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
The correct course of action is for the case to be brought to trial, or a comparable due process |
"Marc Hodler, International Olympic Committee (IOC) member who, in December 1998, blew the whistle on the Winter Olympic bid scandal for the 2002 Salt Lake City games."
"Karen Kwiatkowski - a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force who worked as a desk officer in the Pentagon and in a number of roles in the National Security Agency. Has written a number of essays on corrupting political influences of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has said that she was the anonymous source for Seymour Hersh and Warren Strobel on their exposés of pre-war intelligence."
So why hasn't Kevin Ryan gone to the authorities? |
What authorities, precisely, do you have in mind? |
Well the police might be a good place to start, or maybe he should consult a lawyer, the district attourney, the attourney general, the United Nations, the International Criminal court in the Hague.
If you're going to claim that these have been infiltrated, maybe you'll care to prove it.
_________________
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 |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
|
Your argument is backwards and is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.
Just because a "whistleblower" implies a smear campaign (this is generally true) doesn't mean a smear campaign (attacking Kevin) implies he is a whistleblower.
To claim otherwise is fallacious. The idea that because people attack his credibility means he is right is obviously flawed. You people attack my credibility every single day.. does that imply I'm right? Of course it doesn't. Just because there is a campaign against his character doesn't mean he is right. Just because people who are right and are whistle-blowers are generally the victims of smear campaigns doesn't mean it works the other way, either.
Now, back to the topic. There is _no_ evidence he is telling the truth. None. Zero. He doesn't even have first-hand knowledge of the event. He wasn't even in a position to know the things he claims to know. The only "evidence" you guys have is a quote-mined and badly interpreted letter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: Re: Star Wars beam weapons at WTC |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Can you point to a single lie in the official story, please? |
The "osama did it" lie. The FBI say they have no proof.
Please go and watch the so called 'confession tape' on google or youtube, then come back and tell us your convinced its him. Give us all a good laugh. A couple things to look for in the tape: the star is right handed, osama is left handed. the star is wearing a gold ring, which no hardcore muslim would wear.
Then go find the 2 REAL videos Osama made saying he had nothing to do with 911.
Awaiting your pseudo-logic-non-reply and of course you'll answer my questions with questions of your own... Your so very transparent A.S. - a waste of bandwidth.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you are saying the FBI directly contradicts the official story?
You might want to read up on the official story, troll. Nowhere in it does it say "osama did it". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: |
You might want to read up on the official story, troll. Nowhere in it does it say "osama did it". |
case closed.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | John White wrote: | Neither can this be overlooked becuase people don't like it:
| Quote: | | After all, its easy to rubbish someone's character when they do break ranks, its a very common occurance in all "whistleblower" cases, as can be found when one backtracks the story of anyone who makes the attempt, even when their evidence is later proved correct: look at what happened to Shayler for example, and hes still having to fight through the courts to this day |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
The correct course of action is for the case to be brought to trial, or a comparable due process |
"Marc Hodler, International Olympic Committee (IOC) member who, in December 1998, blew the whistle on the Winter Olympic bid scandal for the 2002 Salt Lake City games."
"Karen Kwiatkowski - a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force who worked as a desk officer in the Pentagon and in a number of roles in the National Security Agency. Has written a number of essays on corrupting political influences of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has said that she was the anonymous source for Seymour Hersh and Warren Strobel on their exposés of pre-war intelligence."
So why hasn't Kevin Ryan gone to the authorities? |
What authorities, precisely, do you have in mind? |
Well the police might be a good place to start, or maybe he should consult a lawyer, the district attourney, the attourney general, the United Nations, the International Criminal court in the Hague.
If you're going to claim that these have been infiltrated, maybe you'll care to prove it. |
It'll take a special kind of Special Prosecutor with the right backing - i.e. the US Congress to take down these perps.
Which will happen, be in no doubt about that.
Ryan's evidence regarding NIST et al, on its own would merely lead to Sunder and Thornton being scapegoated.
The WTC 'investigation' is only one facet of the overall 911 OCT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Find me a single "whistleblower" case anywhere around the world that has not been accompanied by an attempted smear campaign
|
[i]Your argument is backwards and is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.
Just because a "whistleblower" implies a smear campaign (this is generally true) doesn't mean a smear campaign (attacking Kevin) implies he is a whistleblower.[/i] |
I'm not talking about Kevin Ryan Imbecile
And its not an argument, its a challenge
The only thing logic gives you is the ability to be tragically deluded systematically: pay attention
| Quote: | | To claim otherwise is fallacious. The idea that because people attack his credibility means he is right is obviously flawed. You people attack my credibility every single day.. does that imply I'm right? Of course it doesn't. Just because there is a campaign against his character doesn't mean he is right. Just because people who are right and are whistle-blowers are generally the victims of smear campaigns doesn't mean it works the other way, either. |
Blah blah blah evasion irrelevance
| Quote: | | Now, back to the topic. |
What, Beam weapons? Oh no, you dont mean that. You mean to further distract from the Topic
| Quote: | | There is _no_ evidence he is telling the truth. None. Zero. He doesn't even have first-hand knowledge of the event. He wasn't even in a position to know the things he claims to know. The only "evidence" you guys have is a quote-mined and badly interpreted letter |
Blah again. Prove It
And here's a newsflash: YOU are here to disprove 9/11 is an insidejob. If I went to JREF the burden of proof would be on me: I'm not: and your here. Stop wasting our time
Where's Bushwacker this evening? He at least is cogent and able to understand the flow of a conversation, and pays attention beyond his own mental chatter
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Blah blah blah evasion irrelevance
|
Only a conspiracy theorist calls basic logic "evasion".
| Quote: | | Quote: | | There is _no_ evidence he is telling the truth. None. Zero. He doesn't even have first-hand knowledge of the event. He wasn't even in a position to know the things he claims to know. The only "evidence" you guys have is a quote-mined and badly interpreted letter |
Blah again. Prove It
|
Ok, below I will list all of the evidence supporting Kevin:
Proof complete.
| Quote: |
And here's a newsflash: YOU are here to disprove 9/11 is an insidejob. |
Logical fallacy. I am here to correct bad science and lies. Disproving the inside job circular logic is impossible because it's based on a fallacy. It's like disproving God.
| Quote: |
If I went to JREF the burden of proof would be on me: I'm not: and your here. Stop wasting our time
|
More gibberish. There is no "home-court" advantage in logic, kid. The claimant has the burden of proof, no matter whose house he is in.
You guys react to simplest tenants of logic developed 2500 years ago with such amazing vitriol it's hilarious. It's like water on one of Oz's witches. Every single time I insist that you guys follow the most basic principles of logic and you melt. The ad-hominem gibberish flies and the conversation stops. You are completely and utterly incapable of dealing with the most basic logical fallacies that you commit constantly. You think my insistence on you being logical is _evasion_. You think I'm _distracting_ from the issue by insisting that you be logical.
Utterly classic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | There is no "home-court" advantage in logic, kid. The claimant has the burden of proof, no matter whose house he is in.
|
Exactly; your claiming the case for inside job isnt sound: you get proving
Or sit on your arse at JREF feeling smug: its your choice to be here
Dont expect me to respect your ill founded superior attitude:
Or your hypocrasy at lambasting this community for qualities you yourself fail to demonstrate
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Exactly; your claiming the case for inside job isnt sound: you get proving
|
This is shifting the burden of proof. A classic CT fallacy. The reason I claim the inside-job theory is not sound is because there is no proof. This is because the claimants of the theory have not fulfilled their burden of proof. There is no evidence to support the theory. My claim is solely that you guys have no supported your claims with evidence.
Asking me to disprove your claims is a different matter, entirely, then asking me demonstrate how your claim remains unproven. I prove the latter every day by debunking your "evidence".
There isn't a single piece of hard physical evidence that cannot be explain ed via the generally accepted story. Not one. This leaves the inside-job theorists evidence-less. This means the inside-job theorists are making claims they cannot substantiate. That makes their claims specious and unsound.
Until you can provide evidence of your claims, your theory is unsound. It requires no proof beyond that.
| Quote: |
Dont expect me to respect your ill founded superior attitude:
|
You think I'm here for respect? Is that a joke? Let me let you in on a secret: I could care less about your opinion of me. I feel sorry for you, and feel guily that society has failed you so utterly by letting your ignorance get to this point that it's basically incurable. Beyond that, I couldn't honestly care less about you.
| Quote: |
Or your hypocrasy at lambasting this community for qualities you yourself fail to demonstrate |
Yawn, in your warped little mind, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-Sophist wrote: | You think I'm here for respect? Is that a joke? Let me let you in on a secret: I could care less about your opinion of me. I feel sorry for you, and feel guilty that society has failed you so utterly by letting your ignorance get to this point that it's basically incurable. Beyond that, I couldn't honestly care less about you.
|
What a sad man
Pawn yourself some more, your just here to prop up your ego
What a suprise that your treated with such contempt
As I told you: you get a direct return on your investment
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
