Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    A straw man is a general term.
    No, it's very specific.
    When someone attacks something that is easy to take down and doesn't actually attack the real issue, that is a form of a straw man.
    Really? How many other 'forms of a straw man' are there? I suppose there are (infinity - 1) if you assign every possible argument that your opponent isn't making as a 'form'.
    By saying that this guy believes ideas that the mainstream doesn't believe or whatever and not attacking the acutal evidence brought up, that is a straw man.
    No. It's not. I told you what it was called. Whether the mainstream believes it or not is completely irrelevant. When you 'attack' the person and not their argument, it is an ad hominem 'attack'. For example, when you attack the credibility of Popular Mechanics purely because of the publisher, that is an ad hominem attack.
    A straw man doesn't necessarily have to be relating to the topic per se.
    I never said it did. There are two requirements to something being a straw man argument: 1) It is not the argument that your opponent is actually advancing, and 2) The argument you are attributing to them is easily defeated. Hence, you are setting up an effigy (a straw man) which is easily batted down. Since the decline of Usenet, the quality of the kooks these days has seriously taken a hit...
    I was also referring to straw man when he used the term holocaust denier, because he wasn't denying that the holocaust took place.
    And yet, that's not what I responded to and quoted:
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument.
    Your terminology is simply _wrong_. It is not a classic example of a straw man argument. It cannot even be fit into _any_ definition of a straw man argument. It is an ad hominem. It is not completely without irony that I will recommend the Nizkor Project's fallacy pages as your homework assignment.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    In other words, if you cite a source that has no credentials or credibility, with opinions that are far out of the mainstream of opinion, that lack of credibility greatly undermines your argument.
    From the perspective that it undermines the validity of your assumptions, yes. However, distance out of the mainstream of opinion doesn't de facto invalidate it. For instance, do you believe in God?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    From the perspective that it undermines the validity of your assumptions, yes. However, distance out of the mainstream of opinion doesn't de facto invalidate it.
    That is true. But, as you know, when evaluating contrasting evidence from two sources, assessing the credibility of the sources is a necessity.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, that makes it less crazy, then.

    Zündel also wrote, in his book The Hitler We Loved and Why: "We loved Hitler because he was a White Man. He practiced our White virtues of forthright honesty and his actions matched his words. If something was filth, he disposed of it as filth with sanitary thoroughness....We loved him because he taught us the truth about Race and proved, even to skeptics, that the White Race is the founder of all great cultures and civilizations and that race-mixing is the great destroyer."

    Do you really consider authors who support him as credible? And you really don't see why that source undermines any argument that you are making?



    That case was in Germany.... I'm assuming that you realize that the Bill of Rights doesn't really apply there. Beside, he wasn't convicted for express his opinions, but for "inciting racial hatred".



    Popular Mechanics has a bit more credibility than random conspiracy theorists. You can also read a source from Scientific American...although I'm certain that they've joined Popular Mechanics in the CIA / FBI / Rotary Club / Illuminati cabal:

    Fahrenheit 2777: Scientific American

    Free advice before I let this silliness drop altogether: credibility of sources is not a trivial matter, when trying to justify points. Just because you find sites on the Internet doesn't make them true. For example, it's easy to find evidence that:

    Aliens actually were responsible for 9/11: Were Aliens behind 9/11, page 1
    A laser beam caused 9/11 (this one is actually from the serendipity site you referenced above): Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
    There are humanoid reptilians living among us: A study of Reptilians
    George W. Bush is an alien clone ( I actually sort of believe this one): News: George W. Bush is an Alien Clone!
    Definitive evidence the Earth is flat. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...latWhyFlat.htm
    Are any of those "for example pieces" published? Are any of those peer reviewed? The author never says he supports Ernst for white supremacy, which I really think that Ernst is. In that quote Ernst is speaking more of as a german national (extreme). If he came up with the theory of relativity would we debunk it based on that book? The author of serendipity is saying that he should be allow to express his opinion. And yes I know that there are laws condeming people who are holocaust deniers, but the author is saying that that should not be. Ernst is questioning the official version (I believe the official version btw) and the author feels that that shouldn't merit prison. The author also says that any questioning of history does not incite violence. That's the argument.

    I posted that article because it is very in depth and I know you don't have your hands on Debunking 911 Debunking. That book is really in depth. Again my OP was that 911 was an inside job. Jim Hoffman is no cook by the way and did you read his critique on scientific america? Did scientific america ever get a sample of the dust and do any tests on them? The only people that did the tests confirmed the use of a form of thermite. Here read this Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

    I have not read anyone that has tested those samples and has proved that there is no thermite. O and can you explain why controlled demolitions are such a precise science. If 911 was done by a plane and it caused the twin towers to fall pretty much straight down (they didn't topple over) why don't demolition experts just take a big bomb and put it on one of the top floors and then the building will come down? Why didn't other fires cause other buildings to fall down?
  5. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    No, it's very specific.

    Really? How many other 'forms of a straw man' are there? I suppose there are (infinity - 1) if you assign every possible argument that your opponent isn't making as a 'form'.

    No. It's not. I told you what it was called. Whether the mainstream believes it or not is completely irrelevant. When you 'attack' the person and not their argument, it is an ad hominem 'attack'. For example, when you attack the credibility of Popular Mechanics purely because of the publisher, that is an ad hominem attack.

    I never said it did. There are two requirements to something being a straw man argument: 1) It is not the argument that your opponent is actually advancing, and 2) The argument you are attributing to them is easily defeated. Hence, you are setting up an effigy (a straw man) which is easily batted down. Since the decline of Usenet, the quality of the kooks these days has seriously taken a hit...

    And yet, that's not what I responded to and quoted:

    Your terminology is simply _wrong_. It is not a classic example of a straw man argument. It cannot even be fit into _any_ definition of a straw man argument. It is an ad hominem. It is not completely without irony that I will recommend the Nizkor Project's fallacy pages as your homework assignment.
    I was referring to the Ernst Zundel comment. The word strawman came from the millitary building a scarecrow and knocking it down. So a scarecrow is something that clearly misrepresents a human and is easily knocked down. The same concept can be applied to an argument.
  6. #46  
    Here read this Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
    I will again advise you to think about which sites and studies you put stock in. The author of the site you reference is Jim Fetzer, who has stated that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a well-planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy X-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Kennedy motorcade file using special effects.

    Regarding 9/11, he has since stated his skepticism as to the thermite hypothesis, and now is a proponent that the towers were demolished using energy beams: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/706490...er_lying_eyes/
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 12:12 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I will again advise you to think about which sites and studies you put stock in. The author of the site you reference is Jim Fetzer, who has stated that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a well-planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy X-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Kennedy motorcade file using special effects.

    Regarding 9/11, he has since stated his skepticism as to the thermite hypothesis, and now is a proponent that the towers were demolished using energy beams: 9/11 James Fetzer Lying Eyes - Video
    It was Steven Jones by the way that did the study of thermite and his paper is peer reviewed.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    It was Steven Jones by the way that did the study of thermite and his paper is peer reviewed.
    Actually, the evidence doesn't support that it was peer reviewed. Brigham Young University, where he worked before he was suspended and then retired, stated: “Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones....We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."”

    Here's an interesting critique of his work: Traces of thermate at the WTC

    as well as the NIST's view of the 'controlled detonation / thermite' idea: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Occam's Razor: “The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 01:07 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Actually, the evidence doesn't support that it was peer reviewed. Brigham Young University, where he worked before he was suspended and then retired, stated: “Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones....We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."”

    Here's an interesting critique of his work: Traces of thermate at the WTC

    as well as the NIST's view of the 'controlled detonation / thermite' idea: NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

    Occam's Razor: “The simplest explanation for a phenomenon is most likely the correct explanation."
    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...90408155422238
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    I was referring to the Ernst Zundel comment.
    Really?
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument.
    Not buying it.
    The word strawman came from the millitary building a scarecrow and knocking it down.
    Really?
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument.
    So a scarecrow is something that clearly misrepresents a human and is easily knocked down.
    Really?
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument.
    The same concept can be applied to an argument.
    Really?
    First off you never addressed 9/11, you just attack the author. This is a classical example of a straw man argument.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #51  
    So your evidence that Jones' article is peer reviewed is an article by Jones himself?

    Brigham Young University disputes the claim that Bentham Journals qualifies as "peer review", as evidenced by their comments above, as well as his suspension and subsequent retirement. It's important to note that people pay to have their articles printed in Bentham Journals. Members in the scientific community have referred to Benham Journals as "spam" and "vanity journals".

    Also, it's interesting that the "peer review process" at Bentham didn't include the actual editor, Marie-Paule Pileni, who resigned over the fact that it was published. Her quote (translated from the original Danish): "They have printed the article without my authorization...I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them."

    Additionally, submitters to Bentham Journals can pick their own "peer editors" - actual scholarly journals, of course, do not make the authors pay to have their articles printed, and they do not allow the author to influence the peer review process.

    REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.
    All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.
    I've said it before: credibility of the source is important.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 02:59 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    So your evidence that Jones' article is peer reviewed is an article by Jones himself? That's an...interesting approach. Brigham Young University disputes the claim that Bentham Journals qualifies as "peer review", as evidenced by his suspension and subsequent retirement.

    Also, it's interesting that the "peer review process" at Bentham didn't include the actual editor,Marie-Paule Pileni, who resigned over the fact that it was published. Her quote (translated from the original Danish): "They have printed the article without my authorization else...I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them."
    Bentham Open does not require the Editor in Chief to read each paper, Bentham Online and in print do. They are two separate services.

    You claim it wasn't properly peer reviewed, but the paper was returned 3 time. It sounds like it was indeed properly peer reviewed, which brings us to the editor.

    The editor in chief of Bentham Opened quit because her feelings were hurt and not because she read the paper and found the science to be in error. She believed it had political ramifications.

    Usually when workers disobey their boss they got fired, the boss doesn't quit.

    It surprised me, and it is unfortunate if it discredits our work. But her departure will not alter our conclusions, because it is a purely human thing, she is sur over. I still believe that we have made chemical physics, and if there is something wrong with our investigation, she must love to criticize us for it, "said Niels Harrit, Associate Professor of Chemistry Institute of the University of Copenhagen.
  13. #53  
    You claim it wasn't properly peer reviewed, but the paper was returned 3 time. It sounds like it was indeed properly peer reviewed
    Brigham Young University, and the Editor-in-Chief at Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal evidently disagree with your expert opinion.

    She believed it had political ramifications.
    No, she felt it had politically motivations...big difference. She stated: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication....I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal...It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing"

    Usually when workers disobey their boss they got fired, the boss doesn't quit.
    If a journal is not credible, and the editor-in-chief realizes this, he or she absolutely would quit on ethical grounds. There is no evidence that "her feelings were hurt", but there is direct evidence of her position that she doesn't want to be associated with a journal that doesn't have scientific integrity.

    In summary: you will believe what you read on conspiracy theory sites, and appear to have no concern for the qualifications of the people running the sites. That is your right, of course; but don't expect most folks to go along on that ride with you. I wish you well in your research...and remember "The Truth is Out There!"TM
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 03:36 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Brigham Young University, and the Editor-in-Chief at Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal evidently disagree with your expert opinion.



    No, she felt it had politically motivations...big difference. She stated: “I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication....I was in fact in doubt about them before, because I had on several occasions asked about information about the journal without having heard from them. It does not appear on the list of international journals, and that is a bad sign. Now I can see that it is because it is a bad journal...It is important to allow people to try and gain success, but one should not be allowed to do everything, and all this is certainly a bunch of nonsense. I try to be a serious researcher, and I will not have my name connected with this kind of thing"



    If a journal is not credible, and the editor-in-chief realizes this, he or she absolutely would quit on ethical grounds. There is no evidence that "her feelings were hurt", but there is direct evidence of her position that she doesn't want to be associated with a journal that doesn't have scientific integrity.

    In summary: you will believe what you read on conspiracy theory sites, and appear to have no concern for the qualifications of the people running the sites. That is your right, of course; but don't expect most folks to go along on that ride with you. I wish you well in your research...and remember "The Truth is Out There!"TM
    LOL. Wow, dude wow. I don't even know what to say you throw so much bull**** around. The editor did indeed see political ramifications, because if the editor didn't say anything it would seem as if she were supporting a "nut job wacko" report and she would look like an "anarchist" or something of that ilk; she didn't want to put her name on it. She mentions no specific evidence refuting the article, which was edited 3 times for well I guess nothing right? It wasn't reviewed it was just looked at by some shadowy guy and then he told Steven and Co. to fix the paper. I guess bentham isn't credible, I guess the article mysteriously got on their, by a hack or something. I guess if I'm the editor and don't like the conclusions of an article I'll quit.

    Can you explain to me how the paper is politically motivated. I guess anything on 911 is politically motivated. I guess no one can question the offical story because it is politically motivated. One can only support the government's theory of a "global collapse" which of course we can see many documented cases on. If you prove that, it isn't politically motivated. If you question that science, well then I guess your a cook and your paper can never be published and your intentions are because of politics.

    You do realize that this isn't the only peer reviewed paper out there by the way questioning the offical story do you? And lets say none are even peer reviewed, does that mean that the science is automatically junk? How many scientists do you know tested the dust samples?
  15. #55  
    Wow, dude wow. I don't even know what to say you throw so much bull**** around.
    Thanks! I learned that at the Illuminati Training Ca....oops, I said too much.


    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    I guess bentham isn't credible
    Correct, according to its own former editor-in-chief, and others in the scientific community

    I guess the article mysteriously got on their, by a hack or something. I guess if I'm the editor and don't like the conclusions of an article I'll quit.
    No, it was paid for by Jones, and reviewed by "peer editors" of Jones' own choosing. Not credible by any reputable scientific review process.

    If you question that science, well then I guess your a cook
    In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." But I agree with the sentiment.

    You do realize that this isn't the only peer reviewed paper out there by the way questioning the offical story do you? And lets say none are even peer reviewed, does that mean that the science is automatically junk?
    Actually, I only addressed the peer review issue when you put it forth as "evidence" that Jones was credible. But lack of peer review does detract from the credibility.

    How many scientists do you know tested the dust samples?
    That was addressed earlier in this thread. But I'll help you out:

    http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_...t_the_wtc.html
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    How about you just let it go, and remain secure in the knowledge that you're smarter than the rest of us, because you have the wisdom to see the truth that the rest of the world is blind to?
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 04:19 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Thanks! I learned that at the Illuminati Training Ca....oops, I said too much.




    Correct, according to its own former editor-in-chief, and others in the scientific community



    No, it was paid for by Jones, and reviewed by "peer editors" of Jones' own choosing. Not credible by any reputable scientific review process.



    In the words of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." But I agree with the sentiment.



    Actually, I only addressed the peer review issue when you put it forth as "evidence" that Jones was credible. But lack of peer review does detract from the credibility.



    That was addressed earlier in this thread. But I'll help you out:

    Traces of thermate at the WTC
    NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

    How about you just let it go, and remain secure in the knowledge that you're smarter than the rest of us, because you have the wisdom to see the truth that the rest of the world is blind to?
    Thaks for giving me a link that doesn't work (nist). And clearly you must not have read Steven's paper.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    Thaks for giving me a link that doesn't work (nist). And clearly you must not have read Steven's paper.
    Worked for me, maybe the government is messing with your computer.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Worked for me, maybe the government is messing with your computer.
    LOL. Well you do realize that Niels H. Harrit also came up with the same conclusion as Jones and I know of no one that has done the same tests on those samples that has published a paper that proves that there is no trace, not one piece of evidence that there is thermite/nanothermite in the samples. The University of Copenhagen is also not attacking or firing Niels Harrit btw.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by fry8 View Post
    LOL. Well you do realize that Niels H. Harrit also came up with the same conclusion as Jones and I know of no one that has done the same tests on those samples that has published a paper that proves that there is no trace, not one piece of evidence that there is thermite/nanothermite in the samples. The University of Copenhagen is also not attacking or firing Niels Harrit btw.
    Well, if the bar for credibility is "I haven't been fired", then he's a great choice. However, he co-wrote the same article that led to Young's suspension / retirement; the same article the authors paid to have published, and were allowed to provide their own peer reviewers.

    Why would you give him more stock than the NIST, Popular Mechanics, or Scientific American, except that he support a position that you prefer? That's the inverse scientific method: decide on a position and then cherry-pick the facts and scientists that agree with you. You can just as easily find scientists, such as the National Council of Structural Engineers, who support the conventional view and have a bit more credibility. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf . However, it's easy to simply discount them because you found one scientist somewhere who supports your view.

    From my point of view, the NIST's report seems perfectly credible as to why they didn't test for thermite:

    Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

    Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
    I would again suggest that you just let this go, and congratulate yourself on being more enlightened than those who haven't seen the truth. This was kind of interesting, but we've reached a point where we'll just have to each decide that our sources are more credible.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/31/2009 at 08:30 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. fry8's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
       #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, if the bar for credibility is "I haven't been fired", then he's a great choice. However, he co-wrote the same article that led to Young's suspension / retirement; the same article the authors paid to have published, and were allowed to provide their own peer reviewers.

    Why would you give him more stock than the NIST, Popular Mechanics, or Scientific American, except that he support a position that you prefer? That's the inverse scientific method: decide on a position and then cherry-pick the facts and scientists that agree with you. You can just as easily find scientists, such as the National Council of Structural Engineers, who support the conventional view and have a bit more credibility. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf . However, it's easy to simply discount them because you found one scientist somewhere who supports your view.

    From my point of view, the NIST's report seems perfectly credible as to why they didn't test for thermite:



    I would again suggest that you just let this go, and congratulate yourself on being more enlightened than those who haven't seen the truth. This was kind of interesting, but we've reached a point where we'll just have to each decide that our sources are more credible.
    LOL ok? I know you don't like reading critiques and the extensive research that went into proving that there was thermite found in the samples. I'll again refer you to Steven's paper(s) so that you can understand it. Also, watch the video I posted in my OP. There have been many critiques of NIST, even some NIST scientists.

    You do realize that NIST is a government agency don't you. They also so happen to be the top experts in the field about nanothermite. Gee, I guess If I were NIST I would say the place that gives me money caused the collapse and that nanothermite was used and we so happen to be the very few experts in nanothermite. Ya, why not?

    There are just too many anomalies that happened on the days shortly before 911 and on 911. Too many conflicts of interest, I mean do you honestly think that the 911 commission was independent, fair, and balanced? They wanted Kissinger to run it? Good thing they chose Zelikow. He's the independent that had no connections to Condoleezza Rice, Bush and others. I mean look at this bio, gee. And recently all this torture controversy going on Zelikow is saying that maybe some of the statements were extracted with torture. There was also plans to go into Afghanistan two days before 9/11. U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida - Security- msnbc.com

    I know there is debate with scientists, but when you read the science, the politics, all the anomalies, a new investigation is certainly needed.

    This book also details more about why a new independent investigation is needed. Amazon.com: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions: David Ray Griffin: Books

    If you don't have the book this is a video about his book. David Ray Griffin - 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions

    I'll leave you with this quote.

    "Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

    --David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions