[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

The psychology of the responses so far is rather interesting - all I did was post a website to an online journal and stated the findings.  But the responses so far are to: 1) Claim 76 assorted authors when the paper clearly states 7 and gives each by name.  2) dismiss as rdiculous because (asummption) it does not appear to conform to a preconceived belief, and 3) ridicule conspiracy when the basis of the post was simply an evidentiary finding and did not draw conclusions.

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into".  Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

For someone who so often claims his positions get mischaracterized by others on the forums you sure are making a lot of mischaracterizations and assumptions about the positions of others. I'll help you.

1. No one claimed 76 authors about your paper, clee clearly quoted a different website and noted that (something you rarely do with your quotes, but yay for google.)
2. That isn't why it's dismissed as ridiculous. If you want to know why, (re)read The Boy Who Cried Conspiracy - er, Wolf.
3. Uh, yeah, obviously there was no (conspiracy-based) motive behind the post. It was simply an unbiased presentation of facts for the interest of the general public.

Per your surprise that no one's eyes were opened, so to speak. You are surprised?? How long have you been posting here? And you think everyone ELSE are the ones with their eyes closed and fingers in their ears??

Per what it seems to you, well it can seem to you whatever you want. It seems to me the explosive theory is about on par with "the moon landing was faked" theory. And so yes, I give it all the credit it deserves. Mostly by ridiculing it.

[Hanoi5]

I'm not sure how the events transpired back then, but can you imagine the church burning and prohibiting the telescopes after Galileo Galilei said that the Earth was round instead of flat as they claimed or that the Earth wasn't the center of (our) the universe but the Sun? Then those ideas might have been regarded as conspiracy theories against the church, wouldn't they?

Not believing in something because you just think it's outrageous is like 'doublethink' from '1984'. I guess we won't ever know the truth behind some stuff for remember that 'a lie repeated a thousand times turns into the truth' or something like that.

[hotShot]

Thermide does not explode it just gets very hot. It does get hot, because it's a solid-phase/solid-phase reaction and no external cool air is needed. It's reaction-speed depends on the size of the contact surface. In theory the smaller you dust the rust and aluminum the larger your surface gets and the faster the reaction can occur. In practice the aluminum is covered with a oxid-layer that is preventing the reaction from happening. When your aluminum particles get smaller the ration of aluminum (inside) to aluminumoxide (outside) gets to bad for a good reaction. Scientist have tried to overcome that problem. But still pure nanothermite is no explosive and you will need tons of it to create enough heat to weaken the structure of a building.
So while we know that there where tons of aircraft fuel burning, we now need mysterious people who carried tons of thermite into the building to create a 2nd fire that caused the collapse.
I don't buy that. It's much more likely that in the cloud of dust, aluminum and rust particles where present and meet when the dust settled down.


PS: If you are really interested in thermites read:
S. H. Fischer and M. C. Grueblich "Theoretical energy release of thermites, intermetallics and combustible metals" in "Proceedings of the 24th International Pyrotechnics Seminar", Monterey, California USA 27-31 July, 1998

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

The concept is startling.

Only if you don't accept that those buildings (WTC 7 being the smoking gun) were brought down by another type of act of terror.

[vuroth]

Winstonm, on Apr 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

The psychology of the responses so far is rather interesting - all I did was post a website to an online journal and stated the findings. But the responses so far are to: 1) Claim 76 assorted authors when the paper clearly states 7 and gives each by name. 2) dismiss as rdiculous because (asummption) it does not appear to conform to a preconceived belief, and 3) ridicule conspiracy when the basis of the post was simply an evidentiary finding and did not draw conclusions.

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into". Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

BTW, here is the journal:

Quote

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal which aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in chemical physics. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide

1 - I assumed the 76 was either the review panel, or the set of candidates from which the review panel was pulled. You do know that the scientific process requires a paper to be reviewed by a panel of experts before it is "accepted"?

2 - Did I look into it? I surely did. I found that the JREF has problems with the process and scientific validity of the findings. That's a big deal.

Scientists can and often will disagree vociferously over what data means, and how best to model it, and which theory best explains the data. But all of that happens AFTER the data is vetted by the scientific community. If there's an argument about whether or not the scientific PROCESS has been followed...well, let's just say it's not time for the common man to get excited about this, YET.

3 - As for the journal being a fully peer-reviewed journal, that seems to be at the heart of the debate. Certainly the journal (Bentham open?) feels that they are fully peer reviewed, and that they meet the generally accepted scientific standards. JREF, at least, does NOT feel that way. All things considered, I think I'd side with JREF 99 times out of 100 at least on issues like this - it's kind of their raison d'être.

Quote

I can understand that. But what is the reason for dismissing evidence? It would be somewhat like finding a second rifle behind the grassy knoll in Dallas and then ignoring the find.

Depends. If Sherlock Holmes found it, I'd be interested. If Jerry Springer found it? Maybe not.

What alarms me more than anything with the quoted article is that, rather than try to address the concerns of the scientific community at large, in order to bring their findings up to "fully accepted" status, they seem to be spamming the web with findings and refutations, and a war of words with JREF. That sounds a lot like rabble rousing and profiteering, more than genuine knowledge seeking.

Don't get me wrong, they may be correct. I just don't think that they've proven their point yet, not by a long way.

V

[bid_em_up]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

I wonder why I am wondering if the same principle applies to sperm donors.

No, silly. That would be the Peter principle.

[Lobowolf]

hotShot, on Apr 16 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

So while we know that there where tons of aircraft fuel burning, we now need mysterious people who carried tons of thermite into the building to create a 2nd fire that caused the collapse.

No, you just store it in there gradually and have a guy waiting 'round the clock get it burning when a plane hits the building.


Wait, or is theory also that a plane didn't hit the building?

[Al_U_Card]

The symbolism of the attacks was clear. WTC, Pentagon and Whitehouse (plane 4).

Why Dick Cheney had assumed "command" of NORAD and the "simulated" emergency air-response to incoming hijacked airplanes for that one day...(and that he held off on response to the incoming plane until it was too late to intercept)...interesting coincidence. Also that the EPA happened to be having a "simulation" for emergency response in New York at that time.

That both towers suffered exactly the same type of destruction despite being hit in different ways at different times....tend to indicate an underlying and more important factor in their demise.

Circumstantial evidence is just that. It depends on the circumstance and when there are too many coincidences, even the improbable can become not only possible but definitive.

[vuroth]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

Circumstantial evidence is just that. It depends on the circumstance and when there are too many coincidences, even the improbable can become not only possible but definitive.

More definitive than scientific evidence? Coincidence is a great STARTING point for a quest for knowledge, not a definitive endpoint.

[brianshark]

So are we saying that Cheney and co hired a bunch of Arabs to suicidally crash a few planes into the WTC, White House and Pentagon, hid explosives in the World Trade Centre buildings just in case the planes didn't do the job toppling them, detonated them on the day, all while Cheney himself personally took over NORAD and stopped them intercepting the planes in question just for the day?

[Lobowolf]

Best I can come up with, in Devil's Advocate mode, would be that "they" found out about the plot, figured it would be a great idea (because it would provide an excuse to go to war?), nobody involved took any action to thwart it or expose it (you'd probably have to assume that some people would have, and were killed by "them"; it seems less likely that every single person who knew about it was on board), all materials needed to ensure that the towers would go down in the event that the planes hit the towers but didn't demolish them were smuggled, then "they" all sat back and hoped that the hijackers pulled it off.

I'd score that about a 1/2 in the MSC, only if it were an open game in a club where there's always that one guy who does something insane. Theories that ignore the fact that, well, planes were intentionally crashed score a -5.

Hijackers committed to a cause involving the harming of Americans and American interests took over planes and crashed them, thereby causing all apparent resulting damage = 12.

[vuroth]

brianshark, on Apr 16 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

So are we saying that Cheney and co hired a bunch of Arabs to suicidally crash a few planes into the WTC, White House and Pentagon, hid explosives in the World Trade Centre buildings just in case the planes didn't do the job toppling them, detonated them on the day, all while Cheney himself personally took over NORAD and stopped them intercepting the planes in question just for the day?

More or less. Doesn't seem like the planes thing is for sure, though.

Also, Marvin Bush took over the WTC security and disabled their anti-aircraft defense.

V

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

Quote

Per what it seems to you, well it can seem to you whatever you want. It seems to me the explosive theory is about on par with "the moon landing was faked" theory. And so yes, I give it all the credit it deserves. Mostly by ridiculing it

I can understand that. But what is the reason for dismissing evidence? It would be somewhat like finding a second rifle behind the grassy knoll in Dallas and then ignoring the find.

Other than conjecture, can you explain the microscopic red and gray particles found by the authors?

You don't understand. By even considering this 'evidence' I would be lending credibility to ridiculousness. There was plenty of 'evidence' that the moon landing was faked too.

[Al_U_Card]

Past results are no indication of future performance...

Project Northwood?

The PNAC (Cheney, Wolfowitz etc.) said that a new crisis was needed and that perpetual war was the goal. Clearly and without equivocation.

Did anyone believe (at the time) that Hitler staged the burning of the Reichstag?

WMD?

As Eisenhower said, the greatest enemy of the American people is the military-industrial complex...only exceeded by the complacency of the American people

[vuroth]

Winstonm, on Apr 15 2009, 06:22 PM, said:

I am surprised there was not a single - "well, that's interesting", or "that's worth looking into".  Instead, it's been "let's ridicule the finding regardless if it is important or not".

It seems to me "Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up."

An interesting rebuttal, linked off of JREF

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_the...at_the_wtc.html

Another: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jo...ethermateclaims

[Al_U_Card]

At least it is a debate that would necessitate further investigation and not a whitewash..

Saying that it might be something else is not the same as explaining what it was doing there. Not proof but circumstantial evidence. Proof is needed and without further and continual pressure to conduct more investigations, this will go the way of most of the other "sensitive" issues like JFK, RFK, MLK, WMD, etc.

[Al_U_Card]

vuroth, on Apr 16 2009, 11:52 AM, said:

brianshark, on Apr 16 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

So are we saying that Cheney and co hired a bunch of Arabs to suicidally crash a few planes into the WTC, White House and Pentagon, hid explosives in the World Trade Centre buildings just in case the planes didn't do the job toppling them, detonated them on the day, all while Cheney himself personally took over NORAD and stopped them intercepting the planes in question just for the day?

More or less. Doesn't seem like the planes thing is for sure, though.

Also, Marvin Bush took over the WTC security and disabled their anti-aircraft defense.

V

btw, who was at the heart of the Siverado S&L scandal back during the last banking crisis?...Neil Bush.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

The symbolism of the attacks was clear. WTC, Pentagon and Whitehouse (plane 4).

Why Dick Cheney had assumed "command" of NORAD and the "simulated" emergency air-response to incoming hijacked airplanes for that one day...(and that he held off on response to the incoming plane until it was too late to intercept)...interesting coincidence. Also that the EPA happened to be having a "simulation" for emergency response in New York at that time.

That both towers suffered exactly the same type of destruction despite being hit in different ways at different times....tend to indicate an underlying and more important factor in their demise.

Circumstantial evidence is just that. It depends on the circumstance and when there are too many coincidences, even the improbable can become not only possible but definitive.

i'd like for you, or someone, to list what would be required for this to have happened as a u.s.-backed (or sanctioned) conspiracy

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:23 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Apr 16 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

hotShot, on Apr 16 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

So while we know that there where tons of aircraft fuel burning, we now need mysterious  people who carried tons of thermite into the building to create a 2nd fire that caused the collapse.

No, you just store it in there gradually and have a guy waiting 'round the clock get it burning when a plane hits the building.


Wait, or is theory also that a plane didn't hit the building?

This question and answer is irrelevant.

There is only one question to consider: are these 7 people right? Did they truly find real evidence of nano-thermite it the dust from the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes or No.

If not, then there is nothing to discuss. But if the answer is yes, then we have to determine from whence it came and for what purpose it was there.

It's actually not irrelevant; it's just a different argument. I could bring someone forward to testify, disputedly and controversially, that he found Legos on Neptune, and you could use that testimonial evidence to build a case that people have been on Neptune (and, of course, we all know what the next step is for everyone who believes the findings of this article; it's surely not an end to itself).

Conversely, though, you could use the premise that it's a ridiculous notion that anyone has ever been on Neptune to call into question the validity of any evidence that Legos were found there.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2009, 06:30 PM, said:

Quote

You don't understand. By even considering this 'evidence' I would be lending credibility to ridiculousness.

But Josh, isn't this the very definition of closemindedness - that your mind is made up that the task would have been impossible so no evidence can be credible?

I said ridiculous, not impossible. Anyway if you suggest that not listening to every argument from everyone about every loony theory about everything makes me closed minded, then I hope you are wrong. If you do listen to and consider all such things then I think you live in a world where people have longer days and many more brain cells to spare than in mine.