5 videos to put the "therm*te" argument to bed.

Discussion in '9/11' started by cjnewson88, Mar 10, 2013.

  1. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I say it depends entirely on the content, how well they source their information, and validity of it. I chose these 5 because they are very easy to check for yourself, and on the whole make some very valid points. In fact, none of you should need to source it, as I would hope you have all read and know the Bentham paper as well as I do. Or do you?

    It just so happens that most truther videos on youtube are filled with gish gallops of half-truths, misquotes and misrepresentations, that are difficult to source outside conspiracy sites, and are not very accurate or conclusive.
     
  2. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    what else would you expect from the laughable logic of the official conspiracy theory apologists? no surprise there.:laughing::weed:.
     
  3. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, you're certainly the first to say such a thing. It usually falls down to: "Argumentum ad YouTube = stupid" or something to that flavor.
     
  4. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    so happens that most truther videos on youtube are filled with gish gallops of half-truths, misquotes and misrepresentations, that are difficult to source outside conspiracy sites, and are not very accurate or conclusive.

    thats comedy gold from him as always in the fact that his 15 minute video doesnt even have HAVE truths,and and are not even one bit accurate at all.oh the hypocrisy.hahahahahahahahaaa someone is getting desperate here.no surprise as usual though.His videos get debunked and then he has to resort to new lies.I love it.
     
  5. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There has been quite a bit of bonafide science published on the topic. As i have previously mentioned, all of the scientific/engineering publications printed in credible scientific periodicals i.e. any of the journals published by the ASCE- the largest professional organizaton of civil engineers in the world- Unequivocally refute the CD hypothesis. I do not understand why you continue to ignore these publications.
     
  6. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Perhaps you missed this?

    But I invite you to stick to topic. This is a thermite thread, not an ad hominem thread.
     
  7. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Based on this post, clearly you've read the OP's responses to you yet you won't respond directly to him, and resort to some half-assed attempt via another poster? Are you passive/agressive or just straight up chickensh!t?

    tee.hee
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I ignore those publications that seek to twist the truth, or are dependent on some aspect of "official" influence. Give me a TRULY independent opinion and I'll weigh it against what I know to be true. Most of these pubs are highly suspect or depend on government funding, regulation, or licensing in some fashion. That's biased information as far as I'm concerned. There are professionals in their respective fields that are completely on the opposite side of what you advocate so, I guess the information is subjective, depending on your perspective. I just want the plain old truth and I can't get any "officially".

    - - - Updated - - -

    NA....tee hee...please be nice. No need for name calling.
     
  9. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0

    If you havent read any of the publications how can you pass judgement on them or asses their credibility. Additionally, the transparent, iterative and controlled nature of the scientific method is such that fradulent results rarely make it to publication and in the rare instances when fraudulent results and conclusions do make it to press they are quickly 'outed' by the scientific community at large.

    - - - Updated - - -


    If you havent read any of the publications how can you pass judgement on them or asses their credibility. Additionally, the transparent, iterative and controlled nature of the scientific method is such that fradulent results rarely make it to publication and in the rare instances when fraudulent results and conclusions do make it to press they are quickly 'outed' by the scientific community at large.
     
  10. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Point me to an independent, privately funded and conducted study and I'm there. IN...DE...PEN....DENT.
     
  11. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is important to note that you have never provided ANY evidence that any ASCE or other scientific publications of record have been compromised in anyway.

    Here is one that is totally outside of US jurisdiction.

    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:6(654)

    More importantly, can you refute any of the results or conclusions drawn in this peer reviewed study that has been published in an INDEPENDENT scientific journal.

    http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892)

    The study of the collapse of the towers within the framework of the scientific method has produced unequivocal results- CD was not a facet of the mechanism of collapse of the WTC towers. Maybe its time you 'truthers' educated yourself on what the published science on 9/11 actually says and adjust your conclusions accordingly.
     
  12. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0



    Us real truthers find this information much more credible and detailed. That report is nonsense, consistent of a few sentences that prove absolutely nothing whatsoever.:http://newdemocracyworld.org/9-11/david_ray_griffin_miracles-2.html
     
  13. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got evidence, or are you just going to keep your fingers in your ears and warble about how you have slain the dragon that pretended to be a windmill?
     
  14. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rebels without a clue. No matter who starts the revolution, or whatever cause they think they are fighting for, either the Establishment or the white nationalist scum Organization will win. This is why the Organization started feeding you revolutionary wannabe's BS about 9/11. They want you to be cannon fodder for the RaHoWa.
     
  15. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, no. Idiot boys Jones and Harrit have not proven that their paint chips are actually thermite.

    Tell you what would prove it, would be if those morons could put together a big block of that same crap and burn a hole through a cardborad bx is an argon atmosphere.

    Now, this is a thread about thermite and how idiotic people who believe Jones and Harrit look to those of us who actuall know something about thermite, paint and fire.
     
  16. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
     
  17. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I love how the OCTAs are always so deperate for attention from me they feel the need to talk to themselves quoting me and addressing me like they really think i read their posts.comedy gold.hahahahahahahahahahahahaa

    pretty scary that they talk to themselves like that actually.hee hee,
     
  18. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You said it son. :grin::weed:
     
  19. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yet you respond to it in another post in your typical chickensh!t fashion. You so crafty tee.hee.
     
  20. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    and whats even funnier is that this thread starter after being exposed that his blog full of old stuff that experts debunked YEARS ago,and then fails along with his boss to create a video that doesnt debunk that 5 minute video of Kokos and has to resort to trelling outright lies in that video,after having his arse handed to him on a platter and his lies exposed in THAT video by myself and others,he wants us truthers to NOW to think he is all of a sudden telling the truth in THESE videos.comedy gold.:laughing::D
     
  21. TrueTruth

    TrueTruth New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The hole in the Pentagon is not big enough. And the videos show nothing and are obviously edited. two vids released out of how many the FBI took? an they show nothing. a blur that hangs in the air and then turns to an explosion.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Comedy. Gold.
    Heehee
     
  23. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Confusion runs deep with this one. I made the blog long after making my videos. The 5 I post here are not 'my videos'. You are yet to provide a shred of evidence that anything I have posted or rebutted is wrong. But then, of course, you are yet to even watch the videos or read the blog for yourself, so who am I kidding. I think there's another one gearing up for ignore, but then there would only be one truther left :roll:
     
  24. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From the link you provided:

    In 2006, as we saw above, Chomsky suggested that there would be two decisive tests for the physical evidence touted by the 9/11 Truth Movement: (i) “submit it to specialists [with] the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, [and] building construction.” (ii) “submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication....that 9/11 Truth Movement scientists should submit articles to mainstream science journals, to see if they could pass their peer-review processes.”

    Griffin then goes on to link 3 papers that he claims are peer reviewed scientific publications:

    · “Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction,” by Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, published in 2008 in the Open Civil Engineering Journal.141



    · “Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials,” by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones, published in 2009 in The Environmentalist.142



    · “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” by University of Copenhagen chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight colleagues (including Jones, Ryan, Legge, and Gourley), published in 2009 in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.143


    Two of these Journals were published in Bentham journals. As previously noted, Bentham is far from a credible scientific/academic journal as demonstrated by their publication of a 'hoax' paper:

    http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public.html

    The third paper that Griffin cites as a scientific article is from the Environmentalist which is described as:

    The Environmentalist is a public interest, eco-investigative journalism website that reports on the geopolitics and science of climate change, general politics, sustainable living, business impact and the history of affected regions.Founded in November, 2006, The Environmentalist's writers include Huffington Post environmental and geopolitical contributor, Janet Ritz; Presidential Climate Action Plan (PCAP) Executive Director, William S. Becker; award winning playwright and author, Sherman Yellen; author of the REAL McCAIN Cliff Schecter; filmmaker Greg Reitman, producer of the 2008 Sundance Film Festival award winning documentary, Fields of Fuel; Democratic Activist Terry Leach; as well as scientists, environmental lawyers and various guest contributors.

    Clearly, The Environmentalist is far from an academic scientific journal thus the articles it publishes should not be considered peer reviewed scientific discourse.

    The further 3 'papers' that Griffin links:

    “Discussion of ‘Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis’ by K.A. Seffen,” by physicist Crockett Grabbe, published in 2010 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which is published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).144



    · “Discussion of ’Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions’ by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure,” by chemical engineer James R. Gourley, published in 2010 in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.145



    · "Discussion of ‘What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?’ by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson," by Anders Björkman, published in 2010 in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.146


    are not scientific papers. In fact, what Griffin claims are peer reviewed scientific papers are in fact nothing more than letters submitted in response to actual scientific papers that are neither peer reviewed or scientific. These assertions made in these letters are rebutted in detailed responses by the corresponding authors of the original papers.

    Consequently, the 9/11 truth movement has failed to pass the 'decisive test' enumerated by Choamsky as at present not a single peer reviewed scientific paper has been published in a credible journal that corroborates the CD hypothesis. Conversely, every single scientific paper published in a scientific or academic journal of record refutes the CD hypothesis. There is just no getting around this. Not a single one of the myriad of claims made by Griffin in the link you provided is supported by peer reviewed science. Consequently, we are left to wonder why you find Griffin's claims more credible than scientific/empirical evidence. You are quick to dismiss the scientific method and the results it produces yet you haven't provided a rational basis for your obscene anti-science bias. The scientific evidence published in the journals of record are unequivocal- the impact of the airliners, fires, and gravity is solely responsible. It should also be noted that the journals published by ASCE are totally neutral with regard to the events around 9/11- they simple publish they best available science on the collapse of the towers. Conversely, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is "favorable to such claims" and pro-conspiracy. This demonstrates that the ASCE Journals are truly independent and neutral while the Journal of 9/11 Studies is not.

    - - - Updated - - -

     
  25. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I presume you're referring to me?

    Yeah, I'm not a truther, though.
     

Share This Page