Look Here For a Commentary on the Latest News from AE911Truth

[jaydeehess]

Other than the WTC on 9/11, what recorded proof can you cite that shows iron-rich microspheres have ever been found permeating the debris of steel-structured buildings subjected to fire?

Reversed burden of proof sir.
Supposedly iron rich microspheres are indicative of thermite. It is up to the claimant to determine the veracity of that claim.

If they can be produced by other mechanisms likely to have been a factor in lower Manhattan between the time the towers started burning and the time that the dust samples were collected, then the claim is without merit.(we will ignore before the towers burned so as to be able to ignore oxidation differences in spheres possibly produced months/years/decades ago)

Others here , and in other threads, have referred to many other mechanisms by which such spheres are produced, among them the cutting of steel members with saws used in the clean up, and friction between hundreds of tons of steel in what was essentially dual, 110 storey, high speed, rock crushers.

 

[DGM]

GlennB, I am not running away from questions.

I am simply ignoring your demands for speculation.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content from within quote

An other question you refuse to address is, does the Harrit data show they have more than one type of chip?

No speculation required. You claim you can see differences in the Millette chips so, Are all the documented Harrit chips the same?

No speculation. Care to address the truth?

 

[GlennB]

Dr. Harrit et al simply want the truth on its own terms.

Then why did they refrain from publishing everything of significance that they'd discovered, such as the many resistivity readings they'd taken?

 

[DGM]

Then why did they refrain from publishing everything of significance that they'd discovered, such as the many resistivity readings they'd taken?

That requires speculation. You never question the reasoning behind a published work.

 

[ProBonoShill]

You are entitled to your hollow opinion, for that is all you've got to offer.

The last time I checked, an anonymous opinion such as yours and a couple of dollars was worth a cup of coffee.

The truth never dies.

Couldn't care less. Here for LOLZ remember.

14 years of truther failure, thanks for the free comedy! Keep it coming!!!!!

 

[ProBonoShill]

In case William Pepper should come to this forum and accuse someone of mass murder, I shall make sure I monitor if Georgio asks Pepper to provide evidence to support the accusation. If no one else does.

But you are insisting that the debunker community here gets through with the obvious Move of Goalposts.

For the time being, there is the claim of fact that William Pepper, in one or several presentations available on YouTube or similar, lays the blame for various Conspiracy Theories on "the Jews".

It is common, generally accepted and indeed considered here at ISF to be the good and right skeptic attitude to ask for evidence back up claims of fact. I don't understand why this is all of sudden made out to be hypocritical.

As a matter of fact, I have not seen or heard Pepper make such anti-semitic remarks, and as I am somewhat interested in learning about anti-semitism with the TM, I would like to see that evidence, too.

Please tell me: Am I a hypocrite, too? Or why exactly is it wrong for Georgio to ask for evidence? Or why, pray tell, do you think the burden of proof is not on spooky24 for his claim of fact?

Why the double standard?

Oystein with all due respect. Truthers have been here accusing various people of mass murder multiple times over the years, please show me where Gergio has objected to any of those sickening accusations.

Here is his quote again:

If anyone, regardless of their position on 9/11 were to accuse someone of something as serious as anti-semitism I would want them to back up the accusation.

His claim is a lie, he has done none of the above. I ask again show me where he has requested anyone "regardless of their position" back up their position about something as serious as anti-Semitism, I think it's a given accusing someone of mass murder is much more serious than someone making an anti-Semitic statement? No?

Georgio was even kind enough to admit he's a hypocrite who freely admits he cares more about William Pepper being accused of bigotry than scumbags who accuse people of the mass murder of 3000 innocent people.

His above statement is a lie plain and simple.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I think this is wishful thinking.
If this were true, there wouldn't be this extremely hard push to Move a particular Goalpost, and there wouldn't be all those heated, vitriolic posts against one member who dares to question certain claims made by the debunker side.

The moment spooky24 had posted the claim that Pepper said (I paraphrase) "it's always da Joos" and Georgio asked for a linky link, every cold hard rational thinking, science and facts loving skeptic ought to have chimed in: "Yeah, spooky, where's your evidence?" and since no evidence ever came forward, the claim should have been (tentatively) rejected without evidence.

The opposite happened - scorn was heaped on the skeptic, not on the person who made a claim that wasn't backed up by evidence.

I think your perception of how this forum ticks is demonstrably wrong.

Maybe you should re read the thread. Some " cold hard rational thinking, science and facts loving skeptics" did ask for proof or made statements in that vain:

As others have asked, please provide a link to this video.

Burden of evidence is on the claimant. That would be spooky24 here.

I agree, accusations like anti -semitism need citations.

Now again I ask, please show me where Gergio has exhibited the same skeptical behavior as it relates to "If anyone, regardless of their position on 9/11 were to accuse someone of something as serious as anti-semitism I would want them to back up the accusation". He has done nothing of the kind. He's a hypocrite plain and simple.


As for my perception about how this forum runs: the science, the math, the evidence and all the studies are on this forum and elsewhere for everyone to see and clearly prove every single truther assertion with regards to nefarious government action that day, demonstrably wrong. Sides don't matter, truth based on facts and reasoning does.

 

[Criteria]

"Do you really think the papers separation criterion is adequate to allow duplication of their results?

This question requires no speculation".

How many times do you have to be told?

I've repeatedly answered "yes" to that question.

 

[GlennB]

How many times do you have to be told?

I've repeatedly answered "yes" to that question.

The either Harrit disagrees with you or he's guilty of willfully deceiving his audiences.

 

[Georgio]

Now again I ask, please show me where Gergio has exhibited the same skeptical behavior as it relates to "If anyone, regardless of their position on 9/11 were to accuse someone of something as serious as anti-semitism I would want them to back up the accusation". He has done nothing of the kind. He's a hypocrite plain and simple.

Whilst I agree that I am a hypocrite, I wasn't lying when I said I would want them to back up the accusation. I've already said this - 'I would want' does not mean 'I would pressure'.

Part of the reason is that whenever a claim is made on here by a 9/11 Truth supporter it is guaranteed to be properly challenged. Can it really be said that spooky24's unambiguous statement of fact has been properly challenged for evidence? Precisely 3 people (NOT including yourself until you had danced around it with beachnut for a while) seemed to care whether the accusation of anti-semitism was true or not, and beachnut has even actively and repeatedly stated that he thinks it doesn't matter - a view that has only been questioned by me despite having sat there for weeks.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How many times do you have to be told?

I've repeatedly answered "yes" to that question.

What about Jones's statement that oxygen was a major component of the iron rich al poor microspheres
He tested, how do you reconcile that with Harrit's claims?

PS. You still did not answer my question on how self oxidizing compounds
would have survived the temperatures generated in the collapses.

 

[catsmate]

Right.

Makes you wonder why the truth movement is dying...

Because there's no truth in the "Truth Movement".

How black is your kettle?

[OT] You know we really need to replace that term, give the general lack of kettle blackening since open fire water heating became the exception rather than the rule
[/OT]

 

[GlennB]

[OT] You know we really need to replace that term, give the general lack of kettle blackening since open fire water heating became the exception rather than the rule
[/OT]

"How scaled up is your heating element?" doesn't have quite the same ring.

 

[Criteria]

The either Harrit disagrees with you or he's guilty of willfully deceiving his audiences.

Your reply is as clear as mud.

 

[DGM]

Your reply is as clear as mud.

He's simply pointing out that Harrit needed to amend the selection criterion outside of the paper.

Mostly the fact that "a trained eye" was important.

 

[GlennB]

Your reply is as clear as mud.

It's been discussed here recently - Harrit demonstrated the separation of thermitic chips from WTC dust, to an audience, with no resistivity tests or "trained eye" required.

 

[Criteria]

It's been discussed here recently - Harrit demonstrated the separation of thermitic chips from WTC dust, to an audience, with no resistivity tests or "trained eye" required.

And like I said, it is not necessary to use measured electrical resistance, or have a trained eye, to find candidate chips.

However, measuring the resistance and/or having an experienced eye expedites the process.

Please provide a link to your claim that Dr. Harrit separated only candidate chips without benefit of a resistance measurement and/or his trained eye.

I am quite certain that Dr. Harrit is in solid agreement that the 9/11 WTC dust contained abundant red/gray chips that were primer paint and attracted to a magnet.

If he did not agree with that statement, he would never have felt the need to write the document; WHY THE RED /GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT.

 

[jaydeehess]

Your reply is as clear as mud.

It's a bit clearer when the trained eye notices that the fourth letter in the sentence is missing. Hint: its an "n".

 

[GlennB]

And like I said, it is not necessary to use measured electrical resistance, or have a trained eye, to find candidate chips.

However, measuring the resistance and/or having an experienced eye expedites the process.

Please provide a link to your claim that Dr. Harrit separated only candidate chips without benefit of a resistance measurement and/or his trained eye.

I think I see your problem. "Candidate chips" are simply those that meet the basic criteria to be considered for further analysis or selection, like Presidential candidates up for election. Wiping a magnet over some WTC dust and picking out the red/gray ones doesn't identify thermitic chips as Harrit et al claimed both in the paper and in person. There's more work to be done, which wasn't explained in the Bentham paper but was a retrospective invention of Truthers to overcome some profoundly inconvenient points. This was where you and like-minded types invented the "resistivity tests allowed them to eyeball the right chips" myth - something never mentioned in Bentham.

Catch is that for your myth to hold you have to accept that it was a crappy paper.

Not to mention the fact that they weren't thermitic at all, but that's another point.

 

[DGM]

And like I said, it is not necessary to use measured electrical resistance, or have a trained eye, to find candidate chips.

There's a problem with your definition of separation criterion in order to duplicate the studies conclusions.

There's no such thing as a "candidate" chip. There has to be a definitive definition of the chip. You (they) created an out for any study that disagrees with their conclusion.

You really don't see this................