Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
When will Sunstealer go for peer review ? I don't think we should hold our breath, do you ? Te Nobel people who have peer revieed papers there seem happy enough don't they ? No, Bentham is fully accredited and authentic. The paper stands.
Click to expand...


Who is your audience? Mr. Mackey showed why Bentham is rubbish. You think that we've all forgotten a thread from last month? It was one of the first things I read here. Jones and the other frauds will NEVER--repeat: NEVER--submit their samples to an independent lab. You know it; everybody here knows it. Sunstealer did magnificent work demolishing the fraudulent science in that paper. I suspect he intends to do more than publish his efforts on an obscure internet forum.
 
FineWine said:
Who is your audience? Mr. Mackey showed why Bentham is rubbish. You think that we've all forgotten a thread from last month? It was one of the first things I read here. Jones and the other frauds will NEVER--repeat: NEVER--submit their samples to an independent lab. You know it; everybody here knows it. Sunstealer did magnificent work demolishing the fraudulent science in that paper. I suspect he intends to do more than publish his efforts on an obscure internet forum.
Click to expand...

Go for it. Let the science win the day. But right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post. All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now. But like I say- knock yourself out.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Go for it. Let the science win the day, Right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post. All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now. But like I say- knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

I hope Jones and Co go the full hog. Get it published in National Geo, Washington Post, NY Times, worldwide publicity. News at Ten, BBC world, CNN etc etc etc. The sooner the better. Then the world (and not 57 posters currently veiwing) would see what a bunch of fruitcakes they are.

Bring it on Bill.
 
bill smith said:
Failing that- It stands unchallenged.
Click to expand...
Unlike you...

I have repeatedly challenged you to 'put up or shut up'

I wonder... Are you overlooking my challenge by sheer dint of self-delusion, or are you hiding from me behind the forum ignore feature?
 
Jackanory said:
I hope Jones and Co go the full hog. Get it published in National Geo, Washington Post, NY Times, worldwide publicity. News at Ten, BBC world, CNN etc etc etc. The sooner the better. Then the world (and not 57 posters currently veiwing) would see what a bunch of fruitcakes they are.

Bring it on Bill.
Click to expand...

exactly. While it is highly improbable that REAL journals with REAL peer review, and REAL standards, will ever do much with the paper (besides use it to wrap a sandwich in), it would be cool to see it published in something to get enough publicity to have REAL scientists tear it apart.

The funny thing is, you would think that like Jones and the crowd, the truthers here would fear the nonsense being exposed to the light, but I think some of the truthers on this board are so far down the rabbit hole, they actually believe in Jones' snake oil...honest to goodness.

TAM:)
 
This thread isn't going anywhere because:

1. The "Truthers" are making claims and not providing evidence satisfactory to a reasonably skeptical person.

2. The "Truthers" have an expectation that their claims should be proven wrong, even though the onus for evidence is upon the "Truthers."

Imagine if I claimed that "condom manufacturers infect their products headed for Africa with HIV." Wouldn't you demand some kind of evidence to give you good reason to suspect it be true? Without reason to suspect a conspiracy would you go on a wild goose chase getting grant money for research, testing samples from factories, interviewing lab technicians, reading thousands of pages of investigation reports?

Until the "Truthers" understand that their claims require evidence I don't think this conversation is going to progress.

But that is o.k. too. This can be the place where people with low standards of evidence are reminded that their extraordinary claims cannot be taken seriously.

Isn't "Truther" a terribly ironic name for these people??
 
Typicallucas said:
This thread isn't going anywhere because:

1. The "Truthers" are making claims and not providing evidence satisfactory to a reasonably skeptical person.

2. The "Truthers" have an expectation that their claims should be proven wrong, even though the onus for evidence is upon the "Truthers."

Imagine if I claimed that "condom manufacturers infect their products headed for Africa with HIV." Wouldn't you demand some kind of evidence to give you good reason to suspect it be true? Without reason to suspect a conspiracy would you go on a wild goose chase getting grant money for research, testing samples from factories, interviewing lab technicians, reading thousands of pages of investigation reports?

Until the "Truthers" understand that their claims require evidence I don't think this conversation is going to progress.

But that is o.k. too. This can be the place where people with low standards of evidence are reminded that their extraordinary claims cannot be taken seriously.

Isn't "Truther" a terribly ironic name for these people??
Click to expand...

QFT!
 
bill smith said:
Go for it. Let the science win the day. But right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post. All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now. But like I say- knock yourself out.
Click to expand...


You really, truly, honest-to-god, don't get it. Jones and his cohorts paid to publish in a vanity journal. The scientific community ignored them. If they wanted to draw attention to their work, they would eagerly submit their samples to an independent lab. (Please read the next sentence out loud.) THEY WILL NEVER SUBMIT THEIR SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THE RESULT WOULD BE.

There is no race. There are established frauds stringing along the most gullible, uncritical suckers alive.
 
bill smith said:
This is about the size of it in the immortal words of Mike Rivero.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
Click to expand...

Very well. What have you done? What action have you taken in the face of a corrupt government? What risk of harm have you endured? In what way do you qualify as a "heroic Truther"?

(Hint: posting on an internet forum does not meet the qualifications.)
 
I built a simplified WTC tower model and watched it collapse.

I don't have the software to record video of the model running so instead I took screenshots and arranged them in a large jpeg image.

I wish you guys could see the model run, the sound is chilling.

View the image

Take note that this simulation is very limited, but it is an interesting example of what Heiwa terms a one-way crush down.
 
FineWine said:
You really, truly, honest-to-god, don't get it. Jones and his cohorts paid to publish in a vanity journal. The scientific community ignored them. If they wanted to draw attention to their work, they would eagerly submit their samples to an independent lab. (Please read the next sentence out loud.) THEY WILL NEVER SUBMIT THEIR SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THE RESULT WOULD BE.

There is no race. There are established frauds stringing along the most gullible, uncritical suckers alive.
Click to expand...

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?
 
Last edited:
Dr. Haritt spent a year and a half carefully analyzing the debris and writing the paper.

Dr. Haritt knows thermite. People that simply handwave the proof away are too easily swayed by propaganda to examine the facts.

Comparing the thermitic material to paint chips was very important to Dr. Haritt. His reputation as one of Europe's leading scientists is at stake.

Maybe Greening et al would like to examine the debris themselves instead of assuming Dr. Haritt botched his analysis? They could try contacting NIST for some samples. Come to think of it - NIST has had samples since day one. I'll bet they want to puke because they've been pwnd - BIGTIME.
 
bill smith said:
Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ?
Click to expand...

No. There are more scientists than that on this forum alone. Hell, there are probably more posting in this thread.

bill smith said:
The Nobel people who have peer reviewed papers there seem happy enough don't they ?
Click to expand...

Go back and check your source for this statement, and do some research into it. I think you'll find it doesn't mean anything like what you think it means.

Dave
 
Three or four scientists in the world?? Heck, there were that many that on the Purdue WTC collapse simulation team alone. And hell, nearly that many on the Worchester Polytechnic analysis by itself.

DRG is famous for not telling the truth about 9/11.

ETA - And if we want to really drive the point home: There were more Ph.D researchers who contributed to the Popular Mechanics story than that. I count 11, and I'm only counting those who actually show university affiliation; there are more Ph.D's listed there than that, but some of them are in industry or business, not academic research. If you count those, the number goes up. And I don't think you can get any more public than commenting on a story published in a mainstream magazine.

The point is, that "three or four scientists in the world" comment is dumb rhetoric. Individual studies that have been conducted on isolated issues - such as the Purdue collapse simulation - have at least that many.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?
Click to expand...


Wrong.

Yes, reproduction of experiments is part of the scientific process but it's separate from "peer review"

Prof Jones has blocked any possible experimental reproduction of his work.

Part of the scientific process is to present papers in meetings and address points made by others working in relevant fields. Jone doesn't do this. None of the kooks in the Half Truth Movement do this.
 
bill smith said:
I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not.
Click to expand...

This statement betrays a total lack of understanding of the peer review process. Speaking as someone who has extensive experience of both sides of it (and only one of many on this forum), the idea that a second group of researchers has to physically repeat the results published in a paper before approving that paper for publication is utterly laughable. As usual, bill has not the slightest idea what he's talking about here.

Dave
 
T.A.M. said:
you can find stupid, dumbass morons in any group, any profession, including mine. I applaud Gage for digging 30 of them up.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
TAM,

I have to disagree.

Gage didn't "dig them up".

He simply made himself visible. They found him.

That takes MUCH less effort.

tom
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom