• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
tmd2_1 said:
The answer to all of your questions is no. But as I posted above forget about all he did for a second...all you have to do is do is exactly what Ryan Mackey and Fred Greening suggested NIST should do. Run experiments, to come up with an explanation for the "perplexing" findings. I mean you can pretend what he did never happened...just go out and prove it by experiment. Just as Cole suggested.

This should be no problem for you right? It would a good chance for you to enlighten everyone on what the word eutectic means. Someone with your qualifications, knowledge, and work ethic, and given the absurdity of what Cole is alleging, you should have that video out by the end of the day right? I do look forward to seeing it.
Click to expand...
Right, you've said no to all my questions.

So is Jon Cole wrong in his conclusions?

Of course he is. But you believed him anyway.

I love the way you think that youtube is the pre-eminent medium for scientific work. Scientific papers are published in respectable publications. To date no truther has ever had one published.

An experiment was performed to show that FeS-FeO eutectic can form due to sulphidation. See here http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf at the bottom.

Truthers don't understand the above paper, that's why they think therm*te can cause the oxidation and sulphidation, intergranular melting etc.

Truthers are the ones proposing the alternative theory of themite/thermate - it's up to truthers to do the experiments to show that them*te can produce the same effects in the report above. You've had years to do it. It's not up to debunkers to do the experiments.

As for Greening and asking NIST/FEMA or whomever to continue to do experiments then I'd ask what the scope, timescale and funding for those experiments would be. Truthers seem to want to replicate the un-replicatable as a scientific test. How does that work?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Unbelievable just unbelievable... a guy has a piece of evidence from the biggest crime scene in history and is walking around with it...like he's walking in the park. If that isn't bad enough..he's shown to be at another place at the time the plane hit the pentagon...and that is not important. Wow just Wow
Click to expand...
What makes you think any piece of the airplane is important, aside from the black boxes?

Do you suspect there was a mechanical failure? :rolleyes:
 
Sunstealer said:
Right, you've said no to all my questions.

So is Jon Cole wrong in his conclusions?

Of course he is. But you believed him anyway.

I love the way you think that youtube is the pre-eminent medium for scientific work. Scientific papers are published in respectable publications. To date no truther has ever had one published.

An experiment was performed to show that FeS-FeO eutectic can form due to sulphidation. See here http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf at the bottom.

Truthers don't understand the above paper, that's why they think therm*te can cause the oxidation and sulphidation, intergranular melting etc.

Truthers are the ones proposing the alternative theory of themite/thermate - it's up to truthers to do the experiments to show that them*te can produce the same effects in the report above. You've had years to do it. It's not up to debunkers to do the experiments.

As for Greening and asking NIST/FEMA or whomever to continue to do experiments then I'd ask what the scope, timescale and funding for those experiments would be. Truthers seem to want to replicate the un-replicatable as a scientific test. How does that work?
Click to expand...

I still look forward to your video and experiment...I'm sure it will be great

Also and I know I'm just a dumb "truther" (even though I have never referred to myself as that). It seems all that report does...is says sulfur caused..the erosion it's where the Sulfur comes from that is the mystery. Don't take my word for it....If I remember correctly this report came out in 2005 (I'm just going by memory) Both Frank Greening and Ryan Mackey both said NIST should do more testing after this paper came out?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
What makes you think any piece of the airplane is important, aside from the black boxes?

Do you suspect there was a mechanical failure? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No removing crime scene evidence and waltzing into a tv studio, like a walk in the back is a big deal. Especially when he is photographed else where at the time. I mean why would the studio let this guy in? The only way you could verify it would be to talk to government sources, at which time that piece should have been apprehended. Something extremely strange about that whole situation.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
You know I said this before but with replies like that, it's hard to believe there is any "truth" movement at all.
Click to expand...

The truth isn't what your little lunatic fringe cult is after and you are far from the first or only cult to abuse the word "truth" obsessively as a cover for lies. Plus, a handful of juveniles and some mentally ill people don't constitute a movement.

So i have to agree, it is hard to believe there is a "truth movement" at all...
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I still look forward to your video and experiment...I'm sure it will be great

Also and I know I'm just a dumb "truther" (even though I have never referred to myself as that). It seems all that report does...is says sulfur caused..the erosion it's where the Sulfur comes from that is the mystery. Don't take my word for it....If I remember correctly this report came out in 2005 (I'm just going by memory) Both Frank Greening and Ryan Mackey both said NIST should do more testing after this paper came out?
Click to expand...

And NIST delegated that responsibility to WPI. Have you read the paper by Sisson et al.?
 
Richard Gage is wrong, but I'm not. I'm telling you there were neither bombs nor planes to disturb the bombs.





NoahFence said:
So here it is. I have $1,000 to donate to your favorite twoofer and mine - Richard Gage.

All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fire. Assumptions are not proof. Secret government documents aren't proof. Proof is proof. What was the device used to house these explosives that can survive?

If no "truther" can prove that explosives can survive the impact and fires, then how do you propose they were used at all? And if you can't prove they were used, then wouldn't this whole "CD" nonsense be for naught? How many people were involved? Who was in charge of what building? WTC 1? WTC 2? The Pentagon?

For an extra $500, why not explain how the entire day's events are tied together? Explain how a government so powerful can screw up one of the crashes! Explain how "they" got the explosives in there! Tie Larry Silverstein to the Pentagon crash.

and.....GO!
Click to expand...
 
tmd2_1 said:
I apologize I should have been more specific....here is the link it is page 102

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
Click to expand...

Awesome. I love the way you quote mine. Just like a typical truther. (Yes, you are, even though you claim otherwise)

Did you miss this part?

"This piece probably did not contribute to the collapse and was therefore beyond the scope of the NIST study."

Did you forget that part? NIST delegated to a reputable organization for further study. In this case, that would be WPI.
 
triforcharity said:
And NIST delegated that responsibility to WPI. Have you read the paper by Sisson et al.?
Click to expand...

Yes I stated my thoughts, it seems they were only discussing, that Sulfur caused the corrosion, not what caused the Sulfur. Why would Mackey and Greening say NIST should run tests?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I still look forward to your video and experiment...I'm sure it will be great
Click to expand...
It's been shown 3 separate occasions that Cole's procedure causes his conclusion to fail at it's premise. I suppose the (un)surprising thing is that even still believing in the "do test a b c" run, you're unwilling to hold him responsible for his sloppy work.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Awesome. I love the way you quote mine. Just like a typical truther. (Yes, you are, even though you claim otherwise)

Did you miss this part?

"This piece probably did not contribute to the collapse and was therefore beyond the scope of the NIST study."

Did you forget that part? NIST delegated to a reputable organization for further study. In this case, that would be WPI.
Click to expand...

This comment is hilarious for many reasons. First of all what did I quote mine? All I said see pg 102 of his report. I don't believe I missed any parts of his paper. You guys are just programmed to say quote mine any time there is a quote to disagree with your dogma. If you want to throw out quotes...try this "It may (and should) address
this issue in the final report." Why would Mackey say something *should* be tested if it has no relevance.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It's been shown 3 separate occasions that Cole's procedure causes his conclusion to fail at it's premise. I suppose the (un)surprising thing is that even still believing in the "do test a b c" run, you're unwilling to hold him responsible for his sloppy work.
Click to expand...

It's great anything that agrees with you is great work..anything that doesn't is sloppy. I have not accused anyone from NIST or anywhere else as "sloppy" I called Gross a liar...and proved it.
Besides that, did I not say...forget about his work...do what Mackey and Greening both said should have been done by NIST...that's all I'm asking.
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
The truth isn't what your little lunatic fringe cult is after and you are far from the first or only cult to abuse the word "truth" obsessively as a cover for lies. Plus, a handful of juveniles and some mentally ill people don't constitute a movement.

So i have to agree, it is hard to believe there is a "truth movement" at all...
Click to expand...

What is you and Wildcat's role in any of this? It seems all you do is insult people who disagree with your dogma, as "conspiratards" or however you want to say it, and cheer on those who agree with you. Offer no evidence, nothing of any value what's so ever. Other people may have called me an idiot(while completely un-necessary)...but at least offered something. You guys seem to be nothing more then cheerleaders. Jeering those who disagree with and cheering those who agree. I mean that's all I've seen you guys do.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
It's great anything that agrees with you is great work..anything that doesn't is sloppy. I have not accused anyone from NIST or anywhere else as "sloppy" I called Gross a liar...and proved it.
Besides that, did I not say...forget about his work...do what Mackey and Greening both said should have been done by NIST...that's all I'm asking.
Click to expand...

It was BEYOND NIST's stated scope of work.
I am a firefighter by trade. Should I also be working in the billing department for the ambulance service too? No. It's beyond my scope. It's not my responsibility to deal with it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
It's great anything that agrees with you is great work..anything that doesn't is sloppy. I have not accused anyone from NIST or anywhere else as "sloppy" I called Gross a liar...and proved it.
Besides that, did I not say...forget about his work...do what Mackey and Greening both said should have been done by NIST...that's all I'm asking.
Click to expand...


I'll add to that how am I suppose to take something that's suppose to be a scientific analysis that has this written in it "He then just drivels for a bit with the usual unsupported nonsense."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom