Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[tmd2_1]

Please post any peer-reviewed articles on 911 posted in any respected journal by any member of AE911Truth.

Isn't the term respected subjective? Perhaps there are none...that's considered respected..I don't know. But I would like to know the facts NIST got right and AE (and others) got wrong?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Some AE for truth have degrees from some of the best schools in the country, do they not? The same schools members of NIST have?

I'm graduating with a master's degree in architecture at the top of my class next Saturday. Would that degree be in any way relevant if I said steel fireproofing was never needed in steel framed construction in the first place, despite being a stringent requirement in the IBC? Probably not, the degree doesn't make that kind of claim right.

As you apparently should realize by your own criticism of the NIST. The information that AE911 provides, the means of providing it, and the means of supporting it determines whether those degrees from prestigious colleges hold the weight behind any specific claims made. I can't speak for individuals within that organization, however the website stands as a representative face to that group, and the claims there don't look anything like competent.

Why would you be criticizing the NIST writers of being wrong if your criteria for making one credible is specifically based on professional titles, while calling AE911truth credible for just that criteria? That's never made any sense to me

 

[uke2se]

Isn't the term respected subjective?

No. Not in the academic world.

Perhaps there are none...that's considered respected..I don't know.

There isn't.

But I would like to know the facts NIST got right and AE (and others) got wrong?

All of the facts.

Now that you've admitted that the 1500 people Gage has in his little club hasn't actually done any published science on 911, we can safely conclude that all published science agrees with what you call the "Official Story" and no published science agrees with you.

 

[Mudcat]

Instead, you get statements from one of the very few structural engineers on that list that mini-nukes took down the towers.

I think I heard all I needed to. TMD the truther movement is CT mindrot masturbation fuel. That is my conclusion based upon the evidence so far.

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm graduating with a master's degree in architecture at the top of my class next Saturday. Would that degree be in any way relevant if I said steel fireproofing was never needed in steel framed construction in the first place, despite being a stringent requirement in the IBC? Probably not, the degree doesn't make that kind of claim right.

As you apparently should realize by your own criticism of the NIST. The information that AE911 provides, the means of providing it, and the means of supporting it determines whether those degrees from prestigious colleges hold the weight behind any specific claims made. I can't speak for individuals within that organization, however the website stands as a representative face to that group, and the claims there don't look anything like competent.

Can you be more clear? You're saying their means of delivering there message is not as good as NIST's? Just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

 

[tmd2_1]

No. Not in the academic world.



There isn't.



All of the facts.

Now that you've admitted that the 1500 people Gage has in his little club hasn't actually done any published science on 911, we can safely conclude that all published science agrees with what you call the "Official Story" and no published science agrees with you.

Is there another report besides NIST? I would like to see it.

 

[uke2se]

Can you be more clear? You're saying their means of delivering there message is not as good as NIST's? Just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

He's saying that AE911Truth isn't publishing any science and that what they are presenting is all easily refuted cow feces.

 

[Dayan81]

Are there other reports besides NIST or FEMA?

Why do you all persist in feeding this troll?

 

[uke2se]

Is there another report besides NIST? I would like to see it.

There are three different reports pertaining to the 911 events (not counting any FBI reports etc). The FEMA report, the NIST report and the 911 Commission Report.

Will you be honest enough to admit that no published science agrees with you, or will you ignore this part of my post?

 

[tmd2_1]

He's saying that AE911Truth isn't publishing any science and that what they are presenting is all easily refuted cow feces.

Refuted by the experts right?

 

[Mudcat]

Why do you all persist in feeding this troll?

Because there are other people besides this troll buying into the truther reading this thread and maybe we might reach one or more of them (including the troll in question) and show them just how utterly ridiculous the truther movement is.

 

[uke2se]

Refuted by the experts right?

Look tmd, I think we have all been very patient with your asinine questions. That ends here. If you want to run off to your little twoofer forum and shout about "winning da thred" at JREF, do so now. Your trolling has become obvious, and I'm not willing to entertain it any longer.

I hope for your sake that you get over this phase of your life. Otherwise you'll have a very troublesome adulthood.

/ignore

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Can you be more clear? You're saying their means of delivering there message is not as good as NIST's? Just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

I'm saying that at best, AE911's case study skills are extremely poor; not only do they compare buildings (other fire precedents) carelessly, they also base many of their claims about the collapses being suspicious purely on the grounds that the event itself was "first time." They do not for example elaborate on technical details of the collapses to explain why the fires and impact could not have led to the collapses, nor have they discussed in specifics what errors the NIST made in their model runs. They've also spent considerable time quote-mining in a similar fashion to this example that I pointed out to JREF member bill smith to substantiate their evidence of explosives, and shown difficulty in reading the report they've criticized correctly. Plenty of time can be spent spelling out the errors in their claims.

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm saying that at best, AE911's case study skills are extremely poor; not only do they compare buildings (other fire precedents) carelessly, they also base many of their claims about the collapses being suspicious purely on the grounds that the event itself was "first time." They've also spent considerable time quote-mining in a similar fashion to this example that I pointed out to JREF member bill smith to substantiate their evidence of explosives, and shown difficulty in reading the report they've criticized correctly.

So I can assume you believe what NIST did is better right?

 

[tmd2_1]

Ok...I've let this go far enough. You see I do like to do things by experiment. I realized, I may have been taken the slightly wrong approach here. Then I remembered a post by Dr. Greening...you know who he is right? He had a hypothesis..(well he didn't call it one but it can easily be made into one) of what JREFs are like. So I wanted to test it. And get it in a nice place. That is just what I have done here. What do you think the results are?

Dr. Greening on JREF's

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?



To be clear I am not Dr. Greening nor do I have anything to do with him.

 

[dafydd]

]I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years

Nah. Go tell it to the marines. You are about fourteen. Who typed all that out for you?

 

[TJM]

Ok...I've let this go far enough. You see I do like to do things by experiment. I realized, I may have been taken the slightly wrong approach here. Then I remembered a post by Dr. Greening...you know who he is right? He had a hypothesis..(well he didn't call it one but it can easily be made into one) of what JREFs are like. So I wanted to test it. And get it in a nice place. That is just what I have done here. What do you think the results are?

That's sssoooo 2007...

 

[TJM]

Nah. Go tell it to the marines. You are about fourteen. Who typed all that out for you?

It's a C&P of the knot in Dr. Greening's panties.

 

[Mudcat]

TMD if you have an alternate theory about what happened on 9/11 (or any other event for that matter) than you must explain what you believe what happened and than provide evidence for it. In other words put up or shut up.

So far I see nothing that can't be refuted by someone with a high school only education (like yours truly). This means your reasoning is a lot weaker than you might realize, and you either have to take your theory back to the drawing board or admit you were wrong.

Now, could you kindly answer this:

TMD I was not in New York the day that 9/11 happened. Like many of the people here old enough to remember the day in question I saw it on national television. And when someone told me what was going on my first reaction was to ask them "What action/disaster movie are they advertising?" It was that unbelievable.

I haven't seen any of the many reports into the events of that day, never looked at any evidence apart from the initial television reports.

I also never doubted the official reports because I seen the live television report and it was frigging obvious what was going on. What is so hard to accept about it?

 

[dafydd]

Ok...I've let this go far enough. You see I do like to do things by experiment. I realized, I may have been taken the slightly wrong approach here. Then I remembered a post by Dr. Greening...you know who he is right? He had a hypothesis..(well he didn't call it one but it can easily be made into one) of what JREFs are like. So I wanted to test it. And get it in a nice place. That is just what I have done here. What do you think the results are?

Dr. Greening on JREF's

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?



To be clear I am not Dr. Greening nor do I have anything to do with him.

If you were a scientist then you would not be a truther.