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

[tmd2_1]

You don't know. Again. But you can find out for yourself.

Go to the University Library nearest to you.
Go to their physics, structural engineering and/or chemistry sections.
Ask them for a list of the 20, or 100, most respected scientific journals in those fields.
Check if any journal published by Bentham Publishers is among them.

My prediction: No-one would mention any Bentham Published journal as among the respected.
But that is where the most-cited (among truthers, that is, not among scientists or engineers) truther paper was published.
Go figure!

You go on and on and on...I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I'm not sure you know what you're trying to say. You can look up AE credentials on their website.

As far as the letter to Congress, it's a point in the letter which has a long list of complaints. "Why have we spent billions and billions of dollars on wars, when the impetuous for those wars has not even been investigated thoroughly? As even some of the 9/11 commissioners have stated they could not do their job properly. One has even stated it was a thirty year conspiracy. Yet we still fight these wars?"

You spend a lot of time saying I just appeal to authority. When I think I did a pretty good job of showing that all most of you do.

 

[dafydd]

You don't know. Again. But you can find out for yourself.

Go to the University Library nearest to you.
Go to their physics, structural engineering and/or chemistry sections.
Ask them for a list of the 20, or 100, most respected scientific journals in those fields.
Check if any journal published by Bentham Publishers is among them.

My prediction: No-one would mention any Bentham Published journal as among the respected.
But that is where the most-cited (among truthers, that is, not among scientists or engineers) truther paper was published.
Go figure!

The libraries are controlled by the NWO who will stop at nothing to stifle Da Troof.

 

[dafydd]

You go on and on and on...I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I'm not sure you know what you're trying to say. You can look up AE credentials on their website.

As far as the letter to Congress, it's a point in the letter which has a long list of complaints. "Why have we spent billions and billions of dollars on wars, when the impetuous for those wars has not even been investigated thoroughly. As even some of the 9/11 commissioners have stated they could not do their job properly. One has even stated it was a thirty year conspiracy. Yet we still fight these wars"

You spend a lot of time saying I just appeal to authority. When I think I did a pretty good job of showing that all most of you do.

There you are. Who are you today? tmd the crazy teenager or tmd the crazy scientist? Doesn't matter,you post the same crap in either case. The only good job you did was showing us how uninformed and gullible you are. The authorities quoted to you are real authorities, you quote idiots on youtube. Somebody quote me please.

 

[DGM]

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

What he's saying is NIST is the only one who has done it. Show us actual engineering studies by ae0/11. There are none. What they do is state their opinions that NIST is wrong to non-technical people.

Why do you think Gage does not lecture at engineering schools? The few times he has, what was his success rate as compared to non-technical venues?

Can you answer this?

 

[jaydeehess]

You go on and on and on...I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I'm not sure you know what you're trying to say. You can look up AE credentials on their website.

It was actually pretty clear.
Oystein is telling you that you can check the credibility of the authors, not their lettered credentials. Judy Wood had credentials too. Do you believe in her beam weapon too?
One way to investigate an author's credibility is to check into where that author has been published. Oystein suggests checking with university libraries as to what the most respected journals in several fields are. Authors who get published there would be the most credible.
Articles in those jounals would be the most credible especially if compared to jounals in which the journal simply charges the author to publish.

As far as the letter to Congress, it's a point in the letter which has a long list of complaints. "Why have we spent billions and billions of dollars on wars, when the impetuous for those wars has not even been investigated thoroughly?

What was not thoroughly investigated? There was and is an Islamic fundementalist faction that wants all western influence out of all Islamic countries, espicially the 'Holy Land'. This faction considers westerners to be occupying forces that must be routed by any and all means and one such loose group known as AlQada stated often that they considered themselves to be "at war" with the USA and Europe.
4 aircraft were hijacked and 3 of them were flown as suicide missions (just like driving a car full of explosives into an American barracks in Lebanon)
This resulted in the death of 3000 people.
The impetus for this attack was investigated.
The destruction wrought was investigated.
What else is there? Oh yeah let's find out if there were tons of thermite on scene. Nope, no evidence of that.
How about massive amounts of explosives capable of pulverizing concrete into dust and blowing two 100 storey structures to, as referenced by another Truther, "smithreens". Nope, no evidence of that either.
How about a beam weapon. nope no evidence one even exists let alone that one was used. Mini-nukes, no evidence whatsoever.
Faked planes? Well that would require that one explain where the actual planes and their occupants went, without employing magic.

As even some of the 9/11 commissioners have stated they could not do their job properly. One has even stated it was a thirty year conspiracy. Yet we still fight these wars?"

Why don't you quote them in full context? What did they mean by that? Did any of them make reference to a belief in controlled demolition of the WTC structures, or faked planes at the Pentagon?

You spend a lot of time saying I just appeal to authority. When I think I did a pretty good job of showing that all most of you do.

I think we all feel much more comfortable referencing quality research and researchers, math and physics, rather than relying on youtube and politically motivated idealogues.

 

[DGM]

tmd relies on yet another nutter?

I don't think it's fair to call Dr Greening a "nutter". He does have issues with the reports like a lot of people do. Mostly he says they don't go far enough. He is a bit of a fanatic when it comes to anything political. He has done some nice work proving the energies required for pulverization and to the best of my knowledge he has never produced any work claiming "proof of demolition".

 

[Oystein]

You go on and on and on...

Only replying to you, as you go on and on and on...
The problem is, pretty damned near every single post of yours is totally incompetent: You admit yourself again and again and again all the many thing you just don't know. In most of those case, I do know!

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.

You don't know many of the things intimately relevant to your own case, you have shown you utter lack of research skills and understanding of science and law, and now you even tell us your reading comprehension is seriously lacking!?! Is there any incompetence you don't call your own? I bet you suck at math, too, right?

I'm not sure you know what you're trying to say.

Rest assured I know that exactly.

You can look up AE credentials on their website.

Yep, something that I have done much more thoroughly than you ever will. The result is:
- Most of them have no training or job experience relevant to assessing building collapses (structural engineering, fire science...)
- Most of them have no more than Bachelor's degrees in whatever field, some a master's degree, very few a doctoral degree. Contrast that with the superb credentials of the NIST team: AE911T loses.

As far as the letter to Congress, it's a point in the letter which has a long list of complaints. "Why have we spent billions and billions of dollars on wars, when the impetuous for those wars has not even been investigated thoroughly? As even some of the 9/11 commissioners have stated they could not do their job properly. One has even stated it was a thirty year conspiracy. Yet we still fight these wars?"

This is not verbatim the text you wrote to a Congressman, or is ist?? I mean I asked you to, and you use quotation marks... Is that verbatim the full content of those letters?

You spend a lot of time saying I just appeal to authority. When I think I did a pretty good job of showing that all most of you do.

Can you rephrase that in proper English, please? Not only your reading but also your writing skills are deficient.



ETA:
Incidentally, you quoted me, but, again, failed to address even one word of what I wrote! To remind you: I chimed in on a little discussion you had with someone who asked you to refer to scientific papers by AE911T signers published in respected science journals. You made the claim that "respected" is a matter of personal preference. You were informed that this is not so - there are real differences between the respect various journals enjoy among professionals and acedemics in the respective fields. You said you don't know that. I told you how you can find out yourself: Go to University Departments and Libraries and ask the knowledgeable people there. You said you did not understand what I wrote.
I hope that helps.

 

[dafydd]

I don't think it's fair to call Dr Greening a "nutter". He does have issues with the reports like a lot of people do. Mostly he says they don't go far enough. He is a bit of a fanatic when it comes to anything political. He has done some nice work proving the energies required for pulverization and to the best of my knowledge he has never produced any work claiming "proof of demolition".

Then I forgive him.

 

[jaydeehess]

What he's saying is NIST is the only one who has done it. Show us actual engineering studies by ae0/11. There are none. What they do is state their opinions that NIST is wrong to non-technical people.

In fact there are at least three organizations who could contribute resources to perform such a study.
AE911T, Lawyers for 911 Truth, and Pilots for 911 Truth"
Ostensibly the members of these three organizations are among top wage earners in the USA and abroad. If they could raise a few million dollars they could in fact do research on the level of what NIST did. At least for a few specific key aspects.
Perhaps they could do an FEA to see if it reproduces the results that NIST's did. Of course they would have to do such things as investigate the videos again to confirm the range of speed to attribute to the aircraft. They would have to confirm the strength of connections and steel sections.
They would have to pour over fire engineering research to come up with credible heat release numbers and temperatures for the fires and match this with what video docuementary evidence there is.

AND
This would have to be done by a third party organization without prior prejudices.

In my case, over the years I have extolled PfT to write up a purely technical paper outlining how they come to the conclusion that Flight 77's DFDR does not indicate a flight path that matches either the physical damage seen on the ground nor the witness statements. I suggested many times that this paper, containing no rhetoric or blame, be submitted to various publications and organizations such as "Aviation Week", "Scientific American" , "Spectrum" ICAO, Pilot's unions, and the manufacturers of DFDRs as well as the NTSB.

Instead, PfT CHOSES to do nothing but wage a strident and bitter war of rhetoric on the internet.

Much the same can be said for Gage and AE911T. Lf911T has all but disappeared.

Rather than take this to the next level and actually get serious, the entire 'truth movement' instead has deliberatly chosen to remain static and a fringe element.

 

[Oystein]

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!?!?!?

(I put QUOTE-tags around the Greeing-quote)

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

This is a picture-perfect example of the fallacious method of quote-mining: This text by Dr. Greening is often quoted by truther websites, but I bet you don't know the context was, do you?

Here is the thread in which Greening wrote that post:
Debate! What debate?
The Greening-quote appears as post #10 in that thread.

The opening post was posted on March 29th 2007; the user "Apollo20" joined the JREF forum one day earlier. He entered the forum and posted anonymously. However, on page 2 (when displaying 40 post/per), others started to suspect that Apollo20 was Dr. Greening. Read those first pages: You will find that he was greeted mostly civilly, and you will also find that Dr. Greening at the time already had the respect of several JREFers because he had done good, thorough work. In that thread, it was Greening himself who put the atmosphere on fire with the allegations of that post #10-

Post #107 finally revealed that the entire thread was a disingenious "test balloon" and not posted in earnest:

First of all I will drop the NIST-bashing. I can see its too hot. I wouldn't want to burn the GRAVY.

I am disappointed that I have been so misinterpreted.

The 9/11 truthers have been exposed by their reaction to a new conspiracy theory.

All I have attempted to show is that:

YOU TOO CAN WRITE A CONSPIRACY THEORY

And one that is way better than the feeble efforts of Jones and Wood.

I will post it as soon as I can, but I offer it as a "movie script" and will have no further comment!

Later on, he does present that "movie script theory":

Ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, is a colorless, odorless, compound that is stable at room temperature. However, when heated to above 300 °C, or subjected to friction or impact, it becomes violently reactive. In fact, ammonium perchlorate is a much-used ingredient in explosives, pyrothechnics and solid propellants such as those used in the space shuttle booster rockets.
...
1. The Twin Towers were Primed with AP:
...
2. Boeing 767 Aircraft Strike the Towers and Start Fires
...

Just a movie script (like Jones' script; like Wood's script).

Please don't ask me to defend a movie script/theory.........

He makes it perfectly clear that his beef really is with truthers, not with debunkers!
Do you get that, tmd?





Now I need to point out that quoting Greening's whining about the rough climate at JREF does not help your case at all. Remember you are here to cast serious doubt on the legal accusations against Al Qaeda. Does the prosecution's case rest in any way, shape or form on what anybody at JREF does or writes? Not at all!

But since Dr. Greening is now your witness, a witness for the defense, let's cross-examine him - what did he really think about demolition theories in 2007?


This - quoted from a truther blog even:

Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.

And as a scientist I believe there is always room for doubt and for more research. In fact, that’s how I see research – a process of re-searching, of looking again. The NIST Report is a great start, but only that. It leaves some unanswered questions. It may satisfy the Arthurs (on PhysOrg) and the Gravys (on JREF) of this world, but not me. And my work experience in the Canadian nuclear industry has taught me to be skeptical of the “official” view - the consensus view - because it is usually politically motivated!

Finally, about my AP theory – it’s just that, a theory – but one that I believe is better than the current selection being offered by the conspiracy theorists. Sooner or later it will be replaced by another, and another, but unlike G. W. Bush, I am not bothered by “outrageous” theories…..

This is a perfectly reasonable stance. I am sure many here don't agree with him fully, but at the same time, I don't think many here fully disagree with him. He did not say that NIST was seriously wrong or that AQ did not crash 4 planes. He simply stayed an agnostic, a skeptic.

He is very much closer to our stance than you are.

 

[jaydeehess]

You didn't get the joke?

No, he did not seem to even recognize that it was a joke despite my explaining that it was.

Certainly underlines why he does not see the glaring problems with the video of the guy with the bowling ball.

I note also that because pure aluminum displays as silver when it is allowed to partially solidify on a surface and that I point out that it is orange when falling through air he twists this into "you have no relevence" and thus he can wave anything I post away.

Yes, confirmation bias is strong with this one.

 

[DGM]

This would have to be done by a third party organization without prior prejudices.

I don't even think this would be necessary. The work will always speak for itself. The "thermite" papers are a perfect example. If they were done at MIT they would still be wrong.

 

[dafydd]

No, he did not seem to even recognize that it was a joke despite my explaining that it was.

Certainly underlines why he does not see the glaring problems with the video of the guy with the bowling ball.

I note also that because pure aluminum displays as silver when it is allowed to partially solidify on a surface and that I point out that it is orange when falling through air he twists this into "you have no relevence" and thus he can wave anything I post away.

Yes, confirmation bias is strong with this one.

Do you believe that tmd is a scientist? I don't.

 

[tmd2_1]

Only replying to you, as you go on and on and on...
The problem is, pretty damned near every single post of yours is totally incompetent: You admit yourself again and again and again all the many thing you just don't know. In most of those case, I do know!



You don't know many of the things intimately relevant to your own case, you have shown you utter lack of research skills and understanding of science and law, and now you even tell us your reading comprehension is seriously lacking!?! Is there any incompetence you don't call your own? I bet you suck at math, too, right?



Rest assured I know that exactly.



Yep, something that I have done much more thoroughly than you ever will. The result is:
- Most of them have no training or job experience relevant to assessing building collapses (structural engineering, fire science...)
- Most of them have no more than Bachelor's degrees in whatever field, some a master's degree, very few a doctoral degree. Contrast that with the superb credentials of the NIST team: AE911T loses.



This is not verbatim the text you wrote to a Congressman, or is ist?? I mean I asked you to, and you use quotation marks... Is that verbatim the full content of those letters?



Can you rephrase that in proper English, please? Not only your reading but also your writing skills are deficient.



ETA:
Incidentally, you quoted me, but, again, failed to address even one word of what I wrote! To remind you: I chimed in on a little discussion you had with someone who asked you to refer to scientific papers by AE911T signers published in respected science journals. You made the claim that "respected" is a matter of personal preference. You were informed that this is not so - there are real differences between the respect various journals enjoy among professionals and acedemics in the respective fields. You said you don't know that. I told you how you can find out yourself: Go to University Departments and Libraries and ask the knowledgeable people there. You said you did not understand what I wrote.
I hope that helps.

This is a picture-perfect example of the fallacious method of quote-mining: This text by Dr. Greening is often quoted by truther websites, but I bet you don't know the context was, do you?

Here is the thread in which Greening wrote that post:
Debate! What debate?
The Greening-quote appears as post #10 in that thread.

The opening post was posted on March 29th 2007; the user "Apollo20" joined the JREF forum one day earlier. He entered the forum and posted anonymously. However, on page 2 (when displaying 40 post/per), others started to suspect that Apollo20 was Dr. Greening. Read those first pages: You will find that he was greeted mostly civilly, and you will also find that Dr. Greening at the time already had the respect of several JREFers because he had done good, thorough work. In that thread, it was Greening himself who put the atmosphere on fire with the allegations of that post #10-

Post #107 finally revealed that the entire thread was a disingenious "test balloon" and not posted in earnest:


Later on, he does present that "movie script theory":


He makes it perfectly clear that his beef really is with truthers, not with debunkers!
Do you get that, tmd?





Now I need to point out that quoting Greening's whining about the rough climate at JREF does not help your case at all. Remember you are here to cast serious doubt on the legal accusations against Al Qaeda. Does the prosecution's case rest in any way, shape or form on what anybody at JREF does or writes? Not at all!

But since Dr. Greening is now your witness, a witness for the defense, let's cross-examine him - what did he really think about demolition theories in 2007?


This - quoted from a truther blog even:


This is a perfectly reasonable stance. I am sure many here don't agree with him fully, but at the same time, I don't think many here fully disagree with him. He did not say that NIST was seriously wrong or that AQ did not crash 4 planes. He simply stayed an agnostic, a skeptic.

He is very much closer to our stance than you are.

No, he did not seem to even recognize that it was a joke despite my explaining that it was.

Certainly underlines why he does not see the glaring problems with the video of the guy with the bowling ball.

I note also that because pure aluminum displays as silver when it is allowed to partially solidify on a surface and that I point out that it is orange when falling through air he twists this into "you have no relevence" and thus he can wave anything I post away.

Yes, confirmation bias is strong with this one.

Agnostic definition:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Yet in the post I referenced Dr. Greening himself made the statement "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. "

Seems different then agnostic to me.

The letter I wrote was the exact quote as it related to 9/11. As I said the letter reflects many different issues, that is the only part of relevance to the 9/11 discussion.

As near as I can figure your posts to nothing but the strengthen Dr. Greenings opinion on JFERS.

I more then got the joke. I just would have preferred an actual rebuttal especially coming from a physicist.

In regards to the silver I knew what you were saying, and you should have known that doesn't matter. There was more then enough time, for that to turn to silver during the fall, from the South tower, yet it didn't.

 

[dafydd]

Agnostic definition:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Yet in the post I referenced Dr. Greening himself made the statement "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. "

Seems different then agnostic to me.

The letter I wrote was the exact quote as it related to 9/11. As I said the letter reflects many different issues, that is the only part of relevance to the 9/11 discussion.

As near as I can figure your posts to nothing but the strengthen Dr. Greenings opinion on JFERS.

I more then got the joke. I just would have preferred an actual rebuttal especially coming from a physicist.

In regards to the silver I knew what you were saying, and you should have known that doesn't matter. There was more then enough time, for that to turn to silver during the fall, from the South tower, yet it didn't.

Who are you today?

 

[The Platypus]

Do you believe that tmd is a scientist? I don't.

I don't believe anything he says at all...

 

[dafydd]

I don't believe anything he says at all...

A very sensible attitude to take with twoofers. If it was midday in the Sahara desert and a twoofer told me that the sun was shining, I would have to stick my head out of the tent and check.

 

[TexasJack]

Well, it appears that his only purpose here is to attack JREF members by calling them names while not specifically stating which members he is referring to and presenting evidence to support his assertions. Instead, uses one source, Dr. Greening to do so. Again, no specific examples from Dr. Greening, and what makes Dr. Greening the say-all?

Also, tmd needs a reminder that he is a member of JREF, so any insults he throws out include himself.

 

[grandmastershek]

Do you believe that tmd is a scientist? I don't.

Did this fool seriously contend to be a scientist?

A friend posted this link on FB, and I found it highly appropriate for TMD. Dollars to donuts TMD thinks its a compliment.

 

[dafydd]

Did this fool seriously contend to be a scientist?

A friend posted this link on FB, and I found it highly appropriate for TMD. Dollars to donuts TMD thinks its a compliment.

Since he supposedly ripped the mask off his grammar has gotten a little better. Somebody else,not a scientist,has taken over. I think this is a college prank by bored students.