"Read my response to A W Smith.
And I totally disagree with your assessment that a professional architect working for the NYC Port Authority, when asked on camera for his professional opinion about a specific WTC debris specimen, an opinion he knows will be heard by a National TV audience, would give a statement that was intended as an "off handed remark."
Your belief shows a total lack of objectivity and a strong personal bias."
"You refer my attitude towards research incompetence as bias, lacking objectivity, belief, and denial... when in reality it's all been criticism towards invalid conclusions drawn from a lack of competent studies.
As I've said before, you've (NOT Voorsanger) shown a lack of competence in even recognizing that your research methodology is incompetent which makes any reasonable discussion either difficult or nearly impossible. Case in point you believe cursory remarks are somehow superior to the very sort of analysis that you kept pushing me to show from someone like him who was able to see the samples up close. Up-close assessments which in themselves provided details that make it blisteringly obvious the assessment you made of the cursory statements was absolutely inaccurate. His comment may have contained the words "molten steel"; that doesn't mean it was a researched remark, nor does it indicate he's an utter fool... that's why you look for additional context. But most people know the difference from a serious, literal remark versus something that was remarked with the intent of describing visual properties through simile or metaphor.
Shoddy research will receive criticism that is appropriate... but you still view my assessment as bias... then view it however you want, as I'm very certain you will."
No.
It is your attitude to a succinctly stated professional opinion as being effectively meaningless, that I find to be biased, lacking in objectivity, adherence to a preconceived belief, and abject denial.
And as for all that great research of yours that you keep trumpeting, you have not made a single discovery that would suggest that Bart Voorsanger gave his professional opinion offhandedly.
You have no proof that his opinion was cursory. That in itself is clear evidence of your lack of objectivity, bias and denial.
And then you have the gall to raise the issue of close up examination.
A close up examination which you could only do staring at a photo image on your pc.
I reasonably requested that if you wanted to debunk his professional opinion, than all you had to do was find a comparable professional who had also done a close-up examination of that WTC debris specimen.
Voorsanger was clearly in position to do the close-up examination he based his professional opinion on.
You yourself state that close-up examinations provide blisteringly obvious details, but again, your prejudiced belief reveals its ugly head in your unfounded belief that his evaluation was cursory and absolutely inaccurate. Your lack of professional discipline and rationality, does nothing more than further reveal the extent of your bias and denial.
His
comment stated opinion that the WTC debris sample contained
molten steel can only mean one thing, no matter how many ways you attempt to spin it.
I have edited many documentaries and it is my experience that when a professional is speaking to the camera they are particularly careful about the words they choose. They are quite conscious of the permanent record that is being made from their statements and the potentially vast public and professional audience that will be hearing them.
Your whole approach to avoiding the obvious, that you are wrong and unable to ever admit it, is to try and divert attention away from this inability to prove your point.
Instead you are attempting to re-direct one professional's stated on site opinion into a requirement for a major in depth research project.
MM
