Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?

[LSSBB]

ys,rmv ll vwlls nd stll mng t ndrstnd. t's mzing

'twas brillig.

 

[Oystein]

If he had the benefit of working in anonymity like his critics, I am sure his work would have been completed and reported long ago.

EXACTLY how has his name being known interfered with his ability to carry out the promised project?

<< goes to get popcorn, this should be good>>

What Myriad keeps saying e.g. to Tony Szamboti and, iirc, Ziggi: That strange implication that we here at the ISF are a major obstacle that stands between the 911TM and their breakthrough into public success. It's really just an excuse for their total lack of success.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So, we are the Gatekeepers?

In a way I can see it.
This is the only place left that has any 911 duscussion so it looms large.

 

[jaydeehess]

'twas brillig.

No slithy toves involved.


"Yes, remove all vowels and still manage to understand, it's amazing."

 

[LSSBB]

No slithy toves involved.


"Yes, remove all vowels and still manage to understand, it's amazing."

I beg to differ. The slithy toves are everywhere.

 

[jaydeehess]

So, we are the Gatekeepers?

In a way I can see it.
This is the only place left that has any 911 duscussion so it looms large.

If only someone could come up with a brilliant plan, method, or mechanism, of bypassing ISF and getting the message out to the professional structural and fire engineering community, or in the case of Pilots for 911T, to aviation professionals.

What to do,,,,, what to do,,,?

 

[jaydeehess]

I beg to differ. The slithy toves are everywhere.

That would explain the gyring and gimbaling experienced lately. I had been blaming the icy walkways and roads.

 

[traxy]

My sympathies go out to Mark Basile.

An unassuming chemist who innocently began studying the September 11th, 2001 debris from the World Trade Center.

Money and infamy are a ridiculous fit for his goals then and an even greater misfit now.

What he could not and did not anticipate, was the level of attention his research would receive.

If he had the benefit of working in anonymity like his critics, I am sure his work would have been completed and reported long ago.

As someone that clearly has a taste for 9/11 conspiracy woo, doesn't it bother you at all that Mark has turned the thermite argument into a complete farce?

Say what you want about MicahJava, but at least he has the self respect to call BS on what a joke this has become.

How much longer do you want to give him before you will admit that the notion of an "independent follow up study" is dead and Mark is guilty at the very least of defrauding his donors?

 

[Criteria]

”As someone that clearly has a taste for 9/11 conspiracy woo…”

I could easily argue that all of the frequent participants in this forum have a taste for “9/11 conspiracy woo”

On one side we have a large majority of ISF members who ‘believe’ that their arguments have been sufficiently validated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

On another side you have people like myself who see two major ‘smoking guns’ relating to the World Trade Center on 9/11 still unanswered.

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST.

Regarding Mark Basile, I believe him to be an honourable person. The only thing he is guilty of is tardiness.

 

[LSSBB]

I could easily argue that all of the frequent participants in this forum have a taste for “9/11 conspiracy woo”

On one side we have a large majority of ISF members who ‘believe’ that their arguments have been sufficiently validated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

On another side you have people like myself who see two major ‘smoking guns’ relating to the World Trade Center on 9/11 still unanswered.

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST.

Regarding Mark Basile, I believe him to be an honourable person. The only thing he is guilty of is tardiness.

You don't "see" two major 'smoking guns', you believe they are there, based on how you interpret what you see.

 

[jaydeehess]

I could easily argue that all of the frequent participants in this forum have a taste for “9/11 conspiracy woo”

The main difference would be that you like the taste while the rest of do not.

On one side we have a large majority of ISF members who ‘believe’ that their arguments have been sufficiently validated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

Not exclusively. In fact that only includes NIST and FEMA. It would not include Nordenson & associates, or Jensen Hughes, or Purdue University, Weidlinger, etc. Nor does your implied accusation account for the hundreds of persons involved in NIST and FEMA reports, none of which share your opinion of the reports.

On another side you have people like myself who see two major ‘smoking guns’ relating to the World Trade Center on 9/11 still unanswered.

,,, and yet you have NO comprehensive theory for the events of 9/11. Nothing but a raging clue for 9/11. Your two smoking guns are dismissed by every professional organization.

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible

Nor is that paper peer reviewed, nor is there a paper that reproduces the results, nor is there any published scenraio for thermite use in destruction of the WTC structures. In Fact a court case has discredited Harrit.

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST

Well, aside from Nordenson and Weidlinger reports both of which corroborate NIST's conclusion that fire initiated a progressive collapse sequence. The fact that they differ on the least significant detail is irrelevant.

Regarding Mark Basile, I believe him to be an honourable person. The only thing he is guilty of is tardiness.

So you also then take no issue with the fact that NIST took several years to publish the final report on WTC 7, correct? At least NIST advertised a reason for it, and did release updates on progress. Basile has been silent. Honourable or not, it is about time to either produce or declare the project abandoned and return funds as much as possible.

 

[Mark F]

On one side we have a large majority of ISF members who ‘believe’ that their arguments have been sufficiently validated by agencies of the U.S. Government reality.

Fixed that for you. Is there a reason you are trying to dishonestly tie agreement with reality to support for da gubmint?

On another side you have people like myself who see two major ‘smoking guns’ relating to the World Trade Center on 9/11 still unanswered.

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

While it is not incumbent upon anyone to disprove Harrit but rather on Harrit to prove his own case, even if Harrit did find traces of Therm_te-like material in the WTC dust all it proves is he found traces of Therm_te-like material in the WTC dust.

That's it.

How is that a "smoking gun"?

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST.

Irrelevant.

NIST concluded 7 WTC succumbed to 7 hours of uncontrolled fires and postulated a probably collapse scenario for the initiating mechanism. The NIST analysis can be dead wrong on the collapse initiating mechanism but it doesn't change the fact 7 WTC was not a target of terrorist attack on 9/11/2001, was of no particular import and thus not a viable target and succumbed to 7 hours of uncontrolled fires. Not sure why the bleeding obvious - already explained many times previously - needs to be explained again.

Is there a reason you are trying to dishonestly tie agreement with reality to support for da gubmint?

Regarding Mark Basile, I believe him to be an honourable person. The only thing he is guilty of is tardiness.

So running off with thousands of dollars of other people's money without explanation and failing to deliver on promises is honorable?

Curious that.

If say NIST did something like that would you also find them honorable? I'm trust trying to gauge how objective you are about all of this.

 

[pgimeno]

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

That's not how science works. There's no published paper reproducing these findings, either. That lack is far more significant. Especially after all this time. Especially after it has been attempted. Especially noting that one unpublished paper by an independent professional lab failed to replicate these findings. Especially given that another attempt which is supposedly in course has failed to deliver results for almost 5 years.

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST.

There's no way that can happen. We simply don't have enough data about what happened in the interior of WTC7 as to be able to explain where every bolt of every connection ended up. You're demanding unrealistic details, in the hope to create the sensation that the current explanations are insufficient.

That's not true. All three existing reports agree in the base premise: fire directly or indirectly damaged steel up to a point where column 79 failed. They differ in the details. It's quite likely that none of them explains, to the degree of perfection that you demand, what exactly happened. But then no other future investigation can possibly do that, to that degree of detail.

The trick you're playing is that you hope that by invalidating the fine details, you'll get the possibility of explosives considered. If that ever happened, which would be a big waste of resources, you would not apply the same standards to it. That's pretty transparent to anyone.

 

[Mark F]

That's not how science works. There's no published paper reproducing these findings, either. That lack is far more significant. Especially after all this time. Especially after it has been attempted. Especially noting that one unpublished paper by an independent professional lab failed to replicate these findings. Especially given that another attempt which is supposedly in course has failed to deliver results for almost 5 years.

So we have what, 3 studies supporting fires and zero studies supporting Harrit.

I fail to see why Harrit needs to be proved wrong.

 

[traxy]

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

Harrit and company screwed up their critical DSC test. That was the impetus for the follow up investigation by Basile, which was supposed to include an inert atmosphere DSC test. Fundraising for that follow up started 3 weeks after the screwed up test became public knowledge.

The Harrit team has also refused multiple requests to look at their samples, and haven't submitted them for follow up at any point over the last 9 years.

It's pretty obvious at this point that Mark knows the sample is something innocuous like primer paint chips and is stalling in the hopes that everyone will forget.

 

[Oystein]

...
On one side we have a large majority of ISF members who ‘believe’ that their arguments have been sufficiently validated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

Hehe
I'd like some evidence for this.
"Large Majority" in my book would be at least 51% - agreed?
Now 51% of what base? All ISF members, even all those who rarely or never read, let alone post in, this sub-forum? Or just those who have been active within, say the last 5 years (pointing back to the approximate moment in time when the last of Truther claims has been thoroughly debunked every way)?
To convince us that this inequality

51% * (# ISF member ) < (ISF members believing their arguments have been sufficiently validated by US Gov agencies)​

holds true, you would need to evaluate both sides of it and at least provide an upper bound for the term on the left and lower bound for the right side, or else you once again fell prey to the Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy

On another side you have people like myself who see two major ‘smoking guns’ relating to the World Trade Center on 9/11 still unanswered.

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST.

You betray by your choice of words, and by the artificial limitations you impose, that you are clearly aware that your "smoking guns" have in fact been thoroughly answered.
Or why else would you limit answers you choose to accept only to "published papers", and the detailed collapse sequence only to what NIST deemed probable?

Regarding Mark Basile, I believe him to be an honourable person. The only thing he is guilty of is tardiness.

I have for a very long time defended Mark Basile, and have said many times that I believe he is a fundamentally honest person. This mostly based on my personal impression.
After all those many years, in which his job was merely to find a suitable lab and mail them an envelope with a few red-gray chips and a cheque, I find more and more that I have no evidence for my assumption that he is honest and honorable.
Do you?

 

[Oystein]

...
Nor is that paper peer reviewed, nor is there a paper that reproduces the results, nor is there any published scenraio for thermite use in destruction of the WTC structures. In Fact a court case has discredited Harrit.
...

It seems that even AE911Truth has quietly dropped the thermite hoax - there is no mention of it in their 2017 AIA resolution proposal, despite it consisting mostly of a long, broad, wild Gish Gallop with no less than 17 of their same old same old talking points, most of them long debunked, irrelevant or not actually supporting their point of view.

 

[beachnut]

I could easily argue that all of the frequent participants in this forum have a taste for “9/11 conspiracy woo”

Do you have a new smoking gun gish gallop claim? No, you go no evidence and believe what? You can't express your claims. Do you have any? No, yes, maybe; 15 years and all you can do is? You got evidence for any 9/11 truth claims? No = 15 years of failure. Yes, 9/11 truth is woo. Good job, you know its true

On one side we have a large majority of ISF members who ‘believe’ that their arguments have been sufficiently validated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

Validated? LOL, the USG can't hide anything, we are the government. When we fail to get what we need, we fix it. We have the FDR information etc, etc, etc... Gee, Nixon could not hide Watergate... you got zero evidence, and complain that the evidence supports the "government story". The government is run by US citizens, and the fact is you don't need the FBI or CIA, or NTSB, or other government agencies to figure out 9/11. We have video of two planes hitting the WTC... Guess which planes on 9/11 are missing from the inventory of American Airlines and United? Wow, that is not government... Guess what, American and United have to keep flight manifests of people on the plane; guess which 19 had the only motive on 9/11 to murder thousands of Americans? Gee, guess 9/11 truth can't do simple investigation, can you? No

On another side you have people like myself who see two major ‘smoking guns’ relating to the World Trade Center on 9/11 still unanswered.

You have no smoking guns, you might be smoking something, but you got no evidence; you never will. Thus this is a lie.

There is no published paper that finds Dr. Harrit et al were wrong in their reasoning, or that their findings were are not reproducible.

Harrit fake the conclusion, it is based on simple reading comprehension. There is no proof for the thermite conclusion, Harrit and Jones are old men, and liars on the inside job thermite fantasy. Holy thermite, read the paper, it is BS. Any english major can see, any lay person can see the conclusion is not proved in the paper. Get some help from your english teacher/professor on this simple one.

There is no published paper that stands ready to publicly defend or fully explain the collapse of WTC7 as is envisioned by the NIST.

BS, there are many paper, some are owned by firms, thus you have to pay to get the info. Fire caused the collapse, more than one paper and 99.9 percent of all engineers will agree when they have the facts; thus your less than 0.1 percent of crazy CT engineers who signed the Gage petition of woo are... crazy, and offer no proof for CD, or thermite, or DEW, or other fantasy options you have fallen for.

Regarding Mark Basile, I believe him to be an honourable person. The only thing he is guilty of is tardiness.

How many years does it take to fake a conclusion?

 

[Oystein]

Seeing that this thread gets bumped at a time when self-appointed gate-keeper Ziggi makes visits to a neighboring thread oviously begs the question:

Ziggi, what have you heard from Mark lately? When will an independent lab get possession of some red-gray chips? And how does Mark propose to select those chips?

 

[jaydeehess]

It seems that even AE911Truth has quietly dropped the thermite hoax - there is no mention of it in their 2017 AIA resolution proposal, despite it consisting mostly of a long, broad, wild Gish Gallop with no less than 17 of their same old same old talking points, most of them long debunked, irrelevant or not actually supporting their point of view.

AE911T has often minimized or outright omitted it's claims of surreptitious planting of thermite/explosives, in favour of simply claiming a new investigation is needed because, they claim, the NIST reports are flawed and non-explanatory of the collapses.

They seem to recognize that claiming bigbadMIB running around planting explosives in order to carry out what could arguably be the single biggest treasonous act in US History, sounds a bit, just a bit, crazy.

It also allows them to not have to merge their claims about three of the dozen or so destroyed Manhattan structures, with the totality of the events of 9/11/01, which includes of course, Flight 77 and the Pentagon, and Flight 93 and the crash in Pennsylvania.


,,,,, and so it doesn't get pushed back because of lil ol' me:

Seeing that this thread gets bumped at a time when self-appointed gate-keeper Ziggi makes visits to a neighboring thread obviously begs the question:

Ziggi, what have you heard from Mark lately? When will an independent lab get possession of some red-gray chips? And how does Mark propose to select those chips?