Chain of Custody

superlogicalthinker said:
Yes. That could be possible. Although I doubt it because there is no motivation for harrit/Jones claim other than to find out the truth of what happened. I asked that yesterday and got back a bunch of irrelevant responses.

Let's say hypothetically that Jones/Harrit were deceitful. A scientist from both sides this time would eliminate those possibilities.
Click to expand...

So you're basically saying that Harrit\Jones have ZERO motivation to alter their findings, but Dr. Millette would? Do you have any premise for that? Any reason to think that? Have you checked into Dr. Millette's background at all?

The security I was referring to is other projects that Dr. Millette is working on, as I am positive this project isn't the soul focus of the lab. If YOU don't believe it, that's fine. You can take Harrit's study and use it at face value.

The "take people at their word" mentality is because Dr. Millette would have nothing, Nothing, NOTHING to gain by tarnishing his reputation by posting a false copy. From all research I have done personally, and seen on the forums he has an immaculate background outside of an accusation by a truther. Which proved to be nothing at all.

As stated before, maybe if YOU can convince one of your scientists to be involved, and pay his way in, then sure. It's not going to be done on my dime, or anyone elses here I would imagine. I have enough faith in the current course of the research to feel confident in it's results. The subsequent peer review will solidify it.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Yes. That could be possible. Although I doubt it because there is no motivation for harrit/Jones claim other than to find out the truth of what happened.
Click to expand...

What was your basis for discounting things like, money, attention or other possible human factors (there are tons).

:confused:
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
.

Let's say hypothetically that Jones/Harrit were deceitful. A scientist from both sides this time would eliminate those possibilities.
Click to expand...

Or they could corrupt the procedures. You really don't get this do you? Why can't you except this as independent of their work?

Could it be you have a bias that prevents you from being objective?

I accept Harrit/Jones data as stated.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Scared is a word that least describes my feelings toward this new testing. More like excited. I'm excited to see that there is still active thermitic material in the powder of what was once the concrete of the WTC.

However, I was thinking last night while watching the hockey game.....if Millete finds thermitic material, whats to say he will be honest about it?

Taking someone at their word when it comes to this subject should NEVER be the way things are conducted. Things should always be sourced. There needs to be SOLID PROOF to lay this subject to rest.

THERE HAS TO BE A 9/11 TRUTH SYMPATHETIC SCIENTIST INVOLVED IN THESE STUDIES.

If someone is not present to oversee the testing (from both sides) how do we know for sure that the tests were not "deceptive".
Click to expand...

So, where was the neutral scientist in Jones et al's studies?

Oh, right......

Carry on.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
I propose that we organize a 9/11 Truth scientist ( Basille, Ryan, Roberts...ect) to over see Millettes testing.
Kevin Ryan has already brought up the word "deceptive" in regards to the tests.

How do we know that if thermitic material is found that Millette actually comes out and says so?

Is it possible to have a 9/11 scientist involved in this study?

That would eliminate room for skepticism involving the documenting of the tests while they were being completed.

Plus, to have another professional involved is better in my opinion, you never know what one person might miss and the other pick up behind him.
Click to expand...

You should get right on that.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Not look over his shoulder. be involved in his study. Work side by side.
Click to expand...

Your side had the chance to do exactly this, for many years now. Sorry, but IMO, you missed your chance.

superlogicalthinker said:
What security issues? If they are both scientists and have the credentials to prove it, why couldn't one scientist enter anothers lab?
Click to expand...

No. You don't understand science.

Would you mind if someone else came into your bathroom and took a shower while you were in there? No, of course not.


superlogicalthinker said:
Then whats the harm to have another professional to help him out with that? If he is curious himself about whether or not there is thermitic metarial in the WTC powder, chances are that he favors one side of the argument and is not totally neutral on the topic.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, and not even close to being logical.

superlogicalthinker said:
Otherwise why would he be going out of his way to get this testing done at minimal costs?
Click to expand...

He's already got a vested interest in the dust of the WTC. He's already done studies on it before. The fact that he's willing to do it at a minimal cost, is admirable. You should thank him, instead of resisting him at every move.

superlogicalthinker said:
This study would put to rest allot more if there was a scientist from both sides present.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you've had your chance. Kevin Ryan et al. have had years to get together and do another, joint analysis.


superlogicalthinker said:
Im sorry, but there is too much taking people at their word going on in this study. Thing should be done so both sides can see the testing while it's happening.
Click to expand...

Kinda like how we're supposed to take Harriet et al. at their word?

Perhaps you shouldn't be throwing rocks in your own house. It's made of a fragile, transparent material that is prone to breaking.
 
NoahFence said:
Getting your ducks in a row, eh?

The sounds you and MM and Red are making at the impending demise of therm*te are nothing short of hilarious.
Click to expand...

The goalposts they are a-moving.

Come gather round people

Throughout the land

And don't criticize what you can't understand

The goalposts they are beyond your command

"cause the goalposts they are a-mooving.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Exactly...and we have all this discussion over it. Why not eliminate the discussions this time around and have both sides present when doing the tests?
Click to expand...
Why is this an issue when no one really questions their data or chain of custody (or should)?

I'd be happy with a real peer-review of their work. I've had two chemist read their paper. They both agree, "their data does not support their conclusions".

These new tests are because they did do it right in the first place.

It's that simple..

ETA: Highlight stupid typo, no sense in editing it, it's quoted below. :o
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
So, where was the neutral scientist in Jones et al's studies?

Oh, right......

Carry on.
Click to expand...

"So, where was the neutral scientist in Jones et al's studies? "

What would be so hard about it other than the costs? I'm sure the 9/11 commiunity can raise the funds required cover thier end of the experiment.

It's as simple as Millette looks.....our scientist looks. They both look at the same thing at the same time in the same room using the same equipment!

What does it matter in the slightest that the 9 sccientists didn't have a neutral person? The request was just made by me right now. It would be a great way for both sides to get true results. Results that could finally be indisputable.
 
DGM said:
Doesn't answer the question. Are you implying there could be no other reasons someone might do such a thing? Remember your user name and try to live up to it.
Click to expand...

Well then what are the reasons in your opinion. I asked yesterday.

What is the motivation for the Betheam scientist then?
 
superlogicalthinker said:
"So, where was the neutral scientist in Jones et al's studies? "

What would be so hard about it other than the costs? I'm sure the 9/11 commiunity can raise the funds required cover thier end of the experiment.
It's as simple as Millette looks.....our scientist looks. They both look at the same thing at the same time in the same room using the same equipment!

What does it matter in the slightest that the 9 sccientists didn't have a neutral person? The request was just made by me right now. It would be a great way for both sides to get true results. Results that could finally be indisputable.
Click to expand...

You should get right on it, the JREF members here have shown you how it's done.
 
DGM said:
Why is this an issue when no one really questions their data or chain of custody (or should)?

I'd be happy with a real peer-review of their work. I've had two chemist read their paper. They both agree, "their data does not support their conclusions".

These new tests are because they did do it right in the first place.

It's that simple..
Click to expand...

These new tests are because they did do it right in the first place.

Sure about this sentence big guy?
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Exactly...and we have all this discussion over it. Why not eliminate the discussions this time around and have both sides present when doing the tests?
Click to expand...

It will just make you have different discussions.

You will NEVER stop assuming that which conflicts with your spoon-fed opinions is wrong. Never.

So what's the point?
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Well then what are the reasons in your opinion. I asked yesterday.

What is the motivation for the Betheam scientist then?
Click to expand...

Why is the motivation so important to you? Do you think that the results will change depending on the beliefs of the scientist who does the test?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom