Maybe by directing that question to the relevent person/office would get you the answer. Seeing as your just JAQing off and dont really want the answer then i dont suppose youll do any such thing.
Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions
- Thread starter T.A.M.
- Start date
Maybe by directing that question to the relevent person/office would get you the answer. Seeing as your just JAQing off and dont really want the answer then i dont suppose youll do any such thing.
These are not legitimate. As I have stated, to be legitimate for this thread, both debunkers and truthers should feel that the questions are legit.
As for your tasteless humor about bin laden and how he "chose" the suicide pilot who proceeded to kill hundreds of innocents, well you have to live with yourself on that one.
I guess you consider going back to a forum where people think you are a joke, and telling them how you pwned all of us a more noble venture.
TAM
I am making official request to have this thread moderated, and only to allow questions and discussion concerning legitimate questions. For the record, as the creator of the OP, I am going to request that "legitimate" questions be ones concerning Governmental foreknowledge, Hijacker Funding, Assistance from other countries, origins and elements of Al-Qaeda.
I do not consider ANY MIHOP related questions to be legitimate.
If this cannot be done, then I request the thread be closed, and thank the snot nosed truthers for once again showing everyone that they are a bunch of intellectual idiots.
TAM
I do not consider ANY MIHOP related questions to be legitimate.
If this cannot be done, then I request the thread be closed, and thank the snot nosed truthers for once again showing everyone that they are a bunch of intellectual idiots.
TAM
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
I am making official request to have this thread moderated, and only to allow questions and discussion concerning legitimate questions. For the record, as the creator of the OP, I am going to request that "legitimate" questions be ones concerning Governmental foreknowledge, Hijacker Funding, Assistance from other countries, origins and elements of Al-Qaeda.
I do not consider ANY MIHOP related questions to be legitimate.
If this cannot be done, then I request the thread be closed, and thank the snot nosed truthers for once again showing everyone that they are a bunch of intellectual idiots.
TAM
So I take it that you don't think my question about General Arnold is legitimate?
I am making official request to have this thread moderated, and only to allow questions and discussion concerning legitimate questions. For the record, as the creator of the OP, I am going to request that "legitimate" questions be ones concerning Governmental foreknowledge, Hijacker Funding, Assistance from other countries, origins and elements of Al-Qaeda.
I do not consider ANY MIHOP related questions to be legitimate.
If this cannot be done, then I request the thread be closed, and thank the snot nosed truthers for once again showing everyone that they are a bunch of intellectual idiots.
TAM
TAM - not wishing or meaning to be rude, isnt the fact that we are discussing any issue with regards to a 911 conspiracy all a little irrelevent and pointless? Yet here we are almost 8 years on still discussing the same ol same ol and the only legitimate evidence is the one that stands.
Without these forums and threads the TM would not exist. We feed them, no matter how legitimate you feel the questions are.
Why feed them at all? I have yet to see one legitimate question from any truther that they can legitimatly back up with legitimate evidence or credibility- not one! So why do we continue and why differentiate the need for legitimate questions when they dont really have any?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,569
Please quote the statement or statements by General Arnold that are in question.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
But incomplete in significant ways. You've been cherrypicked.
It took me seconds to find the primary source and check.
Can you find it?
Last edited:
No I think that is legitimate...so many others from the "truth" side of the fence, in this thread are not however, and as usual, it is hard to see wheat amidst all the chaff.
TAM
Not rude at all. That is, in and of itself, a legitimate 9/11 related question.
I think that forums are not just for discussing new topics, or topics that we have answers to, but are a place for discussing all types of things...yes even ridiculous theories on 9/11...just not this thread.
The reasons we choose to post here, at this point, is unique to the individual. Some post for the scattered lurker. Some post because they get kicks out of goading people (see Kreel, HI, and a few of our own debunkers). Others post here because they take the accusations of the truth movement as a personal affront.
The point of this thread, was to try and have a thread that both sides of the argument could find, at least, a little common ground in.
TAM
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I posted these questions earlier on the moderated thread regarding 'thermitic materials'. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4609230#post4609230
'I've still got a few questions regarding the 'thermitic material' in the red/grey chips. I'd appreciate any specific answers to them!
1) Does anyone know what the ignition temp of nanothermites or nanothermite sol-gels are? Kevin Ryan claims that the red/grey chips combusted at the same temperature as those.
2) Jones et al. are claiming that the formation of 'iron-rich' spheres' after ignition of the chips proves that combustion temperature was at least 1400 C. Can anyone provide good evidence to disprove that claim?
3) methyl ethyl ketone was used as a solvent to demonstrate the difference between ordinary paints and the red/grey chips. According to Steven Jones, while paint samples did dissolve, the chips did not. But apparently there was some dissolution of the chips after all, as the materials did separate out to a degree - how does one interpret such behavior?
4) The (mass?) of red/grey chips is approx. = .1% of dust in samples collected. Any good ideas what the total amount of the chip material might have been? I know the WTC dust contained many different materials, according to the USGS 'plaster, paint, foam, glass fibers and fragments, fiberglass, cement, vermiculite (used as a fire retardant instead of asbestos), chrysotile (asbestos), cotton fibers and lint, tarry and charred wood, and soot.' (Chemical and Engineering News, 2003 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html )
The article above cites 'more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan'. I'm not sure how accurate that figure is, but .1% of that would be 1000 tons! That's a huge amount of material, certainly not plausible for nanothermite as envisioned by Jones et al.
'I've still got a few questions regarding the 'thermitic material' in the red/grey chips. I'd appreciate any specific answers to them!
1) Does anyone know what the ignition temp of nanothermites or nanothermite sol-gels are? Kevin Ryan claims that the red/grey chips combusted at the same temperature as those.
2) Jones et al. are claiming that the formation of 'iron-rich' spheres' after ignition of the chips proves that combustion temperature was at least 1400 C. Can anyone provide good evidence to disprove that claim?
3) methyl ethyl ketone was used as a solvent to demonstrate the difference between ordinary paints and the red/grey chips. According to Steven Jones, while paint samples did dissolve, the chips did not. But apparently there was some dissolution of the chips after all, as the materials did separate out to a degree - how does one interpret such behavior?
4) The (mass?) of red/grey chips is approx. = .1% of dust in samples collected. Any good ideas what the total amount of the chip material might have been? I know the WTC dust contained many different materials, according to the USGS 'plaster, paint, foam, glass fibers and fragments, fiberglass, cement, vermiculite (used as a fire retardant instead of asbestos), chrysotile (asbestos), cotton fibers and lint, tarry and charred wood, and soot.' (Chemical and Engineering News, 2003 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html )
The article above cites 'more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan'. I'm not sure how accurate that figure is, but .1% of that would be 1000 tons! That's a huge amount of material, certainly not plausible for nanothermite as envisioned by Jones et al.
Was any of this dust collected by any medical/research body in an attempt to discover/disprove any relation to lung/chest/health issue since 911?
If so, surely samples of that could still be used to prove that the supadupanano was indeed RED PAINT.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Not rude at all. That is, in and of itself, a legitimate 9/11 related question.
I think that forums are not just for discussing new topics, or topics that we have answers to, but are a place for discussing all types of things...yes even ridiculous theories on 9/11...just not this thread.
The reasons we choose to post here, at this point, is unique to the individual. Some post for the scattered lurker. Some post because they get kicks out of goading people (see Kreel, HI, and a few of our own debunkers). Others post here because they take the accusations of the truth movement as a personal affront.
The point of this thread, was to try and have a thread that both sides of the argument could find, at least, a little common ground in.
TAM
And I DO wonder if this would even exist any more if not for JREF? We might be the only reason the Truth Movement remains alive at all, and the truthers haven't joined the ranks of the people who believe in Lizard People in the sphere of public attention. JREF is about the most totally googled forum on the internet. Search almost any topic you see here and we come out on the first page.
Perhaps if we gave them the inattention they so richly deserve the rest of the planet would follow?
And that brings on another legitimate question on 9/11 - Who is actually behind the Truth Movement. Because if I were to have been asked how to keep any legitimate questions on 9/11 from being seriously considered by the public, I would have said to create a really insane CT about 9/11 that was just SO stupid, and SO insulting to almost any decent human being that any question at all about 9/11 would be easily deflected as being a part of the nutty CT.
What the truthers call "disinfo."
Maybe it TAKES disinfo to KNOW disinfo?
While I agree, it has been fairly convenient for the Bush Admin, that 9/11 CTs have become so reviled as to relegate all items (including real questions about what happened) associated with blame for the attacks to the dusty shelves of the Frankenstein Laboratory, I think it was Serendipitous for them, not an intentional act on their part...not sure they had the smarts or foresight to do such a thing.
TAM
TAM
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Perhaps, but not very interesting. The most serious crime implied by this is the attempt to cover up one's own incompetence, which is probably the most common reason for "fibbing" about the response to the 9/11 attacks.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
If you read the article I linked to you'll see who collected and analyzed dust. One example is the Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) represented by Paul J. Lioy, deputy director of government relations.
I was also thinking that the manufacturers of various paints could be contacted in order to determine a chemical match. When Dr. Jones goes on about how 'high tech' the chips are, he creates the impression that these materials could ONLY have been manufactured at places like Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore (if I recall correctly).
I'd be curious to know whether such paint manufacturers would confirm that such chip material COULD have been produced by them at all. I certainly wouldn't rule it out until then.
zorro99
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,547
Richard Clark's broadside
Richard Clark made some harsh statements regarding the Bush Administration's failure to prevent attacks in today's WaPost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../05/29/AR2009052901560.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Wow!
Richard Clark made some harsh statements regarding the Bush Administration's failure to prevent attacks in today's WaPost:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../05/29/AR2009052901560.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Wow!
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
But was there enough in the warning for preparation?
Would public accept stronger security without full discloser,so perpetrators would not change plans?
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
I predict that Cheney will soon be on Fox News excoriating Richard Clark - again.