No Explosives Here?

[atavisms]

My secondary MOS in the Army was 89D - Explosive Ordnance Disposal - and after having handled, used and rendered safe every type of explosive and explosive device you can imagine (and several you probably can't) my expert opinion is that there were no explosives involved with 9/11.

I thank you for your service to our country.
I appreciate your comment and sincerely wish you were correct but the facts indicate otherwise. Remember, an 'expert' can be found to say anything. This is why 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy. Unless you can explain the features of these events that so overwhelmingly point to explosives, then you are not going to convince many people.

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

Personally, I dont need any of their testimony to be 100% certain that wtc 1 2 and 7 were destroyed with preplanted explosives, -the data (facts on the ground, not to mention the reaction of the bush administration) provide far more than evidence than is necessary to be sure this was the case.

I wish you were correct. I fought tooth and nail to come to the conclusion that the 9-11 Truth advocates are incorrect..but I am not going to pretend the facts are other than what they actually are. ANd the long list of facts stemming from different sources, all point the same way: explosives

 

[WildCat]

I thank you for your service to our country.
I appreciate you comment and I wish you were correct but the facts indicate otherwise. Remember, an 'expert' can be found to say anything. This is why 'appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy.

No, that's not what an appeal top authority fallacy is.

Unless you can explain the features of these events that so overwhelmingly point to explosives, then you are not going to convince many people.

95% of people don;t think explosives were used on 9/11, and none of the FDNY personnell on duty that day think explosives were involved. Including those inside the WTC who survived the collapse.

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

Can you link to thie papers these "experts" have published? Of course you can't, because after 10 years the truth movement has yet to publish a single paper. How pathetic is that?

And btw, this is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

 

[atavisms]

No, that's not what an appeal top authority fallacy is. 95% of people don;t think explosives were used on 9/11, and none of the FDNY personnell on duty that day think explosives were involved. Including those inside the WTC who survived the collapse. Can you link to thie papers these "experts" have published? Of course you can't, because after 10 years the truth movement has yet to publish a single paper. How pathetic is that? And btw, this is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)
But who cares, I just said the evidence is so overwhelming that we dont even need any experts to be sure these buildings were blown up. The irony is that NIST has not peer-reviewed a single paper.. and will not even share what they used as inputs for their computer models!

Appeal to authority is doing just that; appealing to authority.
We are not all equally endowed when it come to critical abilities, so dont feel bad if you dont get it. Im sure you're good at others things.

I live in NYC my whole life. the FDNY hold their annual remembrance ceremony up the block from my office on RSD - Ive spoken to dozens of them. Many know the truth. When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

 

[Sabrina]

 

[sheeplesnshills]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)

LOL creating your own "journal" and "peer reviewing" it yourself doesn't count in the real world.

There are plenty of bona fides Journals in the relevant disciplines so creating your own is a instant give away that its a fraud.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=atavisms;

I live in NYC my whole life. the FDNY hold their annual remembrance ceremony up the block from my office on RSD - Ive spoken to dozens of them. Many know the truth.

You are guilty of a terminological inexactitude.

When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

 

[Scott Sommers]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)

Do you really believe this? This is a real question. Do you know what a journal is? Do you understand what peer-review is supposed to be? There is a reason why a discovery that's supposed to be so important is published in such controversial venues as this and Bentham. Jones and his gang could silence me - and everyone else here - in a second, if he just published things in a problem place. The 'Journal of 9-11 Studies' is a blog run by a politically motivated gang. They might as well call it 'The Blog of 9-11 Studies'.

I'm going on too long. Do you really believe this? Honest question - have you ever attended university?

 

[Dave Rogers]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies. (I cant do all your research for you)

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a well-known fake journal. Papers that support the preffered flavour of truthiness are passed by the peer reviewers. Papers that don't support them are rejected without even being looked at. The journal even pretended to close down at one point, apparently in order to avoid even reviewing one of Gregory Urich's papers, yet for some reason continued to publish papers by other contributors. Nobody but a small number of truthers takes the journal seriously, nor ever will.

But who cares, I just said the evidence is so overwhelming that we dont even need any experts to be sure these buildings were blown up.

Yes, we know you keep saying that. It's still not true, how ever many times you say it. There is no evidence of explosives initiating the collapses; no aural evidence, no physical evidence, no testimonial evidence and no documentary evidence, other than a few obvious fake video sound tracks, that suggests for a moment that any demolition explosives were installed or that any sufficiently loud explosions occurred at the right moment to cause the collapses. No explosive residues were found in the debris, no remnants of explosive devices were found, and the dynamics of the collapses are totally unlike any explosive demolition ever performed.

When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

Yes, let's stick to precise and directed arguments, like repeatedly insisting that there is overwhelming evidence for your position, but never explaining the fact that none of that evidence actually means what you want it to mean.

Dave

 

[atavisms]

LOL creating your own "journal" and "peer reviewing" it yourself doesn't count in the real world.

There are plenty of bona fides Journals in the relevant disciplines so creating your own is a instant give away that its a fraud.

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.
The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper. I think there are one or two more.
Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.
The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper. I think there are one or two more.
Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

So I repeat my question.

Do you really believe this? This is a real question. Do you know what a journal is? Do you understand what peer-review is supposed to be? There is a reason why a discovery that's supposed to be so important is published in such controversial venues as this and Bentham. Jones and his gang could silence me - and everyone else here - in a second, if he just published things in a problem place.

Bentham is a blog. It might as well be called the Bentham Chemical Physics Blog.

Do you know what a journal is? Really? What do you think it is?

 

[Disbelief]

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

There is no mountain of evidence supporting the truther positions. If you contend that there is a mountain of evidence, maybe you can be the first truther to spell out exactly what happened that day and how it was accomplished.

 

[Animal]

"When we combine the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 immediately appears to be a controlled demolition with the twofold fact that all prior collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have been produced by explosives, and that the collapse of WTC 7 has many features in common with planned implosions, the view that it was a planned implosion should be the natural assumption. The burden of proof should be placed on any claim that WTC7 was brought down by something other than explosives, because this is the wild, empirically baseless hypothesis devoid of any historical precedent, which is just the kind of hypothesis that one expects to hear from irrational conspiracy theorists.

Following up on this "logic" No previous building over 28 stories has ever been demolished using explosives. All previous building demolished using explosives required weeks of preparation time, weakening of existing building structure, removal of interior components. All previous building demolished using explosives witnessed loud sharp explosive noises and left seismic data at monitoring stations. The burden of proof is placed on those claiming demolition by explosives because of the lack of characteristics that have occurred at all previous demolitions of buildings by explosives.

 

[newton3376]

The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a well-known fake journal. Papers that support the preffered flavour of truthiness are passed by the peer reviewers. Papers that don't support them are rejected without even being looked at. The journal even pretended to close down at one point, apparently in order to avoid even reviewing one of Gregory Urich's papers, yet for some reason continued to publish papers by other contributors. Nobody but a small number of truthers takes the journal seriously, nor ever will.

Does anyone have a link to that paper by Urich?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Does anyone have a link to that paper by Urich?

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

Pretty damning stuff for the truth movement, given that Gregory was a truther when he wrote it (I use past tense because I have no idea what he believes these days). There aren't many truthers that I have any respect for, but Gregory is definitely one of them.

Dave

 

[newton3376]

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf

Pretty damning stuff for the truth movement, given that Gregory was a truther when he wrote it (I use past tense because I have no idea what he believes these days). There aren't many truthers that I have any respect for, but Gregory is definitely one of them.

Dave

Thanks Dave....

From the limited amount that I have read from Gregory Urich.....I would highly doubt that he is a truther anymore.

And correct me if I am wrong...but Greening was never a truther.

 

[WildCat]

A number of 9-11 related papers have been peer-reviewed. See the Journal of 9-11 Studies.

No atavisms, the Journal of 8/11 studies was created specifically to avoid having an actual peer-review process, and instead is reviewed by other truthers.

But who cares, I just said the evidence is so overwhelming that we dont even need any experts to be sure these buildings were blown up. The irony is that NIST has not peer-reviewed a single paper.. and will not even share what they used as inputs for their computer models!

The NIST study is available for anyone to critique. So far it still stands strongly.

Appeal to authority is doing just that; appealing to authority.

Which is what truther groups like ae911truth and scholars for 9/11 truth are. None has produced anything of relevance.

We are not all equally endowed when it come to critical abilities, so dont feel bad if you dont get it. Im sure you're good at others things.

I live in NYC my whole life. the FDNY hold their annual remembrance ceremony up the block from my office on RSD - Ive spoken to dozens of them. Many know the truth. When you argue that way, in such meaningless blanket terms, you reveal your own foolishness and the simple level at which you are engaging this material.

Name one who "knows the truth". Explain why not a single one has come forward despite this knowledge.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.

LOL I said bona Fides.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html

The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper.

Anomalies that indicate inside job? I don't know the paper in question but I doubt it says what you think it does.

I think there are one or two more.

Ok find them then. You are still at zero.

Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

Like the lack of any cut columns or beams, no timers, no shock cords, no explosive residue, no characteristic sharp detonation, no flashes, studies by real experts showing no explosives required etc etc? Are you sure you are not mistaking a non existent molehill for a mountain??

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldn't have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

Nonsense, many here are educated in relevant field so can spot any obvious problems with the so called OCT. However we admit we are not the definitive experts in many if not all these fields and that a measure of success in these field is to publish papers in reputable journals. We are ignoring nothing, just pointing out that even if you convinced us (so far no flying pigs) it gets you nowhere as we are not the measure of the quality or otherwise of your "evidence".

 

[twinstead]

We are ignoring nothing, just pointing out that even if you convinced us (so far no flying pigs) it gets you nowhere as we are not the measure of the quality or otherwise of your "evidence".

That's why it's odd that a decade after the event truthers are still happily believing vanity journals and participating in "debates" on relatively obscure internet forums and blogs.

truthers: You don't need to convince us. You need to get a respected engineering or scientific organization from anywhere in the world to support you and help you find qualified and respected scientists and engineers to represent you to their organizations, the law enforcement community, and respected media outlets.

You should be quite curious as to why, if your evidence of inside-job is as compelling as you declare it is, nobody who is anybody wants to carry your torch. Either your evidence isn't as compelling as you think it is, or you as a "movement" are so inept you can't get anybody's attention.

Either way you folks have some serious problems to overcome if you want to convince anybody of "The Truth".

 

[Edx]

Bentham Chemical Physics Journal has the Harrit paper.
The Environmentalist 2008 10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4 has the Anomalies in the Air at GZ paper. I think there are one or two more.
Tbh, I have not spent a lot of time looking at this stuff because they are completely unnecessary in the face of the mountain of facts that reveal the use of explosives in those buildings.

That people get hung up on this while not being able to address a single one of them is what is revealing. "No peer-reviewed paper telling me what to think, then it couldnt have been an inside job.-Ill just ignore that literal mountain of evidence that shows these could not possibly ave been natural events." -that is basically your position.

Prove the paper was peer reviewed when they are well known to SPAM scientists to become editors of journals that - wait for it - they arent even qualified in.

 

[Edx]

Here are a whole slew of experts who disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

Creationists can make those kinds of films as well, AE911 still represent a tiny fringe irrelevant minority of nobodies in the scientific and engineering world.