Experts speak out in new film

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never claimed to have published a paper. Your imagination is running away with you.
     
  2. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yup, you nailed it.
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You should check the links to the info released.
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You mean the non confiscated, non classified stuff? Which NORAD version should we reference? Which timeline for the day should we reference?
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread isn't about NORAD, do try to keep up. I'm speaking of the NIST links I posted above.
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm so sorry. The whole story is so very confusing and ever changing.
     
  7. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You never published a paper. Sorry I should have been more clear; when I was asking you why don't you debunk the peer reviewed stuff that the people you think are snake oil salesman wrote, I meant properly debunk.

    In other words, why are you arguing with us anonymous people on the forum, when you could be putting the very Steven Jones in his place yourself! Why not go straight to Steven Jones and debunk him via a critique paper to the journals that he's trying to trick?
     
  8. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well NIST said they didn't look for that evidence, I guess they were lying and I should not have trusted them like that.

    But there's nothing on that link that says 42A0016.

    And where do they talk about the swiss cheese steel?
     
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're both talking about two different things. NIST tested a recreation of the WTC structure in their burn lab. These tests included explosives.

    On the subject of whether steel from the site was tested for explosive residue they respond in Nist's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

    This, by the way, is not the same as saying they did not look for evidence. What they said was, they ruled out the use of explosives without a need to test steel for residue, which would not have been conclusive anyway. Part of this process of elimination was, of course, the testing conducted in the burn lab.
     
  10. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have read enough and concur with his assessment.

    They made the science fit the official story line
     
  11. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even though AQs number one method of carrying out terrorist acts involved explosives.

    Who is to say those jets didin't have explosives on board. For this reason alone they should have tested for explosives.

    Their BS excuse for NOT testing is pretty F****** weak, and should be suspect.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST and the tests they performed in their lab.
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They DID have explosives on board the planes ,champ.....Thousands of gallons of jet fuel:roll:
     
  14. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think jet fuel is explosive...flammable, yes...explosive, no.

    And you can call me champ around here anytime, bud.
     
  15. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So they did test for explosives?
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,724
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you read? Why would you ask that question if you can read?

    That's what I said. That's what you quoted. Is there some ambiguity there that let's you believe there's a possibility that their lab tests didn't include explosives testing?

    You should have stopped at the first three words in that sentence. Jet fuel at the correct stoichiometric ratio is explosive.
     
  17. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? They tried explosives on the workstation burn tests? Hannibal said this too and I asked which data this was and he can't seem to show me or specified some wiered file number that wasn't on his link.

    Maybe you can show me?

    Nevertheless, the limited physical testing done by NIST and their contracted UL did not validate the conclusion in their report. It more or less disproved it, showing that the trusses could indeed endure all that and more without failing.

    Only in the virtual world could NIST make such things happen.

    And what about the swiss cheese steel? What about the molten pools which NIST doesn't even mention in their report let alone reconcile with their conclusion?

    All this evidence which NIST didn't pay attention to when they were coming up with their theory.

    You can't ignore certain data and cherrypick and still call it valid science.

    Yes this is where they lied and said nobody heard explosives to justify why they didn't check. I already know that.

    They said they did NOT look for explosives residue in the rubble.

    They did not say they checked and ruled it out not finding the evidence.. They said they didn't check.

    They never said it would not be conclusive.. They said it MAY not NECESSARILY be conclusive.

    BIG difference here. Now this is not just petty symantics.. NIST are trying to fool the layman into thinking like possibly ambiguous results or not guaranteed conclusiveness should somehow preclude the necessity to explore all possibly avenues of scientific inquiry.. The fact is it COULD still show conclusive evidence.

    It's like saying NASA shouldn't bother having their MARS Rovers dig into the soil to look for evidence of microbial life, because they MIGHT not find anything conclusive. Psuedoscience!

    Also, NIST are pretending like there's only one possibility for explosives, that is thermite, then trying to rule that out as impossible via rationalizations and then ruling out any and all possible means of demolition or explosives.

    There's more ways to blow things up other than thermite.. So only focusing on thermite and using that to rule out things besides thermite is again, psuedoscience.

    NIST doesn't even say this in their FAQ. They say nothing about ruling out explosives because they tried that in the burn tests. I don't know WHERE you got this from.

    Now let's say this is true.. So their workstation didn't collapse due to the explosives they used on them, so they ruled out explosives!

    You do know that the intense fires ALSO didn't effect collapse in this experiment either! So by the same standard you must ALSO rule THAT out..

    But did they? NO! They actually went with that explanation.

    Not just psuedoscience, but hypocracy as well!
     
  18. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait a minute.. Didn't you just make a thread promoting this book but admit you can't endorse its claims on account of you haven't finished reading it?
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Finished it, as intended. I had already gotten well into the book before endorsing it.

    Unlike the thread starter, who seems to have no intention of even watching his link, or stating which expert he agrees with. Instead, he endorses death beams from space links.
     
  20. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok good. You've finished the book..

    Now you can answer the question!

    Who's got it wrong? The 9/11 commission report or this book?
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Neither.

    You should read them both and compare.
     
  22. tomteapack

    tomteapack New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
  23. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    9/11 commision report claims no evidence of Saudi funding.

    This book according to you claims evidence of Saudi funding.

    Now these are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true.

    So which one do YOU think is true?
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read them both, then let us know. Having read both, I can state that they support each other.

    Can you refute that?
     
  25. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No.. I can't refute that you accept this. It's like imaginary numbers and black holes and that... Seemingly makes no sense but maybe somehow it does..

    I need help on the somehow.

    To be honest, where I live, I cannot get such a book at the library.....And I'm extremely broke so I can't order the book. But since you have it, can you just run us past more specifically what Saudi agents this book is talking about who provided such funding?
     

Share This Page