Independant Investigation on WTC Dust

This is only true when one is ignorant enough to actually believe your claims on the purpose of the paper. Of course, the paper claims a totally different purpose which makes you look like a complete fool.

So now you're claiming the chips were thermitic in nature? Wow! Jones will be so happy you've saved all his research! Of course we will need to see evidence you've actually done that.

Or are you just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up once again?

It is hard to tell with truthers.

 

You ever going to prove all the hijackers were in al qaeda?

 

Run! Run little truther! Run! Don't let them big bad facts get to you! Don't answer any questions because you know they will expose you! AAAAAH!!!

It's funny watching truthers have a meltdown.

 

So basically you are never going to prove they were in al qaeda.

 

You seem to have gotten your threads crossed again.

If you lose you agenda, you might find it easier to keep up.

Good luck.

 

Already have. Here you go yet again. Keep running.

 

So basically you will never prove they were all in al qaeda.

 

Can you explain why the results of the study are important considering they don't know the origin of the chips? If the chips came from a nearby building doesn't that make any testing useless?

 

You ignoring the truth does not make the truth go away. The evidence is there. You know it. I know it. And yet you insist on playing games. Is it time for a mod to step in and see what you are doing?

 

Why is it you ignore the stated purpose of the report? It has been explained to you numerous times. Yet here you are insisting that YOUR pretend purpose of the study supercedes any and all other purposes even though you've been proven to be wrong. I don't think I've ever seen someone so desperate to be right about anything that they would so blatantly ignore the truth. It defies logic and it shows that the person has absolutely no concern for their own credibility or reputation.

 

If you read the full report, you would see that your assumptions about it are false.

 

We have. Multiple times. The importance of this study is a rebuttal of the Harrit claim that thermite was found in WTC dust.

1. Neils Harrit published a paper that analyzed red gray chips from NYC dust in a Bantham journal that contained the conclusion that the red gray chips were a special type of nano thermitic material.

2. Mr. Chris Mohr contracted in independent lab to review Neils Harrit's paper.

3. The independent lab found that the red gray chips were consistent with primer paint.

This study provides scientific review of Neils Harrit's paper and comes to a different conclusion about the composition of the red gray chips. This is why the paper is important. If you don't think the Harrit paper is meaningful, that's good for you. That opinion does not negate the meaning of the referenced paper in this thread. In fact, this paper should underscore the position you hold that the Harrit paper is meaningless.

Another issue you seem to have difficulty with is your assumption that the paper contains a bias. This paper does not provide an opinion about explosives, demolition, the original location of the red gray chips, or why the red gray chips were in the dust.

If you think the answers to these unanswered questions about the red gray ships are important, perhaps you should contract an independent research facility to find the answers to these questions.

 

Not knowing the origin of the chips makes any and all results meaningless. Do you have any idea how common red and gray paints are in commercial buildings? I do remember reading they could not match the red chip to any of the 177 coatings used. It may have been paint but if it came from a nearby building it is useless.

If the Harrit study also does not know the origin of the chips then their results are useless as well.

I am the only one in this thread being objective by applying the same exact standards to the two different agenda driven "studies."

 

No, you're the only one being dishonest in this thread by applying a reason for the study that does not exist. It has been explained ad nauseum to you, yet you insist on ignoring everything in order to pretend you're ASSumption is somehow more relevant than the truth. It isn't. Get over it already.

 

You keep repeating this over and over, yet you've not once addressed the meaning that was outlined for you each time you made the statement.

This paper shows that Neils Harrit came to an incorrect conclusion. That's all. That's the meaning. The paper does not support any position at all about explosives used in the WTC, or the original location of the red gray chips. That whole argument seems to be taking place in your head.

 

It's my understanding:

The Harritt conclusion stated thermitic materials were found. (inherently claiming artificial means were used to bring down the buildings)

This study claims no thermitic materials were found (inherently claiming no artificial means was used to bring the buildings down)

Is that correct so far?

 

Inherently this claim took place in your head.

Inherently this claim took place in your head.

The parts of the papers that you feel to be inherent are extensions of arguments that are taking place in your head, not within the respective papers. In reality neither paper claims either directly or indirectly that the red gray chips are evidence buildings were demolished, or are evidence that the buildings could not have been demolished. Harrit claims to have found thermite in dust collected from the site of the collapse. Millette shows that Harrit is mistaken.

Truthers on the other hand claim that Harrit provides evidence for a controlled demolition of the towers. It's probably because, like you, they didn't read or understand the paper and only skimmed the conclusion. They felt it supported their view, and so they accepted it as evidence. On the other hand, you skimmed this paper, found that it did not support your view, and you cast it aside as worthless.

How strange from someone who claims to review ALL the evidence.

 

I didn't bother reading your response when I saw you purposefully edited my post. When you can quote honestly dialogue can happen. You know this so you purposefully edit to avoid an honest discussion.

 

You read the post.

You can't respond to the point of the post.

I can't image a better demonstration of an attempt to avoid an honest discussion than your last post.

 

He quoted you directly, and honestly addressed what you queried.

Once again you avoid anything that disturbs your agenda. Stop it.

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND there goes SS running for his life once again! Funny how SS can whine like such a baby if someone doesn't quote his entire post, yet he blatantly misrepresents and even admits he is misrepresenting the papers intended goals as Fangbeer so eloquently and precisely pointed out.

Here is a hint, SS. As soon as you have to start pretending anything "inherently" must be talking about your whining points, you've lost.

 

What the hell is your problem?? Does someone have to quote your ENTIRE POST every time they want to reply to a couple of sentences in it?

You DO understand that it is possible to quote part of a post without changing the meaning of the quoted passage, don't you?

I was going to bold the pertinent part of your post that I was responding to but I didn't want to get accused of "quoting dishonestly".

And if you were concerned about the meaning being changed, you could always requote yourself and show how dishonest the other poster is.

Or you could just use it as an excuse to not reply when someone has refuted your position.

And hope that no one notices that that's what you're really up to.

 

That was a well connected swing.

 

Yay team!!!!!!!

 

For some reason the PDF won't open for me. So, help me out: am I understanding it right? Does it go something like this:

Jones: This red stuff is evidence of explosives.
Millette: Here's a study showing that the red stuff is not evidence of explosives.
SkyStryker: That study proves nothing.
Everyone else: The study proves Jones wrong.
SkyStryker: That study proves nothing.
Everyone else: The study proves Jones wrong.
SkyStryker: That study proves nothing.
etc ad nauseam.

Am I right?