Independant Investigation on WTC Dust

His point was spot on concerning SkyStryker's response (or lack thereof) in this thread.

For someone who enjoys throwing out your yay team butthurtedness, you sure go out of your way to defend your team members comrade.

Anyway.

 

Pretty close. You will see in a little bit when SS starts blaming you for misquoting him. Oh, and then asking for evidence while ignoring the evidence and then asking for evidence while ignoring the evidence. You get the picture I am sure.

The study itself is a much more thorough breakdown of the red and gray chips as identified by Jones. Interesting read and addresses many of the criticisms of the Jones report.

 

That is accurate. Considering how many structures came down that day, testing samples of an unknown origin is completely useless. It is also why the Jones study is useless. Since both studies are meaningless it is funny to see both agenda camps clamoring about them.

 

Yes they need to quote the entire post. What the hell is your problem you are so blind to the fact editing posts leads to miscommunication. I'm not going to re-quote my posts in full because hacks refuse to honestly quote.

 

Now you're trying to tell me what I have or have not read? What a freaking pathetic joke. When you can grow up and honestly quote posts then a discussion will happen. Until then, your dishonesty is as sad as your little cheer leader girlfriends that actually endorse outright dishonesty. No wonder your little circle jerk gets off on trolling and editing others' posts. It's all you have.

 

I dont respond to posts that dishonestly quote mine here or on any other thread. If people can't be mature and honest enough to respectfully quote posts they are not interested in an honest dialogue. It's not an accident the only people cheering it are in your particular camp. This is probably part of the reason why you accept the OCT and have to use dishonesty to try and defend it.

 

Wow, SS. A whole bunch of whining there. Why do you still insist on lying your ass off about the studies? Jones' paper claims there was evidence of thermitic material. YOU had to add claims the paper never made in order for your retarded opinions to make sense. The new paper refutes Jones' paper without ever making the claims you pretend they "meant". Such dishonesty is lost on you since you consider anyone who doesn't agree with you as dishonest. Blinded by your own dishonesty as it were.

 

What you are witnessing is a seminar is the typical truther inability to follow or form a rational argument.

In this thread Skystriker is obviously confused about the difference between whether the study has any valid useful purpose, or whether the study is useful to him. Since the study does not meet his arbitrary criteria, he deems it meaningless. His argument is akin to a man in the desert arguing that umbrellas are meaningless.

After more then a decade I think we can conclusively state that the problem is not that the U.S. government is so skilled at covering up a conspiracy to commit a false flag attack. The problem is that the entire 9/11 conspiracy movement up until this point has been supported on the back of illogical hasty generalizations, denying the antecedent, begging the question, and false dichotomy fallacies.

 

I have never quoted you in a way that changes the meaning or point of your statement. Not once have you supported the claim that I have. Each time you have made the claim it was to avoid responding to a point that you could not rebut.

When I quoted: inherently claiming artificial means were used to bring down the buildings

I did not change your meaning or point at all. You stated that Harrit paper made an inherent claim. Do you dispute this? When I quoted that portion, it's clear to everyone with eyeballs that that's what I was quoting. You also stated that the OP study made an inherent claim. Do you dispute this? When I quoted the second portion of what you found the be inherent it was also clear to everyone with eyeballs that that's what I was quoting.

The portions of the study you find to be inherent, are not inherent to the study. They are the manifestations of arguments that you're having with yourself in this thread.

 

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm stating a fact. How would you know if I misrepresented you in my response if you didn't read the post?

Hence, you read the post.

 

You're merely using the quote mining excuse as a crutch to not directly address what he called you on. He clearly spelled out the issue with the study multiple times, and you still won't address it.

Anyway, you're the honest debater here......

 

Apparently there are a number of members active on this thread who need to remind themselves about this:

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182771-general-warning-about-section.html

Failure to take note is likely to result in those members having some time off.

This thread is so full of rule violations that it has been closed.

Cenydd
Site Moderator