Is this what 9/11 Truth is all about? Think about it.

Originally posted by percievedreality

Originally posted by jthomas
One of the big problems in this lawsuit is that it assumes everyone being sued should have known in advance that exposure to the dust and debris would cause problems. It also assumes that any length of time of exposure plays no role.

Hey, great foe of mine! I'm back! Are you kidding me, how about some common sense here? Breathing any small foriegn particulate matter is going to cause problems! Common sense would also tell us duration of time of exposure is going to have an effect also. People, American, may be pretty dumb, but common sense is not totally lost. Your arguement (their arguement) is pretty baseless if you figure in common sense.

Common sense tells me that FDNY, NYPD, and volunteers ran into the dust and debris in an effort to rescue and find any human beings they could.

Common sense and historical experience also tells me that people are willing to take extraordinary risks to help others in need without concern for consequences to themselves.

Common sense also tells me that if I were trying to prevent volunteers from running in to help those in the rubble of the twin towers because I feared a lawsuit, someone would have me shot on the spot.

The lawsuit is disgusting and the premise behind it is fallacious.

BTW, during one of our previous exchanges you asked about "peer-reviewed" papers from the 9/11 Truth Movement. I now know that the answer to that is at least 35, if not more currently. Stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Wonderful. Please provide the links to these papers as well as your definition of "peer review."

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by jthomas
No. I've considered that none of the reports I have read have pointed out a signature of explosives.

New question would be: And what reporting agency has tested for explosive residue?

Neither have I seen any reference to any of these reports as a source of either an explosives "smoking gun" (no pun intended) or even that any combination of elements found "could" be an indicator of explosives. Have you?

Did you even consider what I said about elements and chemicals? Sorry if you don't believe me, but it's a point. Reporting on the individual elements and not the chemicals gives no clue what the original chemical make-up was.

(I once e-mailed Fetzer and Jones and asked if they had found anything in any of the studies and received no response from either one.)

Could it be the way you worded the e-mail? Going by your past crass posts, it doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't give you the time of day.

Originally posted by jthomas
Wonderful. Please provide the links to these papers as well as your definition of "peer review."

Yes, please tell us the definition of "peer review".

Here's something of interest.

The number and proportion of articles which are detected as fraudulent at review stage is unknown. Some instances of outright scientific fraud and scientific misconduct have gone through review and were detected only after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results. An example is the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, in which a total of fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked journals Nature and Science following the usual peer review process. All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently withdrawn. The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the results of the paper.

en.wikipedia.org...

So much for peer review being so high on everyone's list eh?

If the results can't be reproduced (eh, hum NIST) then the paper fails. Even after it has been peer reviewed and accepted.

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

It's lame that this guy is being sued but I think the crux of this line of reasoning is this:
What is the government thinking letting people into crime scenes?
If I go to the scene of a crime were thousands of people had been killed I wonder if I could "talk my way past the barricades".
This also reminds me of the "volenteers" who helped remove the evidence from the lawn of the pentagon whithin hours after the impact. And then having the whole lawn covered with several feet of dirt?

At best it could be said that our govt. is completly incopitant. At worst...a conspiracy to eliminate evidence.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
No. I've considered that none of the reports I have read have pointed out a signature of explosives.

New question would be: And what reporting agency has tested for explosive residue?

The ones testing to determine what the composition of the dust was. There are numerous which you can simply search for on Google Scholar.

Neither have I seen any reference to any of these reports as a source of either an explosives "smoking gun" (no pun intended) or even that any combination of elements found "could" be an indicator of explosives. Have you?

Did you even consider what I said about elements and chemicals?

Yes, but i wasn't being as specific

Reporting on the individual elements and not the chemicals gives no clue what the original chemical make-up was.

Well, how would you like to proceed?

(I once e-mailed Fetzer and Jones and asked if they had found anything in any of the studies and received no response from either one.)

Could it be the way you worded the e-mail? Going by your past crass posts, it doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't give you the time of day.

Would you like to stick to the content or get upset that I challenge truthers that the burden of proof is on them to back up their claims?

Originally posted by oROSSTAo
At best it could be said that our govt. is completly incopitant. At worst...a conspiracy to eliminate evidence.

Either way doesn't cut it in my book. If I am incompetent at my job, I get fired. Why were these incompetent people ALL rewarded with promotions?

Originally posted by jthomas
Would you like to stick to the content or get upset that I challenge truthers that the burden of proof is on them to back up their claims?

I don't get upset. Just don't come at ME with "when are you going to accuse the Bush Admin." ad naseum crap. Because, as I've been trying to say all along, many of us "truthers" don't agree with our own theories. Like I don't agree with the CGI, no-planes (including the pentagon), pods, etc. But, yet you have lumped me in with those who do and want ME to prove their theories.

Well, for the last time. I don't have to prove anyone elses theories but my own. As I'm not totally sure as of yet on my own theories, how do you expect me to prove them?

reply to post by Griff


Because there is no accountability any more for the elite that are "above the law". The rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer (this should be changed to the poor die, if you ask me). How smart you are, how much effort you actually put into your work, all irrelevant at this point and has been for a long time. Meanwhile, Bush is giving us mainstream media quotes about "what is fair" (context regarding the telecom immmunity). Hey Decider, life is not fair, didn't mama Barb teach you that. They didn't teach that to someone who always gets their way, won't take no for an answer and dosen't understand what compromise is, do they? Of course, it dosen't really apply to the elite, but when you come down a few notches, things begin to change dratically don't they? Fair. Bush knows nothing about what is "fair." Screw him.

Originally posted by Griff

I don't have to prove anyone elses theories but my own. As I'm not totally sure as of yet on my own theories, how do you expect me to prove them?

Exactly. I would not expect you to defend anyone else's theories, only your own. And you acknowledge that the burden of proof would be yours to prove your own theories or claims if you posited any.

But I think you can see why I have problems with your earlier statements which, to me, are in direct contradiction with your above statement, to wit:

"The onus of proof is on you and your theory of planes and fires being the culprit. Which has NOT been done. "

"The only truth of the matter is that it is impossible to have symmetrical failure of a braced building with asymmetrical damage."

"Physics is the only burden of proof I need. BTW, the physical laws are on MY side."

"The onus is on everyone else to debunk what I say. At least to me that is. Not the other way around."

(Please note that in the first statement, it is not my "theory.")

I think we can drop this subject now and go on to the topic.

We were discussing evidence of explosives in the dust. Do you believe that if studies were done to determine what the components of the dust were, that signatures of explosives should show up?

Or, do you think a specific study dedicated to finding signatures of explosives would have to be undertaken?

If the latter, could the original samples taken be re-analyzed for that purpose, in your opinion?

Originally posted by jthomas
Exactly. I would not expect you to defend anyone else's theories, only your own. And you acknowledge that the burden of proof would be yours to prove your own theories or claims if you posited any.

Yes. But, that's been my point all along. I haven't posited many claims. But, the ones I do posite, I try to back up.

But I think you can see why I have problems with your earlier statements which, to me, are in direct contradiction with your above statement, to wit:

Yes, which is why I gave you an inch and said so. Like I keep saying. I am man enough to consider being biased and/or wrong at times. Though, I still feel the original onus is on the people who said that planes and fire alone where the culprets. I don't believe they have yet. But, it is not on me to disprove a half theory. Give me all the evidence and maybe I just might "see the light", believe them and prove their theory correct (at least to myself). Hiding things from me causes me to be suspicious. Sorry that you may feel that is paranoia or whatever. But, I feel it is ligitimate. How many times do I need to hear "wolf" before I stop aiding the boy?

(Please note that in the first statement, it is not my "theory.")

That is why I asked you what you do believe. As I believe you lumped me into a group erroneously, I didn't want to do the same. Apologies if I have.

I think we can drop this subject now and go on to the topic.

Yes, we may just have to agree to disagree.

We were discussing evidence of explosives in the dust. Do you believe that if studies were done to determine what the components of the dust were, that signatures of explosives should show up?

I'm not a forensic scientist, but I would think that different tests would be involved possibly. Again, I can't state one way or the other.

If the latter, could the original samples taken be re-analyzed for that purpose, in your opinion?

I would assume much of the original tests were destructive. Again, that's an assumption as I'm not learned on the specific forensic tests that would be involved.

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/28/2008 by Griff]

How can you be sure that the Potassium and Barium reported wasn't in the form of Potassium Nitrate and Barium Nitrate?

Ever consider that there were other sources of potassium/barium ?

Barium is used as electron emitter to coat electrodes of flourescent
lights. Care to take guess how many flourescent lights were in those
towers?

Barium oxide is used in a coating for the electrodes of fluorescent lamps, which facilitates the release of electrons.

en.wikipedia.org...

Potassium is found in many clays. Cement is made from clay, as are
tiles. Care to gues how much cement and tile was in those towers?

Illite is a non-expanding, clay-sized, micaceous mineral. Illite is a phyllosilicate or layered alumino-silicate. Its structure is constituted by the repetition of Tetrahedron – Octahedron – Tetrahedron (TOT) layer. The interlayer space is mainly occupied by poorly hydrated potassium cations responsible for the absence of swelling. Structurally illite is quite similar to muscovite or sericite with slightly more silicon, magnesium, iron, and water and slightly less tetrahedral aluminium and interlayer potassium. The chemical formula is given as (K,H3O)(Al,Mg,Fe)2(Si,Al)4O10[(OH)2,(H2O)][1], but there is considerable ion substitution. It occurs as aggregates of small monoclinic grey to white crystals.

Montmorillonite's water content is variable and it increases greatly in volume when it absorbs water. Chemically it is hydrated sodium calcium aluminium magnesium silicate hydroxide (Na,Ca)0.33(Al,Mg)2(Si4O10)(OH)2·nH2O. Potassium, iron, and other cations are common substitutes, the exact ratio of cations varies with source. It often occurs intermixed with chlorite, muscovite, illite, cookeite and kaolinite.

reply to post by thedman


No, I don't want to "take a guess". That's my whole problem. Where are the documents showing how much?

Why can't I view in original design documentation how all 3 buildings were constructed? As a professional. Not a CTer.

reply to post by Griff

Bolded by me. That is exactly my point.

My point was that an explosive residue is by definition not a singular element. To point to the USGS chart and ask:

Are any of these explosive residues?

Is to misunderstand that an explosive residue is the trace amount of the actual explosive (TNT, thermite, C5 etc.) that is ALWAYS left behind in a combustion/detonation chemical reaction.




[edit on 28-2-2008 by undermind]

Originally posted by Griff
Reply to Wizard in the Woods.

I was under the impression from the article that they are being sued because people are getting sick? It says about one guy sueing because of the failure, I believe. I could be wrong as I didn't finish the article but that is what I got from the posted segment.

Griff,

The NY times article jthomas linked in this thread has to be referring to Dr. Morgan Reynolds’ lawsuit — Qui Tam Complaint and Jury Demand of 31-May-2007. No other litigation fits the author’s description.

This lawsuit has nothing to do with people getting sick from poisonous 9-11 air (due to radioactive fallout from the four nukes). And it has everything to do with engineering issues. The United States Government hired various companies to investigate the WTC destruction and Dr. Reynolds simply wants those firms to explain/justify how they arrived at their conclusions supporting the official ‘story’ that airplanes were the cause.

Griff, you’re an engineer. Do you think it’s okay and reasonable that colleagues in your field officially postulate — after having been paid to research the WTC site — that, say WTC-7 turned to rubble due to fires on the 23rd floor? Reynolds and others (like my humble self) believe that’s ridiculous. By taking legal action, he is trying to prove that these ‘professionals’ defrauded the American people by issuing deliberately phony reports.

Reynolds is putting his personal assets on the line for the rest of us. He is the truest of patriots. Because if he loses, he will have to pay all the defendants’ court costs. I hope, I pray that our court system is not yet so corrupt that he will get a fair chance to present his case. Perhaps this is still possible with lower level judges. Because if he was in front of our national supreme court he’d be SOL. We all know what (dark) side Antonin Scalia is on.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods



That explains more. Thanks. In that case, yes I do believe professionals should be held to their work.

Did these engineers write any report or anything though?

To be honest, I haven't looked in depth to the Reynold's case.

Ugh... I know I'm bored when I have to drag myself back here for entertainment....

Alright - first-off; it's a New York Times article.... which means it's about as accurate as a drunk hillbillie shooting in the dark durring an Earthquake after being spun around for forty-five seconds.

Second - the article is designed for this purpose - Drama. It's got just enough 'tidbits' of information and factoids to grab one's interest and lead them right to their own preclusions. It doesn't present information for/against, or cover the whole issues of the story - it's simply designed to fuel the existing fire by feeding our own personal bias and inspiring us to take action.

Third - buildings notoriously have many various particles that are not recommended to breathe. None of the diseases were caused by chemicals, but rather by nice little crystaline particles that get into your lungs and cause problems. The many numbers and types of bacteria that would also have been in the atmosphere immediately surrounding the debris would also be a rather interesting health issue. You have to remember that these buildings had fully functional and maintained sewer systems.

So, you have billions of tiny little shards of glass, dry-wall, slivers of metal, phosphorus from picture tubes, and who knows what all else flying around in the air. It's not a good idea to start sucking this stuff in.

So - no - you're not going to get poisoned by the air - but the particles in it can cause damage to your lungs - which is why respirators are a very common and standard work-place precaution when handling debris of any nature. The problem with 9/11 is you had many volunteers who heard "The air is safe to breathe" - and they charged in without proper respiratory protection (those little painter's masks you buy at the local drug store aren't going to cut it). This was simply a misunderstanding. The EPA was told to test for dangerous chemicals and radioactive elements - they didn't find any in very high concentrations - so they gave it the green light (thinking the workers would use common sense and wear proper protection).

As for 'elevated' levels of potassium - it's a very common element, especially in organic compounds. Sulfur is also a very common organic element, as well (it's a very large part of a number of proteins, which is why burning hair/flesh has such a distinct and putrid smell). They are also quite common as additives to glass, if I remember correctly.

Again - that's simply giving you elements - not compounds. Also, you likely wouldn't find trace indicators of high-explosives in the atmosphere after such an event - not when you consider the scale of the necessary explosions to the scale of the structure and the environment.

And there is still the problem of how you would actually introduce explosives to the buildings.....

Originally posted by Aim64C
Again - that's simply giving you elements - not compounds.

That's what I've been saying.

And there is still the problem of how you would actually introduce explosives to the buildings.....

I believe a few well placed thermobarics would do the trick. No?

Originally posted by Griff
I believe a few well placed thermobarics would do the trick. No?

No, they wouldn't.

First off - you would need to know exactly what kind of damage would be caused by the airliners (unless that was all some cool magic trick or something - in which case - why would they need bombs - just death-ray the darn building, and anyone who gets suspicious, and become supreme ruler of the planet until an alien race comes along and shows you who is boss). You would need to know that for several reasons - first, to know how many of these magic bombs you need - and, more importantly - where to place them.

Now, I don't care if you had the Blue Angels pilots flying those airliners into those buildings - there simply is not going to be enough consistency to really risk such an operation.

And you're not going to take down the WTC with a few well-placed bombs of any sort that would go unobserved by the several hundred cameras trained on that building.

You would need to rely on the airliners to damage the building enough to be able to finish it off with bombs....... but you would need place the bombs in the building and rig them for detonation without someone realizing that you were up to no good (after their office had just been nearly blown up by an airliner).

And, most importantly - you would have to find someone(s) willing to go through with this plan to blow up their own countrymen. Now, granted, there are some individuals in this country that I would not miss one bit if they died - but there's a difference between animosity and down right disregard/hatred/evil.

I have yet to see any logical explanation for what has been gained (or could/would have been gained) out of such an attack. Occam's Razor postulates that when two explanations of equal probability and veracity are in conflict with each other - the one that makes the fewest assumptions and uses the fewest stipulations is the most accurate/correct version.

Which is making more assumptions - that there is some wild-eyed conspiracy involving our political leaders intentionally killing thousands of our own citizens for some unknown purpose, using all kinds of "what-if" bombs and devices.... or the explanation that there are people out there who do hate us, and can/will find ways of killing us - and that the towers were brought down by the planes hitting them and the fires that resulted?

Ah - stop thinking about how to counter what I've said - or how it doesn't apply - stop..... stop...... go back over what it is you are proposing, and have been proposing. Think about it.

Originally posted by Aim64C
So, you have billions of tiny little shards of glass, dry-wall, slivers of metal, phosphorus from picture tubes, and who knows what all else flying around in the air. It's not a good idea to start sucking this stuff in.

Sounds dangerous. But it’s obviously not — THAT hazardous. Construction workers breathe this type of stuff ALL THE TIME. They’re not supposed to. But of course they do. Or say, folks working in the automotive repair and service industry, there are lots of those guys. They breathe more benzene than air!

No, something else was afoot on 9-11 at the WTC’s. People got sick too quickly and too seriously. They were inhaling ‘leftovers’ from the nukes used to raze WTC1, 2, 6 and 7.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 2/29/2008 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Aim64C
You would need to know that for several reasons - first, to know how many of these magic bombs you need - and, more importantly - where to place them.

For one. Thermobarics are not magical. Two: Placing them at the mecahanical floors would be my guess. As those floors were the most reinforced.

Third: The plane damage would be insignificant when planning a demolition. The only thing it would do is help the process by making more damage.

Because everyone knows that the buildings would fall straight down right? At least that is what we are told why the buildings didn't tip.

So plane damage wouldn't need to be known exactly.

Now, I don't care if you had the Blue Angels pilots flying those airliners into those buildings - there simply is not going to be enough consistency to really risk such an operation.

As long as the buildings are hit above the top mechanical floor, there really isn't that much precision needed. That's what? Some 20-30 stories worth of target?

And you're not going to take down the WTC with a few well-placed bombs of any sort that would go unobserved by the several hundred cameras trained on that building.

Would they be observed through the dust? I can't observe what is going on in those buildings through the dust. Can you?

This is after initiation with thermate of course.

You would need to rely on the airliners to damage the building enough to be able to finish it off with bombs.......

No. The airliners would be secondary damage. Just an added benefit. And disguise.

but you would need place the bombs in the building and rig them for detonation without someone realizing that you were up to no good (after their office had just been nearly blown up by an airliner).

You mean place the bombs after the plane struck? I'm talking about before.

There are people who had passes that have been caught in other nefarious dealings. Like the guy who had a basement level pass to "work on the sprinklers". Too bad the Port Authority did their own sprinkler work. So, what was he really doing there and who signed for his pass?

And, most importantly - you would have to find someone(s) willing to go through with this plan to blow up their own countrymen.

Who says it has to be one of our countrymen? You believe in terrorists right?

Now, granted, there are some individuals in this country that I would not miss one bit if they died - but there's a difference between animosity and down right disregard/hatred/evil.

Actually, I wish no ill on anyone.

I have yet to see any logical explanation for what has been gained (or could/would have been gained) out of such an attack. Occam's Razor postulates that when two explanations of equal probability and veracity are in conflict with each other - the one that makes the fewest assumptions and uses the fewest stipulations is the most accurate/correct version.

Do you really believe that with all the inconsistancies and coincidences, that the simplest explination is that 19 highjackers were able to inflitrate our trillion dollar defenses?

Or could they have been helped from the inside? Again, I don't mean good Americans. I mean double agents who have infiltrated our agencies. It wouldn't be the first time. Chineese agents downloading our nuclear secrets from our own computers comes to mind.

Which is making more assumptions - that there is some wild-eyed conspiracy involving our political leaders intentionally killing thousands of our own citizens for some unknown purpose, using all kinds of "what-if" bombs and devices.... or the explanation that there are people out there who do hate us, and can/will find ways of killing us - and that the towers were brought down by the planes hitting them and the fires that resulted?

Why is this so hard to take one step farther and include the terrorists planting the bombs? I never said OUR countrymen did that. That is your assumption not mine.

Ah - stop thinking about how to counter what I've said - or how it doesn't apply - stop..... stop...... go back over what it is you are proposing, and have been proposing. Think about it.

Ok. So, I should just listen to you because you say so? OK.

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Griff]