How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

If that's true, I'm wondering why debunkers still spend a good part of their day writing lengthy missives trying to convince them that "there's nothing to see here -- move along."

Yes, debunkers must have a lot of time on their hands to sit and argue with "crazy" people. Right?

Originally posted by Griff

But, you want us to accept the NIST report when they have done the exact same thing? Not gonna happen.

It's not the exact same thing.

If you were to do an analysis, you wouldn't have had access to those docs. NIST did.

However, if someone DID do one, and there are few from the doubters side, they could rightly be critiqued with info that IS available. So far, I haven't seen any that pass the smell test.

But you know my stance on releasing the docs/immunity from frivolous lawsuits, etc. I think you agree?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
We're all waiting for the 9/11 Truth Movement to step up to the plate and put its money where its mouth is.

That should be obvious to you by now.

There is no statute of limitations on first degree murder. So, you can sit there as long you'd like.

There is no discussion of first degree murder here. You're in the wrong thread.

What is obvious is that you still haven't answered anything about Dr. Quintiere. You say he has a different theory. Well, duh, that is my point.

If you bothered to read your own posts, your point is that:

"They hold all the evidence when it comes to the structural documentation. So, to date there is no evidence to refute what NIST has told us because we don't get to see the evidence."

"How do you study a building's collapse without the structural documentation to do your analysis?"

"Prove that these multiple agencies, universities, sholars and thousands of experts can analysis anything without the needed documentation. Go ask a structural engineer to analyse any building without the structural documentation. See if they laugh in your face."

jthomas. Q: "How many structural engineers, forensic scientists, physicists, chemists, and architects exist in the world that could comment on the NIST report?"
Griff. A: Without seeing their fully disclosed data. NONE!!!!!!

I will ask again very nicely to respond to my question and not evade it again, ok?

Now, Griff, just how is it possible for Dr. Quintierre to comment on the conclusions of the NIST report if he, like ALL of the other world's qualified people, does not have the data you claim he needs?

Are you going to sit there and continue to claim Quintierre has magical powers and is "special," or are you going to fess up that Quintierre is in the exact same position as everyone else according to YOUR own criteria.

Let's stop the evasions, Griff, and answer the question.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Man, you are having trouble. Please tell us how how the world's qualified people I listed cannot comment on the NIST report because "data has not been released" but Quintierre, who has no more data than the rest CAN according to you.

I'm not having trouble at all. You asked me first where the evidence was that there were indeed unanswered questions. I gave you an example of a prominent engineer who has unanswered questions and you still want to play semantic games. I'm done with fools and trolls.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Griff]

Your further evasion noted.

Tell us, Griff, why you are on this 9/11 conspiracy forum and not in an engineering forum discussing structural engineering? This forum has nothing to do with issues of structural engineering, after all, it's about failed 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theories. So, just why do you bother to discuss structural engineering issues in an irrelevant forum?

Why don't you try PhysOrg, for instance?

Originally posted by Griff

If that's true, I'm wondering why debunkers still spend a good part of their day writing lengthy missives trying to convince them that "there's nothing to see here -- move along."

Yes, debunkers must have a lot of time on their hands to sit and argue with "crazy" people. Right?

I wouldn't say you're "crazy", just confused. "Debunkers", as you call us, are just skeptics asking questions. It's too bad that we have to cut through muddled, contradictory, thinking and evasive answers from you guys.

Is it any wonder that the 9/11 Truth Movement just goes around in circles, year after year?

Originally posted by jthomas
This forum has nothing to do with issues of structural engineering, after all, it's about failed 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theories. So, just why do you bother to discuss structural engineering issues in an irrelevant forum?

No problem. I'll let you get back to stroking your ego and leave you alone. As I said, I'm done with fools and trolls.

Why don't you try PhysOrg, for instance?

I wasn't aware they had a 9/11 section on there?

[edit on 6/10/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, Griff, just how is it possible for Dr. Quintierre to comment on the conclusions of the NIST report if he, like ALL of the other world's qualified people, does not have the data you claim he needs?

Are you going to sit there and continue to claim Quintierre has magical powers and is "special," or are you going to fess up that Quintierre is in the exact same position as everyone else according to YOUR own criteria.

One last thing before I leave you to stroke yourself.

I believe Dr. Quintiere isn't able to comment on the conclusions because, like you said, he doesn't have the data.

Now, if we go back to your original question of me proving that there are unanswered questions. Then, yes, Dr. Quintiere can comment on that.

Did you notice what I highlighted from the man? Did you also notice it has nothing to do with NIST's conclusion other than he says they are "questionable"? Did you also notice that he says he "wishes this thing was peer reviewed"? The actual pertinent parts of Dr. Quintiere's presentation were highlighted by me as they pertained to this thread of no evidence for unanswered questions. NOT what his conclusions are.

Still having trouble? Maybe a reading comprehension course is due?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It's not the exact same thing.

If you were to do an analysis, you wouldn't have had access to those docs. NIST did.

What is so hard about this? I mean really? In my hypothetical report, I and I alone get to see all the data pertaining to my report. My hypothetical report has nothing to do with NIST.

Now, if I claim National Security and refuse to show you ALL my data, would you accept my report? Simple question.

However, if someone DID do one, and there are few from the doubters side, they could rightly be critiqued with info that IS available.

Available from whom?

Again, with my hypothetical report, would you accept it if I hand fed you the data without you being able to verify if my data is correct or not? Would you call foul or just accept it? Again, simple question.

[edit on 6/10/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

What is so hard about this? I mean really? In my hypothetical report, I and I alone get to see all the data pertaining to my report. My hypothetical report has nothing to do with NIST.

Now, if I claim National Security and refuse to show you ALL my data, would you accept my report? Simple question.

Available from whom?

1-It depends on who "you" are. Let me explain. I'd assume that Steven Jones, Gage, Hoffman, etc, aren't bound legally to produce factual info. Again, I'm assuming that all the NIST contributors ARE, under penalty of fines and or jail time, since they are paid by our tax dollars. I would assume that there is some kind of govt contract that they are under. Do you know?

If "you" were to do one, and not under the (assumed) legal constraints of a govt paid engineer, then yes, I'd give you less credibility right off the bat, since you don't have any legal penalties hanging over you. Maybe some professional ones, but I don't see that as much of a hinderance to some. And as specifically to your hypothetical question, the same would apply. No (assumed) govt contract = less cred. And under your example, I don't see how someone doing a paper that would involve national security WOULDN'T be under a govt contract, so I don't see that as a realistic scenario.

2-I'm not specifically talking about specs. From the critiques I've seen of doubters papers, many points are made against them that have nothing to do with whether or not they used the correct steel, etc cuz that would be impossible to do. Rather, what sticks in my mind is pointing out erroneous examples of how the " laws of conservation of momentum" etc weren't observed. And critiques from folks that I believe to be the real deal - structural engineers - that point out errors about your field, like errors in formulas, wrong assumptions about Euler's, slenderness ratios, etc. Granted, any physics classes I took were loooong ago, but with a little primer, the points made against Ross, etc appear valid.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I would assume that there is some kind of govt contract that they are under. Do you know?

Please read carefully.
www.nist.gov...

NIST’s investigation of the WTC towers fires and collapses was conducted under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. The act gives NIST the responsibility for conducting fact-finding investigations of building-related failures that result in substantial loss of life. NIST has no regulatory authority under the NCST Act.

The NCST Act also states that no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in the report.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
wrong assumptions about Euler's, slenderness ratios, etc. Granted, any physics classes I took were loooong ago, but with a little primer, the points made against Ross, etc appear valid.

The fact that you even know what Euler's and slenderness ratios are puts you ahead of most IMO.

BTW, I can see what you are saying about being bound by law.

One question though. Why would government scientific papers need to have a more thourough peer review if they are always bound to tell the truth?

When peer review of government reports is considered, the case for transparency is stronger, particularly when the report addresses an issue with significant ramifications for the public and private sectors.

www.whitehouse.gov...

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That was truly pathetic.

Apparently, you AND the person that gave you a star for your post missed the point entirely.

Try again.

Originally posted by Griff

One question though. Why would government scientific papers need to have a more thourough peer review if they are always bound to tell the truth?

Presumably to squash the very questions that you have.

But like we've discussed before, I see no way to release the structural docs we'd both like to see without permission.

Keep raising the ****storm and maybe the Justice Dept will be motivated enough to offer an immunity deal like we talked about.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Keep raising the ****storm and maybe the Justice Dept will be motivated enough to offer an immunity deal like we talked about.

I see you keep ignoring my post and keep failing to post any evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas
"Debunkers", as you call us, are just skeptics asking questions. It's too bad that we have to cut through muddled, contradictory, thinking and evasive answers from you guys.

Look man, we're the ones with questions. We didn't write the reports. Don't assume we all think we know exactly what happened. A lot of suspect a kind of controlled demolition, sure, but that doesn't make it a theory you can think you can pick apart, just like we didn't all agree to be in some "movement." The theories you believe are the ones that have been published in reports, that we, and lots of other people are questioning. There is nothing else to be skeptical of.

When you honor these stupid illusions of things called "truthers" in your head, and create black-and-white divisions that have never actually existed, you cloud yourself from seeing who is really responding to what and how. There was never a theory to be skeptical of, outside of what our government has published. Again, we are the ones asking questions, not you.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
That was truly pathetic.
[...]
Try again.

What's so archetypal about this response was that what Ultima posted was completely relevant. NIST assumes no legal responsibility for their work in the sense that Seymour was implying they "must be" (cough).

Instead of an intelligible reply, like what specifically Ultima had wrong, all you get is 'That was pathetic; try again.' That kind of adolescent posting doesn't even deserve to be read.

Originally posted by bsbray11

What's so archetypal about this response was that what Ultima posted was completely relevant. NIST assumes no legal responsibility for their work in the sense that Seymour was implying they "must be" (cough).

LOL. I guess you're the one that gave him the star then, eh?

Here's a hint - stay out of conversations when you know nothing about the previous conversation that Griff and I had.

We weren't talking about the NIST report at all in any way, shape, or form.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


This is your quote I was responding to:

I'd assume that Steven Jones, Gage, Hoffman, etc, aren't bound legally to produce factual info. Again, I'm assuming that all the NIST contributors ARE, under penalty of fines and or jail time, since they are paid by our tax dollars. I would assume that there is some kind of govt contract that they are under. Do you know?

The NIST "contributors" are under no threat of penalty whatsoever because of all the legal disclaimers Ultima and I are referring to, which are in lots of their PDFs, if you just go to their website and download parts of the final report, etc.

Whatever else you're talking about aside, this is what I was responding to.

reply to post by jthomas


Typical cackling Illuminati.

Give me a core beam from the WTC and some iron oxide, some
aluminum, some sulfur and a match and I give you some dust.

Solve JFK with some 5 more shooters.

Solve UFOs with some Tesla devices.

Solve energy crisis with some Tesla devices.


From my web page:
certified conspiracy theory = if its a lie they told it first

Strange and beautiful, the Illuminati way of life,
with your majestic ceremonies.
Your mysterious science I wish to see closer.

Although the Illuminati world wonders me
with your majestic and superior cackling agents.
Your people I do not understand, so to you
I shall put an end.
And you will never hear Illuminati dis info again.

Originally posted by jthomas
...What "perps"? Who? Be specific, with evidence, please. ...

Dick Cheney allowing whatever it is to strike the pentagon. According to the testimony of Norman Minetta (sp?).