How Skeptics Confronted 9/11 Denialism

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Thank you.

If bsbray has any more questions or assertions that jet fuel causes a "massive overpressure" I'll direct him to your post, and y'all can hash it out amongst yourselves.

Too bad Ultima was actually agreeing with bsbray that there was no overpressure.

Please explain how the explosions in the basement had no overpressure yet the marble panels were blown off the connections in the lobby as described by the firemen when they arrived. Thanks.

You can't have it both ways. Either there was overpressure or there wasn't.

Originally posted by Griff

So, you agree that a rough estimate isn't a full estimate? And therefore is basically useless?

yes.

No.

Originally posted by Griff

An engineer calling out the non-engineering style of an engineering report is not desperation. It's called peer review. Ask your brother if he can report on something and have 2 different scales in one skematic and doesn't mention this anywhere if he would be laughed at or worse, fired.

Please prove your point that none of the drawings had disclaimers first.

I'll expect links to every single one.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
3- That's right, there never will be a peer review unless the PA and Silverstein release those docs. And there's no way to force them to.

So, you agree that the NIST report can't be peer reviewed? Far cry from what the "skeptics" claim isn't it? That the NIST report has been peer reviewed.

Originally posted by Griff
is not a very smart engineer IMO. Tell your brother that one for me seymour.

Please show the personal attack. It is my opinion. Not an attack. Grow some skin would you?

right there.

And this coming from a guy who complains about people argueing their points against him.

Once again, pot, meet kettle.

Well, none of you Truthers have succeeded in convincing anyone that you have any argument to support your claims whatsoever. That's nothing new - it's par for the course.

It's also why you can't answer the question on the table: what are you all going to do next? Apparently, nothing.

You'll just continue to convince yourselves that you have something worth looking at, that inconvenient evidence is meaningless to you, and that you don't have to do anything except yell endlessly about it.

If you think you'll ever get another taxpayer-funded investigation, you're sadly mistaken. I think Matt Taibbi said it best in his new book, "The Great Drangement"

"At its heart, 9/11 Truth is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable."

Read the whole excerpt of how "9/11 was an inside job."

Then look in the mirror and have a good laugh.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Please prove your point that none of the drawings had disclaimers first.

I'll expect links to every single one.

Proving a negative is impossible. A better retaliation would be you citing where they do indeed have disclaimers.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff
is not a very smart engineer IMO. Tell your brother that one for me seymour.

Please show the personal attack. It is my opinion. Not an attack. Grow some skin would you?

right there.

And this coming from a guy who complains about people argueing their points against him.

Once again, pot, meet kettle.

I guess you don't know what IMO means? It means IN MY Opinion. Which is an opinion.

Now if I said your brother is stupid. That would be a personal attack. But, seeing as he is not a member here, I am well within the terms and conditions of this site.

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Too bad Ultima was actually agreeing with bsbray that there was no overpressure.

Please explain how the explosions in the basement had no overpressure yet the marble panels were blown off the connections in the lobby as described by the firemen when they arrived. Thanks.

You can't have it both ways. Either there was overpressure or there wasn't.

Too bad that bsbray contradicted himself when he said that the jet fuel explosions aren't really explosions, but deflagrations that result in little overpressure, then goes on to say there would have been "massive overpressure" in the shafts, when if anything, the fuel would have been better mixed at the impact event than down the shafts.

He can't have it both ways either. Well, HE can, because he fits it to his beliefs about 9/11. But those in the rational world realize that you can't have it both ways. Nice to see you recognize that.

But to your marble question - a deflagration causes a small amount of overpressure. If you can supply how strongly the marble was attached to the walls, maybe I can answer.

Originally posted by Griff

Proving a negative is impossible. A better retaliation would be you citing where they do indeed have disclaimers.

Wrong.

It's possible to prove that none of the drawings have the disclaimer by linking to every one. Then when we all see them, and none have the disclaimer, you will be proven correct.

Originally posted by jthomas
I think Matt Taibbi said it best in his new book, "The Great Drangement"

"At its heart, 9/11 Truth is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable."

And yet I get accussed of name calling? That whole piece was one big name calling, childish IMO piece of crap.

Why do the "skeptics" have to lower themselves to name calling? Why can't they debate in a scientific manner?

And before my name calling is questioned, I said it was my opinion. So Matt can take his opinion and shove it up his ass. Because that's all it is.

Originally posted by Griff

So, you agree that the NIST report can't be peer reviewed? Far cry from what the "skeptics" claim isn't it? That the NIST report has been peer reviewed.

Why would I care what skeptics think. I think for myself. I've already proven that by agreeing about releasing the docs. Also by agreeing that the PA/Silverstein/Robertson may have something to hide.

reply to post by jthomas


Who is anyone? There are 3 separate people on this thread alone who have stated that they didn't believe 9/11 was an inside job but, after having read the threads on the subject here on ATS now do believe it was an inside job. So this very thread disproves your point, people have been convinced.

You can't even read and assimilate the posts on your own thread, you're blindly denying what has been said in this thread.

reply to post by jthomas


The shear ignorance of this statement blows my mind. How can any rational person, regardless of what they believe about 9-11, claim that neither side has any evidence? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of threads on the subject, and just about every thread had valid points on both sides of the argument. Neither side has access to most of the official evidence, so witness testimony, videos, and relying on history and engineering tests, etc. is all both sides have to go on. And both sides have presented much of this as evidence. You may not agree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but to claim one side has none is quite literally delusional, and I think goes very far to discredit you and your side. Neither side, I repeat neither side has 100% proof.

Why is there such a fear to acknowledge any evidence from a truther? Why is is impossible for you to say, you know what, I don't know how that happened? Is it because your afraid of another investigation? As people who claim to be skeptics, why wouldn't you support another investigation, transparently done by an independent agency? I know your answer will be that you have 0% suspicion because you have thoroughly answered every question that a truther (aka skeptic) has asked. If you truly believe this, then I feel sorry for you, because you are delusional.

Originally posted by Griff

I guess you don't know what IMO means? It means IN MY Opinion. Which is an opinion.

Now if I said your brother is stupid. That would be a personal attack. But, seeing as he is not a member here, I am well within the terms and conditions of this site.

[edit on 6/15/2008 by Griff]

Ahhh, so then saying something derogatory about someone that isn't a member is ok then?



[edit on 15-6-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It's possible to prove that none of the drawings have the disclaimer by linking to every one. Then when we all see them, and none have the disclaimer, you will be proven correct.

So, you want me to cite every single skematic in a 10,000 page report. But refuse to offer just one? Telling.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Well then, I know this guy named Jason. Lives in DC like you do. He's also an engineer. He's a troofer to the bone, even though he denies it. But since he's not a member, I can say that IMHO, he's a not too smart of an engineer. (that's not a personal attack either, btw)

Question. How do you know my name?

reply to post by Griff


I'm QUITE certain that I know another guy, since he has absolutley no interest in message boards.

He's a friend of my dad's and too old to bother.

If you have the same name, then it's pure coincidence.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Ok. Well yes my name is Jason. Just threw me for a second.

Then I'll delete my post.

I suggest you do the same.