As an engineer, I am disappointed with A&E-4-9/11truth

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

No, I'm saying ae uses this photo to depict molten metal. Do you agree with them?

I'm starting to detect a pattern with you Seymour. There is an inattention to detail. The caption of the photo refers to "previously molten metal"

The photo is used for artistic illustrative purposes. It's not a lab sample or an item entered into evidence.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Semour, I don't mean to be cruel or insensitive, but you should know that when people read this sort of thing, they start to wonder about the mental state of the person writing it.

Really?

What I find interesting is that you left out the part where he backs the idea that thermxte might have been used and thinks there needs to be a better investigation into this. That would put him squarely in the troofer camp then, right?

And what's really funny is this - Griff has stated that he believes that the case troofers have made for explosive demo is very weak, doesn't think it's a possibility, and HE ALSO BELIEVES THAT THERMXTE MAY HAVE BEEN USED AND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BETTER.

So maybe you should think about retracting that statement about his mental state, yeah?

Dug yourself a hole there, didn't ya?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

The photo is used for artistic illustrative purposes. It's not a lab sample or an item entered into evidence.

So a pic that isn't of ( ok, ok ) "previously melted metal" is used to depict "previously melted metal".

Why didn't they just show a pic of THE ACTUAL PREVIOUSLY MELTED METAL?

That's some pretty low standards........

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
What I find interesting is that you left out the part where he backs the idea that thermxte might have been used and thinks there needs to be a better investigation into this. That would put him squarely in the troofer camp then, right?

Seymour, I didn't react in detail to any of the contents of the letter you linked to. That would be a whole other thread. I'm not dodging the issue here. I gave an opinion based on a quick read of the letter.

And what's really funny is this - Griff has stated that he believes that the case troofers have made for explosive demo is very weak, doesn't think it's a possibility, and HE ALSO BELIEVES THAT THERMXTE MAY HAVE BEEN USED AND SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BETTER.

I think the case for a contolled demo is very strong. I agree with the A@E website that the WTC collapses show hallmarks of conventional CDs. They are also unique in ways. These are the largest buildings ever taken down in controlled demolitions. The idea that these buildings simply collapsed after the fires and airplane impacts is laughable.

So maybe you should think about retracting that statement about his mental state, yeah?

Seymour, pay attention to detail. I made no statements about the letter writer's mental state. The contrast between the letter writer's opening statement and his closing statement made me wonder about his mental state. There is a feeling of "dweeb" science about the whole thing. Too narrowly focused with little common sense included in the statement.

I realize it is a technical topic and that often means giving all of one's attention to technical details, but my gut feeling is that the letter writer is actually not a dispassionate scientist and is drawing some conclusions on too little evidence while ignoring the larger context.



[edit on 18-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So a pic that isn't of ( ok, ok ) "previously melted metal" is used to depict "previously melted metal".

Why didn't they just show a pic of THE ACTUAL PREVIOUSLY MELTED METAL?

That's some pretty low standards........

Seymour, you are so desperate to score cheap points on the A@E people. they are performing a valuable service for the American people. I would think that there is considerable professional risk in what they are doing. As far as I'm concerned you are just another (unecessary derogatory epithet) nipping at their heels.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

1-Seymour, I didn't react in detail to any of the contents of the letter you linked to. That would be a whole other thread. I'm not dodging the issue here. I gave an opinion based on a quick read of the letter.

2- The contrast between the letter writer's opening statement and his closing statement made me wonder about his mental state.

3-There is a feeling of "dweeb" science about the whole thing. Too narrowly focused with little common sense included in the statement.

4- my gut feeling is that the letter writer is actually not a dispassionate scientist and is drawing some conclusions on too little evidence while ignoring the larger context.

1- So now that you know a little more about the content and his beliefs, you now understand that he is indeed a truther, right? And that your superficial read was wrong.....

2- and again, you realize your error, correct? He doesn't agree with explosive demo, but still agrees with the over all premise of an "inside job", but since he doesn't agree with your particular theory, you felt it necessary to attack the messenger, rather than his message. Very telling.

3- You're missing the part about him and others working on aspects of debunking explosive CD over at STJ911 then. Note that that's a truther website too. And as far as his work being "dweeb science", check outsome of the other papers he's written :

www.journalof911studies.com...

www.cool-places.0catch.com...


www.cool-places.0catch.com...

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

It appears that he's ACTUALLY making an effort to find some truth.

4- His works prove that this is not true. I suspect some projection on your part......

Originally posted by ipsedixit

As far as I'm concerned you are just another mutt nipping at their heels.

Wrong.

It's like I'm swatting at gnats.

Or a cat toying with a helpless mouse......

reply to post by Seymour Butz


I apologize for the derogatory epithet in my earlier post, Seymour. I went a little too far. I don't usually indulge like that. We aren't about that sort of thing on ATS.

I'll have to defer comment on the letter we are discussing. I haven't looked at it in detail and am not sure I will have time to do so. As far as the rest of what I have written, I stand by it.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

I apologize for the derogatory epithet in my earlier post, Seymour. I went a little too far. I don't usually indulge like that. We aren't about that sort of thing on ATS.

I'll have to defer comment on the letter we are discussing. I haven't looked at it in detail and am not sure I will have time to do so. As far as the rest of what I have written, I stand by it.

Ha ha, I've got a rhinoceros hide.....

Fair enough. Keep in mind though, when you read what he has to say, that he IS a truther to the bone. He just disagrees with the explosive demo though, and he makes a decent case against it.

Mainly, what he's saying is that he doesn't necessarily disagree with explosive demo, he points out correctly that they have not made their case for it to any degree of skepticism. Maybe he absolutely disagrees with explosive demo though, he's hard to read.

Also, keep in mind that a&e won't post his papers. that's another reason, in my view, to be "disappointed" ( per Griff ) with them.....

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Ha ha, I've got a rhinoceros hide.....

Glad to hear it. I admire that. You've got to be built "Ford tough" in a world like ours.

Mainly, what he's saying is that he doesn't necessarily disagree with explosive demo, he points out correctly that they have not made their case for it to any degree of skepticism. Maybe he absolutely disagrees with explosive demo though, he's hard to read.

I will try to get into his stuff and your links if I can get the time.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by ipsedixit]