What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Start here and work your way back through the thread. If you need explanations, you can send U2U's or post in the thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hmmmmmm, read a thread or send you private messages? Trying to get me to talk off the record so to speak? I read it thanks. TOS prevents me from repeating my post so I will just so, go back to the last post and TRY AGAIN.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Lillydale
Sorry but anyone that has actually graduated from, well anything...should know there is no personal information in your degree.

Exactly. To the contrary, someone should be proud of a degree they worked hard for and earned. That is, if they have one. It's no more personal than knowing someone's name. That kind of information is shared all the time on these forums, names and degrees, and nothing "bad" ever results from it.

I also believe major was a question that was denied. Not specifically listed under the excuses to not deliver, this was asked and never answered. In high school, I majored in communications. I will be happy to list my college, major, and degree if Pterry out there can use that to glean my true identity.

edit to change 'anyone' to 'pterry.' I mean after all, come on. Give us a hint, just tell us the level of degree. Pretty please? I put up my Christmas lights and evrathang.

[edit on 12/23/09 by Lillydale]

reply to post by Lillydale


Are you saying that when I list my degrees and publications that they will somehow give my arguments more credence? Does the person with a masters degree in social work have extra influence with you?
I can't believe that it would. It certainly doesn't influence me.

reply to post by pteridine


Well you keep making all these big claims that you are more of an expert than Jones. I for one am just curious what kind of credentials are behind this big talk, considering Jones' credentials are impressive to say the least. Not everyone gets DoE sponsorship to lead research into experimental nuclear physics at government labs, let alone travel abroad and do the same thing with other nations.

Nuclear physics precedes molecular physics, aka chemistry. Chemistry is all about different kinds of molecular bonding and the breaking down of molecules, and all of this in turn is dependent upon atomic physics, meaning ions (electrons) and nuclear forces. So telling me that this is out of Jones' league is just telling me how much you really understand about chemistry yourself, which is not telling me much because I already figured as much (you aren't really an expert).

Not that it matters much anyway because none of what you post "debunks" anything no matter what degree you do or don't have. I would just like to see you respect Jones' credentials and own up to the fact that you don't have similar experience yourself, instead of constantly trash-talking him as if it's a miracle he can even dress himself. Who does it sound like is in denial here?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Are you saying that when I list my degrees and publications that they will somehow give my arguments more credence?

Not anymore, no. They would have before you were asked a dozen times.

Does the person with a masters degree in social work have extra influence with you?

Well, I guess whenever I need to ask any questions about social work.

I can't believe that it would. It certainly doesn't influence me.

I did not expect it to influence you. I expected you to tell me who it was. You claimed you could not publish your degree because it was personal information. So, I simply expect you to finger the social worker for us now that you have all of that personal information.

As for you, your credibility died a long time ago. Say anything you like now because I already know that it will be a lie. The truth does not take 15 posts to get around to telling, especially when you pepper it with lies.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

Nuclear physics precedes molecular physics, aka chemistry. Chemistry is all about different kinds of molecular bonding and the breaking down of molecules, and all of this in turn is dependent upon atomic physics, meaning ions (electrons) and nuclear forces. So telling me that this is out of Jones' league is just telling me how much you really understand about chemistry yourself, which is not telling me much because I already figured as much (you aren't really an expert).

BS, you sure are an expert on this science stuff. Explain how there is a precedence that somehow makes those whose education is at a more basic level competent in a less basic level by some anointing or another. Is biology a level down from chemistry? Where is medicine in your heirarchy? Where is mathematics? How about engineering? This will really be enlightening.

reply to post by Lillydale


I see you are falling back into the standard truther tactic of calling people liars. The last time I was a coward and a liar.
Do you think that the posts concerning Jones poor DSC analyses were lies? Am I a coward for pointing out illogical conclusions regarding the purported thermitic material? Inquiring minds want to know.

reply to post by pteridine


I'm just saying you can't call a man who has been on the frontier of experimental nuclear physics for so many years a total dunce when it comes to chemistry. It just does not follow in the real world that he isn't going to know any chemistry when he holds positions like the ones he has held. He is an extremely educated man. And I am still waiting to hear what your own credentials are, that give you such authority to say Jones is incompetent on ANY subject, especially chemistry. Seriously, what is so personal about your degree? You KNOW I've assumed this whole time, and will continue to believe, that you are trying to mislead us into thinking you know more than you actually do, right? No one who actually has a degree in any given field is ever hesitant to admit it. It's not like it's a crime.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I see you are falling back into the standard truther tactic of calling people liars. The last time I was a coward and a liar.

You were a liar long before you were a coward. Check my post history to you.

Besides, you actually told a bold faced lie about a page or so back. I know, fix one sink and no one calls you a plumber but tell one lie and...

Do you think that the posts concerning Jones poor DSC analyses were lies? Am I a coward for pointing out illogical conclusions regarding the purported thermitic material? Inquiring minds want to know.

I am really just interested in why it was so easy for you to claim we should just simply trust you because you are smarter and better educated and yet when pressed on that, you backed out in one of the worst ways possible.

reply to post by bsbray11

I didn't claim that he didn't know any chemistry, he just doesn't know enough chemistry to write an analytical paper and have it published in the primary literature. He is using his reputation in a completely different field to snooker those who have no training in analytical chemistry. He is merely promoting himself and doesn't seem to know what he doesn't know. I consider what he has done to be a violation of ethics and a breach of trust.
He might be a good nuclear physicist but he is not a good chemist. We will see if he corrects his experimental work in the paper he says he is writing and reevaluate his claims at that time. Until then, he has only proved that paint burns in air.

reply to post by pteridine


That is entirely your opinion. And it is also apparently your opinion that you personally are more educated regarding chemistry than Jones is. So once again are you going to qualify that with something, or is there any other reason I should just believe you over Jones, when I don't even know what your name is?

reply to post by Lillydale


Thank you for your vote of confidence but I never tell lies in boldface, so I am unsure of your claim. Perhaps you could point it out. I get accused of telling lies quite a bit when people don't agree with me. Perhaps, when I have the urge to prevaricate, I will use the bold font for easy reference.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

That is entirely your opinion. And it is also apparently your opinion that you personally are more educated regarding chemistry than Jones is. So once again are you going to qualify that with something, or is there any other reason I should just believe you over Jones, when I don't even know what your name is?

If I told you that I had a PhD in organic chemistry and supervised a lab of 53 PhD scientists and engineers, including post-docs and university profs, until retiring, would you believe me? If that lab had significant analytical assets [pick a technique] most of which I operated at one time or another, and a 2000 processor computer for DFT modeling, would that make my arguments more believeable? No, it would not.
I made the arguments regarding Jones' paper. I explained it carefully for anyone who is able to read. Jones status in the world and my status in the world do not matter. It is the science that matters and his was found wanting.

reply to post by pteridine


If that was really the case then I would have to ask, why the hell are you arguing on a conspiracy theory website when you could have your own paper published that refutes his?

reply to post by bsbray11


First, there is nothing to refute. He has not shown anything. His key experiment is to show reaction in the absence of air as the exotherm has to be proved to be the result of reaction and not combustion.

Second, there is no sample. Even Jones sample is suspect. As I explained earlier, a forensic sample needs a chain of custody. Some of the outlying buildings that underwent remediation had four inches of dust on their floors. That dust is in a secure landfill but I do not know if it was sampled before it was placed in the landfill.

reply to post by pteridine


If their methods were flawed then their CONCLUSIONS are to be refuted. Wouldn't be a hard paper to publish, would it? You don't have ANY degree in chemistry, and you wouldn't even know how to go about submitting a paper somewhere. You're no different than anyone else with an opinion and internet access. You're not an expert, and nowhere near Jones.

reply to post by bsbray11


It would be a pointless paper to write. Where would it be published? Bentham? That is where the original was published. No other journal would take it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
when you could have your own paper published that refutes his?

So in which peer reviewed journal did he post in?

reply to post by dereks


Who said anything about peer review?

That makes it that much easier for someone to post a refutation, doesn't it?