Face to Face with Dr. Niels Harrit: "There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a contr

reply to post by impressme


You keep harping about opinions when I have used data from Jones' paper to question the results.

You must be claiming that Jones' data is opinion and not science. I agree with you. Jones has done no science that confirms his predetermined conclusions so all of his work must be mere opinion.

reply to post by pteridine


That is the last resort of someone who has no more ammunition to continue the fight. Just scream "Its just your opinion!" and you think you won the debate

And what exactly are Jones, the Loose Change boys, Dr. Griffin, and the *****for9/11Truth carbon copy sites, are doing? All voicing usubstantiated opinions, based on...... more opinions and assumptions! Very scientific, eh pteridine?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by pteridine

 

That is the last resort of someone who has no more ammunition to continue the fight. Just scream "Its just your opinion!" and you think you won the debate

Absolutely.

It's the equivalent of a small child sticking fingers in their ears while shouting "Nah, Nah, I can't hear you".

But I do hope they keep yelling louder and louder, it sure makes for good entertainment!

Debunkers what have you debunked in this thread concerning the OP? Nothing!

Fingers in ears, na, na, come on people how old are we now? Most of you are way off topic, but what would one expect when few posters in here believes their “opinions” are proven facts. This thread has become a Trolls paradise. The personal attacks and tag teaming are getting really juvenile and some of you wannabe debunkers do not have anything productive to add to the OP.

reply to post by impressme


Harrit didn't provide anything to debunk. He only provided an opinion and you failed to recognize it. Do you always confuse science and opinions?

And what exactly are Jones, the Loose Change boys, Dr. Griffin, and the *****for9/11Truth carbon copy sites, are doing? All voicing usubstantiated opinions, based on...... more opinions and assumptions! Very scientific, eh pteridine?

You seem to be more interested in what those phony jackasses are doing than someone who is actually able to use his brain and see these clowns for what they are. Why is that?

reply to post by pteridine

Harrit didn't provide anything to debunk.

That is your opinion, nothing more.

He only provided an opinion and you failed to recognize it.

Again, that is your opinion or do you confuse your opinions as science?

Do you always confuse science and opinions?

Do you always confuse your opinions with science? How does that work for you?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Apparently you do not even understand the science; you are only cheerleading and manipulating pteridine questions and answers.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out that steel rusts, and you know full well why I'm pointing it out- it means that the rust Harrit found was certainly from the building itself and you won't be able to use this bit to peddle your conspiracy stories anymore. It's just that you have such outer space blind devotion to these ridiculous conspiracy stories that you're have to resort to argue over idiotic things out of desperation like whether steel rusts. So, go ahead and show how I'm arguing against science by stating that steel rusts.

Incredible. Just incredible.

I am amused Dave most 10 year old kids know steel rusts, furthermore why don’t you just show everyone here on ATS how I claim to “not understand” such an elementary question? Please Dave this ought to be real interesting, please show how I peddle conspiracy stories where I have been caught saying this nonsense of “rusty steal” causing the WTC collapse? If you cannot answer this question then, I think we all can assume your are making up more fallacies against me personally probably because I dares to question you and your mindless rambles, towards all Truthers.

I have mentioned repeatedly that I don't object to Harrit's/Jones' report because all it says is that they found aluminum and rust particles in the debris field, both of which were found in the buildings in huge quantities and both of which are thermitic. What I object to is the outright dishonest claim that what they found was actually thermite and that it was responsible for the collapse of the towers. The report says nothing about this and this is your own reinventive interpretation. If you attempt to refute any of this, you will be lying.

Had you bother to take the time and read Jones Journals which apparently you have not because had you, you would have found out that Jones lists each different particle he ran his tests on apparently all you seem to understand is Jones found nothing but particles of just rust? You really must think I am an idiot perhaps, in your mind that all Truthers are all idiots and don’t understand simple science.

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

Originally posted by impressme
Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have already debated where I stand with Jones science and have successfully stood my ground, something you lack the understanding or don’t want to understand for whatever your reasons are. Your little tid bit cherry picked question out of Jones journal and assuming that I supposedly didn’t understand that steel doesn’t rust is laughable, and then you “assume” as if Steven Jones couldn’t tell the different between rusty steel particles, thermatic particles, and the un-burnt red paint chips particles, is just un-flipping believable! Perhaps you should stick with second grade science as you just demonstrated you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, [color=gold]but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11

.
www.deepjournal.com...

Dave, show us the evidence proving the size of the rust particles that you are talking about, and their heaviest concentrations in PPM.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Harrit didn't provide anything to debunk.

That is your opinion, nothing more.

He only provided an opinion and you failed to recognize it.

Again, that is your opinion or do you confuse your opinions as science?

Show how Harrit used science to show that the building was taken down in a controlled demolition.

reply to post by pteridine

Show how Harrit used science to show that the building was taken down in a controlled demolition.

Show how Harrit science was disproven by other known scientist?
How does that work for you?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

Show how Harrit used science to show that the building was taken down in a controlled demolition.

Show how Harrit science was disproven by other known scientist?
How does that work for you?

So you cannot answer the question?

Or is it that you won't answer the question?

You say you are positive you have "science" on your side, so what's the problem?

reply to post by Soloist

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I have already debated where I stand with Jones science and have successfully stood my ground, something you lack the understanding or don’t want to understand for whatever your reasons are. Your little tid bit cherry picked question out of Jones journal and assuming that I supposedly didn’t understand that steel doesn’t rust is laughable, and then you “assume” as if Steven Jones couldn’t tell the different between rusty steel particles, thermatic particles, and the un-burnt red paint chips particles, is just un-flipping believable! Perhaps you should stick with second grade science as you just demonstrated you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

I have to presume that no, Jones can't determine the difference between rust particles and thermite particles becuase he makes no mention of any distinction. Point out to me where in this report that he conclusively shows the iron oxide he examines is actually pyrotechnic iron oxide rather than iron oxide that came from the buulding itself.

This is neither here nor there since I can see you're playing bait and switch. YOU said, and I quote:

"If anyone is making “dishonest claims” it is you, and to prove you are making up garbage is easy, because you are making accusation against science without showing any scientific evidence to back your ridiculous claims, it is that simple."

...and I asked you to whow even one instance where I ever "making accusations against science." *SNIP*

When did I ever post anything that was "making accusations against science".

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

Wow, this thread has really deteriorated. Its laughable that Impressme would be chastised for not answering certain questions by certain members. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, pa-lease! Dave, you avoid pointed questions like oil avoids water! I don't have to show you, all anyone has to do is look at any thread you've ever been in, and bob's your uncle. Also, we all know there are two threads dedicated to pteridine purposefully and conspicuously avoiding Turbofan's questions like the plague in a "debate" (of- sorts) that he chose to start. This is the height of irony!

However, in the end you guys still have accomplished nothing. The bottom line is that science and common sense do not support the OS, and as time goes on more and more people are getting the courage to say so. The strategy has always been and will continue to be to drag them through the mud and try your best to humiliate and discredit them, but as always STAY AWAY FROM THE SCIENCE! You know as well as I do that more scientists aren't speaking out about the BS, oops I mean OS, precisely because of what happened to Dr. Jones. They have jobs they like and don't want to lose them for no reason as well as be ridiculed by arrogant "internet scientists" who lack the balls to actually PROVE anything. I can't say I blame them for that.

You can argue over the details but the fact remains...

"There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a controlled demolition..."
vimeo.com...

Absolutely no doubt at all.

Originally posted by budaruskie
You know as well as I do that more scientists aren't speaking out about the BS, oops I mean OS, precisely because of what happened to Dr. Jones. They have jobs they like and don't want to lose them for no reason as well as be ridiculed by arrogant "internet scientists" who lack the balls to actually PROVE anything. I can't say I blame them for that.

What "happened" to Jones is entirely the result of Jones' own work. All scientists are reviewed by peers and this makes sure that the work is of high quality. Many of the "internet scientists" that you disparage are real scientists who try to hold people like Jones to those same standards. His physics expertise does not carry over into the field of analytical chemistry.
If you are a scientist and you would like to defend Jones' paper, I have a few questions for you.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by budaruskie
You know as well as I do that more scientists aren't speaking out about the BS, oops I mean OS, precisely because of what happened to Dr. Jones. They have jobs they like and don't want to lose them for no reason as well as be ridiculed by arrogant "internet scientists" who lack the balls to actually PROVE anything. I can't say I blame them for that.

What "happened" to Jones is entirely the result of Jones' own work. All scientists are reviewed by peers and this makes sure that the work is of high quality. Many of the "internet scientists" that you disparage are real scientists who try to hold people like Jones to those same standards. His physics expertise does not carry over into the field of analytical chemistry.
If you are a scientist and you would like to defend Jones' paper, I have a few questions for you.

Are YOU an "internet scientist" who is in reality an actual scientist?
As I've said many times before, I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, so why would you ask me again?
If you are an actual scientist, WHY WON'T YOU OFFICIALLY DISPROVE DR. JONES'S SCIENCE?
If you watch the video, it shows an ACTUAL SCIENTIST who is respected in his field, who is not Dr. Jones, who AGREES with Jones's science so...why would my opinion be in any way equal to his, and why don't you ask him instead?
Name a scientist who has proven Dr. Jones wrong!

reply to post by budaruskie


I have proven that Jones has not done good science and I used his data to do it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by budaruskie

 

I have proven that Jones has not done good science and I used his data to do it.

You haven't PROVEN JACK ____! Well, except that YOU have no credibility whatsoever, what a joke.