. Until then stay in your basement, do the rest of us all a favor. PS my teacher in philosophy showed us this video in class laughing at your "professors" ideologies, as well as your thesis entirely. He teaches at MIT, and actually is able to represent himself in a way that complements his ideology and skeptics. I spit on this video like the rest of the viewers. :) I BID YOU FAREWELL MRS JOSHINA BLAKENEY... a fool without a purpose.
Be ashamed as the way you both acted and your illogical claims. and this is exactly why your thesis is laughed upon in schools that actually have some prestige. You are the plague that is keeping the great school in Southern Alberta from growing. Learn how to properly address your thoughts and opinions.
This is a disgrace to the university of lethbridge. Mr Joshua Blakeney and Professor(and I use this term lightly) Hall have shown us exactly how NOT to act during a presentation. I laugh at you're pompous intentions, the videos content as well as context, and overall both of you.
eroticy, .........seen that sex video with him when he was about 19 at a Hotel in south jersey lol.. go here to see it now.....Starzexposed...dot...com............. ( let me know Today, it shall be sorted, kinky )
@checkitb4uwreckit1 About as original as your anit-semitism platform. You are a dime a dozen you jew hating loser. Go fuck yourself and wack off to a picture of Hitler. No reply necessary, I don't debate Holacost deniers and their agendas. You got nothing, you are nothing, and I hope you get cancer.
"I don't debate Holacost deniers and their agendas."
Well, well, can't say I'm surprised, hate-filled Jewboy. Our only agenda is truth and the systematic dismantling the phenomenal lie of Holocaustianity. Zionist Holocaust Promoters are the ones with the agenda -- first to facilitate the murderous colonisation of Palestine, and now since their long-planned terrorist state has been established, to guilt-trip Western states to support the genocidal, satanic, Zionist project.
shermer sucks, he even gets his ass handed to him by holocaust deniers, all he's good for is saying we should be skeptic of people who are skeptic regarding spotty narratives...
I am happy to see the air has gone out of the tires with this petty little story of yours! How's it goin there raprockprof aka Anthony Hall? You no longer deserve the title of Dr!!
@raprockprof This whole Shermer business is very strange. What exactly are you accusing him of? Using the wrong name on his name card? Is there any question he is entitled to call himself an adjunct faculty member at Claremont?
Un-fucking believable, it seems quack-a-demic dumbification really has taken over. I applaud you two guys for taking a stand against this sleazy shillbag shit head 'Michael Shermer.' A real pseudo skeptic parroting government lies to cover up crimes. What was wrong with the koolaid drinking audience of sheeple, clearly just a bunch educated fools devoid of actual critical thinking and intelligence. Good idiots being trained to support of corrupt government & its further police state agenda.
A video of Blakeney and Hall having a temper tantrum, ergo 9/11 was an inside job. Love the way everything was spliced together. Really informative. You blew the cover off this thing, guys. Helen Mowat, the pile of insanity that ran for School Trustee in Calgary, salutes you.
@majam1n There's something about complete ineptitude that's oddly compelling. I personally enjoyed the part where he and the "RapRockProf" switch places without so much as a cut.
That is what troubles me too! I don't think there is much rationality applied to the marks given for josh's work! I think it is based on emotion rather than intelligence!
For the first time in my life, I'm embarrassed to be Albertan. When a professor and a university student can't even argue with the maturity of a twelve year old... Completely mind numbing. That's all I can really say about this.
This is a lovely episode of "How to Make an Ass Out of Yourself At an Academic Event." Kid, I hope you realize that employers and graduate school admissions boards are likely to see this some day and when they do, their opinions of you are likely to be the same as those in the audience who kept telling you to shut up.
Shermer has written about this in the latest issue of Scientific American where he details how to detect a legitimate conspiracy from a false one. I suggest you read it.
"He?" "You?" "A Christian?" Like Shermer you are probably part of a sleezy psy op Humantidote. Why not seek honest employment rather than life as a bottom feeder?
@raprockprof you would be uncorked enough to think that anyone arguing with you is "part of a sleezy psy op" rather than just a person disgusted by the behavior of two so called academics who demand respect for their studies while peddling a story about Shermer that is not true by any definition! You have no idea what I do for a living, none!!
Shermer is not Adjunct Professor of Economics. He changed his own CV following our exposure of his fraud. Shermer occasionally team teaches with Professor Paul Zak, the Dr. of Love who invented the term Neuroeconomics as a cover for his psy ops laboratory at Claremont looking at the uses and abuses of oxytocin. All quite educational. Shermer is not really an prof. He just plays one on TV.
@raprockprof You are a real dancin fool! You keep moving around after your comments because you don't have anything to say when someone shows you that you are wrong each time! You keep trying to hide behind Griffin who is only a scientist in his books on 9/11. The rest of the time he is a christian with non-scientific explanations for all natural phenomena in the world and the universe!
I know! They are both actually guilty of misrepresentation, Hall and Blakeney! Shermer is the innocent one!!
Blakeney considers his stories published if somebody posts it on their website! When Shermer talks about his published work, he means in a newspaper or actual magazine. Shermer IS an adjunct professor of Economics at Claremont. Blakeney thinks of himself as a journalist yet never took journalism nor has he written anything with enough credibility for real news. Joshua = LIAR
Humanantidote. I see no evidence so far that you have done an iota of independent research. Neither Joshua or I introduced "alleged government conspiracy." in our interventions in the Q and I session. What I said is that the official government conspiracy thesis has been thoroughly discredited by David Ray Griffins ten books in a vast array of specific points. Folks are free to speculate on who did it but I'm not going there here. I specifically refused to enter Shermer's trap, and yours too.
@raprockprof@raprockprof "what I said is 'that the official government conspiracy thesis...points'". No you did not say that! Maybe u thought so or meant to or maybe even implied it, but you did not say it! And it is your opinion that Griffin has done so! And like I said, have a look at JPL's Ryan Mackey and his free deconstruction of Griff''s priced books. Griffin a doctor of theology who works on proofs for God vs Mackey, an engineer who works for NASA and designs airplanes. Who do I pick?hmm
Heh Humantidote. Please don't change the subject from the comparison between David Ray Griffin and Shermer to a comparison between Shermer and the commenter to whom you refer. Since you say you don't accept the official propaganda on 9/11, why not proceed from that point rather than go charging into swamps of argument that muddy the waters. Try for some clarity rather than wallowing in the dirt.
@raprockprof Ok, why would this alleged gov conspiracy need to risk so many questions by dropping 7 in the afternoon using special unheard of explosive material capable of silently going off and destroying these reinforcing columns? What was so special about 7 that it had to be brought down despite how strange it would look as the first ever to fall from fire?
So Joshua, how does the intestinal effluent coming from mrduffy81 (surprised there are 80 more on ytube) fare against the work of Shermer's when calculating the negative/positive affect on 9/11Truth or any of the various alternative theory movements?
Or a litlle more directly, would you prefer having to deal with Shermer's counter forces only, or trade his absence for mrduffy's (1 to 81, your choice) theories lumped in with yours as you fight to convince people of the truth?
That information comes from the main claims found on several "9/11Truth" websites. It does not sound like you even know much about the position you take. So what is your stand on the events? And how in the world is what you accuse me of doing a racist equivalent? You can call it stereotyping but it has zero to do with race and therefore cannot be an equivalent! What is it like to be perpetually in the dark with your head up your ass? Prevent meaningful discourse? You prefer one sided argument!
Heh Humantidote. So you you "thought truthers blamed Israel." According to you, then, "truthers" are all of a kind and they can be grouped together as adherents of a single theory. That's the equivalent of racism on your part. You have no room in your worldview to appreciate diversity and the reality of individualism within the larger categories you create to justify your ignorance and prejudice. Are you paid like the fraud Shermer to run interference and prevent meaningful discourse?
For the record, this business about Shermer is an embarrassing mistake by Blakeney and Hall which they won't admit!
And because they continue to run this video and article about it while knowing full well that they are wrong, this is now a bold face lie, an outright and seemingly unabashed intentional deception which will likely draw both libel and slander lawsuits from Shermer, an exposure that will discredit all their academic work and boost Shermer's position a hundred fold!
@Humantidote wants to be more holy than the pope, more royal than the queen and more Shermeresque than Michael Shermer himself. Michael Shermer has already conceded that he is not and has never been an "Adjunct Professor of Economics". He has revised all his online biographies. So if to expose that fact is a "bold face lie" warranting "libel and slander lawsuits" then Shermer will have to sue himself. If anything in this You Tube is false why not get specific and explain what exactly is false?
@Globalization1492 Speaking of bald-face lies. Perhaps Mr Blakeney could produce an example of Shermer admitting that he had never been an adjunct professor of economics. Revising his online biography represents no such concession.
Simple facts that Hall and Blakeney have yet to admit to: contrary to their claims, Shermer WAS an adjunct professor at the university in question. The subject matter of his course was economics.
I don't think it's asking much to ask Mr Blakeney to stop lying.
I have to say that I find it hilarious that selectively-chosen footage of WTC 7, all shot from the north face of the building, is treated as "emperical evidence".
I have a question for Mr Blakeney: are the numerous videos and photos of the south face of the building -- from which the fullest extent of the physical damage to the structure can be seen -- less empircal than the videos he prefers? Or does he just refuse to consider anything that doesn't confirm his theories?
Are all the academics at lethbridge communists? Communism killed over 100 million people, and is a Jewish-inspired ideology, like Zionism. A scam for Jewish hegemeny. The 1917 Bolshevik coup in Russia was a Jewish planned, organized and financed operation eminatting from the Rothschild, Schiff, Warburg. Trotsky-Bronstein banking faction.
Obviously you aren't prepared to do an iota of independent research, by, for instance, going through Professor MacQueen's assessment of over ten thousand pages of testimony giving by WTC fire firers. What is your evidence that there were five or ten? What is your evidence hundreds or thousands heard nothing?. Just shermeresque jibberish.Shermer lied about even his flimsy academic credentials and has admitted it by removing "of Economic" from his CV.
For everyone else's benefit, I cleared up with hippiegrinder that I meant the NIST report for the addressing of the molten metal, not the comm report.
@hippiegrinder just to clarify something. There was molten metal dripping in videos and seen in hot spots of the debris by firefighters. This was addressed in the comm report! It was molten aluminum. Aluminum melts at much lower temps than steel, 800 to 1300 deg F depending on the alloy! I am not defending troofers just want you to know this.
@Humantidote The fact that you can label someone as a "twoofer" etc, shows how judgemental you are, and you are that way by design. It is a side effect of the disinformation being put out by people like Shermer.
The commission report is LIES. You believe the nazis who carried this out. You need to learn your history, young man. The CIA is full of the nazi philosophies who came to America with PROJECT PAPERCLIP. Hitler burned the Reichstag and this was just anotehr nazi sabotage.
@MrDuffy81 You are the young man who doesn't know his history! You are claiming that it was the Nazis who orchestrated 9/11? I thought the truthers blamed Israel, and that mossad agents were caught that day were secretly let go to return home? Are the Nazis and Zionists collaborating now?
Are you for real? Seriously, that is absurd to talk of Nazi involvement or influence on what happened! What the fuck are you reading that supports this history I need to learn?
@Humantidote JESUITS ORCHESTRATED 9-11. CARRIED OUT BY CIA AND MOSSAD. JESUITS RUN THE NWO.
"I thought you truthers believe..." FUCK YOU! YOU DO NOT SEE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS. YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE FOR YOUR CONDEMNATION OF YOUR FELLOW MAN. YOU ARE A FILTHY FUCK!
I HAVE THE TRUTH. YOU ARE A FUCKING TWIT! ACCEPT IT. THE TRUTH IS IN MY VIDEO 9-11: THE JESUIT CONNECTION.
LISTEN TO JIM MARRS JOSEPH FARRELL AND PETER LEVENDA ABOUT NAZIS IN THE CIA . BUSH HISTORY!
@MrDuffy81 So now you have the Nazis, CIA, Mossad, and the Jesuits at the controlling lead for the 9/11 attacks? Are you just making this up as you go along? Where were the aliens when all this was goin down? Or was it a spaceship that took out flight 93 and ruined the last attack headed for the White House? Did the Illuminati fail to get the intergalactic stand down orders out to the aliens in time? What a SNAFU that morning was for the underground gov! Is there anyone else involved in this?
@Humantidote YOU FUCKING FAGGOT! ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID? LOOK UP THE NAMES OF THE RESEARCHERS I MENTION BEFORE YOU UTTER ANOTHER WORD YOU FUCKING IGNARAMOUS!
FRITZ SPRINGMEIER, WILLIAM COOPER, JIM MARRS, PETER LEVENDA, JOSEPH FARRELL.
YES! YOU ARE INVOLVED YOU FUCKING SHILLISH TURD. CONSIDER YOURSELF FLUSHED! WHAT AGENCY DO YOU WORK FOR? YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO SPREAD DISINFORMATION AND CONFUSE AMERICAN CITIZENS. YOU ARE SCUM! I ASK AGAIN: WHAT AGENGY U WORK FOR?
@MrDuffy81 I see! I wonder what agency would actually have to pay misinformers to throw a monkey wrench into your investigation? I guess I am kinda stupid for doing such work for free when there is so much easy money to be made! Is this the meaningful discourse you referred to raprockprof?
If anyone out there reading this would like to pay me for doing what I am doing please message me the details for forwarding my resume! I am willing to work full time from my home or commute to an office!
@Humantidote YOU ARE A FUCKING SHILL. A PAID AGENT. YOU HAVE A REASON TO DECEIVE. SO MUH IS OBVIOUS.
FOLLOW THE LINK TO THE ABOVE TOP SECRET WEBSITE YOU FUCKING FOOL! AND EAT SHIT WHILE YOU ARE AI IT. WE WILL SOON REGAIN CONTROL OF THIS NATION AND SENTENCE TREASONOUS BASTARDS LIKE YOU TO A PRISON CELL. TELL YOUR SUPERIOR HE IS A PIECE OF SHIT, TOO, AS IF EH WASN'T AWARE...FUCKING SHILL!
@MrDuffy81 Oh just go away. Your opinions need to go back into the comic book where you found them!
I feel sorry for your parents and any other family members embarrassed by the genetic link they have with you!
Every comment on your videos is from you. I would not be the least bit surprised that you have a ytube acct for each one of your personalities and carry on fights when no one else will talk to you!
On Explosions. Check out Professor Graeme MacQueen's articles and You Tubes on the evidence of the firefighters at the Twin Towers. The WTC janitor, William Rodriguez, also is adamant about explosions. Do some independent research grandmastershek rather than replicate the dishonest denialism of Dr. Love's partner in crime.
@raprockprof So I guess the five or ten people who say they heard demolition like explosions outweigh the thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people who heard nothing like what these people heard. Or is their silence evidence of complicity in the attack?
@raprockprof Many people heard explosions that went off for many reasons. Cars and trucks were blowing up, and I even remember hearing on the radio that day about what were thought at the time to be car bombs going off, even in areas far from the attacks. Almost all were something else or in many cases (believe it or not) prank reports from those who thought it funny on a day like that. Demolition charges are timed and very loud. The seismographic data taken then does not have any on record.
If you are armed with the facts you need to conduct yourself more professionally.. especially and in an academic setting. It's hard to do when you're passionate but as Franklin said.. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
Also, a question: If the US Government or elements within and controlling it pulled off 9/11, where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If this event was the first step towards invading Iraq, securing the oil supplies and empire, instead of a global backlash, couldn't they follow the most complex conspiracy in the history of mankind by simply putting one of their own bombs, or a fake one, in Iraq and say "See?" Wouldn't people be more open to the NWO if they would have done that?
@RifleEyesMusic Or is it more likely that they pulled off the most complex conspiracy in the history of mankind and then just decided to put their feet up and say "Hey, guys, let's just run this baby on autopilot for a while and see where it takes us".
I'm sorry, but this is silliness. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to present yourself in a way which is not screaming and disrupting a question and answer period. The thought police? I would ask you: is it more likely they wanted to remove Mr. Hall because he was asking "the wrong questions", or because he was disrupting the event, which was evidenced by the crowd shushing him and Mr. Shermer saying he will have to leave when he was shouting remarks?
"Michael Shermer is pointing out that there are common tactics and ideas that these groups share." Michael Shermer is a scam artist who refuses to address the specifics of evidence on a point by point basis. He violates scientific principles by using meaningless, obfuscating woo woo word like "conspiracy theorists" or "patternicity" to smear artificial categories of people that he creates in his own imagination. He won't engage specific evidence. He messages power and spits on science.
Wow, keep shouting fast enough for him to not tackle all of your points; a prime example of the horribly deceptive tactic of conspiracy theorists, creationists, deniers and people who argue fringe evidence. Michael Shermer is pointing out that there are common tactics and ideas that these groups share so that is why you are thrown into that whole lot of pseudo-skeptics which you think you are not a part of; burden of proof is on you not the skeptic....
They label Shermer "Pseudo -Skeptic." Facepalm. I cannot believe people listen to these little twats. What a bunch of zealots. They could at least ask a question in a respectful manner, rather than bombarding Shermer with statements. Just sad that people listen to people like this; the 9/11 truth movement, has turned religious.
@1FlyWinEvolutions It is an axiom of the 9/11 Truth Movement that reasoned, civil factual exchange is a losing strategy. Google "Persuasion Psychology for 9/11 Truth: A Practical Toolbox for Disabusing the Deluded" and you'll find a hilarious document instructing Truthers to use psychological tricks to gain converts, because factual arguments will fail. Seriously. Troofers are beyond parody and beneath contempt.
As someone at this lecture, these videos are absolutely hilarious. I'm amazed you managed to get to the level of University Professor, Mr. Hall (Of course, you're a laughing-stock anyways). Not only did Michael Shermer answer that he had read the books you asked him about, his lecture had just about nothing to do with your conspiracy theory. He didn't want to discuss it, because the hundred or so other people listening didn't care at all about hearing about why 9/11 truthers are right. We wanted
@caldous22 to hear him talk about the brain in general and the biology around how it processes our sensory information and belief systems. It's awesome how he directed you to the information he had previously obtained and written about on the subject and tried to steer things back on track and you consider that not answering your arguments. Haha. Go read his damn arguments, then write something intelligent back instead of interrupting his lecture on a different subject by screaming and frothing.
What is dispicable is that this asshole is addressing a class I believe? None of his information is credible.... wait... he doesn't have information. He is simply spewing rhetoric.... why this man was allowed to speak in a learning institution is sad.
Nice try guys, but trying to reach someone as ignorant and convoluted as this guy, is a huge waste of time. Keep educating 'thinking people', and pay no attention to assholes like this Shermer idiot or his brain-dead followers, that obviously can't think for themselves.
Still not one mention of a single book on 9/11 by Professor Griffin, or a single issue of contention within even one of those books.... instead only obfuscation from the 9/11 deniers who refuse to check out the fact that their guru, anti-skeptic Michael Shermer, has been misrepresenting his credentials. Its quite clear that Shermer's attacks on real skeptics takes place outside the rigors of peer review. The Dean of Economics at Claremont indicates she has no idea who he is.
@raprockprof Why in the world would anyone give a shit what a theology professor has to say about 9/11? The guy spent most of his career trying to interpret the desires of his imaginary friend in the sky, and HE is your authority? Are you serious?
Being that 9/11 (And the subsequent cover-up) is the Biggest crime in American history, you guys should take all your “Evidence” and call the FBI. Think about it, You obviously have it all figured out and your "theories" will help catch the people behind this heinous crime against our country. Also, when you help crack the case you will be instantly famous (Book Deals, The Lecture circuit, a Hollywood Movie about how you solved the crime.) Their Number is: 1-800-CALL-FBI (Morons)
@jonkabbash It's not even that hard. Anybody who lost a family member can sue in Federal court for wrongful death. The burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil suit, it's just "preponderance of the evidence." All they need to do is name their defendants and file a complaint listing why they think that defendant is responsible. In real life this happens within three years of an event, but Troofers are now nine years out and can't even meet that easy burden.
@hippiegrinder You know I've never thought about that. That is a really good point and I will use it in the future. Thanks for a dose of sanity! you rock.
"Even if there is such a report, it's just another uncorroborated eyewitness account."
Hmm, judging a hypothetical report to be wrong before the reader has seen the imagined document. Ludicrous. Seems like Shermer-style Orwellianism.
Shermer is not Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University. Check it out. If he lies about his credentials, what else does this pretender invent. Stay tuned.
@raprockprof Even if Hysterical Hylander can produce the report, it's just somebody saying what they saw. It's weak evidence. You can believe if you like but don't expect thinking grownups to make the same mistake.
And the October 2008 issue of CGU's Pedant indeed lists Shermer as adjunct professor, so how about if you be a little more clear about where you're getting your info?
The 9/11 attacks aka Global Guardian '01 consisted of decoys (the real passenger planes,) and their droned replacements. The decoys were electronically hijacked through the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot over KU bandwidth then taken over the Atlantic Ocean and destroyed through a remote signal via GPS.
@OperationMockingbird Flight 11, 175's drones hit WTC 1 and 2. Flight 77's drone struck Wedge One of the Pentagon. Flight 93's drone couldn't reach its original target, that being the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. because Flight 93 was delayed 41 minutes at Newark International Airport. The delay wasn't part of the original plan so Flight 93 (decoy) had to be aborted over Shanksville, Pennsylvania instead of the Atlantic Ocean.
The 9/11 attacks also known as Global Guardian '01 was a Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal conceived in Canada. The goal of the drill to successfully demonstrate the anti-hijacking system Canada was selling the USA. Specifically they were testing the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot module, also patented in Canada.
Paul, your points are garbage, they've been addressed dozens of times, and if you're not aware of the refutations then you're either not looking or you're incompetent. Either way, you're wasting your time.
@c6gunner OK, so address them yourself if you actually understand the points. You probably can't so you go around saying, "they've been addressed dozens of times." in hopes of handwaving them away.
@paulhylander No. There's a reason why every person in that room was telling those two morons to sit down and shut up - we've heard what you have to say, we know that you're full of shit, and we have no interest in discussing it any more. If you care about what's true, go do the research, otherwise STFU and go away.
@paulhylander Like I said...Tell it to the FBI..solve the case and become famous. However we KNOW how this will turn out. There will never be a break in the "inside job" case..Ever...End of story. I will be proven right and you (and the rest of the conspiracy movement) will look like a bunch of Dipshits. I win you Lose. There is nothing else to say. So don't open your mouth again unless my dick is in it.
@jonkabbash Yet again, a denialist can't actually use logic and evidence to refute anything. I can see there are dipshits around here, but your analysis of who is a dipshit is a little off.
@jonkabbash At least "hippiegrinder" is giving it his best shot. You, all you can say is "don't open your mouth again unless my dick is in it" Sounds like you were abused as a child. Maybe you should see help.
Here are 4 pieces of evidence, any one of which is sufficient to invalidate the official fairy tale of what happened on 9/11. Before spouting off about how crazy truthers are or how there's no way that a conspiracy be that big could be covered up, I invite you to refute this evidence. If you cannot, then you should not be spout off. BTW, 500 words is a very short amount of space to bring up evidence. Here goes in several posts...
1. Orange-glowing pools of molten metal in bases of towers. Witnesses have described it many times (on YouTube no less) Satellites recorded thermal scans showing those temps. Oxygen starved jet fuel fires cannot produce those temps. Gravitational collapse cannot produce those temps. Cutting torches could not produce the volume of metal described. The temperatures were confirmed by satellite. Why did they pools and temperatures exist?
2. Explosives found in trade-center dust. The only reasonable issue with this evidence is that the chain of custody of the dust samples was not independently tracked and verified. There has been no published scientific refutation of their analysis. If you care to refute this claim, you should provide explanation of how their analysis was incorrect. Not just, "well, I saw on the internet that they were refuted"
@paulhylander No explosives were found in the trade center dust. Again, Steven Jones was unable to get his magic red chips to so much as even burn. Another mad Truther scientist tried and failed, concluding that his chips must have been "deactivated" (whatever that means). The red chips are the same in color as paint chips found in the wreckage. Jones found paint chips. Neither Jones nor his findings are important enough for legitimate scientists to spend time on, thus the silence.
@hippiegrinder Hey Hippiegrinder. Keep up the good work on here. But keep in mind this is a "Religious" discussion to these people. They have FAITH in their conspiracy like a Christian has FAITH in Jesus. No amount of evidence or logic will ever shake them. I just don't want you to waste too much of your time.
"When ignited in a DSC device, the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of theses peculiar red-gray chips."
These samples were ignited. The presence of iron microspheres is not consistent with paint. Still awaiting a real argument
@paulhylander Yes, I know what the article says. "Exhibiting exotherms" is different from "combusting". Iron microspheres are consistent with sulfur, which is consistent with sheetrock, which is consistent with the WTC7 wreckage. And he states clearly that whatever it did, it did a temperature too low to be thermite. The scientific community is unimpressed by Jones' discovery of paint flakes in the collapsed building. You should be as well.
@hippiegrinder "Iron microspheres are consistent with sulfer" You do know that iron and calcium sulfate are chemically quite different are you not? Try as you might, you cannot extract iron from calcium sulfate. Again FAIL
@paulhylander Assuming you rule out drywall, you STILL need to rule out other known sources (concrete, cutting torches, building contents, etc.) before you get to start thinking about thermite. Can you do so?
@paulhylander Not by itself. Super-secret-nano-thermite should, however, burn at temperature consistent with the burning of thermite. Jones' sample did not.
@hippiegrinder If you had read the paper, you would know that they didn't burn the chip and measure the burning temperature. Instead they used a differential calorimeter to determine how much heat was created when the material burned. Still doesn't explain the iron microspheres. Nice try though
@paulhylander Once again you prove to have no idea about anything. You talk about a little Kerosene bringing down a building in your smug way but you leave out the Impact of a FULLY FUELED 767 hitting the building a 500mph. 100 Tons of Jetliner hitting a stationary building at almost the speed of a bullet, and you omit that. Face it, you are outmatched here and the facts are not with you. Go live in your fantasy world..douchebag.
@jonkabbash The buildings stood for an hour after being hit. Therefore, the impact itself could have very little to do with the collapse. The government said as much in its report. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a similar sized plane. So according to your fantasy, the burning fuel was the cause of the collapse. Therefore, as I said, the demolition companies should not bother with explosives. Just use kerosene - much cheaper and safer, and equally effective.
@paulhylander Er, no. You're conflating various offhanded comments about "molten metal" and "molten steel" with a photo that appears to depict an orange glowing pool long after the attacks. I'm not aware of a report of orange-glowing pools of molten metal in bases of towers, and even if there is such a report, it's just another uncorroborated eyewitness account. This evidence is doubly irrelevant given the lack of correlation between molten metal and controlled demolitions.
@hippiegrinder Again, FAIL. There are several witness accounts of molten metal and of orange-hot temperatures in the bases of the towers - this is what is called corroboration. The witnesses called it steel, but in some wild fantasy land, it's possible, though quite unlikely, to be super-heated molten aluminum. In any case, the temperatures required to achieve an orange glow are well in excess of what is obtainable from a collapse.
@paulhylander There are a handful of disparate statements regarding "molten metal", "molten steel", and the like, but they are not consistent with each other. They're hardly corroboration of anything. Though I would be grateful if you could point me to the sighting of glowing orange pools of molten metal. Go ahead and rub facts in my face. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it.
Additionally, there is also video showing large chunks of cooled remains of what was molten iron, mixed with concrete and other materials. Analysis was done on these to show they contain very little aluminum and the bulk of the material was iron and concrete. This is also corroborating that there was indeed molten iron in the bases. Certainly, the strong possibility of molten iron should have been investigated - but it was not.
@paulhylander Why do you think it should have been investigated? About 200 posts later and you still haven't explained what the significance of molten iron/metal/steel would be, even if it were real.
@hippiegrinder Anyone with their head in the sand (or not a paid shill) would understand that molten metal present in the bases is not consistent with a collapse. NIST denied it existed, which, based on numerous eye-witness accounts is not a reasonable response for an agency supposedly charged with explaining the collapses. Even if the numerous statements didn't corroborate each other, (which they clearly do), they clearly should have been investigated. This is law enforcement 101
@paulhylander Er... you're confusing "a feature not necessary for" with "a feature not consistent with". Finding chili dogs in the wreckage doesn't mean the building was destroyed by chili dogs. And really, it's on you to connect the molten metal to a controlled demolition (which you still cannot do). Not to mention confirm the existence of the molten metal to begin with (which you also cannot do). And when are you going to point me to that important "glowing orange pools" observation?
@hippiegrinder Your confusing an investigation with a coverup. In an investigation, the investigator looks for inconsistencies, unexplained phenomena, and low probability events and then tries to piece together what happened from the evidence. A coverup on the other hand starts with the required explanation as a goal and assembles a story to fit that ignoring or disparaging any evidence that might contradict the required explanation.
@paulhylander Um.... no. That's how a TV investigation works, because TV investigations need to be interesting and show somebody getting punished at the end. A technical failure investigation does not explore "unexplained phenomena" unless explained phenomena are insufficient to account for the observations. There are no observations in buildings 1, 2, or 7 that require explosives, thermite, or anything else. All three buildings collapsed due to fire and gravity. The science is settled.
@hippiegrinder A woman was raped and 5 guys are put in a lineup. The women points out the third guy and says, "he looks like the guy". Also, a witness says that the guy was in the area at the time. In court the defense attorney tries to introduce DNA evidence that shows the seman stains do not match the defendant. But the judge says, "Sorry, we have all the evidence needed to convict the defendant. Guilty as charged."
You're saying this is how justice is carried out in this country?
@paulhylander DNA evidence is strong evidence. Eyewitness reports of "molten metal" are weak evidence. You need to learn the difference. I'd suggest browsing Fisher's "Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation" and reading some police investigation manuals, as well as turning off CSI, before trying to school anybody any further.
@hippiegrinder Chunks of solidified iron, a dozen or more independent eyewitness statements, video footage, satellite imaging, etc (e.g. youtube video v=Xy_jMrJGF9M). These are not "strong evidence" in your view. What, are we supposed to go and get the still-molten metal today and only then would you be satisfied? I'd suggest you take a course in common sense.
@paulhylander The eyewitness statements are not independent -- for example, Loizeaux is on record as saying that he was just repeating Tully's statement and did not see anything molten himself. The video footage is dubious, and the satellite imagery does not show metal. Taken together, they indicate hot temperatures from a building fire. Nothing more.
@paulhylander Even if the statements were all independent, you stilll just have is a handful of "molten metal" statements, and the statements without physical evidence are not sufficient to establish the existence of molten metal. It does not matter that you find the declarants to be "highly credible", or "first responders", or anything else.
@hippiegrinder The science is not settled. There never was any science involved in any of the official reports. You still haven't rebutted any of the original 4 points made - unless your idea of a rebuttal is saying that calcium, sulfer and oxygen can turn into iron spontaneously.
@paulhylander In the mainstream (legitimate) scientific community, there is no controversy. 9/11 Troof has failed. If there were a significant minority, even something like 5%, of mainstream scientists who supported 9/11 Troof then you might be onto something. Can you explain why there is not?
@hippiegrinder There's plenty of reasons for the lack of exposure in mainstream media to the evidence related to 911. Similarly, there's probably a good explanation as to why there are nearly 10000 signatures of educated science and engineering professionals in the ae911 truth website and yet there's no similar set of signatures on the other side.
@paulhylander Silence = assent. Everybody who hasn't spoken up can be deemed to have accepted the official story. That, plus it just isn't polite to call attention to people like Steven E. Jones who suffer from untreated mental illnesses, and most legitimate scientists have little interest in rehashing somebody else's solved problem.
@hippiegrinder No, silence means silence. What evidence do you have otherwise? You can speculate on reasons for silence. I can speculate on reasons for silence. But this is not evidence, just speculation.
@paulhylander In most real life contexts, that's the convention. Google "the silence procedure". Feel free to provide a counterexample, or some reason why you think silence means something else in this case.
@hippiegrinder (continued) There's probably also good reason why only about a dozen engineering and science professionals have been on record saying they support the government conspiracy theory.
You can speculate all you want about these sorts of things. The evidence however rests on it's own - which by the way, you STILL HAVEN'T REFUTED
@paulhylander The evidence is refuted. You don't have to accept it. You can live in the fairy-tale fantasy world of 9/11 Troof if you like. The majority of us instead choose reality, and you're going to need a much better story than the one you've got if you want to convince anybody.
@hippiegrinder The majority seems like just about 1 person - you. I just want everybody who reads through this to see what empty arguments you have when presented with simple evidence: Buildings equated to sand. Paint can turn to molten iron. Closing your eyes to a dozen witnesses. Calcium-sulfate turning to iron. Molten iron means nothing, even though there is no other explanation. Suggesting that investigators ignore solid evidence, because they have enough already. Weak
@paulhylander Oh, come on. I never said half of that stuff. But it is true that the molten iron is not a significant phenomenon in the whole thing, and that at the scale of the WTC, a crumbling block of sand is a more apt analogy than a cinder block or something. I don't expect you to accept them. I've been conversing with you for a while here and I have a pretty good idea how your mind works.
@hippiegrinder (continued) There was video evidence of a roughly 5 foot diameter solidified metal/concrete mix. Analysis of this showed primarily iron with very little aluminum content. This in and of itself is enough to prove that molten metal existed. Yet, there were firefighters describing molten metal running in channels. There were other independent statements confirming the existance of molten metal in various forms.
@paulhylander Here again, you're committing two primary Troofer errors: confusing "repetition" with "confirmation", and babbling incessantly about "molten metal" but refusing to articulate what it means. Let's assume molten metal was there. What is the significance? Why should we care? Why is it important? It's almost like you guys want to leave that to the imaginations of gullible people because you can't quite work out the significance of it yourselves.
@hippiegrinder So you're admitting there was molten metal now? That's progress. As I'm sure you've been told before, molten iron cannot be created by a collapse. It can be created by thermite. If no other explanation exists, this reduces to "It was created by thermite". No other explanation has been found so far. At a minimum, we can say that it is likely that the molten iron was created by thermite. This certainly warrents further investigation.
@paulhylander No. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the myth of molten metal is true. And, uh, do you know what a "false dilemma" is? It's where you choose two possible causes for an occurence -- the one you believe in and one that's dubious -- and then claim that because one is dubious, yours is the only possible explanation. Google that and maybe you'll see the mistake you made here. Report back when you've spotted it.
@hippiegrinder OK, so you're not admitting the existance of molten metal. But if you did, for the sake of argument, then you're admitting that there is reason for a new investigation?
Of course that big chunk of molten iron/concrete is not enough proof that molten metal did exist. Right?
@paulhylander@paulhylander What chunk are you referring to? You're still conflating different reports of "molten metal" with each other, so it's hard to follow you.
@hippiegrinder I'm sure you've seen it before, but I'll entertain the possibility that you haven't. See youtube video v=Xy_jMrJGF9M starting at 2:09. The rest of the video of course also has lots of evidence in the form of: statements, footage, and measurements. There's some footage I disagree with (such as the women talking starting at 6:35), but taken as a whole the evidence overwhelmingly points to molten iron.
@hippiegrinder (continued) The government's job was to find the people responsible for this crime and hold them accountable. In order to do this, like any good investigator, they need to account for the available evidence. They did not. Molten iron is not consistent with the current explanation. Molten iron is consistent with a demolition. If no other explanation exists, then "consistent" turns into "implies". Please provide explanation.
@paulhylander If there was molten metal/iron/steel, it points to hot temperatures. That is all. Fundamental, really. The problem, which you apparently cannot accept, is that the evidence of molten metal/iron/steel is exclusively eyewitness, and that places the evidence in the category of "dubious". I understand that you believe it fully, but you still haven't provided much of a reason for anybody else to share your belief.
Now -- where is that molten iron documented? Rub it in my face.
@hippiegrinder As you know, no one took a sample of molten iron while on site and ran lab tests on it. As you also know, this is not required. I previously pointed out the link that shows the solidified metal that is rusting. Next you'll say that just because it is rust colored doesn't mean it's rust. The high temperatures is the whole point - collapses do not create such temperatures. No other explanation is forthcoming as to the origin of said temperatures.
@hippiegrinder you're like a holocaust denier. The original holocaust deniers were the german citizens. They couldn't believe that their own government could commit such heinous atrocities against their own people. There is MASSIVE evidence of molten metal.
@xdream1 That's just exactly the problem. There isn't massive evidence of molten metal. There is only a handful of eyewitness accounts. The accounts are not particularly consistent with each other, and some are just secondhand accounts. In a real life (not TV) courtroom this would not be sufficient to establish molten metal at the scene.
I'm sure the people claiming to see molten metal are honest. They're just mistaken about what they saw. Happens all the time.
3. The top of the North tower was observed to tip (i.e. rotate) at the beginning of the collapse. Physics tells us that it must continue tipping unless resisted by another force. Yet the top of the tower disintegrated before our eyes. According to physical laws as well as common sense, it should have simply tipped right off and fallen down to the streets of Manhatten.
@paulhylander Even though the laws of physics are constant, they produce different effects at different scales and on different materials. Your observation makes sense on solid objects of everyday size, but not so on a massive chunk of building that is largely filled with air. Go build a small tower out of sand and try tipping the top 10% off, you'll see what I mean.
@hippiegrinder "Made of sand" LOL. Yeah, like the towers were made of sand. Here's a clue, they were solid with multiple interconnecting beams designed to NOT act like sand. They were designed NOT to disintegrate while tipping over. FAIL again.
@paulhylander How they were designed is very different from what they were subjected to. But, um, would you mind pointing me to data showing that the towers were designed NOT to disintegrate while tipping over? "Google it" or "read blah blah blah by David Ray Griffin" isn't an answer. Tell me where that data can be found, or at least why you think that.
@hippiegrinder Ever hear of wind loading (probably not) ? This is what real structural engineers must design for. If a building cannot handle sheer forces (which is what they would encounter if tilted - tipping over), then it could not handle wind loading. In any case, buildings do not disintegrate from the effect of their own mass - that is why they remain standing. I know you desparately want to disprove me, but you're really grasping at straws on this comment.
@paulhylander Does wind loading also take 767 strikes and one-hour jet fuel fires into account? Probably not. Don't get me wrong, I understand that your Tinkertoys tip over a certain way in your mom's basement, but I remain unconvinced that your personal theory makes much sense scaled up to WTC size. The structural engineering community at large doesn't seem to buy it either. Don't expect the world to just take your word for it -- you need to come up with some data to bolster your claims.
@hippiegrinder Except that the 767 and fires didn't impact the part that disintegrated. That part was whole, started tipping and then disintegrated. Last time I checked, concrete and steel (or much anything else, for that matter) that previously was stable doesn't disintegrate upon tipping over until it at least hits the ground. The laws of physics don't change with scale except when you reach subatomic sizes at which point quantum effects become pronounced.
. Until then stay in your basement, do the rest of us all a favor. PS my teacher in philosophy showed us this video in class laughing at your "professors" ideologies, as well as your thesis entirely. He teaches at MIT, and actually is able to represent himself in a way that complements his ideology and skeptics. I spit on this video like the rest of the viewers. :) I BID YOU FAREWELL MRS JOSHINA BLAKENEY... a fool without a purpose.
Dynaz100 1 month ago
Be ashamed as the way you both acted and your illogical claims. and this is exactly why your thesis is laughed upon in schools that actually have some prestige. You are the plague that is keeping the great school in Southern Alberta from growing. Learn how to properly address your thoughts and opinions.
Dynaz100 1 month ago
This is a disgrace to the university of lethbridge. Mr Joshua Blakeney and Professor(and I use this term lightly) Hall have shown us exactly how NOT to act during a presentation. I laugh at you're pompous intentions, the videos content as well as context, and overall both of you.
Dynaz100 1 month ago
eroticy, .........seen that sex video with him when he was about 19 at a Hotel in south jersey lol.. go here to see it now.....Starzexposed...dot...com............. ( let me know Today, it shall be sorted, kinky )
GriseldaDortch3392 7 months ago
Joshua and Anthony have obvious mental illnesses and need to seek help.
mikeyt34 9 months ago
@mikeyt34 What an original ad-homenim attack, did you come up with that all by yourself, Champ?
pffft
checkitb4uwreckit1 7 months ago
@checkitb4uwreckit1 About as original as your anit-semitism platform. You are a dime a dozen you jew hating loser. Go fuck yourself and wack off to a picture of Hitler. No reply necessary, I don't debate Holacost deniers and their agendas. You got nothing, you are nothing, and I hope you get cancer.
mikeyt34 7 months ago
@mikeyt34
"I don't debate Holacost deniers and their agendas."
Well, well, can't say I'm surprised, hate-filled Jewboy. Our only agenda is truth and the systematic dismantling the phenomenal lie of Holocaustianity. Zionist Holocaust Promoters are the ones with the agenda -- first to facilitate the murderous colonisation of Palestine, and now since their long-planned terrorist state has been established, to guilt-trip Western states to support the genocidal, satanic, Zionist project.
checkitb4uwreckit1 7 months ago
@checkitb4uwreckit1 Wow. Get some help. Shalom.
mikeyt34 7 months ago
shermer sucks, he even gets his ass handed to him by holocaust deniers, all he's good for is saying we should be skeptic of people who are skeptic regarding spotty narratives...
DREwestcoast 9 months ago
I am happy to see the air has gone out of the tires with this petty little story of yours! How's it goin there raprockprof aka Anthony Hall? You no longer deserve the title of Dr!!
Humantidote 10 months ago
No Patrick. The courts have ruled that it is you who lie and slander and disassemble the truth. Sad to see you throw away your promise.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof This whole Shermer business is very strange. What exactly are you accusing him of? Using the wrong name on his name card? Is there any question he is entitled to call himself an adjunct faculty member at Claremont?
ScottSommers 10 months ago
Un-fucking believable, it seems quack-a-demic dumbification really has taken over. I applaud you two guys for taking a stand against this sleazy shillbag shit head 'Michael Shermer.' A real pseudo skeptic parroting government lies to cover up crimes. What was wrong with the koolaid drinking audience of sheeple, clearly just a bunch educated fools devoid of actual critical thinking and intelligence. Good idiots being trained to support of corrupt government & its further police state agenda.
Koog1e 1 year ago
A video of Blakeney and Hall having a temper tantrum, ergo 9/11 was an inside job. Love the way everything was spliced together. Really informative. You blew the cover off this thing, guys. Helen Mowat, the pile of insanity that ran for School Trustee in Calgary, salutes you.
majam1n 1 year ago
@majam1n There's something about complete ineptitude that's oddly compelling. I personally enjoyed the part where he and the "RapRockProf" switch places without so much as a cut.
PatrickRoss45 1 year ago
Josh Blakely is Anthony Hall's tool. You guys baited Shermer for the purpose of cherrypicking video clips for context - loser.
brandogrp 1 year ago
No, not "anyone" Humantidote. I am being specific in directed my comment to you.
raprockprof 1 year ago
That is what troubles me too! I don't think there is much rationality applied to the marks given for josh's work! I think it is based on emotion rather than intelligence!
Humantidote 1 year ago
For the first time in my life, I'm embarrassed to be Albertan. When a professor and a university student can't even argue with the maturity of a twelve year old... Completely mind numbing. That's all I can really say about this.
AeroMagico 1 year ago 2
This is a lovely episode of "How to Make an Ass Out of Yourself At an Academic Event." Kid, I hope you realize that employers and graduate school admissions boards are likely to see this some day and when they do, their opinions of you are likely to be the same as those in the audience who kept telling you to shut up.
Shermer has written about this in the latest issue of Scientific American where he details how to detect a legitimate conspiracy from a false one. I suggest you read it.
cugamer 1 year ago
@cugamer you Shermer cock-hugger...
DREwestcoast 9 months ago
"He?" "You?" "A Christian?" Like Shermer you are probably part of a sleezy psy op Humantidote. Why not seek honest employment rather than life as a bottom feeder?
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof you would be uncorked enough to think that anyone arguing with you is "part of a sleezy psy op" rather than just a person disgusted by the behavior of two so called academics who demand respect for their studies while peddling a story about Shermer that is not true by any definition! You have no idea what I do for a living, none!!
Humantidote 1 year ago
Shermer is not Adjunct Professor of Economics. He changed his own CV following our exposure of his fraud. Shermer occasionally team teaches with Professor Paul Zak, the Dr. of Love who invented the term Neuroeconomics as a cover for his psy ops laboratory at Claremont looking at the uses and abuses of oxytocin. All quite educational. Shermer is not really an prof. He just plays one on TV.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof You are a real dancin fool! You keep moving around after your comments because you don't have anything to say when someone shows you that you are wrong each time! You keep trying to hide behind Griffin who is only a scientist in his books on 9/11. The rest of the time he is a christian with non-scientific explanations for all natural phenomena in the world and the universe!
:-D. ,
Humantidote 1 year ago
I know! They are both actually guilty of misrepresentation, Hall and Blakeney! Shermer is the innocent one!!
Blakeney considers his stories published if somebody posts it on their website! When Shermer talks about his published work, he means in a newspaper or actual magazine. Shermer IS an adjunct professor of Economics at Claremont. Blakeney thinks of himself as a journalist yet never took journalism nor has he written anything with enough credibility for real news. Joshua = LIAR
Humantidote 1 year ago
If anyone actually was at this lecture, you'd know that they took everything out of context.
Edgehead74 1 year ago
Humanantidote. I see no evidence so far that you have done an iota of independent research. Neither Joshua or I introduced "alleged government conspiracy." in our interventions in the Q and I session. What I said is that the official government conspiracy thesis has been thoroughly discredited by David Ray Griffins ten books in a vast array of specific points. Folks are free to speculate on who did it but I'm not going there here. I specifically refused to enter Shermer's trap, and yours too.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof @raprockprof "what I said is 'that the official government conspiracy thesis...points'". No you did not say that! Maybe u thought so or meant to or maybe even implied it, but you did not say it! And it is your opinion that Griffin has done so! And like I said, have a look at JPL's Ryan Mackey and his free deconstruction of Griff''s priced books. Griffin a doctor of theology who works on proofs for God vs Mackey, an engineer who works for NASA and designs airplanes. Who do I pick?hmm
Humantidote 1 year ago
Hall & Blakeney: Overactive amygdalas?
CamW30 1 year ago
Heh Humantidote. Please don't change the subject from the comparison between David Ray Griffin and Shermer to a comparison between Shermer and the commenter to whom you refer. Since you say you don't accept the official propaganda on 9/11, why not proceed from that point rather than go charging into swamps of argument that muddy the waters. Try for some clarity rather than wallowing in the dirt.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof Ok, why would this alleged gov conspiracy need to risk so many questions by dropping 7 in the afternoon using special unheard of explosive material capable of silently going off and destroying these reinforcing columns? What was so special about 7 that it had to be brought down despite how strange it would look as the first ever to fall from fire?
Humantidote 1 year ago
So Joshua, how does the intestinal effluent coming from mrduffy81 (surprised there are 80 more on ytube) fare against the work of Shermer's when calculating the negative/positive affect on 9/11Truth or any of the various alternative theory movements?
Or a litlle more directly, would you prefer having to deal with Shermer's counter forces only, or trade his absence for mrduffy's (1 to 81, your choice) theories lumped in with yours as you fight to convince people of the truth?
Humantidote 1 year ago
That information comes from the main claims found on several "9/11Truth" websites. It does not sound like you even know much about the position you take. So what is your stand on the events? And how in the world is what you accuse me of doing a racist equivalent? You can call it stereotyping but it has zero to do with race and therefore cannot be an equivalent! What is it like to be perpetually in the dark with your head up your ass? Prevent meaningful discourse? You prefer one sided argument!
Humantidote 1 year ago
Heh Humantidote. So you you "thought truthers blamed Israel." According to you, then, "truthers" are all of a kind and they can be grouped together as adherents of a single theory. That's the equivalent of racism on your part. You have no room in your worldview to appreciate diversity and the reality of individualism within the larger categories you create to justify your ignorance and prejudice. Are you paid like the fraud Shermer to run interference and prevent meaningful discourse?
raprockprof 1 year ago
For the record, this business about Shermer is an embarrassing mistake by Blakeney and Hall which they won't admit!
And because they continue to run this video and article about it while knowing full well that they are wrong, this is now a bold face lie, an outright and seemingly unabashed intentional deception which will likely draw both libel and slander lawsuits from Shermer, an exposure that will discredit all their academic work and boost Shermer's position a hundred fold!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote wants to be more holy than the pope, more royal than the queen and more Shermeresque than Michael Shermer himself. Michael Shermer has already conceded that he is not and has never been an "Adjunct Professor of Economics". He has revised all his online biographies. So if to expose that fact is a "bold face lie" warranting "libel and slander lawsuits" then Shermer will have to sue himself. If anything in this You Tube is false why not get specific and explain what exactly is false?
Globalization1492 1 year ago
@Globalization1492 Speaking of bald-face lies. Perhaps Mr Blakeney could produce an example of Shermer admitting that he had never been an adjunct professor of economics. Revising his online biography represents no such concession.
Simple facts that Hall and Blakeney have yet to admit to: contrary to their claims, Shermer WAS an adjunct professor at the university in question. The subject matter of his course was economics.
I don't think it's asking much to ask Mr Blakeney to stop lying.
PatrickRoss45 1 year ago
I have to say that I find it hilarious that selectively-chosen footage of WTC 7, all shot from the north face of the building, is treated as "emperical evidence".
I have a question for Mr Blakeney: are the numerous videos and photos of the south face of the building -- from which the fullest extent of the physical damage to the structure can be seen -- less empircal than the videos he prefers? Or does he just refuse to consider anything that doesn't confirm his theories?
PatrickRoss45 1 year ago
@Globalization1492
Are all the academics at lethbridge communists? Communism killed over 100 million people, and is a Jewish-inspired ideology, like Zionism. A scam for Jewish hegemeny. The 1917 Bolshevik coup in Russia was a Jewish planned, organized and financed operation eminatting from the Rothschild, Schiff, Warburg. Trotsky-Bronstein banking faction.
checkitb4uwreckit1 7 months ago
That man that stood up IS A HERO! HELL YEAH!
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
Obviously you aren't prepared to do an iota of independent research, by, for instance, going through Professor MacQueen's assessment of over ten thousand pages of testimony giving by WTC fire firers. What is your evidence that there were five or ten? What is your evidence hundreds or thousands heard nothing?. Just shermeresque jibberish.Shermer lied about even his flimsy academic credentials and has admitted it by removing "of Economic" from his CV.
raprockprof 1 year ago
For everyone else's benefit, I cleared up with hippiegrinder that I meant the NIST report for the addressing of the molten metal, not the comm report.
Humantidote 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder just to clarify something. There was molten metal dripping in videos and seen in hot spots of the debris by firefighters. This was addressed in the comm report! It was molten aluminum. Aluminum melts at much lower temps than steel, 800 to 1300 deg F depending on the alloy! I am not defending troofers just want you to know this.
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote The fact that you can label someone as a "twoofer" etc, shows how judgemental you are, and you are that way by design. It is a side effect of the disinformation being put out by people like Shermer.
The commission report is LIES. You believe the nazis who carried this out. You need to learn your history, young man. The CIA is full of the nazi philosophies who came to America with PROJECT PAPERCLIP. Hitler burned the Reichstag and this was just anotehr nazi sabotage.
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
@MrDuffy81 You are the young man who doesn't know his history! You are claiming that it was the Nazis who orchestrated 9/11? I thought the truthers blamed Israel, and that mossad agents were caught that day were secretly let go to return home? Are the Nazis and Zionists collaborating now?
Are you for real? Seriously, that is absurd to talk of Nazi involvement or influence on what happened! What the fuck are you reading that supports this history I need to learn?
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote JESUITS ORCHESTRATED 9-11. CARRIED OUT BY CIA AND MOSSAD. JESUITS RUN THE NWO.
"I thought you truthers believe..." FUCK YOU! YOU DO NOT SEE PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS. YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE FOR YOUR CONDEMNATION OF YOUR FELLOW MAN. YOU ARE A FILTHY FUCK!
I HAVE THE TRUTH. YOU ARE A FUCKING TWIT! ACCEPT IT. THE TRUTH IS IN MY VIDEO 9-11: THE JESUIT CONNECTION.
LISTEN TO JIM MARRS JOSEPH FARRELL AND PETER LEVENDA ABOUT NAZIS IN THE CIA . BUSH HISTORY!
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
@MrDuffy81 So now you have the Nazis, CIA, Mossad, and the Jesuits at the controlling lead for the 9/11 attacks? Are you just making this up as you go along? Where were the aliens when all this was goin down? Or was it a spaceship that took out flight 93 and ruined the last attack headed for the White House? Did the Illuminati fail to get the intergalactic stand down orders out to the aliens in time? What a SNAFU that morning was for the underground gov! Is there anyone else involved in this?
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote YOU FUCKING FAGGOT! ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID? LOOK UP THE NAMES OF THE RESEARCHERS I MENTION BEFORE YOU UTTER ANOTHER WORD YOU FUCKING IGNARAMOUS!
FRITZ SPRINGMEIER, WILLIAM COOPER, JIM MARRS, PETER LEVENDA, JOSEPH FARRELL.
YES! YOU ARE INVOLVED YOU FUCKING SHILLISH TURD. CONSIDER YOURSELF FLUSHED! WHAT AGENCY DO YOU WORK FOR? YOU ARE EMPLOYED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO SPREAD DISINFORMATION AND CONFUSE AMERICAN CITIZENS. YOU ARE SCUM! I ASK AGAIN: WHAT AGENGY U WORK FOR?
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
@MrDuffy81 I see! I wonder what agency would actually have to pay misinformers to throw a monkey wrench into your investigation? I guess I am kinda stupid for doing such work for free when there is so much easy money to be made! Is this the meaningful discourse you referred to raprockprof?
If anyone out there reading this would like to pay me for doing what I am doing please message me the details for forwarding my resume! I am willing to work full time from my home or commute to an office!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@MrDuffy81 Took your advice and watched the video you spoke of!
Wow! You are really on to something, yes, the insane asylum!
Absolutely no doubt about it!
I left my critique for you!
I hope you don't actually hurt anybody before they lock you up forever!
Humantidote 1 year ago
@Humantidote YOU ARE A FUCKING SHILL. A PAID AGENT. YOU HAVE A REASON TO DECEIVE. SO MUH IS OBVIOUS.
FOLLOW THE LINK TO THE ABOVE TOP SECRET WEBSITE YOU FUCKING FOOL! AND EAT SHIT WHILE YOU ARE AI IT. WE WILL SOON REGAIN CONTROL OF THIS NATION AND SENTENCE TREASONOUS BASTARDS LIKE YOU TO A PRISON CELL. TELL YOUR SUPERIOR HE IS A PIECE OF SHIT, TOO, AS IF EH WASN'T AWARE...FUCKING SHILL!
MrDuffy81 1 year ago
@MrDuffy81 Oh just go away. Your opinions need to go back into the comic book where you found them!
I feel sorry for your parents and any other family members embarrassed by the genetic link they have with you!
Every comment on your videos is from you. I would not be the least bit surprised that you have a ytube acct for each one of your personalities and carry on fights when no one else will talk to you!
You need some help, from really good doctors!
Humantidote 1 year ago
On Explosions. Check out Professor Graeme MacQueen's articles and You Tubes on the evidence of the firefighters at the Twin Towers. The WTC janitor, William Rodriguez, also is adamant about explosions. Do some independent research grandmastershek rather than replicate the dishonest denialism of Dr. Love's partner in crime.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof So I guess the five or ten people who say they heard demolition like explosions outweigh the thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people who heard nothing like what these people heard. Or is their silence evidence of complicity in the attack?
Humantidote 1 year ago
@raprockprof Many people heard explosions that went off for many reasons. Cars and trucks were blowing up, and I even remember hearing on the radio that day about what were thought at the time to be car bombs going off, even in areas far from the attacks. Almost all were something else or in many cases (believe it or not) prank reports from those who thought it funny on a day like that. Demolition charges are timed and very loud. The seismographic data taken then does not have any on record.
Humantidote 1 year ago
If you are armed with the facts you need to conduct yourself more professionally.. especially and in an academic setting. It's hard to do when you're passionate but as Franklin said.. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"
lestliness 1 year ago
Also, a question: If the US Government or elements within and controlling it pulled off 9/11, where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If this event was the first step towards invading Iraq, securing the oil supplies and empire, instead of a global backlash, couldn't they follow the most complex conspiracy in the history of mankind by simply putting one of their own bombs, or a fake one, in Iraq and say "See?" Wouldn't people be more open to the NWO if they would have done that?
RifleEyesMusic 1 year ago
@RifleEyesMusic Or is it more likely that they pulled off the most complex conspiracy in the history of mankind and then just decided to put their feet up and say "Hey, guys, let's just run this baby on autopilot for a while and see where it takes us".
RifleEyesMusic 1 year ago
I'm sorry, but this is silliness. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to present yourself in a way which is not screaming and disrupting a question and answer period. The thought police? I would ask you: is it more likely they wanted to remove Mr. Hall because he was asking "the wrong questions", or because he was disrupting the event, which was evidenced by the crowd shushing him and Mr. Shermer saying he will have to leave when he was shouting remarks?
RifleEyesMusic 1 year ago
Love it - well played guys -ty for sharing
osysbites 1 year ago
Shermer is an hypocrit, a fraud like the people he defends.
nclusiau 1 year ago
You should watch Schermer debating Mark Weber from the IHR on the "holocaust" issue. Very interesting. Google "holocaust debate"
Schermers arguments suck big time!
fredontube 1 year ago
shermer represents the thought police, his real goal is to crush independent thinking.
oberon358 1 year ago
I was at that lecture. you guys came off as quaks.........and you are
Edgehead74 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Michael Shermer is pointing out that there are common tactics and ideas that these groups share." Michael Shermer is a scam artist who refuses to address the specifics of evidence on a point by point basis. He violates scientific principles by using meaningless, obfuscating woo woo word like "conspiracy theorists" or "patternicity" to smear artificial categories of people that he creates in his own imagination. He won't engage specific evidence. He messages power and spits on science.
raprockprof 1 year ago
Wow, keep shouting fast enough for him to not tackle all of your points; a prime example of the horribly deceptive tactic of conspiracy theorists, creationists, deniers and people who argue fringe evidence. Michael Shermer is pointing out that there are common tactics and ideas that these groups share so that is why you are thrown into that whole lot of pseudo-skeptics which you think you are not a part of; burden of proof is on you not the skeptic....
AkaPie88 1 year ago
@AkaPie88 well said my friend
jonkabbash 1 year ago
great job guys! Glad you were there to speak up!!
free2flycari 1 year ago
They label Shermer "Pseudo -Skeptic." Facepalm. I cannot believe people listen to these little twats. What a bunch of zealots. They could at least ask a question in a respectful manner, rather than bombarding Shermer with statements. Just sad that people listen to people like this; the 9/11 truth movement, has turned religious.
1FlyWinEvolutions 1 year ago
@1FlyWinEvolutions well said
jonkabbash 1 year ago
@1FlyWinEvolutions It is an axiom of the 9/11 Truth Movement that reasoned, civil factual exchange is a losing strategy. Google "Persuasion Psychology for 9/11 Truth: A Practical Toolbox for Disabusing the Deluded" and you'll find a hilarious document instructing Truthers to use psychological tricks to gain converts, because factual arguments will fail. Seriously. Troofers are beyond parody and beneath contempt.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder LOL! Look mom, there's a pot pointing out that the white porcelin teapot really is black.
paulhylander 1 year ago
As someone at this lecture, these videos are absolutely hilarious. I'm amazed you managed to get to the level of University Professor, Mr. Hall (Of course, you're a laughing-stock anyways). Not only did Michael Shermer answer that he had read the books you asked him about, his lecture had just about nothing to do with your conspiracy theory. He didn't want to discuss it, because the hundred or so other people listening didn't care at all about hearing about why 9/11 truthers are right. We wanted
caldous22 1 year ago
@caldous22 to hear him talk about the brain in general and the biology around how it processes our sensory information and belief systems. It's awesome how he directed you to the information he had previously obtained and written about on the subject and tried to steer things back on track and you consider that not answering your arguments. Haha. Go read his damn arguments, then write something intelligent back instead of interrupting his lecture on a different subject by screaming and frothing.
caldous22 1 year ago
What is dispicable is that this asshole is addressing a class I believe? None of his information is credible.... wait... he doesn't have information. He is simply spewing rhetoric.... why this man was allowed to speak in a learning institution is sad.
mindstain75 1 year ago
Nice try guys, but trying to reach someone as ignorant and convoluted as this guy, is a huge waste of time. Keep educating 'thinking people', and pay no attention to assholes like this Shermer idiot or his brain-dead followers, that obviously can't think for themselves.
mikejamesbaldwin 1 year ago
no one came to listen to your known sense. you had your moment to speak.
oooBOOSHooo 1 year ago
Still not one mention of a single book on 9/11 by Professor Griffin, or a single issue of contention within even one of those books.... instead only obfuscation from the 9/11 deniers who refuse to check out the fact that their guru, anti-skeptic Michael Shermer, has been misrepresenting his credentials. Its quite clear that Shermer's attacks on real skeptics takes place outside the rigors of peer review. The Dean of Economics at Claremont indicates she has no idea who he is.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof Why in the world would anyone give a shit what a theology professor has to say about 9/11? The guy spent most of his career trying to interpret the desires of his imaginary friend in the sky, and HE is your authority? Are you serious?
c6gunner 1 year ago
Being that 9/11 (And the subsequent cover-up) is the Biggest crime in American history, you guys should take all your “Evidence” and call the FBI. Think about it, You obviously have it all figured out and your "theories" will help catch the people behind this heinous crime against our country. Also, when you help crack the case you will be instantly famous (Book Deals, The Lecture circuit, a Hollywood Movie about how you solved the crime.) Their Number is: 1-800-CALL-FBI (Morons)
jonkabbash 1 year ago
@jonkabbash It's not even that hard. Anybody who lost a family member can sue in Federal court for wrongful death. The burden of proof isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a civil suit, it's just "preponderance of the evidence." All they need to do is name their defendants and file a complaint listing why they think that defendant is responsible. In real life this happens within three years of an event, but Troofers are now nine years out and can't even meet that easy burden.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder You know I've never thought about that. That is a really good point and I will use it in the future. Thanks for a dose of sanity! you rock.
jonkabbash 1 year ago
Comment removed
jonkabbash 1 year ago
"He who is most angry is most correct." - The School of Moronic Debate
themattsander 1 year ago
"Even if there is such a report, it's just another uncorroborated eyewitness account."
Hmm, judging a hypothetical report to be wrong before the reader has seen the imagined document. Ludicrous. Seems like Shermer-style Orwellianism.
Shermer is not Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University. Check it out. If he lies about his credentials, what else does this pretender invent. Stay tuned.
raprockprof 1 year ago
@raprockprof Even if Hysterical Hylander can produce the report, it's just somebody saying what they saw. It's weak evidence. You can believe if you like but don't expect thinking grownups to make the same mistake.
And the October 2008 issue of CGU's Pedant indeed lists Shermer as adjunct professor, so how about if you be a little more clear about where you're getting your info?
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 9/11 attacks aka Global Guardian '01 consisted of decoys (the real passenger planes,) and their droned replacements. The decoys were electronically hijacked through the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot over KU bandwidth then taken over the Atlantic Ocean and destroyed through a remote signal via GPS.
OperationMockingbird 1 year ago
@OperationMockingbird Flight 11, 175's drones hit WTC 1 and 2. Flight 77's drone struck Wedge One of the Pentagon. Flight 93's drone couldn't reach its original target, that being the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington D.C. because Flight 93 was delayed 41 minutes at Newark International Airport. The delay wasn't part of the original plan so Flight 93 (decoy) had to be aborted over Shanksville, Pennsylvania instead of the Atlantic Ocean.
OperationMockingbird 1 year ago
The 9/11 attacks also known as Global Guardian '01 was a Joint Unconventional Threat Continuity Training Live Fire Terrorist Hijacking Scenario Concept Proposal conceived in Canada. The goal of the drill to successfully demonstrate the anti-hijacking system Canada was selling the USA. Specifically they were testing the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot module, also patented in Canada.
OperationMockingbird 1 year ago
Paul, your points are garbage, they've been addressed dozens of times, and if you're not aware of the refutations then you're either not looking or you're incompetent. Either way, you're wasting your time.
c6gunner 1 year ago
@c6gunner OK, so address them yourself if you actually understand the points. You probably can't so you go around saying, "they've been addressed dozens of times." in hopes of handwaving them away.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander No. There's a reason why every person in that room was telling those two morons to sit down and shut up - we've heard what you have to say, we know that you're full of shit, and we have no interest in discussing it any more. If you care about what's true, go do the research, otherwise STFU and go away.
c6gunner 1 year ago 2
@paulhylander Like I said...Tell it to the FBI..solve the case and become famous. However we KNOW how this will turn out. There will never be a break in the "inside job" case..Ever...End of story. I will be proven right and you (and the rest of the conspiracy movement) will look like a bunch of Dipshits. I win you Lose. There is nothing else to say. So don't open your mouth again unless my dick is in it.
jonkabbash 1 year ago
@jonkabbash Yet again, a denialist can't actually use logic and evidence to refute anything. I can see there are dipshits around here, but your analysis of who is a dipshit is a little off.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@jonkabbash At least "hippiegrinder" is giving it his best shot. You, all you can say is "don't open your mouth again unless my dick is in it" Sounds like you were abused as a child. Maybe you should see help.
paulhylander 1 year ago
Here are 4 pieces of evidence, any one of which is sufficient to invalidate the official fairy tale of what happened on 9/11. Before spouting off about how crazy truthers are or how there's no way that a conspiracy be that big could be covered up, I invite you to refute this evidence. If you cannot, then you should not be spout off. BTW, 500 words is a very short amount of space to bring up evidence. Here goes in several posts...
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander
1. Orange-glowing pools of molten metal in bases of towers. Witnesses have described it many times (on YouTube no less) Satellites recorded thermal scans showing those temps. Oxygen starved jet fuel fires cannot produce those temps. Gravitational collapse cannot produce those temps. Cutting torches could not produce the volume of metal described. The temperatures were confirmed by satellite. Why did they pools and temperatures exist?
paulhylander 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulhylander
2. Explosives found in trade-center dust. The only reasonable issue with this evidence is that the chain of custody of the dust samples was not independently tracked and verified. There has been no published scientific refutation of their analysis. If you care to refute this claim, you should provide explanation of how their analysis was incorrect. Not just, "well, I saw on the internet that they were refuted"
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander No explosives were found in the trade center dust. Again, Steven Jones was unable to get his magic red chips to so much as even burn. Another mad Truther scientist tried and failed, concluding that his chips must have been "deactivated" (whatever that means). The red chips are the same in color as paint chips found in the wreckage. Jones found paint chips. Neither Jones nor his findings are important enough for legitimate scientists to spend time on, thus the silence.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Hey Hippiegrinder. Keep up the good work on here. But keep in mind this is a "Religious" discussion to these people. They have FAITH in their conspiracy like a Christian has FAITH in Jesus. No amount of evidence or logic will ever shake them. I just don't want you to waste too much of your time.
jonkabbash 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder To quote the article's abstract:
"When ignited in a DSC device, the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of theses peculiar red-gray chips."
These samples were ignited. The presence of iron microspheres is not consistent with paint. Still awaiting a real argument
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Yes, I know what the article says. "Exhibiting exotherms" is different from "combusting". Iron microspheres are consistent with sulfur, which is consistent with sheetrock, which is consistent with the WTC7 wreckage. And he states clearly that whatever it did, it did a temperature too low to be thermite. The scientific community is unimpressed by Jones' discovery of paint flakes in the collapsed building. You should be as well.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder "Iron microspheres are consistent with sulfer" You do know that iron and calcium sulfate are chemically quite different are you not? Try as you might, you cannot extract iron from calcium sulfate. Again FAIL
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Assuming you rule out drywall, you STILL need to rule out other known sources (concrete, cutting torches, building contents, etc.) before you get to start thinking about thermite. Can you do so?
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder The sample tested in the paper did not contain any other sources of iron. Burning paint should not and does not create molten iron.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Not by itself. Super-secret-nano-thermite should, however, burn at temperature consistent with the burning of thermite. Jones' sample did not.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder If you had read the paper, you would know that they didn't burn the chip and measure the burning temperature. Instead they used a differential calorimeter to determine how much heat was created when the material burned. Still doesn't explain the iron microspheres. Nice try though
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Once again you prove to have no idea about anything. You talk about a little Kerosene bringing down a building in your smug way but you leave out the Impact of a FULLY FUELED 767 hitting the building a 500mph. 100 Tons of Jetliner hitting a stationary building at almost the speed of a bullet, and you omit that. Face it, you are outmatched here and the facts are not with you. Go live in your fantasy world..douchebag.
jonkabbash 1 year ago
@jonkabbash The buildings stood for an hour after being hit. Therefore, the impact itself could have very little to do with the collapse. The government said as much in its report. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a similar sized plane. So according to your fantasy, the burning fuel was the cause of the collapse. Therefore, as I said, the demolition companies should not bother with explosives. Just use kerosene - much cheaper and safer, and equally effective.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Er, no. You're conflating various offhanded comments about "molten metal" and "molten steel" with a photo that appears to depict an orange glowing pool long after the attacks. I'm not aware of a report of orange-glowing pools of molten metal in bases of towers, and even if there is such a report, it's just another uncorroborated eyewitness account. This evidence is doubly irrelevant given the lack of correlation between molten metal and controlled demolitions.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Again, FAIL. There are several witness accounts of molten metal and of orange-hot temperatures in the bases of the towers - this is what is called corroboration. The witnesses called it steel, but in some wild fantasy land, it's possible, though quite unlikely, to be super-heated molten aluminum. In any case, the temperatures required to achieve an orange glow are well in excess of what is obtainable from a collapse.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander There are a handful of disparate statements regarding "molten metal", "molten steel", and the like, but they are not consistent with each other. They're hardly corroboration of anything. Though I would be grateful if you could point me to the sighting of glowing orange pools of molten metal. Go ahead and rub facts in my face. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder
Additionally, there is also video showing large chunks of cooled remains of what was molten iron, mixed with concrete and other materials. Analysis was done on these to show they contain very little aluminum and the bulk of the material was iron and concrete. This is also corroborating that there was indeed molten iron in the bases. Certainly, the strong possibility of molten iron should have been investigated - but it was not.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Why do you think it should have been investigated? About 200 posts later and you still haven't explained what the significance of molten iron/metal/steel would be, even if it were real.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Anyone with their head in the sand (or not a paid shill) would understand that molten metal present in the bases is not consistent with a collapse. NIST denied it existed, which, based on numerous eye-witness accounts is not a reasonable response for an agency supposedly charged with explaining the collapses. Even if the numerous statements didn't corroborate each other, (which they clearly do), they clearly should have been investigated. This is law enforcement 101
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Er... you're confusing "a feature not necessary for" with "a feature not consistent with". Finding chili dogs in the wreckage doesn't mean the building was destroyed by chili dogs. And really, it's on you to connect the molten metal to a controlled demolition (which you still cannot do). Not to mention confirm the existence of the molten metal to begin with (which you also cannot do). And when are you going to point me to that important "glowing orange pools" observation?
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Your confusing an investigation with a coverup. In an investigation, the investigator looks for inconsistencies, unexplained phenomena, and low probability events and then tries to piece together what happened from the evidence. A coverup on the other hand starts with the required explanation as a goal and assembles a story to fit that ignoring or disparaging any evidence that might contradict the required explanation.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Um.... no. That's how a TV investigation works, because TV investigations need to be interesting and show somebody getting punished at the end. A technical failure investigation does not explore "unexplained phenomena" unless explained phenomena are insufficient to account for the observations. There are no observations in buildings 1, 2, or 7 that require explosives, thermite, or anything else. All three buildings collapsed due to fire and gravity. The science is settled.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder A woman was raped and 5 guys are put in a lineup. The women points out the third guy and says, "he looks like the guy". Also, a witness says that the guy was in the area at the time. In court the defense attorney tries to introduce DNA evidence that shows the seman stains do not match the defendant. But the judge says, "Sorry, we have all the evidence needed to convict the defendant. Guilty as charged."
You're saying this is how justice is carried out in this country?
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander DNA evidence is strong evidence. Eyewitness reports of "molten metal" are weak evidence. You need to learn the difference. I'd suggest browsing Fisher's "Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation" and reading some police investigation manuals, as well as turning off CSI, before trying to school anybody any further.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Chunks of solidified iron, a dozen or more independent eyewitness statements, video footage, satellite imaging, etc (e.g. youtube video v=Xy_jMrJGF9M). These are not "strong evidence" in your view. What, are we supposed to go and get the still-molten metal today and only then would you be satisfied? I'd suggest you take a course in common sense.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander The eyewitness statements are not independent -- for example, Loizeaux is on record as saying that he was just repeating Tully's statement and did not see anything molten himself. The video footage is dubious, and the satellite imagery does not show metal. Taken together, they indicate hot temperatures from a building fire. Nothing more.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Sorry, casting dispersion on one guy doesn't absolve the all the other witness statements.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Even if the statements were all independent, you stilll just have is a handful of "molten metal" statements, and the statements without physical evidence are not sufficient to establish the existence of molten metal. It does not matter that you find the declarants to be "highly credible", or "first responders", or anything else.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder The science is not settled. There never was any science involved in any of the official reports. You still haven't rebutted any of the original 4 points made - unless your idea of a rebuttal is saying that calcium, sulfer and oxygen can turn into iron spontaneously.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander In the mainstream (legitimate) scientific community, there is no controversy. 9/11 Troof has failed. If there were a significant minority, even something like 5%, of mainstream scientists who supported 9/11 Troof then you might be onto something. Can you explain why there is not?
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder There's plenty of reasons for the lack of exposure in mainstream media to the evidence related to 911. Similarly, there's probably a good explanation as to why there are nearly 10000 signatures of educated science and engineering professionals in the ae911 truth website and yet there's no similar set of signatures on the other side.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Silence = assent. Everybody who hasn't spoken up can be deemed to have accepted the official story. That, plus it just isn't polite to call attention to people like Steven E. Jones who suffer from untreated mental illnesses, and most legitimate scientists have little interest in rehashing somebody else's solved problem.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder No, silence means silence. What evidence do you have otherwise? You can speculate on reasons for silence. I can speculate on reasons for silence. But this is not evidence, just speculation.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander In most real life contexts, that's the convention. Google "the silence procedure". Feel free to provide a counterexample, or some reason why you think silence means something else in this case.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder (continued) There's probably also good reason why only about a dozen engineering and science professionals have been on record saying they support the government conspiracy theory.
You can speculate all you want about these sorts of things. The evidence however rests on it's own - which by the way, you STILL HAVEN'T REFUTED
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander The evidence is refuted. You don't have to accept it. You can live in the fairy-tale fantasy world of 9/11 Troof if you like. The majority of us instead choose reality, and you're going to need a much better story than the one you've got if you want to convince anybody.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder The majority seems like just about 1 person - you. I just want everybody who reads through this to see what empty arguments you have when presented with simple evidence: Buildings equated to sand. Paint can turn to molten iron. Closing your eyes to a dozen witnesses. Calcium-sulfate turning to iron. Molten iron means nothing, even though there is no other explanation. Suggesting that investigators ignore solid evidence, because they have enough already. Weak
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Oh, come on. I never said half of that stuff. But it is true that the molten iron is not a significant phenomenon in the whole thing, and that at the scale of the WTC, a crumbling block of sand is a more apt analogy than a cinder block or something. I don't expect you to accept them. I've been conversing with you for a while here and I have a pretty good idea how your mind works.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder (continued) There was video evidence of a roughly 5 foot diameter solidified metal/concrete mix. Analysis of this showed primarily iron with very little aluminum content. This in and of itself is enough to prove that molten metal existed. Yet, there were firefighters describing molten metal running in channels. There were other independent statements confirming the existance of molten metal in various forms.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Here again, you're committing two primary Troofer errors: confusing "repetition" with "confirmation", and babbling incessantly about "molten metal" but refusing to articulate what it means. Let's assume molten metal was there. What is the significance? Why should we care? Why is it important? It's almost like you guys want to leave that to the imaginations of gullible people because you can't quite work out the significance of it yourselves.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder So you're admitting there was molten metal now? That's progress. As I'm sure you've been told before, molten iron cannot be created by a collapse. It can be created by thermite. If no other explanation exists, this reduces to "It was created by thermite". No other explanation has been found so far. At a minimum, we can say that it is likely that the molten iron was created by thermite. This certainly warrents further investigation.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander No. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the myth of molten metal is true. And, uh, do you know what a "false dilemma" is? It's where you choose two possible causes for an occurence -- the one you believe in and one that's dubious -- and then claim that because one is dubious, yours is the only possible explanation. Google that and maybe you'll see the mistake you made here. Report back when you've spotted it.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder OK, so you're not admitting the existance of molten metal. But if you did, for the sake of argument, then you're admitting that there is reason for a new investigation?
Of course that big chunk of molten iron/concrete is not enough proof that molten metal did exist. Right?
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander @paulhylander What chunk are you referring to? You're still conflating different reports of "molten metal" with each other, so it's hard to follow you.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder I'm sure you've seen it before, but I'll entertain the possibility that you haven't. See youtube video v=Xy_jMrJGF9M starting at 2:09. The rest of the video of course also has lots of evidence in the form of: statements, footage, and measurements. There's some footage I disagree with (such as the women talking starting at 6:35), but taken as a whole the evidence overwhelmingly points to molten iron.
paulhylander 1 year ago
Comment removed
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder (continued) The government's job was to find the people responsible for this crime and hold them accountable. In order to do this, like any good investigator, they need to account for the available evidence. They did not. Molten iron is not consistent with the current explanation. Molten iron is consistent with a demolition. If no other explanation exists, then "consistent" turns into "implies". Please provide explanation.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander That's exactly the problem. Molten metal/steel/iron does not point to demolition.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder What does it point to then?
Your strategies so far have failed. Let me list them:
1. Try to say "no evidence of molten metal"
2. Try to say "no evidence of molten iron"
3. Try to say "no need to explore molten iron because we have all the evidence we need"
4. Try to say "molten iron does not imply demolition", but refuse to say what else it could imply.
To your credit, you certainly are adept at obfuscation. Are you sure you're not employed by some secret agency?
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander If there was molten metal/iron/steel, it points to hot temperatures. That is all. Fundamental, really. The problem, which you apparently cannot accept, is that the evidence of molten metal/iron/steel is exclusively eyewitness, and that places the evidence in the category of "dubious". I understand that you believe it fully, but you still haven't provided much of a reason for anybody else to share your belief.
Now -- where is that molten iron documented? Rub it in my face.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder As you know, no one took a sample of molten iron while on site and ran lab tests on it. As you also know, this is not required. I previously pointed out the link that shows the solidified metal that is rusting. Next you'll say that just because it is rust colored doesn't mean it's rust. The high temperatures is the whole point - collapses do not create such temperatures. No other explanation is forthcoming as to the origin of said temperatures.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Sure, it appears to be rusted metal. Maybe it is. There's no evidence it was once "molten". That's just your tiresome religious belief.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder you're like a holocaust denier. The original holocaust deniers were the german citizens. They couldn't believe that their own government could commit such heinous atrocities against their own people. There is MASSIVE evidence of molten metal.
xdream1 1 year ago
@xdream1 That's just exactly the problem. There isn't massive evidence of molten metal. There is only a handful of eyewitness accounts. The accounts are not particularly consistent with each other, and some are just secondhand accounts. In a real life (not TV) courtroom this would not be sufficient to establish molten metal at the scene.
I'm sure the people claiming to see molten metal are honest. They're just mistaken about what they saw. Happens all the time.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@xdream1 Thats just it though,they did'nt commit them against their own people!
Sure a large bunch of German gays and commies were executed but the 'holocaust' is always used in relation to the jews.
ricsibacsi1956 1 year ago
@paulhylander
3. The top of the North tower was observed to tip (i.e. rotate) at the beginning of the collapse. Physics tells us that it must continue tipping unless resisted by another force. Yet the top of the tower disintegrated before our eyes. According to physical laws as well as common sense, it should have simply tipped right off and fallen down to the streets of Manhatten.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Even though the laws of physics are constant, they produce different effects at different scales and on different materials. Your observation makes sense on solid objects of everyday size, but not so on a massive chunk of building that is largely filled with air. Go build a small tower out of sand and try tipping the top 10% off, you'll see what I mean.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder "Made of sand" LOL. Yeah, like the towers were made of sand. Here's a clue, they were solid with multiple interconnecting beams designed to NOT act like sand. They were designed NOT to disintegrate while tipping over. FAIL again.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander How they were designed is very different from what they were subjected to. But, um, would you mind pointing me to data showing that the towers were designed NOT to disintegrate while tipping over? "Google it" or "read blah blah blah by David Ray Griffin" isn't an answer. Tell me where that data can be found, or at least why you think that.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Ever hear of wind loading (probably not) ? This is what real structural engineers must design for. If a building cannot handle sheer forces (which is what they would encounter if tilted - tipping over), then it could not handle wind loading. In any case, buildings do not disintegrate from the effect of their own mass - that is why they remain standing. I know you desparately want to disprove me, but you're really grasping at straws on this comment.
paulhylander 1 year ago
@paulhylander Does wind loading also take 767 strikes and one-hour jet fuel fires into account? Probably not. Don't get me wrong, I understand that your Tinkertoys tip over a certain way in your mom's basement, but I remain unconvinced that your personal theory makes much sense scaled up to WTC size. The structural engineering community at large doesn't seem to buy it either. Don't expect the world to just take your word for it -- you need to come up with some data to bolster your claims.
hippiegrinder 1 year ago
@hippiegrinder Except that the 767 and fires didn't impact the part that disintegrated. That part was whole, started tipping and then disintegrated. Last time I checked, concrete and steel (or much anything else, for that matter) that previously was stable doesn't disintegrate upon tipping over until it at least hits the ground. The laws of physics don't change with scale except when you reach subatomic sizes at which point quantum effects become pronounced.
paulhylander 1 year ago