Skeptical bias against 9/11 Truth?

[SexyMelon]

Figures.

[theUSER101]

I love the logic of these crazy conspiracy nut jobs. So Bush and the Government pulled off the most amazing conspiracy of all time. They must have used there illuminati magical powers to get the explosives in the buildings without anyone seeing and anyone who did know about has been completely silent etc etc pulled it all off successfully.....oh wait but fuck they let someone find out they used the thermite because it was left over in the debris. You would think they wouldn't have missed that.

[JoeTube2]

Thank you stoobradley for your courageous efforts. I must say it hurt a little after hearing the BadAstronomer's reply. I could only dream of a world where fake skeptics like him are shunned and Stephen Jones, Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan etc. are elevated to be the leading scientists of the future.

[ho2cultcha]

i can't believe the global insanity when it comes to 9/11. anyone - scientist or not - has to be a little insane to believe that the buildings were brought down by those planes hitting them.

[wearechangeatlanta1]

You're assuming the no planers share a common goal. I disagree.  Their goal is to poison the well. Thank you for confronting these sham pseudoskeptics who sheep like fan boys fawn over. They have created a class of state approved faux skeptics and the irony is the supposed non conformist fanboy culture eat it up with ZERO skepticism. Oh lord.... Thank you, join us at wearechange atlanta we get shit done and call these fakers out on a daily basis.

[steveh46]

I think the most significant statement is that scientists "are biased against nonsense."

[timrocket2008]

Phil Plat that fucking shill. He has one objective and thats to back up ever Government lie.

[gunsandbullhorns]

What a bunch of shills.

[slewofdamascus]

anyone with a half a brain knows by now, with mountains of irrefutable circumstantial evidence that bush-cheny-rumsfeld are complicit in the 9-11 ritual sacrifice of thousands of people. It's exactly like the OJ murders - we don't know the exact details of the crime, but we damn sure know that he's guilty because it's obvious as hell, every piece of circumstantial evidence points in his direction just as every piece of circumstantial evidence re: 9-11 and the cover-up points to bush-cheney-rummy

[AnonymousElektron]

@slewofdamascus no, we are a society based on fair implementation of laws.

Just because a lot of people are "damn sure" that you're a witch, doesn't make it OK to burn you at the stake.

We have LAWS, and unless you can prove such claims beyond reasonable doubt, you can't convict anyone, as it should be.

You don't know the exact details -- but you're SURE that it happened?

That's not nearly good enough.

The "official" story knows the exact details.

[thecyberpunk]

@slewofdamascus If you really think the government is that evil why aren't you out with an AK and a ski mask fighting it right now?

[slewofdamascus]

@thecyberpunk early candidate for Dumbest Comment of the Year on Youtube 2011 - CONGRATS!

[thecyberpunk]

@slewofdamascus That's what I thought. This is all entertainment to you. There's nothing behind your rhetoric.

[thecyberpunk]

@slewofdamascus That's what I thought. This is all entertainment to you. There's nothing behind your rhetoric.

[AnonymousElektron]

Also, btw, watching this is like porn to me.

I love seeing experts lay the smackdown on troofers.

I could watch it all day.

I really could.

[slewofdamascus]

@AnonymousElektron ad hominems only weaken your argument, I would expect someone of your self-alleged intelligence to understand that - strange.

[AnonymousElektron]

@slewofdamascus I don't care.

I'm not trying to make an argument.

And, pointing out how stupid you guys are -- and you are stupid, is important.

[slewofdamascus]

@slewofdamascus thanks, but anyone can see by your last response that you calling anyone "stupid" is the pot calling the kettle black - you don't care about making arguments because you don't even know what an argument is let alone how to construct one. If you want to appear smart you would be wise to keep your mouth shut because when you open your trap you leave no doubt on the matter. With your limited....capacities....shall we say...it's obvious that you are driven by the "minders" at FOX.

[AnonymousElektron]

@slewofdamascus you don't even know Calculus.

STFU

[AnonymousElektron]

@alitza8844 bullcrap.

You're allowed to have emotions!

We all have emotions!

If you're truly in-touch with your emotions, you can do great things, they're a useful conduit from your subconscious, and you should no more fight them, than your other senses.

You're perfectly allowed to be offended by truther drivel.

What makes one a skeptic, is that they contain themselves, at least attempt to be fair.

But, they can only answer your questions so many times.

[DarkwingScooter]

@alitza8844 Much obliged.

[zombiemouse]

Publicly claiming you are a 'skeptic' forfeits any unbiased nature you have. Your standpoint is instantly declared as soon as you say you are skeptic. These people get PAID to maintain their skepticism. Any one of them would loose their job/credibility if they admitted that the evidence supported demolition. They are simply slaves to the dollar.  They sold out and don't even know it.

[AnonymousElektron]

@zombiemouse no, you're just too deluded to see how stupid you are.

At least they are willing to entertain the idea that they could be wrong.

They probably also know how to spell "lose".

And we're talking about people here, not effin Vulcans, you CAN'T be truly emotionally unbiased, but you can be fair, and you can act skeptically.

[camreeno360]

The guy on the left is a joke. He doesn't even deserve to be on the stage. The towers fell "exactly how you would expect them"? So it's normal for a skyscraper to fall at virtual freefall speed when the bulk of the buildings were unscathed from the impacts? Wouldn't there be at least SOME resistance as they fell?

[admiralct]

what the video reveals is that nobody believes this controlled demo crap and that is so striking to you because you've flooded yourself with the idea that it was controlled demo, and the truthers on youtube that agree are helping you feel comfortable in believeing this malarky. isn't it funny how truthers are the only ones that think this? notice how truthers feel like they aren't heard or ignored? we don't call that unfair bias, we call it common sense to deny these claims.

[camreeno360]

@admiralct Well let me ask you this. Which documentaries detailing this side of the argument have you heard of? Which ones have you watched.

There is a well-known documentary that explains how the towers were demolished, and was produced by someone who has appeared in the news relatively frequently. Can you name it? If not then I'll assume you haven't done adequate research.

If you can't answer these questions then it doesn't warrant you to even voice your opinion on the matter.

[admiralct]

dude i have even believed the conspiracy's at one point, when i was an impressionable gullible young man in college. you see nowadays, its all so clear and considering that i've been a truther, i have viciously watched all the documentary's and today i am proud to say that i have earned my right to be skeptical. i didn't ignore your truther documentary's, i've seen them. your description of this well-known documentary is vague, but i'm sure i've seen it too.how long of a 7collapse would satisy u

[camreeno360]

@admiralct Why would be gullible to believe it? Why when the Towers collapsed at virtual freefall speed, which is impossible if they fell from a few damaged floors by fire? The physics are so straightforward that it would be gullible NOT to at least ask some questions.

I was describing "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" by Richard Gage anyway.

[thecyberpunk]

The towers did not fall at "freefall speed", that is yet another myth cooked up by the conspiracy community.

[camreeno360]

@thecyberpunk Then how did they fall? Something marginally slower than freefall speed? Even so, how would it be possible in the official story where we're told the towers fell by fires on some upper floors when the rest of the buildings were unscathed? How could they possibly fall that fast given the resistance of the unscathed floors?

[thecyberpunk]

@camreeno360 On the trade center's collapse, first they fell at about 2/3rds "free fall speed", pretty fast, but to be expected when 45,000 tonnes of steel, concrete begin collapsing into a building that is 95% open space supported by a central steel column system. Once the collapse began it grew exponentially in momentum as each floor collapsed into the one below it, adding to the energy of the collapse.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 uuuughhh, this is so stupid, I can't even begin to.

wtf.

Ok, have you ever actually graphed the velocity of an object?

An object moving under the influence of gravity, will accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, so, it's graph won't be a straight diagonal line, it will be a nice parabolic curve.

An acceleration function is one always at least second degree, not first degree...

It's glaring mistakes like that that show how unfit you are to be talking about this.

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron Yeah, exactly, the 9.8 meters per second square figure works nicely with the acceleration of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, and furthermore, the NIST report admits the building fell at freefall speed for the first two seconds. How is that possible when supposedly it was a "pancake" collapse which would have involved a great deal of friction. It's glaring errors like THAT that shouldn't make anyone take you seriously. Look up "straw man" under logical fallacies.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 well, forgive me, but i can't resist: are you sure that you should be using accepted, "mainstream" physics?

Have I been so brainwashed by the Newtonian establishment that I believe that terestrial gravity is always ~9.8m/s^2??

That's just what the New World Order wants you to believe, MAAAAN.

Maybe one of your faux truther scientists can set me straight, LOL.

Does it involve moon crystals?

I'm sure you hate vaccines, too, and think we didn't land on the moon.

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron You're evading the issue. Apparently you haven't taken an elementary critical thinking class, because clearly you love the logical fallacy of Guilt By Association. Way to go. I'm 100% sure you haven't looked at the case to BOTH sides of the debate to the issues you just wrote, including the moon landing and vaccines. You probably can't give me one key argument made by vaccine skeptics for instance. You can go to bed now and stop replying because you obviously can't argue.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 what you mean like the mistaken belief that vaccines cause autism?

The effects of mercury poisoning are very well understood and studied, it does not cause autism.

Autism is the result of low-level structural differences in the brain.

An autistic person isn't "retarded", they're not that way because of some physical insult to the brain, as mercury is.

You can get hit in the head and become retarded, you can't become autistic, doesn't work that way.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 the anti-vaccine people are actually far worse than the 9/11 truthers, since the anti-vaccine people actually hurt others.

And of course there's lots of overlap with the aids deniers, who, for example, at the Durban conference, got the South African government to officially stop combating AIDS or disbursing birth control.

Think of the millions (yes, millions) of dead children who didn't have to die.

You anti-intellectuals scare the hell out of me.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 but to address your actual assertion, what would wtc7 accelerating at a rate of free fall mean, exactly?

That doesn't mean that it was a controlled demolition.

Unless you're in a vacuum, an object would never accelerate at exactly free-fall, and there would be far too much resistance for it to be close to free-fall.

This supposed NIST report must be erroneous.

And, that, proves nothing, except that, NIST made a mistake, that's ALL that it proves.

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron You think I'm being absolutist when I'm not. You must be pretty miopic to not realize I implied "plus air resistance and other negligible factors". You're misrepresenting my view again by assuming I didn't know what was involved in earth's gravitational acceleration. If you don't know my view then how can you prove it wrong?

About NIST, this proves you with neglect flagrant errors in the report of the country's chief "authority" of building collapses.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 ugh, this is so offensive to me, you're butchering my beloved Calculus!

The difference between Velocity (Or speed, which is the absolute value of Velocity) and Acceleration is non-trivial.

The Velocity is just the RESULT of acceleration, it's just a function to represent a larger, more complex function, at a point in time.

Trying to use mix and match these two incompatible things is so offensive to me...

[thecyberpunk]

@camreeno360 How many times are you going to say "freefall speed"? This is the biggest problem with 9/11 Truthers, they become emotionally invested in their "evidence" which is really more like rhetoric, and no matter how many times you show them the errors in their evidence they revert to their rhetoric (because they're essentially the same thing). It's sad really.

[camreeno360]

@thecyberpunk What's really sad is your cynicism and your unwillingness to look at this objectively. Instead, based on your attitude you're taking the side of "your an idiot" instead of discussing the points of view towards some mutual benefit. So given that it seriously lowers your credibility because not only are you negative (which can make you bipass information that might be useful to you) but you don't understand how to gather information. "It's sad really" pretty much sums up who you are.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 But, sir, you are an idiot.

You truthers, you elbow your way into serious academic discussion, and then don't even have your crap together.

You demand to be taken seriously, when you don't even know the fundamentals of the sciences that you're using, only learning the bare minimum to further, in your own mind, your conclusion that you've already arrived at.

I won't engage creationists anyway, for while they have all the time in the world, they're really boring now.

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron Saying immature things like "sir, you are an idiot" really speaks to your own intellligence and shouldn't warrant anyone to take YOU seriously. Ironic how you expect me to listen to you considering your obvious obstinance and bias towards mainstream science. Since we have a few gurus of the modern scientific estabilshment on stage, everything they say must be right, right? That's your position, just going lock-step with whatever others say and not thinking for yourself. 

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 at what point do I stop taking people seriously?

You say such silly things; so unworthy of respect.

And what, pray, is "mainstream science"?? Science is implementation of the scientific method.

What, do you deviate from that, do you not use the scientific method?

Do you use inference and anecdote?

This is now just downright insulting to anyone who values science.

Do you harnas the power of homeopathy in your investigation, or something?

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron Serious academic discussion? Does Phil Plait have a degree in physics, which is one of the chief fields involved in the understanding of 9/11? Just because people are called "scientists" they have an automatic shielf of validity and must know EVERYTHING regarding a subject with some science involved? Your logic is ridiculous. You subordinate yourself to these so-called experts and don't think for yourself. Their opinion comes before yours.

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 have *you* taken even a single undergrad class in physics?

I'm quite sure that Prof Plait is far more qualified than 99% of 9/11 truthers.

You keep referring to free-fall as a speed.

That's not semantics on my part, it's a non-trivial error to make.

It's glaring mistakes like THAT, that prevent me from taking you seriously.

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron You argue that 9/11 truthers don't use the scientific method but the people you defend do. Let me ask you this: How much material relating to the 9/11 "inside job" viewpoint have you looked at? Which documentaries, articles, and books? If you haven't done sufficient investigation enough to recite just the key claims of that camp then how can you claim to use the "scientific method", considering one of the chief aspects of it is examining all relevant information?

[AnonymousElektron]

@camreeno360 you were the one who said that you didn't believe in the scientific method.

You went on and on about the virtues of so called "alternative science", whatever that means.

Science is science, there are no alternatives, then it's not science at all, but something else.

The fact that you'd reject the very concept of science speaks a lot to your mindset.

[camreeno360]

@AnonymousElektron Okay, you misrepresented me again. It's getting predictable. First of all, the vaccine skeptics argue there is a conspiracy to put dangerous chemicals in the vaccines that do more harm than good, which the pharmaceutical industry uses for profit. It has little to do with the debate about whether they cause autism or not, so we have a Straw Man argument.

No, I didn't say I didn't believe in science or it's "method". I said I reject the biased and predetermined used of it.

[thecyberpunk]

@camreeno360 Hey wait a sec, was that directed at me? I'm on your side here bud.

[camreeno360]

@thecyberpunk No, I wasn't saying anything to you, though it's great to see others who agree. Apparently some people believe a 757 passenger jet can create a 16-foot hole on the facade of the Pentagon, even though such a plane has a 125-foot wingspan. Not only that, but constuction equipment directly in front of the hole was unscathed, so the natural question is... Wouldn't that get hit and wouldn't there be a bigger hole???

[AnonymousElektron]

@thecyberpunk I know, LOL.

They don't even understand basic Newtonian physics terminology, but they presume to lecture us.

I will seriously engage them, when they learn the difference between acceleration and velocity.

It's safe to infer that most of them didn't even pass Algebra, much less Calculus.

And yet, they've convinced themselves that that's alright and that they're still smarter than us.

[popoutvideo]

And MORE IMPORTANTLY... Why the report never covers how the WTC7 collapses the way it does after the "proposed" initiation. Furthermore... I would like intelligent replies to each one of my points. If you have a brain, then reply to all the points I have mentioned. All of them.

[thecyberpunk]

@popoutvideo WTC7 collapsed as a result of massive fires that remained largely 'unfought', the situation was aggraveted by the storage of large fuel tanks designed to power the building's emergency generators. Also contrary to popular beleif by the conspiracy community, the building did not collapse "into its own footprint" but in fact damaged and even destroying buildings all around it.

[popoutvideo]

I beg that every self proclaimed "skeptic" watch and read absolutely everything they can find on WTC7 and building demolitions in general. Then they can truly become the "skeptics" they claim to be, by drawing conclusions based on FACTS instead of popularity. In FACT, I take it even further and ask everyone to think for a moment why the 911 Commission report STOPS at the INITIATION of the collapse and does not go on to explain how the laws of physics are totally blown away after the INITIATION.

[thecyberpunk]

@popoutvideo How are the laws of phyics "totally blown away"?

[popoutvideo]

I am always amazed by those people who call themselves skeptics. As if the word "skeptics" implies someone who is scholarly or is science/fact based in thought and more logical than the average person, BUT YET they are willing to throw out well established laws of physics and all common sense when it comes to World Trade Centers 1, 2 and 7. The smoking gun is WTC7! It is proven that denial does trigger pleasure centers in the brain, which may explain the total disregard for facts.

[admiralct]

nobody is throwing out the laws of physics, this is probably what drives you so strongly is that you mistakenly believe that physics and science is on your side while everybody else simply inists that physics changed at ground zero. its no wonder why you think controlled demo. more like accepting an exciting twist of facts is what excites the centers in the brain, that's also why truthers believe, bombs and cover ups are much more exciting than hijackers. i've earned my right to be skeptical.

[thecyberpunk]

@popoutvideo Actually I began as a 9/11 Truther myself, but after researching the evidence presented in documentaries like "Loose Change" for myself I found far too many innacuracies, outright fabrications and junk science. I first found provlems with the movement when I found it seemed to opperate on lock-step thinking and ego-pandering. Independent and critical analysis was discouraged, if you questioned anything presented by the Truthers you found yourself labled "sheeple".

[loccysmif]

O yeah, and by the way, well done Stewart, well done. I like Adam's response. Check him out as he looks from side to side at the other panel members and finds himself alone in his open mindedness and REAL skepticism. That moment right there, that does me so much good, I really don't care if Adam is for or against. Some sliver of objectivity. Aaaah.

Or maybe, cynically, he's thinking about ratings. Ha ha. Anyways, don't care, great job.

[slewofdamascus]

There is simply no way, I guess, to inform the vast types of "scholarly" individuals, who appear to us devoid of the ability to think flexibly, who lack the pliability and the plasticity of mind to detach from their own beliefs in order to take in the resonance of contrary information. Unfortunately, this is the current state of scientific "discourse", it is rich with irony, which I think this video brilliantly demonstrates. Definitely a "fave" - ty for posting it.

[loccysmif]

Well said, slewofdamascus, well said.

[slewofdamascus]

The most disturbing element of this video, at least for me, was when "rebecca" suggested that any further debate on 9-11 should cease ("No need to keep dredging it up") and spontaneous applause broke out.

I had to stop watching when mr critical thinking took over the microphone and left no doubt that there was absolutely no room for genuine scientific enquiry as though the matter had been scientifically settled. Unfortunately, this is the science of politics in science.

[AnonymousElektron]

@slewofdamascus how many times can they keep hearing the same crap?

They've all seriously considered the truthers, and the truthers have demonstrated themselves to be morons.

[mindfreak419666]

Hey stoobradly what are your thoughts on this september clues nonsense? Im totally against the claims made by these people ..they say no planes hit the wtc & now Simon shack claims there were no victims!! someone muct expose these lies ..the only anomily i have not been able to explain is the flight path contradictions..do you have any explanation for this? thanks

[stoobradley]

The site I blog for has a lot of info refuting the "no plane" and "video trickery" claims you may find useful.

Google: "Debunking the Debunkers: Debunking "September Clues"

I try to explain to "no planers" that to get a new investigation, which is our common goal, we should focus on the strongest evidence, like the obvious flaws in the official reports.

Claims of video tricks are flimsy at best and are often used by our opponents to discredit the entire Truth Movement.

Best of luck.

[ctcole77]

Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum & energy satisfied in NISTs analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact & the fires?

Yes, basic principles of conservation of momentum & conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft & an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy

(kinetic energy,

[ctcole77]

strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response & collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero & since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero & therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.

[anewlow23]

@stoobradley What does debunking the debunkers think about the cell phone calls?

[AnonymousElektron]

@stoobradley there's no such thing as "freefall speed".

Speed is the absolute value of velocity.

Free-fall is a rate of acceleration.

Acceleration is not at all the same as velocity.

Velocity is the derivative of acceleration.

This is not trivial wordplay.

Anyone who'd make an elementary mistake like that, has no business lecturing us about physics.

[ctcole77]

Boo Bradley is ANTHING BUT objective.

[tanabear911]

At least no one can accuse Phil Plait of knowing what he's talking about when it comes to 9/11. There is no evidence that the steel softened due to the fires. The current explanation for collapse initiation is the inward bowing of the perimeter columns.

It is the people who promote the nonsensical crush-down/crush-up theory who are charlatans. Phil Plait's ignorance can be forgiven.

[DarkwingScooter]

Plack's Second Law: Science progresses one funeral at a time.

Adam Savage was spot on.

The second reponse was tepid but tecnhically correct for someone not particularly skeptical about things if she believes that NIST proved anything.

The last commenter has no business calling himself a skeptic or a scientist for that matter, he should know that 'Everybody has done the analysis and it looks just like...' are what you expect from a fourth grader. Truth is not an external concept.

[blueshadow1996]

Read and comprehend what the paper was saying.I only specualtes there was thermite and states all through it as it may be. The abstract says it ,but follow it yourself ,the experiments even when it comes to finding ultra fine grain aluminum,because the used an e-scope no other metastable inter molecular compoisite were found.They said they have no samples of nano-thermite for comparrison ,because it is in the nano scale they say it may be,more study is required.Truthers reacted like thermite

[stoobradley]

Read the paper indeed!

Conclusions:

"primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically

all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds

of nanometers...The small size of the iron oxide parti-

cles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-

thermite or super-thermite."

Their results match known MICs documented by Los Alamos labs, Lockheed Martin, MRS, and others. This is a highly energetic nano thermitic material.

Deny all you want but this is not speculation.

[blueshadow1996]

But could they say they found any? They said more study was needed.and in an interview the scientist said that he could not be certain as he was a civilian and never had any experience with explosive or exothermic devices. That is why you were being laughed at.

[stoobradley]

? They found the explosive red/gray chips in all 4 dust samples, analyzed using various microscopy and DSC tested for reactivity (430C).

They also found an organic substance in the red material, producing high gas pressures upon ignition, which "merits further exploration."

How is the entire study rejected because one of the 9 scientists had no experience with exothermic devices?

What is laughable are the spurious arguments being used to dismiss the report and deny the obvious implications.

[blueshadow1996]

But did you notice the soaked it in paint thinner for 44 hrs and claimed because it did not dissolve they said it was not paint..It was paint thinner ,not acid. Because it burnt vigouroulsy they said it burnt like thermite. You stil dont see they were laughing at you and not with you?

[stoobradley]

Actually, they soaked the chips in methyl ethyl ketone for 55 hours as a way to separate the components of the martial, which was not paint as critics have suggested.

Because it is composed of nano sized iron oxide and aluminum, ignites at 430C with high energy and heat, with a narrow exotherm closely matching a known nanothermite sample, etc., they conclude it is nanothermite.

None of the criticisms have refuted this is nanothermite. No amount of spiteful laughter will change that fact.

[DarkwingScooter]

All scientific papers say further study is required, no science is ever definitive.

In fact one of the best ways to detect scientific bull$^#@ is to see if the authors present their conclusions as indisputible fact, which no good scientific result ever is.

If their is no other reason to dispute the official version let it be this, they will brook no debate, a sure sign of intellectual poverty.

The study is good, if over-hyped.

[blueshadow1996]

Any paper being placed in a journal should have a finding or discovery. This did not. Read it and follow the experiments. Its is not a philosphical journal,its a science journal..Can you imagine what would happen if medical journals stated they have found something when it was speculative? It would result in the editor-in chief resgining.Like what happened here.

[DarkwingScooter]

The first principle of modern thought is that no knowledge is absolute.

Einstein put it well: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." (From Wikipedia - Scientific Method)

But the article is nowhere near as speculative as you are claiming, it finds something which is consistent with nano-thermite, and not consistent with anything else. Maybe you have trouble following the argument?

Only bad science insists on absolute answers.

[blueshadow1996]

There was nothing conclusive in the finding of nano themite.They only state because they found UFG aluminum using an e-scope in the nano scale they say it could be nano thermite. That is why this guy was being laughed at. read the paper yourself.

[DarkwingScooter]

And that UFG aluminum is consistent with nano-engineered thermite and nothing else to his knowledge.

That is as absolute as scientific proof gets my friend. I suggest you go and look back at your definitions of scientific proof and causality.

You seem to be wholly ignorant of the fact that the gold standard of 'scientific proof' in many fields, including, in statistical signficance: A form of proof incalculably weaker than this.

I doubt you have read many journals in your life.

[blueshadow1996]

So what if its consistant, fuel cells are expensive because of the platinum,,I would like it when they make pem cells etched and painted with platinum using nano technolgy. It would work and is in the development stage, This would lead to affordable hydrogen fuel cells. The same is with nano thermite it is in the development stage and the quantities needed to cut is not available.That is what is a fault with the paper. When it states Nano thermite found.

[DarkwingScooter]

The availability of military grade nano-thermite in 2001 may be debated it should properly remain moot at this point as these things are subject to secrecy laws.

There were articles published on the stuff in the mid to late nineties if I remember correctly so it hardly a theoretical substance.

The motivator here would not have been cost/benefit as in your fuel cell example either, any price was potentially feasible to achieve the desired effect.

Either it was there or it wasn't, simple.

[blueshadow1996]

The quantities need to cut the steel was not available.

[DarkwingScooter]

Source?

[blueshadow1996]

thats a dumb question. It is not available.A laser beam is there but its not big enough to cut steel either.

[DarkwingScooter]

What does that have to do with anything?

Of course lasers can cut steel (and blow planes out of the skies since decades ago), heck solar collectors can melt steel (look it up on youtube).

We know the stuff existed back then, we now know (arguably) that it was in the dust. If it was there then there must have been enough to have been there, basic logic.

Most of the world's supply of heavy water was used for the Manhatten project at enormous cost, didn't make that unfeasible either.

[blueshadow1996]

But to cut it just under the plane impact site? Highly unlikely and not worthy of being published. Your logic seems to be drifting to the Manhatten project. What does hit have to do with this vid?

[DarkwingScooter]

You are the one bringing up lasers and fuel cells here not me...

The study makes no opinion about how, where or why the stuff was used. It also does not ask by whom it was made, where it was made, how much it cost, who manufactured it, how it was stored, transported and packed.

It asked if it was there.

It was.

End of story.

(Now it is YOUR job to either falsify it's presence or figure out what it was doing there).

[blueshadow1996]

It was about the paper claiming they found nano thermite. There was none in the quantities they need to cut steel. Because it was in the development stage. They only claim it was because of one finding.There was no evidence in that paper.

[DarkwingScooter]

Your argument is circular: There was no nano-thermite becasue there was no nano-thermite.

Argue the facts, not yourself.

The paper found residue of expended nano-thermite in quantities which, if extrapolated out, suggests a fairly large amount originally.

Either that is true or false, you can't claim that the fact that their wasn't enough proves that there wasn't enough, because clearly there was enough, therefore there was enough.

If that seems confusing to you, stop arguing in circles.

[blueshadow1996]

You cant seem to comprehend that there was not quanities to determine nano thermite.Thermite by itself can not be proven to cut steel in the manner they claim,because of the months of prep work just to get to the beams to place cuttter charges. Harrit had said they would need tens or hundred of tons to bring down the towers. But to state the finding is wrong,He called it the loaded gun which caused many truthers to go off saying they found proof. You are confused,because you need to find proof

[DarkwingScooter]

Whoa, what quantity of residue would be sufficient for you?

One molecule of nano-thermite residue (if it cannot be produced otherwise) or nano-thermite is sufficient to prove it's presence. If it is present the reason for it's presence needs to accounted for, because there was no other reason for it to be there.

The manner, means and method are separate issues, which are addressed elsewhere.

They are addressed elsewhere if you care to look, but that is not what the article seeks to find.

[DarkwingScooter]

Oh, I just re-read your comment, and no thermite is not the same as nano-thermite (which is an explosive and can be used for demolition).

[blueshadow1996]

What really does not make any sense at all is the test they do to the chip after soaking it in paint thinner for 44 hours.and ignite it in an air stream.Think of the term metastable intermolecular composites. It has everything it needs to create ab exothermic reaction,the oxygen is included. The test should have been done in a vacumn,because thermite would ignite.Paint would not no matter how much thermite you use to ignite tjhe paint. It was paint,not nano thermite. I think he knows it too.

[DarkwingScooter]

Two separate issues. Test one shows it is not paint, test two shows it reacts.

If it is not paint it cannot be paint.

The tests were also done on separate chips.

The vacuum idea is a good one, but beside the point.

[blueshadow1996]

But they keep ignoring the carbon and that is in the steel. I have seen a few of his presentations on youtube where he always asks his audience to not pay attention to it. But you can see it in the graph when it ignites. His first test to soak it in pain thinner is not a viable method because its not acid its thinner, I think it was just an attempt to keep the movement going .If it was valid then the other scientists would have agreed.

[DarkwingScooter]

Paint thinner is acidic if I am not mistaken, and it is designed to...

dissolve paint.

Whether it is acidic or not is completely irrelevant.

Other scientists would have agreed is not an argument, it is a cop out.

what bearing does the carbon have? Iron residue from thermitic reactions is does not contain carbon.

[blueshadow1996]

But the carbon comes from steel.you can see it in the XEDS.the purpose of carbon is to ensure that the tensile strenght of the steel can be kept intact without reaching a state a deformation.the chrystal or the atomic structure has spaces in between it that is where the carbon fits in to ensure it can handle stress. Fire rearranges it and defromation is reached rapidly. That is why he wants no one to pay attention to it.. Its rust paint with alumiinum flake on steel.

[DarkwingScooter]

I know the difference between iron and steel thank you.

I think you are confusing the spectrum analyses of the chips and the spheres.

The spheres do have an interesting carbon content, but for the chips the C:Fe ratio is far too high to be steel.

Look at the note under Figure 21

(pg. 21) as well.

Figures 17-18 were of soaked chips (MEK is an organic compound).

Paint containing rust for pigmentation does not react, the issue is addressed in the paper on page 19.

[stoobradley]

Jones directly addresses the "paint fallacy" in the video, "9/11- exploding paint?". Please watch and get a clue.

[blueshadow1996]

I think you would be better off researcing it yourself.Instead of relying on him.He is a bit out of bounds with his presentation.

[ctcole77]

HA!

Boo Bradley gets his ass laughed at!

[ctcole77]

And don't go around say "800 architects and structural engineers".

LIE, LIES, LIES.

A&EFor911Truth's website specifically states REGISTERED ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS.

They actually got out of their way NOT telling you how many of those engineers are structural.

[stoobradley]

Right, the current count is over 930 "architectural and engineering professionals" who have signed the AE911Truth petition. Why do you think only structural engineers should be counted?

Grow up, troll.

[ctcole77]

Because they, much like you, cannot look at 9/11 without bias.

What experience does a computer engineer have to examine 9/11.

And to point out what a shame organization you prop up, how many of its members are students?

OVER 80%!

So you don't even have to be a fake architect or engineer to join A&EFor911Twoof.

Move out of your parents basement trekkie.

DRAGON CON!

ROFL!

[ctcole77]

By the way, you're the one that stressed the importance of "over 800 structural engineers & architects".

6:31 in YOUR video.

So now we've caught Boo Bradley in a LIE.

He stressed the importance of so many structural engineers who don't support the official story, and also don't even exist, but asks me "why do you think only structural engineers should be counted".

Nice try. Can you spell hypocrite?

[stoobradley]

My statement, and the AE911Truth petition, is in reply to the debunkers lie there are no architects or engineering professionals who disagree with the NIST report. The people who have signed the petition, wether they are architects or engineers, clearly refute that lie.

All you have are ad hominem attacks and semantic arguments as to who should be counted as a credible professional because you are not honest enough to admit when Truthers have credibility.

Can you spell sore loser?

[ctcole77]

But after they say no structural engineers support your story, you EMPHASIZE the nuber of structural engineers who don't support the official story. Even though we both know those structural engineers don't even exist.

Then you say "why do you think only structural engineers should be counted?"

So according to Boo Bradley, structural engineer matter when until it is pointed out that the plethora of structural engineers he claims support his magic theories don't even exist.

[stoobradley]

It doesn't matter what kind of ridiculous verbal contortions you desperately try, the now over 940 accredited people who signed the AE911 petition have not gone away.

Try stamping your feet and clicking your heels, maybe that will make all those names go away...

Nope. They are still there and growing every week.

Anybody who cares to look can read the list of signatures at AE911Truth that ctcole denies exist. You are fooling nobody but yourself with all your childish antics.

[ctcole77]

"Childish antics."

So that's how you label anybody that doesn't agree with you?

YOU emphasized on the plethora of "over 800 structural engineers & architects".

I'm merely pointing out that not only is that number padded with plumbing engineers and landscape architects, its inflated by people who have absolutley no education and experience to examine and critique 9/11.

There're certainly entitled to believe and speak out on their magic theories, but in no way are they professionals.

[stoobradley]

"Childish antics," is how I label people who post comments like, "HA! ...Boo Bradley gets his ass laughed at!" and then try to fake maturity by using words like "plethora", which you most likely learned from watching "The Three Amigos".

You think that licensed engineers of whatever field are not qualified to understand things like "Conservation of Momentum" and what temperature steel melts. This stuff is high school science.

You should find a high school graduate to explain it to you.

[ctcole77]

"HA! ...Boo Bradley gets his ass laughed at!"

And that didn't happen?

The crown didn't clap when it was suggested to move on & give up your magic theories?

All I'm doing is pointing out reality.

The reality that you got laughed at & the reality that A&E&S is a shame organization.

You're the one who spins facts out of context when in your favor, minimizes facts when they prove you wrong, and just makes shit up & lies.

911 twoofer lies = Marvin Bush, freefall, fake calls, etc

[stoobradley]

Fact- Above, Phil Plait rejects as "nonsense" evidence before examination which violates a basic rule of skepticism.

Fact- According to CEO Barry McDaniel,"Securacom" had a contract to handle WTC's electronic security until 9/11.

Fact- NIST openly admits the buildings fell at "virtually free fall speed."

Fact- According to the FBI, Barbara Olsons's phone call never connected to her husband.

Fact- You are the one spinning lies and calling immature names, in denial of reality. Grow up.

[ctcole77]

All Phil Plait said was that scientists MUST be skeptical of nonsense. If you've got evidence proving your magic theories it better be better than the real evidence. So far, it's not even close.

Securacom handled security upgrades. The Port Authority was in charge of WTC security.

So one phone call didn't get through? So what?

You're the lier who makes up "Marvin Bush" Loose Change claims just because the real cause of 9/11 just isn't interesting for you.

[stoobradley]

Phil Plait should examine evidence to determine if it is nonsense. He has apparently not scrutinized NIST's report or he would know they failed to back their "Global Collapse Theory" with any evidence. Judging claims on false assumptions is not being a skeptic, that's a debunker.

Securacom was responsible for the WTC electronic security systems that the Port Authority used. The point is if Securacom was "compromised" then the WTC could have been accessed, but this was never investigated. Why?

[ctcole77]

By the way Boo Bradley

LIE - NIST openly admits the buildings fell at "virtually free fall speed."

WTC 1 & 2 didn't fall anywhere near freefall speed.

WTC 7 was close, but NOT freefall speed.

Nice try.

[stoobradley]

Ted Olsen's false testimony helped solidify the "boxcutter" story to the public. The FBI has proven he was lying yet he has not been asked to explain. You seem to take great offense when you accuse me of lying, but you don't mind Olson's lie?

From Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1 in reference to WTC 1 and 2:

"the building section above came down essentially in free fall." So how am I lying?

And the video "WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall" refutes NIST's false claims about WTC 7 free fall.

[stoobradley]

You call our theories "magical"? Here's one for you:

NIST claims that the upper floors of WTC 1 and 2 were able to fall straight through the steel and concrete core of the buildings, with "essentially" no more resistance than thin air.

I challenge you to find anywhere in the NIST report where they give any scientific calculations to explain why "conservation of momentum" did not hinder the collapse.

It's time to put up or shut up. And please keep calling me "Boo", it shows your maturity.

[ctcole77]

Conservation of momentum & energy

Straight from the NIST website (you might know this if you actually read it!)

I put up, so it's now time for Boo Bradley to shut up!

But alas, just as he NEVER admits he's wrong (Marvin Bush, fake cell phone calls), Boo Bradley will continue to lie in scientific denial.

WAY TO BE A UNBIASED SKEPITC!

[stoobradley]

You simply repeated NIST's claim they had taken "Conservation" into account.

What I asked for was any "scientific calculations" NIST used to verify their statement. You gave none!

"Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum" by Dr. Crockett Grabbe:

"NIST published 43 volumes of material that presumes and concludes the planes and their fires started the collapses, but none of these volumes discusses or even mentions the conservation of momentum or the conservation of energy in the collapses."

[stoobradley]

NIST could claim that a pound weighs a ton, but without any actual calculations to demonstrate this claim, it is not a fact.

If NIST was honest they would share with us the calculations that back their statement, after all their work was publicly funded, so their calculations should be available to the public.

But they simply ask us to trust their word confident that debunktards like ctcole77 will accept this blind faith in authority without question.

Do you never tire of being wrong?

[stoobradley]

And now you send me assorted papers claiming to do the work that NIST was supposed to do. You know darn well that was not what I asked to see.

Besides the fact that the majority of those papers have been refuted by Jim Hoffman and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, those people were not paid 20 million taxpayer dollars to explain the collapses...

...NIST was, and they failed to do so.

But because you are too obstinate to admit this point you resort to trying to change the point of question.

[ctcole77]

"Besides the fact that the majority of those papers have been refuted by Jim Hoffman and the Journal of 9/11 Studies"

Again, just one more 911 lie. There's over 50 papers there peppered with people that have Phds and masters degrees in engineering.

But no. Boo Bradley claims some software engineer for CA and a website that just rubber stamps 911 truther papers refutes those engineers and scientists claims?

No thanks. I'm sticking to the experts not this "inside job" lie.

[Ne0mega]

Starts with a joke, as always. It's just a joke to them. Listening to these skeptics reasoning flies in the face of skepticism, "there is no need to dig it back up" What kind of evidence is that? We're biased against nonsense! Pithy, empty remarks.

[stoobradley]

The ironic thing was that these people had spent the first half hour of this discussion promoting the virtues of scientific reasoning and critical thinking about important topics. Yet the overwhelming reply to this question was pure consensus.

Despite years of controversial debate about 9/11 they say "everybody agrees on the official story". It makes me wonder if Phil has ever read his own JREF forum where 9/11 is a constant subject of heated arguments.

[Ne0mega]

An amazign reaction, has been 9/11 conspiracy theorists haev been lumped in with UFO and bigfoot crazies... as if the amount of videotaped evidence for 9/11 is as sparse as the evidence for ufos and bigfoot. We had network cameras trained on the buildings for most of the day. there is ample evidence to be examined from that alone, and indeed, AE911truth proof of 2.25 secs of freefall of WTC7 is one of the most damning. But all the proof is cast aside, seen as silly as grainy bigfoot film.

[stoobradley]

By looking at her profile I personally doubt she is a shill, but I could be wrong. I guess I just prefer to be diplomatic when dealing with skeptics.

Best wishes to you.

[stoobradley]

I understand you may feel hostile to LilaMae and others who mock and belittle 9/11 research, but I cannot stress enough that being rude back only escalates the hostility and makes them totally unreceptive to what we have to say.

True, I don't think she has been an honest critical thinker about 9/11, but she has every right to her opinion and we should sympathize with her point of view.

And I don't mean to be condescending, but I think people can disagree without being disrespectful. Thanks.

[stoobradley]

I do give them credit, especially Adam and Rebecca, for giving respectful answers. Others would have just insulted me and told me to sit down. 9/11 is a very emotional topic, so I kinda expect those reactions.

But the hope is that we can encourage them to look at the evidence and open their minds to what we have to say. If we can win them over they would be valuable advocates in bringing the 9/11 discussion into the mainstream.

[LilaMae217]

9/11 truthers' attempts at sounding cogent and lucid are always adorable. You people don't get it and sadly never will. I can't reason someone out of an argument they didn't reason themselves into. When your beliefs are this insulated from reality, I believe it's not psychological, it's neurological. MRI studies done on the brains of those prone to conspiracy theories show a significant difference in brain wiring. This isn't about evidence or logic. You people are seriously just "different".

[stoobradley]

Sorry, this is about evidence.

Do you consider yourself a skeptic?

If so then how do you explain the nanothermite documented in the "Active Thermitic Material..." report?

Or the 10 characteristics of controlled demolition discussed in the "Blueprint for Truth" presentation?

Have you seen these yet or do you assume it is "nonsense" before you even examine the evidence? Do you have faith in science or consensus opinion?

All I ask is to investigate before passing judgement.

Fair enough?

[LilaMae217]

It's not grounds for debate.

If you people would just look at the big picture instead of endlessly dredging up these little anomalies, you would see any conspiracy theory about 9/11 would involve so many people, it simply collapses under its own weight. That is the bottom line that makes any conspiracy argument utterly absurd.

Does the word "obsession" mean anything to you?

Let me reiterate my very simple remedy-

Step 1: Remove head from ass

Step 2: Look at big picture

Repeat as needed.

[stoobradley]

A conspiracy only requires a few people in key positions to be successful. The argument that any 9/11 conspiracy "would involve so many people" is a spurious attempt to avoid debate on the subject.

We are not discussing hearsay and conspiracy theory anymore. What we are presenting is peer reviewed scientific evidence. If you ignore the facts then it is you who needs to pull your head out of your ass.

"Most people would rather die than think... in fact, they do."

-George Santayana

[priapus512]

So conjecture about people's abilities to keep secrets somehow trumps empirical evidence? The hypothesis that large groups of people can't keep secrets isn't even that well founded, take the Manhattan Project or the stealth bomber for instance. You also make the assumption that no one from the government has come forward, just look up Sibel Edmonds or Operation Able Danger.

[jonnykzj]

I did exactly tht n came to the conclusion tht it was a controlled demolition after all. I too was perhaps amongst the biggest skeptics, mocking 911truthers for not having any evidence and wht not. But then i read up on nano thermite and along with tht i noticed something very significant. i noticed tht most of the scientists against 911truth were US SCIENTISTS and engineers. Ofcourse those wld be emotionally biased to the issue.

[darion65]

Can we get a new one with subtitles on it. I cannot hear what they are saying even on loudest I can make it. Doesnt help that I am 70% deaf in one ear and 30% in the other.

[dlucas90]

Excellent job. I'm glad to see that the skeptics of 911 truth are forced to stick to their crappy "the steel melted from a diesel fire arguement". It is exposing them because you don't have to be a "scientist" to intuitively know that story doesn't hold water.

Its kinda like calling in late to work with the excuse, "sorry I won't be able to make it in today on account that the engine and exhaust pipe of my diesel powered car turned to liquid on the way in".

[RexNunc]

For all those words, they didn't say anything.

[Steeper33]

Great work stoobradley.

[josephstra]

These are the people cannot bust the myth of RFID chips for its reason that their advertisers would be hurt. They are hardly the real face of science, but afraid people to get out of the flock and lose their "reputations."

[frankdiddly]

I do have to give this panel credit. They at least gave this subject 5 minutes of their time and discussed it. Other people, like Pres. Clinton, Bill Maher, etc, try to sweep it under the carpet right away and change the subject. I respect these four panelists for giving the subject a few moments of their allotted time.

[stoobradley]

I agree that Adam and Rebecca were very respectful and honest in their reply, unlike Phil and Scott who seem to regard alternative theories to be unworthy of discussion.

Take into account that Phil is an astronomer who likely has not read the NIST report, so he assumes without scrutiny the "experts" at NIST are correct.

And as Adam agreed, it's difficult to change the momentum of a whole institutional way of thinking. Yet for skeptics, consensus is not proof of validity, as Phil implies.

[frankdiddly]

I just hope that Adam and Rebecca do read the paper on nanothermite as they said they would. It is available online and not hard to find after all.

[occision]

those guys are so full of shit.

I hate when people act like they know what they are talking about .

very arrogant bullshiter .