48 votes

.

.

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Proud to be a truther.

"Someone who wants the truth to come out - about everything."

If you think I'm a nutjob by your definition because I want the truth I'm thinking that doesn't make you look very sane.

sharkhearted's picture

"You can see a tilt in the fall in some areas before others" LOL

Is that the best you can do?? LOL

Oh...you are talking about the core areas?? Yeah, dude that is classic CONTROLLED DEMOLITION where the core of the building goes first, pulling the four walls inward.

Yeah I see those elevator and mechanical penthouses at the top of the building disappearing first, just like they are supposed to!

But the FASCIA of the building, on all sides which would include the perimeter columns and the exterior walls and windows, the first 10 floors or so...DID INDEED descend at the speed of gravity.

It took a high school physics teacher to confront NIST with the calculations and the clear videographic evidence, and NIST finally had to admit it into the record.

Now, the only way 10 floors can "collapse" at free fall acceleration, is for 10 floors somewhere below to suddenly cease to exist.

Where did those floors below go? Did they magically slip into a parallel universe? Or were they BLOWN TO BITS?

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Last one

As you've insisted on creating numerous new threads without addressing... well ANY of my posts below in response to you, I think this will be my last post in the thread.

Is that the best you can do?? LOL

Uh... yes? It falls down in some parts before others. Are you telling me they purposely set charges that went off at different times so that it fell more naturally? That being the case, then I don't see the evidence you're claiming for controlled demolition.

Oh...you are talking about the core areas?? Yeah, dude that is classic CONTROLLED DEMOLITION where the core of the building goes first, pulling the four walls inward.

You must be talking about some sort of "classic controlled demolition" that doesn't actually exist. Is your claim that if the core of the building collapsed in this type of structure that it wouldn't fall?

But the FASCIA of the building, on all sides which would include the perimeter columns and the exterior walls and windows, the first 10 floors or so...DID INDEED descend at the speed of gravity.

Uh... the fascia of the building? I'm trying to understand what you mean here, because you put it in caps. Fascia generally refers to a lip around the edge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascia_(architecture) Did you mean something else? And no, they didn't. They may have gotten close, and parts may have fallen off and reached gravitation acceleration, but from the video of the fall it obviously doesn't fall at the speed of gravity unless you edit the video or start it when the building itself doesn't begin falling. I mean heck, if you play fast and and loose with the editing you can make it fall at whatever speed you want.

It took a high school physics teacher to confront NIST with the calculations and the clear videographic evidence, and NIST finally had to admit it into the record.

If they did, quite frankly they're just wrong. NIST has been wrong before. Heck, they still can't get a stable H2S mix together for us to use as an SRM. I'd like to see the quote in context if you'd like to provide it however.

Now, the only way 10 floors can "collapse" at free fall acceleration, is for 10 floors somewhere below to suddenly cease to exist.

There's an interesting point. Can you please show me where in the video those floors completely ceased to exist? Because I never saw that occur.

Where did those floors below go? Did they magically slip into a parallel universe? Or were they BLOWN TO BITS?

Love the usage of the term "bits" btw, it makes it seem as if there were huge steel beams laying around everywhere. We all know that's not true however, so I applaud your creative redefining of nouns for the purpose of bolstering your arguments through metaphor.

But weird, still noticing you never defended the points below... wonder why not.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Response VII to Eric Hoffer

Mr. Hoffer said:

"Yes, because what I'm doing is trying to shoot down obviously illogical theories from people who I think are well meaning and are going astray. Sorry buddy, but I don't let the BS fly. I care about the Liberty movement, and I believe 9/11 Truthers to be a sideshow that detracts from the horrid consequences of blowback due to our foreign policy."

------------------

UH HUH...and I am not going to let the BS fly either, dude.

If you REALLY care about the "Liberty Movement" yet "believe" ( yet don't know for sure) that people who are after the truth of 9/11 are a "sideshow" that detracts from the "horrid consequences of blowback due to our foreign policy"...then why not ask the Jersey Girls....who lost husbands at the WTC and were the ones that forced the 9/11 Commission (whitewash though it was) to happen.

WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THAT UP WITH THEM? Watch here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMT2CHSvyGw

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Wow

And the appeal to emotion begins! Tug those heart strings!

UH HUH...and I am not going to let the BS fly either, dude.

Let?! You've been flinging it with a catapult here man. Medieval Kings would lust after the size of the trebuchet you've been metaphorically equipped with.

If you REALLY care about the "Liberty Movement" yet "believe" ( yet don't know for sure) that people who are after the truth of 9/11 are a "sideshow" that detracts from the "horrid consequences of blowback due to our foreign policy"

No, I know for sure. It by definition completely and totally undermines the argument that our foreign policy causes blowback. The argument is that the events of 9/11 were NOT caused by blowback, they were instead caused by our government who wanted to profit off the ensuing carnage with military adventurism. That detracts and totally undermines the argument for decreased military adventurism due to avoiding the consequences of blow back.

WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THAT UP WITH THEM? Watch here:

No, I'll be not watching every hour long documentary of the same rehashed footage with scary music and voice overs, thanks though. Feel free to summarize and organize the information to make your points like an adult though.

Eric Hoffer

this huffer dude is a paid disinforment

Go away, we are here to be away from your diseased , crippled mind that cannot see truth and will stomp out even precious freedom to hide from reality.... or get paid?

LOL

Yes, as opposed to going after the factual content and numerous points made, "Huffer (sp) is obviously a disinfo agent."

"How can I tell he is? Because he took the time to dissect the obviously irrational arguments piece by piece as opposed to just sighing loudly and ignoring me!"

When your arguments fall flat on their face, just accuse the other person of being part of the opposition. That's not a logical fallacy or anything.

As for getting paid, I've said it time and again. If there's a government agency out there that pays cash money for refuting absurd logical inconsistencies like what's been posted here, I'm due for some serious back pay.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Response VI to Eric Hoffer

I asked Mr. Hoffer about at what cost does it come to the deaths of 3000 Americans and 6000 troops since them.

He responded:

"Apparently your cost is that you want to remain forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science.
Look, it's terrible that it happened, hell, I'll even say the government may have paid them to do it, or tricked them, or whatever, but the bottom line is that the planes took out the towers and WTC7 was pure gravy for them."

------------------------

So let me get this straight. On the one hand you say that because I am "forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science "(LOL)....on the other hand you admit the government may "have paid them to do it".

But then you level a "bottom line": You said: " The planes took out the towers and WTC7 was pure gravy for them."

So...if I as an informed layman as well as of hundreds of the thousands of others... and thousands of other architects and engineers are "forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science"....how much more "forcibly ignorant" is a statement like this one?:

"The planes took out the towers and WTC7 was pure gravy for them." HUH???

Does anybody see a problem with the circular reasoning of the above clause??

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Man, this multiple posts thing... ugh.

So let me get this straight. On the one hand you say that because I am "forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science "(LOL)....on the other hand you admit the government may "have paid them to do it".

Let me reaffirm the forceful ignorance bit. But yes, I can conceive of someone in the government, say a CIA operative or a military guy on our side gave a briefcase full of cash to Osama Bin Laden and said, "Hey, get some of these guys to ram some planes into buildings will ya?" Do I think it's likely? Not really. I think they severely pissed them off with our foreign policy mucking around in their Holy Land.

But then you level a "bottom line": You said: " The planes took out the towers and WTC7 was pure gravy for them."

Yes.

So...if I as an informed layman as well as of hundreds of the thousands of others... and thousands of other architects and engineers are "forcibly ignorant of physics and materials science"....how much more "forcibly ignorant" is a statement like this one?:

Uh... guy, at one point they thought the world was flat. That didn't make them right. If you want to play the, "A ton of people think I'm right!!" game with me, I'm obviously going to win as the VAST majority of architects, structural engineers, and demolitions experts disagree with you.

Does anybody see a problem with the circular reasoning of the above clause??

Yes, because it's not reasoning, it was a statement. Reasoning would've followed after the, "I believe x because, (insert reasoning here)" format.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Response V to Eric Hoffer

Mr. Hoffer said"

"What gives me pause is you failing to stay on track with the argument here. Vague hand waving and a reference to Harrit's credentials don't impress me WHEN THE STUDY IS PUBLISHED and I can look at it and clearly see the mistakes made. That's the glory of peer-review! You get critiqued, especially when you make boneheaded mistakes! You're going to tell me that scientists aren't wrong? They disagree and prove each other wrong all the time. Being a scientist sure as hell doesn't make you infallible."

--------------

UH HUH. And trusting the peer-review process in today's politically charged world of science...is like trusting a serial rapist, to protect and look out for, your wife.

Case in point: The anthropogenic global warming hoax. The reality: It is used as another means by the global elite, to control the masses. The farce: Many "peer reviewed" scientists and journals have lied and mis and disinformed on the subject.

Last question: Where did I EVER say that being a scientist doesn't make one infallible.,

Certainly, a great example would be all of the great scientists that we imported from Nazi Germany after the war under Operation Paperclip.

They helped participate in one of the most diabolical efforts of genocide in human history. Yet their extraordinary intellect was harnessed by the USA.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Wow.

UH HUH. And trusting the peer-review process in today's politically charged world of science...is like trusting a serial rapist, to protect and look out for, your wife.

You fail to recognize the point, that being that Harrit ISN'T a peer reviewed paper, and that his PEERS say his paper is absolute garbage. Heck, his own BOSS over at Copenhagen refused the position as editor. Here's the editor at the time the article was published, "They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them." Yes, she resigned the thing was so badly done.

Case in point: The anthropogenic global warming hoax. The reality: It is used as another means by the global elite, to control the masses. The farce: Many "peer reviewed" scientists and journals have lied and mis and disinformed on the subject.

So your point is... that scientists have lied to prove a political point or been wrong before? Is this news that I missed? Ooooohhhh, you must be describing Harrit's paper.

Last question: Where did I EVER say that being a scientist doesn't make one infallible.,

Erm, you've been holding up Harrit's botched work as if Moses took notes while God spoke. That's where I got that from.

Certainly, a great example would be all of the great scientists that we imported from Nazi Germany after the war under Operation Paperclip.

They helped participate in one of the most diabolical efforts of genocide in human history. Yet their extraordinary intellect was harnessed by the USA.

Yeap. We're definitely not exploiting science, even if the methods were evil. I fail to see how this correlates. Are you calling Harrit a Nazi or something? I mean, the paper was terribly done, but I don't think he sacrificed any virgins over it or anything.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Response IV to Eric Hoffer

Mr. Hoffer wrote:

"I'm sorry man, but that's what is so beautiful about science. If you take the time to educate yourself, you can actually learn it. What Harrit does isn't magic, and he's not the only nano-technology guy out there by any means. Hell, I've done consulting for a company making producing nano-tech materials, it's really not all that magical."

------------------

UH HUH. And what is so beautiful about science...is that truth is not generally relative. The truth doesn't lie. You send mixed signals about "TRUTHERS" who are just after the TRUTH....you know...what REALLY happened.

Please don't give me an "argument from authority" fallacy cock-block that you have "done consulting for a company producing nano-tech materials.

BIG f-u-c-k-i-n-g deal. And yes those nano-tech companies probably are not as concerned about the truth as they are profit so when you are dealing with the level of "magic" all of that is irrelevant.

The TRUTH is king here.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Sigh

"UH HUH. And what is so beautiful about science...is that truth is not generally relative. The truth doesn't lie. You send mixed signals about "TRUTHERS" who are just after the TRUTH....you know...what REALLY happened."

You're not after Truth, you're chasing down your dream that the towers were nailed with controlled demolition and trying to ram the conclusion down science's throat, while science protests continually.

Please don't give me an "argument from authority" fallacy cock-block that you have "done consulting for a company producing nano-tech materials.

Weren't you at one point questioning my experience here? I'm met nano-scientists. They're not rare. They're not that special. They deal with some cool cutting edge stuff, but Harrit is to nano-scientists what your local Keynesian community college economics teacher is to Austrian economics. He's an associate professor. That's it.

BIG f-u-c-k-i-n-g deal. And yes those nano-tech companies probably are not as concerned about the truth as they are profit so when you are dealing with the level of "magic" all of that is irrelevant.

Well... yeah, they're companies working with nano-technology. I'm sorry, were you looking for some sort of Gandhi of nano-tech?

The TRUTH is king here.

Uh huh. Obviously. Did you read the Milette paper yet?

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Response III to Eric Hoffer

Mr. Hoffer said:

"That's in addition to the paper I've posted. Otherwise, if you could please explain to the class why Kaolin, often used in primer paints, was part of the composite, and why there was no elemental aluminum in the sample (which is entirely necessary for thermite), I would really appreciate it."

-------------------

Appreciate this!!! (from the Open Chemical Physics Journal)

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCP...

Abstract: "We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated THAT ELEMENTAL ALUMINUM IS PRESENT [cap emphasis mine]. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Uhh...

Harrit ASSUMED the Aluminum was elemental. Because he never ran the correct tests for elemental Aluminum, he never actually knew or proved the case.

Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.

This is where they make a huge mistake. MEK can react violently with elemental Aluminum and was a terrible choice, invalidating the result. ASSUMING that all that is left would be elemental after the MEK bath was a mistake. For a better read with more info than I knew: http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit...

Running the correct tests, as done by Milette, showed no elemental Aluminum present. The assumption on the part of Harrit was an incorrect one due to testing methodology.

I'm noticing you're still not explaining the Kaolin, which is present and would have nothing to do with thermite and would have everything to do with paint primer.

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

Response II to Eric Hoffer

Mr. Hoffer said:

"So yeah, enjoy. Even the TRUTHER scientist says they have nothing do with nanothermite or he was given bad samples... by Steven Jones."

------------------------

First question: Are you using the term "TRUTHER" as derogatory or complimentary. Not sure.

Second question: Have you ever actually taken the time to watch this damning documentary? If you can be open-minded to its content...then you are just a truth-seeker like the rest of us.

If you can not acknowledge that this documentary makes some valid points, including that of the pristine nature of the WTC dust that was sent to Dr. Jones, then yeah, we should not be talking.

Here is the link. You are obligated to watch. The source of that obligation?? It is an unwritten rule. REAL men set aside their egos and deal with the TRUTH no matter where it leads them.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Replies

Question 1: I'm not using it derogatory or complimentary. Just to inform you as to which camp the guy is in so you know I'm not giving you a biased source who is likely to fake results.

Question 2: I've wasted days of my life watching Truther documentaries. No offense, but I'm done. If you can summarize the points for me, I'll be glad to answer them point by point. Being a Truther in most cases doesn't mean you're seeking the Truth. There are some Truthers I've spoken to who are serious, logical, and motivated, but the majority just parrot Jones, Harrit, and Gage without critically thinking themselves. The back patting and obvious "it was all turned to dust in free fall!" comments are fairly telling, as is the "it was proven to be thermite!!!!1" posts, especially when confronted with conflicting and superior evidence.

Sorry man, but no, youtube videos with scary music and lots of coincidences generally don't deal with Truth. Have you actually read Harrit and Jones's paper? I have, in detail. Have you read Milette's study? I have. And uhh... way to not post the link anyways.

You're refusing to read and attempt to understand the actual research summaries posted. Why in the world should I be watching youtube videos?

Eric Hoffer

sharkhearted's picture

RESPONSE I to Eric Hoffer

Mr. Hoffer wrote:

"Harrit failed to run an FTIR test to identify the components. Harrit has failed to release the chips for further study. Steven Jones sent chips to a dude in France who has since even claimed the chips are bunk, and THAT guy is a Truther. He believes that it can't be nanothermite, and speculates that while the red-grey chips aren't from the destruction process, that there was some sort of technology used to drop the towers, but he doesn't know what it is."

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

"It's difficult to imagine a likely scenario for 10 micrometers width nanothermite layers at WTC, explain how Al nanoparticles remained reactives during several years or admit such
a heavy operation implying setting up charges of hundreds tons of nanothermite.
==>

"Two possible deductions:
1) Very likely: Red/red chips have nothing to do with nanothermite, American searchers were decepted and discredited or are themselves disinformating to protect the secrecy of the genuine destruction technology at the origine of red chips and up to thousand tons of
molten iron in the dust.
2) Less likely: Red chips are from nanothermite that were deactivated in all my samples"

---------------

Oh, OK so you are going to on the one hand acknowledge that there is some unknown technology that brought down the towers...yet on the other hand you are going to take on one of the finest physicists in this country and one of the leading experts on nanotechnology in the word...trying to discredit them?

Yeah science is rough and gory...but you are not making a scientific point here, just a psychological operations point....and that is the truth.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Uhh....

Oh, OK so you are going to on the one hand acknowledge that there is some unknown technology that brought down the towers...

No, I'm laughing over that point. Maybe it was energy beams from space? Dustification for all! Actually, may want to get this covered: Do you believe it was thermite or that it was energy weapons or something else?

yet on the other hand you are going to take on one of the finest physicists in this country

If you can't even get this fact right, I really don't know what to say to you. Harrit isn't in this country. He teaches in Copenhagen. You can look up where that is on Google sometime in the future.

and one of the leading experts on nanotechnology in the word...

No he isn't. Why in the world would you think he was?

trying to discredit them?

Uh... I'm not trying, I don't really have to. The editor of the journal that published Harrit RESIGNED the paper was so bad. http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/another-editor-in...

Enjoy.

Yeah science is rough and gory...but you are not making a scientific point here, just a psychological operations point....and that is the truth.

What? I've made the scientific point. Harrit failed to run an FTIR, which would've easily identified the constituent components. When the FTIR was run, it was found that the substances were obviously primer paint. The presence of Kaolin and an epoxy matrix confirms this. Did you not read the paper posted?

Trying to go in order here btw, could've made this easier on us both if you'd have consolidated your posts into one big one. I would've addressed each point :-/ This has the potential for going all over the place in the current format.

Eric Hoffer

The title of this article reveals its lack of objectivity.

I guess "fully engulfed" means something different to truthers than it does to everyone else.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

To test what the 911 Truthers are claiming...

And since the skyscraper is evacuated anyway (or eventually will be), I'd like to see what happens to it if an airliner-sized drone rams into it.

If the building then fails to collapse into its footprint, then the Truthers are vindicated.

Wrong! Wtc 7 wasnt hit by a

Wrong! Wtc 7 wasnt hit by a plane. Furthermore, NIST said that structural damage from falling debrus had nothing to do w its collapse.

So

Just to be sure, you DO believe that the twin towers were brought down because of the airplanes, or no?

Eric Hoffer

Hell no. The planes had

Hell no. The planes had nothing to do with the explosion and collapse of the three towers.

Ah, but if the "airliner-sized" drone impacts AFTER

significant and prolonged burning of the building has already occurred (as it has), then that isn't quite the best comparison, is it? Regardless of outcome.

What would the Founders do?

This comparison is already terrible.

The two buildings are far to different and the fire and damage is far to different for this to be a valid scientific comparison anyway. This entire article about this building shouldn't even be on here as it has nothing to do with 9/11 and doesn't even remotely resemble the the same circumstances.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Ron Paul believes the attacks

Ron Paul believes the attacks of 9/11 were blowback for US foreign policy. What a silly old sheep/troll/other ad hominem attack.

Ironic, not only is this

Ironic, not only is this video not ad-hominem but you used a blatant appeal to authority fallacy here. And I even agree that this stuff shouldnt be on DP to begin with!

Ventura 2012

Let me offer the context of

Let me offer the context of ad hominem attack on people who do not buy the conspiracy theory.

This fallacy is for the benefit of insightful people who may realize that "Ron Paul is a christian!" doesn't really settle the issue.

Ok, that's an appeal to

Ok, that's an appeal to authority fallacy though. Ad hominem would be saying "All men are not created equal because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves" or something.

Ventura 2012