Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

This is phantasmagorical! No, I haven't ignored them at all. I've posted numerous articles, videos and the like that have specifically addressed the woeful shortcomings, outright lies (of NIST that you disingenuously tried to explain away) of the main groups.

Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Scientists don't accuse each other of lying, they just disprove the data.

NIST addressed Thermite in their report:

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

I'm sorry, but I've concluded that you're not actually interested in science, but in 'conspiracies'. If you were only interested in science, you wouldn't be personalizing the arguments.

I'd like to talk about more than the science.

Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself?

Yes, it's actually up to you to prove your own points not me.

Please do ask me anything about the science...

I'm through with the science, as you're not being sincere about that.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Omar: Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself?

Michael: Yes, it's actually up to you to prove your own points not me.

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

Here you are, Michael, from your own source.

http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2009/03/911-truthers-meet-their-waterloo-ron.html?m=1

After the talk, there were some questions from the audience. One questioner asked him if he considered the "geo-political context" for 9/11. To his credit, Craig said that this was not his area of expertise; he is a fire and explosives expert, and his job is to look at the hard evidence, not speculations about motives.

Bryan · April 2, 2015

Maybe we need a combined "conspiracies" and "gender issues" sub-forum. Both types of topics seem to end up being discussed in the same manner.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Michael: Why do you keep up saying "lies" ?

Because John Gross lied. Did you not watch the video? He stated, "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so ... ".

And then a number of eyewitnesses said so. Firefighters, Rudy Giuliani, Mr Riggs on TV, ... !

Phantasmagorical, Michael.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Michael: NIST addressed Thermite in their report:

No, they didn't. They dismissed it out of hand. Using a specious argument. They were asked by scientists, from both sides of the debate, to address these issues, specifically the one about where residues might be found. NIST promised to do so and didn't.

And again you bring up the issue of sulfur, in a round about fashion, when this issue has been tested and found to be as I have previously described to you, which you have then ignored. Why?

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Michael: Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Scientists don't accuse each other of lying, they just disprove the data.

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

My apologies at the outset, but I really really cannot fathom how you can advance such a nonsensical argument. Look at all the slanderous comments that are regularly levelled at those who disagree with the official theory.

Conspiracy theorists, whackos, nutty ... , ... .

"Whack-a-moles who pop up", from whose mouth did this flow?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

...Look at all the slanderous comments that are regularly levelled at those who disagree with the official theory.

Look at the slanderous comments directed at those who agree with the "official theory".

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

The WTC North Tower was attacked by a truck bomb in 1993, but it failed to bring down the entire structure.

On September 10, 2001, the WTC towers were still standing.

On September 11, 2001, two hijacked Boeing 767-200 airliners laden with fuel were piloted into the WTC towers and they subsequently collapsed.

Cause...and effect.

Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Look at the slanderous comments directed at those who agree with the "official theory".

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

The WTC North Tower was attacked by a truck bomb in 1993, but it failed to bring down the entire structure.

On September 10, 2001, the WTC towers were still standing.

On September 11, 2001, two hijacked Boeing 767-200 airliners laden with fuel were piloted into the WTC towers and they subsequently collapsed.

Cause...and effect.

Now you've gone and went done science, George. How could anyone ever have questioned the rigour that you use in your approach to things scientific?

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

Now you've gone and went done science, George. How could anyone ever have questioned the rigour that you use in your approach to things scientific?

No, Jesus, it really is that simple, no matter how complicated or "scientific" you want to make it. Sorry, but the elephant (and most other people) have moved on to more interesting things.

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

One questioner asked him if he considered the "geo-political context" for 9/11. To his credit, Craig said that this was not his area of expertise; he is a fire and explosives expert, and his job is to look at the hard evidence, not speculations about motives.

Right. So can we discuss these aspects ?

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

... Sorry, but the elephant (and most other people) have moved on to more interesting things.

Your ongoing contributions to the advancement of science, here in this thread, contradict what you just said.

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

Because John Gross lied. Did you not watch the video? He stated, "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so ... ".

How do you know he knew of these things ? How do you know he didn't correct himself ? Why is it 'lies' and not a mistake ? Because conspiracy, right ?

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

Michael: NIST addressed Thermite in their report:

No, they didn't. They dismissed it out of hand. Using a specious argument. They were asked by scientists, from both sides of the debate, to address these issues, specifically the one about where residues might be found. NIST promised to do so and didn't.

And again you bring up the issue of sulfur, in a round about fashion, when this issue has been tested and found to be as I have previously described to you, which you have then ignored. Why?

The Waterloo lecturer talked about other chemicals too.

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

"Whack-a-moles who pop up", from whose mouth did this flow?

Yes, from mine. I'm willing to consider sociological and other aspects which is why I point out the fringe lunacy of the conspiracists. You're the one who isn't supposed to be bringing those up.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

Your ongoing contributions to the advancement of science, here in this thread, contradict what you just said.

Another contradiction...but no matter...the world has really moved on. A new tower gleams in the Manhattan sunshine.

It was built using more science and engineering.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Right. So can we discuss these aspects ?

Forum Rules and Guidelines

...

It is also important that you stay on topic and keep the discussion focused. If the thread begins to wonder off into a new topic area, start a new thread and continue the discussion under the new thread. If you feel a thread is being watered down with too many different topic areas and you do not want to start the new thread yourself, feel free to contact a moderator and request a new thread.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

A new tower gleams in the sunshine.

Called the "freedom tower". That's as ridiculous a notion as the Statue of Liberty being located in the USA.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

Called the "freedom tower". That's as ridiculous a notion as the Statue of Liberty being located in the USA.

Yes...but they still stand. Reality sucks that way, huh ?

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Yes, from mine. I'm willing to consider sociological and other aspects which is why I point out the fringe lunacy of the conspiracists. You're the one who isn't supposed to be bringing those up.

Why would a moderator, which I am led to believe you are, Michael, wish to break the rules of the forum, which seem to be desirous of keeping threads focused.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

Yes...but they still stand. ?

Thank you for once being honest. We agree, it is ridiculous that these nonsensical notions of freedom and liberty are advanced by the greatest terrorist group/nation that has ever existed.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

Thank you for once being honest. We agree, it is ridiculous that these nonsensical notions of freedom and liberty are advanced by the greatest terrorist group/nation that has ever existed.

We do our best....your empire was just not getting it done anymore. At least there is still a queen.

Michael Hardner · April 2, 2015

Why would a moderator, which I am led to believe you are, Michael, wish to break the rules of the forum, which seem to be desirous of keeping threads focused.

I think the question is about discussing the science, so we should be ok.

GostHacked · April 2, 2015

I am in the camp it was an inside job somehow.

Now I have watched endless hours of 9/11 footage. Much of it is speculative garbage but there are a few good videos that show something else was going on that day.

My favorite is one called 'Eye Witness 9/11'. This was done from the Jersey side in Hoboken I believe. It is an hour and 40 minutes, but he does capture explosion sounds before the collapse of the buildings. Visually you can see smoke rising from the base of the towers after the loud explosion sounds. By far this was the most compelling for explosives being used. But, make up your own mind.

This film does not show or talk about politics or anything else, it simply documents the sounds and visuals. So in my view it is one of the better ones.

I'll link some more when I think of it.

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

I think the question is about discussing the science, so we should be ok.

No, Michael, it is about derailing the science. You only have to look at all the folks who pointedly ignore the science, you included, and want to talk about what they constantly rail against - conspiracy theories.

And now that's all you want to discuss.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

How do you know he knew of these things ? How do you know he didn't correct himself ? Why is it 'lies' and not a mistake ? Because conspiracy, right ?

Again, phantasmagorical!

John Gross was a lead investigator for NIST, the body charged with investigating the collapse of the buildings. It was his job to know. So many people had said it.

Here, don't watch it for yourself and see.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r0rWm6p0s