Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously not, if they can both be verifiable and falsifiable, then they simply cancel each other out.

Here is the dictionary meaning for verify.

1. prove something: to prove that something is true

The dictionary meaning for falsify.

1. alter fraudulently: to alter something in order to deceive

You just contradicted yourself poly.

Unless the banks somehow changed the meaning of falsify and verify, which I'd imagine is one of your textbook responses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only because the leprechaun tells you it's funny.

If I say something is verified and false, then obviously that's pretty [email protected]$kin stupid anyway you look at it. Which is what you said.

Or else maybe its the Jews who changed around the meaning of falsifiable which used to mean something completely different, which is probably another on of your crackpot theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another tragedy is that there appear to be a great many people like PN out there who are expending tremendous amounts of time and effort on what can only be called outlandish fantasies, time and effort that could be otherwise applied to making positive changes in our society. I don't know why that is: I mean, they can't all be mentally ill, can they?

I think some of them are just plain stupid.

I have seen on two other forums with K*lltown posting similar dumb stuff that Polynewbie posts here and the many engineers,scientists and the well read rip him to shreds.

K*lltown just continues his absurd parade of stupidity oblivious that he was COMPLETELY DEBUNKED!

NOBODY in two large forums agreed with K*lltow on anything.

NOBODY!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have seen on two other forums with K*lltown posting similar dumb stuff that Polynewbie posts here and the many engineers,scientists and the well read rip him to shreds.

I've never seen that happen.

I am just looking for a single reason why anyone should think Bin Laden attacked the USA on 911. None of you can do it- I can falsify anything you can come up with. All you do is come up with insults and stupidity.

Its all you can do because you have decided what you are going to believe about 911.

Its silly to believe the official version of 911. It has no means, motive or opportunity. My version of events has all three of these things in verifiable & falsifiable form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile about Thermate:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_the...at_the_wtc.html

Here is the CONCLUSION section:

Snip,

Conclusion

It seems we can’t be completely sure that these samples are from the WTC, and there’s no way to accurately assess whether they might have been contaminated.

The elements that Professor Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems likely that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. And some products you might imagine would be produced, aren’t reported at all.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No. Just assumptions, and avoidance of alternative explanations for the presence of these elements. That’s just fine when you’re telling an audience what they want to believe, but convincing the rest of the world is going to take considerably more evidence than is displayed here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've gotten in enough arguements with "engineers" I've heard all the arguements that violate the laws of physics and common sense. This isn't my first big thread on 911.

Zzz...

This thread is very mild compared to the ones I mentioned concerning K*lltown where many obviously skilled engineers and scientists along with those who are obviously intelligent made fools of the man.

They destroyed his stupid replies so convincingly.

You have it easy here as compared to what K*lltown faced.

He ran to the other forum to try again and it was actually worse since some of the guys there are professionals in the very fields he was bringing up arguments from to bolster his bogus claims.

You have no idea how wrong you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

It seems to me that FEMA would have explained that instead of saying that the source of the sulfidization cannot be explained. Coincidence theorists like to say it came from drywall (or any other number of equally rediculous sources) but I think the FEMA engineers would have considered that.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No.

Yes. The pouring molten metal comming from the building is proof of a high explosive. You may choose to believe that the thermate evidence found by Jones must be the result of environmental contamination if you choose. I don't think Jones would make an error like that.

You must explain the hot spots still hot days after the collapses and burning fuel cannot do that.

Certainly there is an abundance of evidence that shows there were high explosives. The buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) exploding as they collapsed and big hunks of building being blown upward and outward is one indicator. The building collapsing with the physical damage and heat involved in the collision is another. That just wasn't possible from looking at the NIST temperature / area diagrams and from the amount of heat involved.

You are not creating useful arguemnt you are taking the role of an apologist and using very weak arguements that require you to enter the domain of unlikelyhood all the time to justify your side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

It seems to me that FEMA would have explained that instead of saying that the source of the sulfidization cannot be explained. Coincidence theorists like to say it came from drywall (or any other number of equally rediculous sources) but I think the FEMA engineers would have considered that.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No.

Yes. The pouring molten metal comming from the building is proof of a high explosive. You may choose to believe that the thermate evidence found by Jones must be the result of environmental contamination if you choose. I don't think Jones would make an error like that.

You must explain the hot spots still hot days after the collapses and burning fuel cannot do that.

Certainly there is an abundance of evidence that shows there were high explosives. The buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) exploding as they collapsed and big hunks of building being blown upward and outward is one indicator. The building collapsing with the physical damage and heat involved in the collision is another. That just wasn't possible from looking at the NIST temperature / area diagrams and from the amount of heat involved.

You are not creating useful arguemnt you are taking the role of an apologist and using very weak arguements that require you to enter the domain of unlikelyhood all the time to justify your side.

I see you are trying to argue with ME.

LOL.

I merely posted a credible link with open minded commentary.

Why not argue with them instead?

Besides that you seems ready to ignore the problems in Professors claims about thermate "fingerprint".

The link makes it clear that the samples are not conclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed that you summarized what 911Myths said. I've read through 911Myths and can rip everything they have to say apart with simple science or logic. They are very sneaky and misleading.

If you would like me to pick this topic and show how they are lying or misleading people that is fine. I guess I will read it, but you can pick any other thing that they say if you like.

I thought this one was addressed by your summary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Besides that you seems ready to ignore the problems in Professors claims about thermate "fingerprint".

I am not completely convinced that it was thermate. I only know for an absolute fact that high explosives were used. I give Jones more credibility than anything 911 myths has to say but there are a few competeing theories about exactly how the buildings were brought down.

No one will ever know with 100 % certainty how the buildings came down. There are likely many ways of generating the high temperature explosions that we know occured on 911.

It could be that another type of explosive creates sulfidization. All I know is that FEMA couldn't explain the sulfidization and they would have considered any theory that the coincidence theorists and government apologists would have come up with.

I do not speculate on any aspect of 911, any of my arguements are firmly based on fact and science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I assumed that you summarized what 911Myths said. I've read through 911Myths and can rip everything they have to say apart with simple science or logic. They are very sneaky and misleading.

If you would like me to pick this topic and show how they are lying or misleading people that is fine. I guess I will read it, but you can pick any other thing that they say if you like.

I thought this one was addressed by your summary.

Bla bla bla......

You still have not addressed Professor Jones weak claim at all.

Many ingredients found in Thermate can also be found in OTHER materials.

Note this section you ignored:

4. Were there other sources for these chemicals?

Jones makes much of finding "uncommon chemical elements in abundance", however we can't help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

A USGS survey, for instance, listed the following major elements that it discovered in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don’t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.

The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/

He he he......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jones makes much of finding "uncommon chemical elements in abundance", however we can't help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

Why did FEMA say that they could not explain the sulfidization if there is such a simple and likely explanation for it such as this ? I think that FEMA probably considered this and then considered the possibility of losing credibility based on what would be judged as a weak arguement.

I'm not a chemist and I know the folks that wrote 911Myths are fools. Why would I want to engage in an arguement based on speculation with fools in an area that I know little or nothing about ?

Maybe Jones is right, maybe he is wrong - I don't really care because I know that explosives were used and that the fact that explosives were used proves beyond any reasonable doubt that 911 was an inside job unless you are willing to venture that Al Quaeda somehow sneaked into the building and planted them - which of course would be silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That web site you post sounds pretty technical - but Jones points to some specific evidence on actual beams and so does FEMA. All that gobbledygook doesn't impress me - all they did was analyze dust samples. Jones points to a specific chemical process that he has physical evidence of.

That site seems to use the old "Baffle Them With Bullshcitt" type of arguement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jones makes much of finding "uncommon chemical elements in abundance", however we can't help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

Why did FEMA say that they could not explain the sulfidization if there is such a simple and likely explanation for it such as this ? I think that FEMA probably considered this and then considered the possibility of losing credibility based on what would be judged as a weak arguement.

I'm not a chemist and I know the folks that wrote 911Myths are fools. Why would I want to engage in an arguement based on speculation with fools in an area that I know little or nothing about ?

Maybe Jones is right, maybe he is wrong - I don't really care because I know that explosives were used and that the fact that explosives were used proves beyond any reasonable doubt that 911 was an inside job unless you are willing to venture that Al Quaeda somehow sneaked into the building and planted them - which of course would be silly.

Gawd you just don't see what you miss.

It is so obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Which point specifically do you want me to rip apart using simple science and/or logic that can be found on the 911 Myths site ?

I already gave you an opening.It is plain that you think like a Cauliflower.

Just evasive replies.

WHEN WILL YOU EVER MAKE A REAL FULL AND FRONTAL REBUTTAL?

<snicker>

Link to post
Share on other sites
Polynewbie what does your proof consist of, other than posting some youtube videos and links to an Alex Jones site. If some college dropout is all the "credible evidence" you have, then I'll just be laughing. Perhaps inserting the mocking laugh or something along those lines.

Remember, in Canada, as a great leader once said, "a proof is a proof".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, civil engineers who specialize in building and well structures, know nothing about it.

Polynewbie, don't you think it's quite odd that the credible scientific community is at odds with all of your beliefs, really, your proof won't hold up when scientists think it's idiotic.

I don't ask a Pastor to teach me about evolution.

You even said yourself that your viewpoints are verifiably false.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...