Debate! What debate?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

i'm not sure who you think your fooling with your "I'm Frank Greening" bs but in case you really are him, you have the obvious onset symptoms of Altzheimers - a global collapse was assumed? I will be nice and assume your just dumb

Be careful~enigma~ Dr. Greening bases everything he says on Science, and the Scientific Method.
Although I would say that Arguing with the Scholars for truth might drive anyone to an early Assumed Mental Collapse.
It was Assumed that condition A lead to observed condition B, which was global collapse.
There is nothing wrong with assumptions if assumptions have basis in fact, I assume the sun still rose this morning even though the clouds do cover it today.

 

[~enigma~]

How it reacted would depend on two things:

1. The precise formulation used (Only the evil doers would know that)
2. Where it was sprayed

Oh, and one more thing:

To establish supporting evidence for an ammonium perchlorate theory it is helpful to look for “chemical signatures” of the presence of ammonium perchlorate in the rubble pile. This requires careful scrutiny of the available data on gaseous emissions at Ground Zero. For example, consider the Report on Air Sampling Near the World Trade Center Site: New York State Department of Health, October 30 & 31, 2001.” In this document we find that air sampling of the smoke plume on the rubble pile over one month after 9/11 measured 33.9 mg/m3 of HCl as well as 2.24 mg/m3 of HNO2 and 12.28 mg/m3 of HNO3. The presence of these acid gases in the air above the WTC rubble pile at this time is consistent with the emission of Cl2, HCl, N2O, NO, and H2O from the slow decomposition of RESIDUAL ammonium perchlorate.

So your movie script is about as ludicrous as the concrete rebar coated with 30 year old C4 and the concrete core bs. Nice try though...

 

[truthseeker10]

I should have studied Science

This is my 1st post on JRef. I'm far from being a Scientist but read alot of the posts here today. I'm one of those curious people that wants to know the truth. Was it an inside job? or not? I know the Official Story is BS. The theory of squibs is plausible but unlikely because it takes to much planing and in buildings of that size would take to long to place. Even though it's said there were power downs and such weeks before the attacks.

Most who post here are apperently Scientists but differ in opinion which is Kewl by me. It was interesting to read agnostic thoughts on the 9/11 attacks. Even if I didn't understand the Scientific parts of it. Maybe one of these Scientists on this site can go take Rosie's challenge on the View. Seems to me that the people in this place have taken no sides to either the Official Story or the Truth Movement. It's this kind of Research that in my opinion needs to reach the Mainstream Media outlets. All you ever hear about is people either on the Truth Movements side or the Official Story side.

The World and not just America changed that day.

 

[CHF]

I'm one of those curious people that wants to know the truth. Was it an inside job? or not? I know the Official Story is BS.

Well I'm glad you haven't made up your mind

Sounds like you already know the "truth."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm one of those curious people that wants to know the truth. Was it an inside job? or not? I know the Official Story is BS.

You realize of course that the above statement is an oxymoron right? You can not be both interested in deriving an objective conclusion while at the same time automatically eliminating one of the possible outcomes.

 

[T.A.M.]

beware the Mark of Woo...

TAM

 

[truthseeker10]

I'm one of those curious people that wants to know the truth. Was it an inside job? or not? I know the Official Story is BS. Arkan_Wolfshade I am sorry what I should have said then is the Official Story is hard to swallow is that better for you?

 

[DavidJames]

I'm one of those curious people that wants to know the truth. Was it an inside job? or not? I know the Official Story is BS. Arkan_Wolfshade I am sorry what I should have said then is the Official Story is hard to swallow is that better for you?

I think you should have added some detail to your logic. It would be helpful to be as detailed as possible and include any supporting evidence as well.

Welcome to the forum.

Edit to add...
Since you are curious, I assume you have read the various official reports and would like to share you specific concerns and why you hold them.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace there was a dump fire in NJ adjacent to the Pulaski skyway that burned for years. The smoke looked exactly like that in the top photo. And clearly those pedestrians are walking through dust and debris. not smoke.

You should look more closely. The smoke in your NJ dump fire looks nothing like the vapor hanging around WTC2 in my picture.

And I will ask again, why would the smoke in the rubble fire be such a different color than the smoke in the building fire? It would be the same fuel, right? And it would be more oxygen-starved if anything, right?

Dr. Greening, you've avoided this question every time I've asked.

 

[truthseeker10]

Thanks for the Welcome. As far as reading official reports no can't say that I have I wont lie. I have alot of homework to do yet. I just got the 9/11 Commission Report and will read it. The Nist Investigation if it's mostly scientific I won't understand it because I'm far from being a Scientist. I came here today out of curiosity more then looking for facts. After reading alot of the things discussed my curiosity is peaked and will keep coming back to read more. Maybe once I've read some of the Official Reports can give better feedback. That's it for now we got dumped on today with alot of Snow so i need to do some shoveling

Thanks and Peace

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

You realize of course that the above statement is an oxymoron right? You can not be both interested in deriving an objective conclusion while at the same time automatically eliminating one of the possible outcomes.

For a guy who prides himself on logic, that sure is illogical. There is a world of difference between proving the official story false, and proving an alternative theory true. What TruthSeeker10 is saying is that the former has been done, and the latter has not.

Given that, it is entirely possible to be interested in finding the truth, while having already elimintated as provably false the particular set of assertions known as "the official story".

 

[uk_dave]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "There are no fencesitters"

If someone claims to have an open mind then they are invariably a 'truther'.

You can't have spent the last 6 years not being sure whether or not the official account is true.

If you haven't decided then you haven't been paying attention and that calls into question why you now feel it necessary to START paying attention.

 

[truthseeker10]

Thanks for your help other truthseeker lol it's well appriciated. There is no way i could have said that the way you did.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apollo20's conclusion

So, the experiment was to show how "easy" it would be to get "conspiracy theorists" to believe in a "conspiracy" just by making it sound scientific. As far as I know, exactly no one fell for the Apollo20 hoax.

What do we conclude?

 

[T.A.M.]

For a guy who prides himself on logic, that sure is illogical. There is a world of difference between proving the official story false, and proving an alternative theory true. What TruthSeeker10 is saying is that the former has been done, and the latter has not.

Given that, it is entirely possible to be interested in finding the truth, while having already elimintated as provably false the particular set of assertions known as "the official story".

Yah, there is a world of difference, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the truthers assume that because there are a few errors in the official story, that that means an inside job, for which there is little to no proof.

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

You should look more closely. The smoke in your NJ dump fire looks nothing like the vapor hanging around WTC2 in my picture.

And I will ask again, why would the smoke in the rubble fire be such a different color than the smoke in the building fire? It would be the same fuel, right? And it would be more oxygen-starved if anything, right?

Dr. Greening, you've avoided this question every time I've asked.

Your kidding right?

 

[T.A.M.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "There are no fencesitters"

If someone claims to have an open mind then they are invariably a 'truther'.

You can't have spent the last 6 years not being sure whether or not the official account is true.

If you haven't decided then you haven't been paying attention and that calls into question why you now feel it necessary to START paying attention.

There are those who, lets say, hear some shaite come out of Rosies mouth, or who have been shown LC by a truther. they then go online looking for answers...they come across this site...are they now, at this point, not a fence sitter?

TAM

 

[Horatius]

So, the experiment was to show how "easy" it would be to get "conspiracy theorists" to believe in a "conspiracy" just by making it sound scientific. As far as I know, exactly no one fell for the Apollo20 hoax.

What do we conclude?

No, it was to show how easy it is to create a theory. He made no effort to promote it.

As we all know, CT only go so far as their insane adherents force them.

 

[e^n]

So, the experiment was to show how "easy" it would be to get "conspiracy theorists" to believe in a "conspiracy" just by making it sound scientific. As far as I know, exactly no one fell for the Apollo20 hoax.

What do we conclude?

I think the point was how trivial and easily grasped these theories are, 28th Kingdom's post is a prime example over at LC. He read the initial post and couldn't wait to post on LC about how "JREF HAVE BEEN OWNED" and how "JREF HAVE LOST", it's quite hilarious really.

What most of the CT crowd fails to realise is that despite satisfaction in the NIST report's conclusions by a reasonably large majority of people here and in the scientific world, clarifications and contradictions are always welcome because being wrong is as awesome as being right.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

For a guy who prides himself on logic, that sure is illogical. There is a world of difference between proving the official story false, and proving an alternative theory true. What TruthSeeker10 is saying is that the former has been done, and the latter has not.

Given that, it is entirely possible to be interested in finding the truth, while having already elimintated as provably false the particular set of assertions known as "the official story".

Except that is not what he posted Ace. Saying, "I don't know what happened, but I know X did not happen," and saying, "I know X did not happen, but I don't know what did happen," are both statements showing existing conclusions and potential confirmational bias. This runs counter to the claim of "I'm one of those curious people that wants to know the truth. Was it an inside job? or not?".

Furthermore, "I know the Official Story is BS," is significantly different in meaning, tone, and connotation than, "the Official Story is hard to swallow", although both still demonstrate existing conclusions upon which those statements are made.

Now, I may have been overly critical in my comment, but my comment is by no means illogical in nature; and, frankly, given you continual demonstrations, on this forum, of your critical thinking abilities I'm not everly concerned about whether you think my comments are logical, illogical, or invisible pink unicorns.