http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/11/editor...
note that the author is sympathetic to 9/11 truth but points out some severe flaws with the thermite claims.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
another demolition of "thermite" paper (8 posts)
-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
it would seem to me that any TRUTH movement worth its salt would publicize this.
it is news - and it comes from a legitimate source close to the issue at hand.
people can agree or choose to disagree - butr it would seem that a movement predicated on the idea of TRUTH would have a RESPONSIBILITY to present this to the public.
as for me - this just confirms my suspicions and validates for me much of what i have written on the subject on multiple threads here at TruthMove.
we all want 9/11 Truth. we all want to find that magic smoking gun - evidence - that will compel the public to re-examine the events of that day. but if we allow our personal bias to cloud our objectivity and support science that is weak - or flat out dead wrong - we weaken ALL of the evidence that we already have.
This is a shame. i do not know what to make of it. as an 'agnostic' on the issue of CD the issue becomes even more complex. I am not only forced to re-examine my beliefs about CD - but i am also forced to question the motivations of those who promote this theory. i am forced to question the intentionality of those involved. and it is a problem. it is a problem for me - and it is a problem for the movement.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Solution: Avoid the physical evidence entirely. Michael Ruppert, 2002.
Posted 13 years ago # -
the firstest and the bestest researchers were rightest
Posted 13 years ago # -
note that the author is sympathetic to 9/11 truth but points out some severe flaws with the thermite claims.
Mark, how do you know? Fetzer claims to be "sympathetic to 9/11 truth"
And what are the "severe flaws" - or are you simply taking Rancourt's word for it?
Also, what do you think of his claims that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax? Has he documented "severe flaws" in climate science as well?
Harrit responded to all the points Rancourt raised here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45837672/101220-Answer-t...
After someone posted the link on his blog w/ a question about why Rancourt hadn't posted it, Rancourt said he's involved in an ongoing discussion w/ Harrit about the paper:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review...http://www.jod911.com/ has yet to publish a paper debunking Active Thermitic
imho, the fact that Bentham/TOCPJ was used, and that Griscom was recommended as a peer-reviewer, casts doubt on the judgment of whoever was responsible for those choices. TOCPJ's editorial process at at the time seems to have been lax at best- and the journal has been inactive since. However, this doesn't mean the research and the paper are bogus- perhaps they are, but the questions raised about Bentham don't prove it.
And just cuz someone posts something on a blog or at JREF that claims the paper's BS doesn't prove it either.
Personally, I won't claim the paper proves anything- but I am interested in seeing what experiments by independent parties reveal.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The thermite promoters rarely mention facts that are actually proven and provable such as suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames.
There are numerous severe flaws with the demolition claim, not just the thermite theory.
The fact the collapses initiated at the point of impacts on the towers alone suggests the demolition argument is not true. Thermite is not used in demolitions of skyscrapers. The firefighters report they measured the towers and WTC 7 leaning before they fell down (they used transits to measure the bulging). They also report how there was a very large gash in building 7 caused by part of the tower falling on it (first time that's ever happened to a building).
My guess is whoever was steering the planes was trying to get one tower to topple into the other. It's fortunate they stood up long enough for nearly everyone below the impacts to escape. Flying the planes into the buildings to knock them down was intentional demolition.
Probably every engineering institution on the planet has looked at the WTC collapses. If there was merit to the demolition claims there would probably be a lot more discussion of this. Sorry that I find AE911truth to be a bit on the clownish side and allergic to talking about the big picture. Some of the debunkers claim that they were able to sign up fake people to their petition, I don't know if that's true or not but I would be surprised if it wasn't.
I doubt the truth movement will ever understand how obsessing over the details of the collapses is profoundly offensive to the rest of the country.
Complicity is provable without touching the topic of the collapse of the towers after the plane crashes.
As with the coup against JFK, the WHY is far more important than the macabre details of the HOW.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I heard Kevin Ryan on KPFA a couple weeks ago and decided to give the old CD story a chance. I got fed up after a few minutes as the talk degenerated into nanospheres and physics terminology I know nothing about. Really, what is the point? Sure, some of it sounds very logical, and I can follow the argument up to a certain point, but I'M NO ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, OR EXPLOSIVES/DEMOLITION EXPERT. I didn't take my own dust samples and I don't have my own lab to analyze them.
I've said this for years--a lot of the people eating this stuff up are still looking for that elusive SMOKING GUN that will relieve all their doubt and finally allow them to make up their mind. They don't get it; they're still waiting to be convinced or waiting for the magic bullet that will convince everyone else and make them feel like they aren't alone and crazy anymore.
To do this work effectively, you have to sort of accept, paradoxically, a permanent state of not-knowing, along with a good amount of alienation.
While I'm agnostic on demolition, I lean towards the suspicion of some aid in the collapse of the towers. From all I've read and from being an eyewitness to the events who was dumbstruck by how perfectly orchestrated it all seemed, I'm not convinced that the planes brought them down. At the same time, I don't know, and I accept that I'll probably never know. There are a whole lot of other things that I do know and I can know.
What I am convinced of though, is that the controlled demolition cult has done us more harm than good. For every lazy-thinking mesmerized paranoid it's added to our ranks, it's scared away thousands of disciplined thinkers. Some people have done great work on the topic and some good people have probably been awakened through it, but overall, it's only alienated us. It should have never been put up front as an outreach/promotional tool.
As mark says, if you're obsessing over nanoparticles in some dust from 10 years ago, analyzed and peer-reviewed by god knows who, and you're not talking about the big picture, you've got a problem. These details can be a refuge from the uncertainty of the whole story (not just 9/11; the WHOLE story), giving some people the illusion that they've finally grasped something real and definitive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Posted 13 years ago # -
ya know what could be more explosive than nano-thermite?
Subpoenas
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.