Page 3 of 3

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:14 pm
by DocZaius
Criticism of the NIST report on WTC 7 that includes links to many references: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/08/debunking-nists-conclusions-about-wtc-7.html
Okay, if you're just gonna link to a truther blog, I'm gonna do the same:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

Granted, that was all complied prior to NIST's final report, but I think it's pretty sound.

I'd prefer it if you got into specific claims rather than just point me to George Washington's blog (though what kind of cad would I be to question the first President?).
And here's the abstract of the paper looking at EPA's sampling:
Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
That's NOT an abstract of an EPA publication. That's an abstract of a truther paper. The presence of 1,3-dpp has been explained. You get that compound when you burn polystyrene.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones%27thermitethermateclaims
In this rambling defense of his theories, Jones cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite at the WTC: “Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...” (bolding mine).

Swartz’s EPA report says nothing of the kind:
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.http://tinyurl.com/rp7xg

In the report abstract, Swartz says, “In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane ...was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”

Only after Jones’ deceptive comments were publicly criticized did he include Swartz’s explanation in his presentations.
http://conspiraciesrnotus.blogspot.com/2008/10/journal-of-911-studies-caught-in-few.html
We keep hammering on the Blog that masquerades as an “academic journal” known as http://www.journalof911studies.com/. The predictions I made in a SKEPTIC Magazine article have held out: their content has dried up, and when a wellspring does gurgle up from the muck, it’s something like its last entry, August 2nd’s, by the well-known fraud Kevin Ryan: The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites.

What is a nano-thermite, you ask? Well, as Ryan misinterprets it, it’s a teeny tiny version of a thermite mixture that is orders of magnitude more powerful than its larger-grained namesake. It wouldn’t be a Kevin Ryan entry without a lie or two, and he wastes no time:


The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999).


And, of course, if we actually go to the source he cites (warning: 255 pages long, one of which he uses), we find this claim to be absolutely untrue. A “high explosive” is something that explodes instead of burns. A “low explosive” is the opposite. The article specifically states that its authors are continuing to test the new mixture’s “rate of burn” and that “Thermitic reactions are extreme exothermic reactions that involve a metal reacting with a metallic oxide to form a more stable oxide and the corresponding metal of the reactant oxide,” virtually precluding anyone from honestly thinking that they’re talking about a high explosive.

But most damning of all, the second to last paragraph of the article Ryan uses states:


Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of this energetic nanocomposite showed an exotherm at ~260?C, indicating that it is indeed energetic, whereas the trace for neat AP shows no exothermic reaction in the absence of the fuel skeleton.


Around two hundred and sixty degrees Celsius? Why, that’s cooler than the jet fuel!

How on earth could Kevin Ryan have missed this? Answer: he couldn’t have. No one could honestly be perusing legitimate resources to update their hysterical quasi-Blog and stumble across a mere one-page article, quote from all over it, and miss that one sentence. At the risk of being redundant, it appears that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are once again trying to deliberately lie to people to give their personal beliefs a veneer of academic plausibility, which they so desperately need but so utterly lack.

The other question is, why did the owner of WTC 7 say they made the decision to "pull it"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
What do you think "pull it" means? It certainly doesn't mean to demolish a building, at least not by those in the industry (and there is no reason to think that Silverstein was in the demolition business). He has explained it, and so have many others - he meant that the decision was made to get the firefighters OUT of the building. Because they knew it was only a matter of time before it collapsed.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Larry_Silverstein
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote
And why was it reported at least 20 minutes prior to the building's collapse that WTC 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing"?
I assume you're referring to the BBC report. Ask yourself: is it more likely that the British media had some foreknowledge of the planned demolition of WTC7 or is it more likely that in the panic of the day, they just got it wrong? Especially in light of reports that it was expected to collapse?

Do you remember that day? It was chaos. There were rumors of additional planes, car bombs going off at the State Department, etc.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:18 pm
by DocZaius
Here's a link to 50 facts about 9/11 that clearly justify my skepticism: http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=676
Here's a link to entire forum full of skeptics that justify my skepticism of your skepticism:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:20 pm
by annarborgator
Your points are all valid. Thanks for the other side of the debate. Like I've said, I'm not sure exactly what I believe except that I am supremely skeptical about the government's story of that day.

You've read about Operation Northwoods, right?

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:35 pm
by annarborgator
I should also say that I'm well aware of my personal bias against our federal government. My hatred for that entity knows no bounds. We all have our personal bias and it shows in the way we view everything.

I mean, doesn't your wife work for the DOJ or somebody like that? Your phones are probably tapped...you gotta toe the line! :afro:

Just fuckin with ya Z....we do all have our biases though. I admit mine is to rail against the government whenever possible because I believe it to be a manifestation of evil.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:01 pm
by DocZaius
Your points are all valid. Thanks for the other side of the debate. Like I've said, I'm not sure exactly what I believe except that I am supremely skeptical about the government's story of that day.
I can understand a healthy skepticism of government and I can understand if you think the government had some foreknowledge of the events, even if I disagree with you. I can also understand the idea that the government used 9/11 as a reason to go to war and to restrict certain liberties. After all, it happened with the sinking of the USS Maine.

But I still think the whole "controlled demolition" theory is nonsense - the facts just don't support it.
You've read about Operation Northwoods, right?
Operation Northwoods was never executed (thankfully), and if it had, I don't think it could have been pulled off in secrecy.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:03 pm
by DocZaius
I should also say that I'm well aware of my personal bias against our federal government. My hatred for that entity knows no bounds. We all have our personal bias and it shows in the way we view everything.
Nothing wrong with that. No one should trust the government.
I mean, doesn't your wife work for the DOJ or somebody like that? Your phones are probably tapped...you gotta toe the line! :afro:
Yeah, my wife was working for the tax division at DOJ, but now she's a line attorney at the USAO in Miami. In addition, my father was an FBI agent. We took a field trip to see his office in 3rd grade, and all the kids were fingerprinted. You think that was an innocent exercise in elementary education? Or do you think I have a file somewhere?
Just fuckin with ya Z....we do all have our biases though. I admit mine is to rail against the government whenever possible because I believe it to be a manifestation of evil.
No problem.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:14 pm
by annarborgator
Hell, Z......there's no telling who they have files on. Of course, at this point I'm sure they have entire warehouses of data from the illegal NSA wiretaps of the last 7 years.

I remember getting my fingerprints done in elementary school too, during a field trip to the local police station. Hmmm.

Thanks for the links debunking the controlled demolition....the biggest problem with the lack of government transparency we currently experience is that it leads me to question EVERYTHING, which is ridiculous but I feel like they've painted me into a corner with their lies and obfuscations.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:47 am
by radbag
i don't know what the context of the 'pull it' comment was so i will refrain...could be anything.

pull it with regards to saving the buildings assets ie furniture.

pull it with regards to recovery mission of people.

pull it with regards to hope that 7WTC was going to be a structurally sound building and that workers could get back in there in a few days?


that guy was the owner? says he was a lease holder....there were many businesses in 7WTC...he could've been one of many.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:50 am
by radbag
i just read the rest of the thread and apologize for chiming in just now...the docz/aa back and forth has been very interesting.

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:17 am
by DocZaius
Welcome back, rad. Where you been?

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:39 am
by radbag
meh - read the 'it sucks' thread for a lil perspective.

was gabby's bday on tuesday so i was busy entertaining friends/family...i've been enthralled in this community fundraising bowl-a-thon set for tomorrow...i've been soliciting sponsorship by local businesses and locking down all the little details to ensure a tightly run ship tomorrow...i am emceeing the event....the orange county chopper guys are coming (probably mikey)...they've signed some books and hats for us....have i told you guys that i've become a full time philanthropist?

Important thoughts...these explain my skepticism rather cogently

Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:26 pm
by radbag
here's that thread slider if you are uncomfortable with my quoting you in select ways.