Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
Bob posted:
I don’t have to chart the courses of the planes myself, the NTSB did it for me using data from the primary radar. Between when the transponders were turned off and when the planes hit the buildings they were continuously painted several times a minute by the primary radars. You made an insinuation (which you never even tried to explain the significance of) based on a factoid and now you’re caught like a deer in the headlights by data that you can’t fit into your conspiracy theory (whatever it was). Neither of the planes went into a hole in the primary radar and there is data to prove it (unless you think the NTSB flight plan studies were faked). And what do you think I was lying about? I looked at the figure you indicated and, as I recall, the nearest hole in the primary radar coverage was over New Hampshire or Vermont and as you can see in the flight path, AA11 stayed in the airspace of Massachusetts and New York.
The paper establishes that there is no reason to suspect controlled demolition based on observations of the collapse. The only reference to the dust in the paper is regarding how the dust cloud was generated and expanded (it makes the Jim Hoffman analysis you linked look like it was written in crayon, by the way – just my opinion). The findings in the Harrit paper (even if you believe everything they claim) do not impact the Bazant conclusions in any way. It does not address the absence or presence of thermite, it addresses the absence or presence of controlled demolition based on observations of the collapse and finds that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit.
Really. What you said was:
“The non-fungibility of the nano-thermite makes it more unique than DNA.”
I believe this to be a ridiculous statement since DNA is a blueprint for an individual and super-thermite is an unusually fine mixture of a handful of compounds, but let’s examine further. The Harrit paper gives references to show that super-thermite exists and alleges that it is non-fungible (nothing wrong with saying that, but it’s not supported by evidence in the paper). It then shows that the chips could be super-thermite without considering how the chips could have ended up in the dust if they were part of a super-thermite device. It does not address the question of whether or not the chips are fungible. Up to this point, everything is fine – a little prosaic maybe, but fine – then they make the extraordinary claim that the sample is undoubtedly super-thermite (with the clear implication that it was originally part of some sort of demolition charge). Extraordinary conclusions require extraordinary evidence and they haven’t even shown ordinary evidence that justifies this conclusion. What makes this conclusion extraordinary is the conclusion in Bazant that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit. To use your arson analogy, if the fire inspectors find that there’s no reason to suspect arson then someone saying that they found signs of incendiaries without making even a cursory effort to rule out other potential sources of the samples they found (when all the ingredients in the incendiaries were lying around and could have combined in the fire) or explain how their samples resulted from the device they’re alleging was the source is not going to be taken very seriously. If Harrit, et al. want the scientific community to seriously consider their allegations, they need to do their due diligence and and obtain evidence that satisfies their whole burden of proof, not just a portion of it.
I don’t think that the paper made the case for what they claimed. I have explained specifically what they failed to show and discussed why I think it is important. If you disagree, please argue your case as to why the paper provides enough evidence to justify its conclusions. Aren’t you always saying arguing is reason giving? I’ve given reasons why we shouldn’t credit the extraordinary conclusions of the Harrit paper – you seem unable to find any reasons why we should.
I didn’t know who you meant and when I looked up the name you gave I found an Alaskan serial killer.
Slarti: “I think you mean Robert Hanssen.”
Unless you didn’t know I was referring to the worst traitor since Benedict Arnold, you’re being a dick.
Slarti: Hey! Maybe the holes in the primary radar are in the Aether – maybe that’s why you couldn’t point them out on the primary radar data!
The holes in the primary radar were classified and later set forth in the map I linked you to.
See: Surveillance Implications of 9/11 — Steve Bussolari, MIT Lincoln Laboratory Page 6
http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/icnsconf/y2002/
You can chart the courses of the planes out for yourself, or I can save you some time and email them to you. Just stop lying.
Slarti: “The Bazant paper implies that not only is there no scientific evidence that thermite was used to initiate and/or sustain the collapse but, in fact, the hypothesis of deliberately placed explosives or incendiaries of any form has no scientific merit”
How does a paper written before discovery of active thermitic material in the dust of the WTC confirm the non-existence of such material?
“In the end what we have is that the science says that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit and the science says that the chips might have been from super-thermite.”
This is as intellectually dishonest as your twisting of my words regarding the non-fungability of DNA here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/08/01/australian-public-schools-teaching-humans-and-dinosaurs-co-existed/#comment-152608
What science ‘says that the chips may have been FROM super-thermite?’ The paper shows what the chips ARE; not where they may have come from.
Why can’t you attempt to make a point without misrepresenting what the paper says?
Apology accepted.
Buddha,
Sorry, I spoke badly. I think that one of the worst ironies of the Bush administration is that their response to 9/11 (culminating in the invasion of Iraq) did more to accomplish Al-Quaeda’s aims than they could have possibly hoped for. Certainly I have no problem with questioning the government – I believe that protesting the government when you think it’s wrong is equally as patriotic an act as serving in the military. Asking if it’s possible if the collapse of the WTC was due to controlled demolition is fine – it’s continuing to promote theories after they’ve been repeatedly debunked in the face of what I think is the overwhelming scientific probability that it didn’t happen that bothers me. I’ve been digging through truther sites this weekend and some of these people are odious (the Loose Change guys, in particular). Anyway, it’s got me kind of techy and I apologize.
Slarti,
“But if there wasn’t a (government) conspiracy, then blaming the government helps al-Qaeda achieve their goals.”
Did I say government conspiracy?
No.
I’ve used the word conspiracy. Usually conditioned with the word “possible” in relationship to the WTC.
However, the WTC is a side bar. A carnival of distraction. Always was, always will be.
That some members of the PNAC/Fascist conspiracy to undermine the Constitution and create a Neocon conservative dictatorship may have been or still are governmental employees is inconsequential to the nature of that crime if committed as criminals are criminals no matter what they claim to be. Their social standing is even less consequential to seeking justice against any and all perpetrators from our country as well as abroad in the name of justice. We, as Americans, claim to be a country of laws and not men but refusing to consider that our leaders may in fact act contrary to our interests as citizens is naive. TARP? Need I say more? Apparently I do to emphasize that Washington has sold out to corporatists so I’ll say “health care reform” and by that I mean “insurance bailout”. Refusing to investigate them is a violation of the duty to protect the Constitution that every elected official and lawyer in this country takes.
Indigenous fascist threats are nothing new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that they have succeeded this time. And I make that statement still fully thinking the WTC argument will never lead to the guilty. But then again, that’s what a distraction is supposed to do. Make you not pay attention to the real attacks.
And when Obama said there would be no investigation of Bush and their blatant and multiple treasonous acts?
That sealed the deal to me.
And that’s why I’m going to help pick up the pieces.
This current crop in Washington won’t take a shit without a corporate campaign contribution.
And that path leads to blood and madness. All fascist governments – whether hiding as a monarchy or democracy or a dictatorship have all ended with populist uprisings. And it will happen here too. Maybe not today. Maybe not next week or next year, but that is the same path the French trod upon just before Dr. Guillotine’s invention got put to on the “nobles”.
And “aid Al-Quaed”. Aid Al-Qaeda?
Fuck Al-Quaeda. I know a tool is not the user.
But equally fuck those in Washington who have no duty but to their own vanity, greed and overblown sense of self-importance. No man is above the law or there is no justice. Justice is more important to a free society than any thing (read that again because it’s true) and especially more so than protecting the damned Bush and Cheney families and their Saudi masters.
Letting known war criminals and traitors walk free does geometrically more damage to the U.S. and our standing abroad than if we had pictures of Cheney lighting a fuse on the WTC.
Conspiracy? You’re goddamn right there’s a conspiracy. But whether it instigated or merely seized upon the WTC with opportunistic abandon is irrelevant. The Constitution is imperiled. And the only people who can do that?
Are in Washington.
Do the math on that before suggesting I’d ever further Al-Quaeda for anything. Other than getting destroyed. Just like I want the internal enemies of the Constitution destroyed. They are both fanatical sects worshiping death and money.
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” – Thomas Jefferson in his Inaugural Address.
Equal justice is what the Taliban and like minded loonies hate about this country because they can’t ride roughshod over people’s rights and have “honor killings” and child brides and mutilations and all the other barbarisms that mark Sharia as a bad idea.
Well, bad news, old bean. Those fuckers in Washington are doing their best to make this an inequal and unjust society.
Me help Al-Quaeda by questioning the government and their possible involvement in destroying our Constitutional Rights (and the economy)?
Au contraire, mon frère.
By questioning and seeking to hold accountable bad actors within our government and securing the Rights guaranteed are respected and the spirit of the Declaration upheld, I am in fact doing Al-Quaeda harm. Just as I am doing harm to the domestic enemy. Our body politic has cancer. Just like the body politic of Saudi Arabia has cancer.
Just call me Chemo. However, that hypothetical “aren’t you helping Al-Quaeda” question was not just inflammatory. It was bullshit. There is no greater duty an American has than to question the government and demand they be held accountable. Or in the words of Winston Churchill, “Do not criticize your government when out of the country. Never cease to do so when at home.”
Bob,
I think you mean Robert Hanssen.
Slarti: “even if the towers were packed to the ceilings with super-duper-ultra thermite (it explodes, it burns, it slices, it dices… 😉 ) there’s no scientific reason to think that it had something to do with the collapse – this is certainly relevant to our argument.”
Of course not; and I’m sure James Joule called you from the grave to personally confirm this as well.
I was paraphrasing the conclusions of the Bazant paper. You know – the one you haven’t read because you don’t want to admit you can’t refute the science? The fact that there is a paper that you are unable to refute that says that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit is highly relevant to this argument and your unwillingness to acknowledge it is amusing. You like to accuse me of missing the elephant in the room, but here you are studiously ignoring a whole herd! I have to hand it to you, you are a master of throwing stones from a glass house.
Slarti: When the paper was published is only important insofar as there is new information available which affects its conclusions.
Aether doesn’t exist.
Hey! Maybe the holes in the primary radar are in the Aether – maybe that’s why you couldn’t point them out on the primary radar data! The conclusions of the Harrit paper (that uncontrolled samples of WTC dust have chips in them that may have resulted from super-thermite), do not effect the arguments in the Bazant paper (that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit). Even if you credited the Harrit paper what it claims rather than what it provides evidence for, it wouldn’t be relevant to what is concluded by Bazant, et al. Controlled demolition requires not just the presence of thermite*, it also implies that the thermite was used in initiating and/or sustaining the collapse. The Bazant paper implies that not only is there no scientific evidence that thermite was used to initiate and/or sustain the collapse but, in fact, the hypothesis of deliberately placed explosives or incendiaries of any form has no scientific merit (just in case you wanted to use the ‘WTC was nuked’ theory).
*I’m using the term thermite in a general sense – explosive or incendiary thermitic charges
Slarti: The Harrit paper doesn’t provide any information which effects the analysis of what work was done by manufactured thermitic materials in the collapse
It also didn’t discuss the masturbatory habits of Spider Monkeys; your point?
Just so you know, ‘work done by manufactured thermitic materials’ refers to beams being weakened or severed by deliberately placed charges. ‘Work’ in that sentence refers to a process in which energy is transferred or converted. My point is that the Harrit paper sheds no light on the issues addressed in the Bazant paper, therefore it in no way refutes its conclusions.
Slarti: Peer review isn’t a magical imprimatur which puts a paper’s credibility beyond question – not all peer-review processes are equally stringent.
Let’s save us a bunch of time; if you’re going to attack the paper on the basis of something outside of the content of the paper, then DO SO WITH SPECIFICITY. Enough with the innuendo crap; it’s getting old.
The peer review process is an indicator of quality, not a guarantor of quality. Outside the content of the paper, it is associated with Dr. Jones who has known issues with ethics and the quality of his work (in fact, making claims that are not supported by the evidence he presents is practically his trademark). It makes me suspicious when a paper he helped author makes claims not supported by the evidence.
Slarti: “The paper gives evidence that the samples might be super-thermite. It in no way addresses the question of whether or not it could be something else.”
The paper shows it is in fact the hoof of a zebra.
No, the paper didn’t have a zebra hoof for comparison, much less a zebra, they just saw a zebra in a book and pointed out that it shared some properties with the sample.
Slarti: They didn’t attempt to rule out (or even consider) any other possible source for the chips.
And here you go again; wishing you can find some ‘natural phenomena’ to hoist a cloud of bullshit and make people believe that this ultrafine-grain and intimately mixed material popped out of the ass of a leprechaun. Source indeed.
Show me one bit of evidence in the paper that the material in question could only have resulted from a manufactured explosive or that the properties they observed in the material were not shared by other materials in the collapse. I’ve linked scholarly articles saying that thermitic reactions were possible, even expected, video of thermitic explosions without secret, high-tech explosives, and evidence of an unintended thermitic reaction and yet you still don’t think it’s necessary to address these issues?
Slarti: They didn’t show (or even consider) a plausible method of producing the samples using super-thermite.
You are aware that the samples ACTED LIKE SUPER-THERMITE and were not the byproducts thereof; aren’t you?
Yes. So how do you get chips of super-thermite in the dust? If it were set off, I wouldn’t expect it to remain intact (undetonated/ignited). If it wasn’t set off, what fractured it into little bits? Does super-thermite paint, for instance, shatter in this manner under conditions that might have been present?
Slarti: I guess we need a new classification: TOP SECRET: MYTHBUSTERS. Jamie speculated that the
Are you kidding me?
I showed video of a thermitic explosion shown on national TV and repeated the speculation (clearly identified as such) of a television personality known for using the scientific method. You really don’t understand the idea of judging arguments on their merits, do you?
[At this point, Bob apparently ran out of arguments and tried to ridicule what he couldn’t refute for a while.]
Slarti: I don’t know how likely it is because they didn’t show that the samples could have been produced from super-thermite (for instance, would super-thermite paint produce the chips? What would have to happen to it to produce similar chips?) nor did they rule out any ‘natural’ source although all of the ingredients are present and unintended thermitic reactions (and explosions) are at least possible.
Natural source for a substance that didn’t exist on earth until 1995….
The Harrit paper shows that it MAY have been such a substance, not that it MUST have been such a substance. I would have thought that you would understand the logical difference.
[more of Bob’s funny distractions]
In the end what we have is that the science says that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit and the science says that the chips might have been from super-thermite. If Dr. Harrit and/or Dr. Jones find evidence that the dust MUST have been from super-thermite, I’ll be happy to consider it, but until then the weight of the science leans towards no controlled demolition.
Hindenburg Announcer Guy: “Oh the humanity!”
‘people within the government’.
Heavens forefend! You don’t mean to say that our government could be infiltrated by people like Robert Hansen do you?
Fine Bob, ‘people within the government’.
“But if there wasn’t a (government) conspiracy,”
Why would there have to be? In fact, if the ‘government’ did it, then it would be impossible to have the ‘government’ prosecute itself now wouldn’t it?
A few bad apples indicates at the very least that the tree isn’t dead.
Buddha,
But if there wasn’t a (government) conspiracy, then blaming the government helps al-Qaeda achieve their goals. And I would advocate locking the perps in the deepest, darkest hole we have and having their only contact with humanity when their tray of gruel is slid through the door.
My bad, should read:
Buddha: “The conspirators would deserve to be pulled into the street and set on fire.”
Categorical Imperative: “Deserve’s got nothin to do with it.”
Buddha: “Death would be too kind for Americans who might have conspired to commit an act of war against America.
AY: “The conspirators would deserve to be pulled into the street and set on fire.”
Categorical Imperative: “Deserve’s got nothin to do with it.”
Byron,
You can set someone on fire and not kill them.
And you can keep them alive almost indefinitely.
Death would be too kind for Americans who might have conspired to commit an act of war against America.
Buddha:
“AY,
Yep. That whole “if it is” question. Because if there was a conspiracy?
The conspirators would deserve to be pulled into the street and set on fire.
End of story.”
I always knew you were a sofety. Just set them on fire? Isnt that a rather light sentence? 🙂
AY,
Yep. That whole “if it is” question. Because if there was a conspiracy?
The conspirators would deserve to be pulled into the street and set on fire.
End of story.
I am picking up on the jest of this, some say its an inside job and some say that it wasn’t. I subscribe to the conspicuous conspiracy theory….. Why was George reading a book upside down and why was Cheney no where to be found? How come no Federal Employee died at the World Trade Center or the Oklahoma City Bombing? This may not be true, but if it is…..
Slarti: “By the way, Bob, if you’d care to explain how Harrit’s paper in any way impacts the conclusions in Bazant, et al., I’d appreciate it. Be sure to be specific – it’s the intellectually honest thing to do”
Why continue theorizing about how the towers collapsed because of the properties of aether when Harrit has shown that aether doesn’t exist?