Silverstein's 4.5 Billion

[sKiTzo]

I have seen the links. I have looked at info posted by those that say the dust contained nanothermite. I also have looked at info that says it does not.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

What is interesting is the route used to publish the Jones/Harriet paper by using a pay to publish journal. Ever wonder why no other pub pick it up?

So we have one group saying the chips are thermite. Another independent group saying no.

Last question. Why didn't Harriet/Jones ask an independent lab to analyze and confirm their results? Yes, so other "truther" scientist back the paper. Since so many are skeptical of govt. labs and their findings. Why should I not be skeptical of results confirmed by anther truther?

They ARE an independent lab. Put yourself in his shoes. If you were to ask another lab to verify your own results, it would be saying you are not completely certain about your work. Just because he hasn't asked another lab to verify his results doesn't mean that he has or would deny another lab this opportunity. I'm sure he is quite open to that.

The other huge factor that you're not considering is that the entities who do not want this information disseminated are far-reaching. You seem to be underestimating the power they wield over the scientific community while on the other hand, truthers want the truth. Truthers would love nothing more than to be wrong about this whole issue, but cannot base their being wrong on lies. So what good would it do then, to be right if it is also based on lies?

The whole thing about it is to bring out the truth and hold the guilty accountable. If you have to lie to do that, you have defeated the whole purpose. You can't expose pieces of SH_T by being a piece of SH_T. So when you make these implications about the professors and journalists who are quite frankly putting their lives at risk to bring out the truth, it just makes no sense at all.

 

[mike2810]

They ARE an independent lab. Put yourself in his shoes. If you were to ask another lab to verify your own results, it would be saying you are not completely certain about your work. Just because he hasn't asked another lab to verify his results doesn't mean that he has or would deny another lab this opportunity. I'm sure he is quite open to that.

The other huge factor that you're not considering is that the entities who do not want this information disseminated are far-reaching. You seem to be underestimating the power they wield over the scientific community while on the other hand, truthers want the truth. Truthers would love nothing more than to be wrong about this whole issue, but cannot base their being wrong on lies. So what good would it do then, to be right if it is also based on lies?

The whole thing about it is to bring out the truth and hold the guilty accountable. If you have to lie to do that, you have defeated the whole purpose. You can't expose pieces of SH_T by being a piece of SH_T. So when you make these implications about the professors and journalists who are quite frankly putting their lives at risk to bring out the truth, it just makes no sense at all.

No, its about creditability. With such a topic as 911, the more backers the better, don't yo think.
Then why do some say that a lab that supports no thermite must be tied to the govt, when they are not?
You can't have it both ways.

As far as truth.
Then those that came out it was mini nukes , must be telling the truth
Those that said, there was no planes it was computer graphic images must be right?
Look at the source, then decide if its creditable.

 

[sKiTzo]

No, its about creditability. With such a topic as 911, the more backers the better, don't yo think.
Then why do some say that a lab that supports no thermite must be tied to the govt, when they are not?
You can't have it both ways.

As far as truth.
Then those that came out it was mini nukes , must be telling the truth

Those that said, there was no planes it was computer graphic images must be right?
Look at the source, then decide if its creditable.

As I explained in my previous post, (You have a far-reaching entity that wields great power over the scientific community who is going to do anything and everything to see to it this information that thermite was used does not become known. Then you have scientists who have absolutely no reason to lie saying and proving thermite was used. Given these facts alone why would you treat the thermite camp with the same level of suspicion as the no thermite camp?
This is a very rational point I just made. If you're going to rebutt it, it should be an equally rational (or better) counterpoint.

You said the more backers the better...well, you're not going to say there aren't more backers for the thermite scenario than all the others combined, are you? I don't see an architects and engineers and firemen against truthers website, do you? If you know of such a website where a large group of thousands of professionals have banded together against the thermite scenario, please post it.

 

[mike2810]

As I explained in my previous post, (You have a far-reaching entity that wields great power over the scientific community who is going to do anything and everything to see to it this information that thermite was used does not become known. Then you have scientists who have absolutely no reason to lie saying and proving thermite was used. Given these facts alone why would you treat the thermite camp with the same level of suspicion as the no thermite camp?
This is a very rational point I just made. If you're going to rebutt it, it should be an equally rational (or better) counterpoint.

You said the more backers the better...well, you're not going to say there aren't more backers for the thermite scenario than all the others combined, are you? I don't see an architects and engineers and firemen against truthers website, do you? If you know of such a website where a large group of thousands of professionals have banded together against the thermite scenario, please post it.

You provide no real evidence of teh "far reaching entity" discouraging independent research on 911.

Your point of little or no fireman, engineer web sites that support the no thermite stance is meaningless.

You missed my point. If Jones/Harriet are so sure , they should have had their results confirmed by an independent lab. They did not,.

You did not respond to the link that I provided with a paper that shows the red chips are not nanothermite.

Do you believe 100% what is posted on CT sites?

 

[sKiTzo]

You provide no real evidence of teh "far reaching entity" discouraging independent research on 911.

A BYU professor had spoken out about it and was starting to do lectures. Dubya Bush visited BYU that same week and spoke with elders. Two days later, the professor (Jones) was fired.

After flight 93 allegedly crashed in a field, Shanksville coroner Wally Miller was among the first to arrive on the scene. He walked around for 20 minutes and then left. He was interviewed by the media right then, and he told them he left "because there were no bodies". HE DID NOT SAY that he left "because there were no bodies - BUT THERE WERE BODY PARTS". Later, after the FBI got there and spoke with Wally, he then gave a subsequent interview saying he couldn't believe that when he said "no bodies", people actually thought he really meant "no bodies".

There's two examples. I'm surprised - or actually - I'm a little doubtful that you really thought that. Who doesn't know the resources of government are vast? Who would really think they can't or don't intimidate, threaten, or otherwise coerce?

Your point of little or no fireman, engineer web sites that support the no thermite stance is meaningless.

You said the more backers the better - until I reminded you just how many backers there are, and of course now it's "meaningless".

You missed my point. If Jones/Harriet are so sure , they should have had their results confirmed by an independent lab. They did not,.

In the one you posted, there was also no mention of their results being confirmed by another lab.

This statement from the Jones website I couldn't immediately confirm: "Corroborating evidence of Dr. Jones’s results includes testing by government agencies and private independent laboratories (see test results below)."

You did not respond to the link that I provided with a paper that shows the red chips are not nanothermite.

I just read the entire paper. They admit that the chips they used are from different locations and that their replication process was different.

What do you think of what this man has to say?

Do you believe 100% what is posted on CT sites?

The FBI, CIA, and other of these types that we're up against, are very devious and dirty, and their success is dependant upon that their be lots of people just like you who are unwilling to grasp how they operate.

I would believe 100% of the scientific data presented on a genuine CT site. A CT site that posts information that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I would suspect to be a site set up by the government in order to discredit the truther movement. I would expect them to do this...