Conspiracy v. fact 9/11

[tomk52]

81. I thought you truthers gave up...

Sorry, I haven't checked here in awhile.

All of my comments addressed the Harrit, Jones, Farrer fiasco.

it would be nice if you responded to any one of my points?

Do you think any of the authors had the slightest prior experience performing forensic chemical analysis?

Do you agree that many tens of thousands of papers get published every year, even in quality peer-reviewed technical journals (much less rags like Bentham), that turn out to be simple wrong?

Do you think that unbiased, objective replication of results by competent experts is therefore a critical step for discovering real truth of issues?

Can you come up with any reason that, in ~5 years, none of those researchers has attempted to have their results replicated by such experts?

Can you come up with any reason, any reason at all, why they refuse to present their case to a competent review board of experienced, unbiased engineers? Or why they choose to post on the internet, present to college kids & Truther conventions instead?

Can you come up with a reason that they performed non-definitive tests themselves, when cheap, standard, definitive tests - and accredited testing labs - are readily available?

I can give you - explicitly - the one reason that explains all of the above: they KNOW they screwed the pooch, and that their paper is crap.
___

Now, for your tangent…

"The NIST animation ..." NIST did no animation of the collapse of either tower. I have heard Dr. Corley state explicitly that "there is some suggestion that the cores buckled first." with the rapidly increasing bowing of the outer columns, "exactly which piece broke first" is both uncertain & irrelevant.

So, you must be talking their WTC7 animation.

Or are you just making stuff up??

"The core beams still standing while the building collapses around it"??? You're not serious, are you?

What does the 9/11 Commission Report (a report done by lawyers & politicians) have to do with the structural collapse of any WTC building? Nothing. That was done by NIST.

The planes weren't "vaporized". That's a stupid, meaningless term that truthers throw around. Parts of the planes melted (including aluminum, but not steel or titanium), parts burned (likely including some aluminum), and some number of micrograms likely "vaporized" in plasma discharges known as "sparks".

Last I heard, NO terrorist family member gave comparison DNA. It appears that they believe that their kin were the hijackers & chose not to assist in the "exoneration of their 'falsely accused' kin". Any explanation for this behavior that you'd like to offer?

3 out of the 10 hijackers were specifically ID'd in 2 NYC planes (by comparison to hair & tissue in car & hotels). Tissue samples from all 9 PA & Pentagon hijackers were GENERICALLY ID'd (as "middle eastern man", but not to specific individuals) by process of elimination. Because the families wouldn't help & they couldn't come up with comparison tissue samples.

"How does windows in lobby get blown out, but windows above are intact?" Easy, if you understand freshman mechanics. Ever bury a stick in the ground & then hit it hard enough to snap? It snaps right at ground level. Higher levels are not broken. Why?

"Janitor's testimony in Commission Report". Janitor's testimony, plus a million other people's, is 100% irrelevant to any & all topics in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Please state your conclusion regarding "Janitor's testimony", PLUS how it fits into larger narrative of 9/11 events. Note that it would have been more convincing if Rodriguez had stopped changing his story every few months...

"He felt explosion a second or two before impact."

He heard one "boom" & then a 2nd "boom". There is nothing that allows Rodriguez to determine that the 2nd boom was the impact (88 stories above), rather than one of the other 100+ "booms" that occurred at ground level as things broke, fell to the floor, fuel exploded out of elevator, etc.

"Minetta said Cheney ordered stand-down"?? Feel free to provide a reference & construct a cogent argument for this. Nobody's provided one thus far.

Looking forward to your reply...