Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 911 conspiracies
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  10:57:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
So, lets see a picture of this mural truck.

Was it a NYC skyline with a plane flying by?

Or was it an actual painting of WTC with a plane crashing into it?

If it was the latter, and the truck was driven by Arabic men, you do realize that it would be evidence against 9/11 being an inside job by the government?


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  11:35:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by Dude

So, lets see a picture of this mural truck.

Was it a NYC skyline with a plane flying by?

Or was it an actual painting of WTC with a plane crashing into it?

If it was the latter, and the truck was driven by Arabic men, you do realize that it would be evidence against 9/11 being an inside job by the government?


I'm curious about the significance of this, too. That is, even if there really were a truck with a painting on the side of a jet flying into the WTC, what is that proof of? I mean, nothing gives away your huge government conspiracy like painting what's going to happen on the side of your truck!
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  12:27:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
I vaguely remember a van or a panel truck being stopped, or it might have been parked, with a couple of mid-eastern looking guys in it. I don't recall any sort of painting being mentioned (which doesn't mean that there wasn't one), and ultimatly the guys were released. All pretty much a tempest in a teapot.

Did this happen in New Jersy? I really don't recall...




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26015 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  12:50:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

Saying "I will ignore the report and audio because a mural truck seems too incredible" is an argument from incredulity.
Quote someone saying that it seems too incredible. I must have missed it.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  13:08:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by j911ob

Saying "I will ignore the report and audio because a mural truck seems too incredible" is an argument from incredulity.
Quote someone saying that it seems too incredible. I must have missed it.


Your problem,. not mine.

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26015 Posts

Posted - 05/10/2007 :  13:16:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

Your problem,. not mine.
Not at all: support your claim or retract it.

Oh, that's right... you'll demand that of other people, but you hold yourself to a lesser standard.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Hondo
New Member

USA
25 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2007 :  12:37:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Hondo a Private Message
Hmmm ... let's think this through. The evil PTB pulls off the nefarious 9/11 attacks with such efficiency that only enlightened conspiracy woos see through the deception, but they advertised it on a mural truck. They use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, but get stuck there. They invade Iraq because of WMDs, but don't find any. Heh, did these Keystone Cops even remember to sneak the explosives back out of the building Flight 93 was headed for?

j911ob, maybe it's time you & your boys starting googling for reports of a mural truck in the D.C. area with "whoops" painted on it. Keep us posted ... oh, and keep up the good work.
Go to Top of Page

GeeMack
SFN Regular

USA
1093 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2007 :  13:14:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send GeeMack a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob...
Originally posted by me...

[. . .] do you consider a conspiracy involving the controlled demolition of WTC 7 to be an example of a crime that doesn't involve forensic evidence?
It could have been but they destroyed the evidence.
Are you saying that those you believe to be involved in the conspiracy destroyed any forensic evidence which shows the demolition of WTC 7 was an "inside job"? Please specify exactly who it is you believe to be active participants in the conspiracy.
Go to Top of Page

ktesibios
SFN Regular

USA
505 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2007 :  17:33:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ktesibios a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

Originally posted by GeeMack

Originally posted by j911ob...

Yeah and what about crimes that dont involve forensic evidence?
Maybe you overlooked this question, j911ob. It is directly relevant to your questions, "Since when is solving crimes about science?" and, "Yeah and what about crimes that dont involve forensic evidence?" I'm trying to clarify your inference that a possible conspiracy behind the collapse of WTC 7 may be a crime which you believe does not involve forensic evidence. So once again I'll ask, do you consider a conspiracy involving the controlled demolition of WTC 7 to be an example of a crime that doesn't involve forensic evidence?



It could have been but they destroyed the evidence.


The trouble here is that you're starting with the unproven assumption that WTC7 was an explosive demolition as your major premise, the fact that there isn't any physical evidence of this as the minor premise and concluding that the evidence was destroyed.

As support for the claim that WTC7 was an explosive demolition, this is circular reasoning.

Really, if you're just going to handwave ad hoc the-dog-ate-my-homework excuses for not having any evidence instead of presenting a body of evidence and reasoned arguments derived from it, there's really no point in trying to have any sort of dialogue.

It's rather sad that you apparently can't perceive what even Kitty can:


"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  06:51:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message
Here is what Greening recently stated at the JREF forum:

"Spherical iron particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.

Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in ALL indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”

1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)

2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)

3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.

4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).

The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.

NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects.

Nevertheless, some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings. Interestingly some of the NISTIANs posting on this site appear to be bothered by that, preferring to deny the physical evidence for molten iron.....

Oh, the IRONy!

About the suggestion that the iron spherules came from cutting operations:

1. It does NOT account for the high concentrations of airborne ZINC and the detection of zinc spherical particles in WTC dust - see the paper by E. M. Fireman entitled “Induced Sputum in Firefighters Exposed to WTC Dust” published in Environmental Health Perspectives 112(15), 1564, (2004).

2. Steel cutting operations (according to OSHA data) usually generate "fume" concentrations less than 1 mg/m^3 in the vicinity of a typical torch-cutting operation and less than 10 g of iron fume is released per operation. If there were 10,000 cutting operations at ground zero during site clean-up, that is a total of only 100 kg of iron fume. I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

3. The iron spherules were ubiquitous in the WTC dust. Thus they were easy to find in a total of say 50,000 tonnes of dust. Try finding 100 kg of something in 50,000 tonnes of material.

4. Cutting operations were carried out on average within 5 meters of the ground. Iron particles in the size range we are considering (~ 10 microns) have settling velocities such that the particles would all settle-out within 200 meters of GZ given the wind speeds recorded in Lower Manhattan in September 2001.

5. The USG

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

j911ob
Skeptic Friend

223 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  07:39:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send j911ob a Private Message
Hot off the press. Steven Jones new paper. Read it and weep.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  08:26:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Hot off the press. Steven Jones new paper. Read it and weep.

[sarcasm] Truly a smoking gun! [/sarcasm]

If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  08:49:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

Hot off the press. Steven Jones new paper. Read it and weep.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
Used flawed data and of course you'll have a flawed result. His discussion of WTC 7 is wrong, since he suggests that the collapse happened in >7 seconds, even though other data I've seen suggest a much longer period.

Also, the initial 5+ pages of self horn-tooting was a little masturbatory, no?
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26015 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  08:58:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

Here is what Greening recently stated at the JREF forum:

...

(Greening's questions about the molten steel were directed at other forum members at JREF and Physorg who were denying the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero)
And all entirely irrelevant to the question of whether government officials changed or ignored science that NIST researchers had put together.
Frank Greening's Bio:
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html
Irrelevant.
A few more recent quotes from Dr. Greening...

"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91
Argument from secret knowledge, argument from authority and argument by all-caps - no follow-up is possible, and there's no evidence presented that this anonymous professor actually disputed NIST's findings.
"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92
The above is simply a denial of what appears in the NIST report itself. It's not evidence that anybody changed the NIST report for political reasons.
"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
And this is nothing more than a plea to the uncertainties of forensic science and a rant against those people - whoever they may be - who are "NIST apologists."

Care to try again, j911ob?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26015 Posts

Posted - 05/15/2007 :  09:27:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Originally posted by j911ob

Hot off the press. Steven Jones new paper. Read it and weep.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
I am weeping with laughter. Five pages of "please believe me because I've gotten something right in a completely different discipline, I'll get the 9/11 stuff right given enough time, honest," followed by six pages on WTC 7 in which not only does he repeat the lie that WTC 7 "collapsed onto its own footprint," but begins with a discussion of momentum calculations which he never performs. Instead, he rambles on about "other possibilities" and expresses (with an exclamation point!) his own incredulity at the possibility it fell on its own.

Was this supposed to be peer-reviewed? I can't find any information on the process for that journal, of which Jones is one of two editors. I think it's pretty obvious what's happened here, and to call it "peer review" would be a joke.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.22 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000