25 US military officers challenge official 9/11 story

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I looked at one of the write-ups by Sunstealer. He seems to misunderstand the work done with the calorimeter.

Jones et al never state that the samples alone can melt steel.

They put the samples in a calorimeter -- and applied energy. At a certain temperature the red chips react -- and release a huge amount of energy -- for their size. In the process they produce iron droplets.

The iron was already there as iron oxide. When the reaction runs the iron droplets are a by product.

In larger quantities however- -the nanothermite will definitely melt steel.

Well perhaps Sunstealer can explain this. You can contact him on JREF: http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=20662

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Yes -- it will happen. You are wrong. Time will tell.

Well, Jones has had years and so far nada. Color me skeptical.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

OK, when his results are confirmed by independent researchers from reputable labs like the ones I've listed (not truther sham "researchers") I will be more open to his claims.

You just never let up with the circular reasoning, do you?

"Reputable" researcher: One who supports Lone Bolt's foregone conclusion, i.e., that the official BushCo account is unassailable.

"Sham" researcher: Calls the official BushCo account into question, exposes problems with the official account, etc.

[Rohirrim]

"Are those men Nazis, Walter?"
"No, Donnie. Those men are nihilists. You have nothing to fear."

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You just never let up with the circular reasoning, do you?

"Reputable" researcher: One who supports Lone Bolt's foregone conclusion, i.e., that the official BushCo account is unassailable.

"Sham" researcher: Calls the official BushCo account into question, exposes problems with the official account, etc.

You just never let up with the strawmen do you?

"Real" researcher (per LABF): One who buys into truther conspiracy theories without question.

Person who is "committed to the foregone conclusion that the Official BushCo account is right" (per LABF): Anyone who disagrees with the truthers, calls into question their logic, exposes problems with their "evidence", etc.

In your mind it's the truther view which is unassailable, and anyone who questions it is automatically a "bush lover."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

In your mind it's the truther view which is unassailable...

Um, no.

Surely you're not trying to argue that I'm on record supporting virtually every claim ever made by every truther?

You, on the other hand, have never been willing to admit that there might be some problems with the official BushCo account, as far as I can tell (show me where I'm wrong on that account if you like.)

[mhgaffney]

Evidently, Lone Bolt missed the thread I recently posted about Lt Col Anthony Shaffer, who is now calling the 9/11 Commission Report a cover up. Bolt is also unaware that Michael Scheuer, former head of the bin Laden desk at the CIA, is backing him up.

These two guys now agree with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6n2F...layer_embedded

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Evidently, Lone Bolt missed the thread I recently posted about Lt Col Anthony Shaffer, who is now calling the 9/11 Commission Report a cover up. Bolt is also unaware that Michael Scheuer, former head of the bin Laden desk at the CIA, is backing him up.

These two guys now agree with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6n2F...layer_embedded

Lone Bolt will undoubtedly continue to give more credence to anonymous clowns on an Internet discussion board who co-sign his foregone conclusions than military and intelligence professionals like Lt Col Shaffer and Mr. Scheuer.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Um, no.

Surely you're not trying to argue that I'm on record supporting virtually every claim ever made by every truther?

You, on the other hand, have never been willing to admit that there might be some problems with the official BushCo account, as far as I can tell (show me where I'm wrong on that account if you like.)

Well, that's because first of all there is no "Official BushCo account." There is a worldwide accepted narrative that is based on the evidence. So let's just drop that pretense.

Secondly, do I concede there was some arse-covering in the 911 Commission Report? Of course. Does that mean that 9-11 was an inside jobby-job? No, it doesn't.

You don't seem to be on board with every wacko truther CT, I agree. But, like with Gaffney, you are unwilling to admit that the debunker side has something worthwhile to say.

For example, when I suggested that you debate the issue on JREF you responded:

In any event, yours is the same tediously circular reasoning, i.e., "those well prepared to debate the issue" = those who share The Lone Bolt's commitment to the official BushCo account as a foregone conclusion.

You characterise the JREF posters as "committed to the official BushCo account as a foregone conclusion."

Once again, what do you base this on?

Have you debated them? Have you even bothered to listen to anything they have to say with an open mind?

No.

Apparently there is one reason and one reason only that you smear them as "committed to the official BushCo account":

They disagree with you.

That's it. The only reason.

This is solid evidence that the basic truther position that the "gubmit dunnit" is unassailable to you. You are unable to consider any other possibility.

Do you deny it?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Well, that's because first of all there is no "Official BushCo account."

Um, yes there is - it's called the "9/11 Commission Report."

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

There is a worldwide accepted narrative that is based on the evidence. So let's just drop that pretense.

Bandwagon appeal.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

......Apparently there is one reason and one reason only that you smear them as "committed to the official BushCo account":

They disagree with you.

That's it. The only reason.

You don't seem to understand the difference between matters of agreement and matters of fact.

We agree or disagree on matters of opinion.

This discussion is about matters of fact, i.e., instances in which factual assertions made by the 9/11 Commission don't stand up to scrutiny.

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

This is solid evidence that the basic truther position that the "gubmit dunnit" is unassailable to you. You are unable to consider any other possibility.

Do you deny it?

When considering "other possibilities" I have to look at the preponderance of evidence first and last.

The evidence that the Bush Crime Family knew about the attacks in advance and let them happen is overwhelming.

To have foreknowledge of such an event and to deliberately fail to act is the same thing as complicity. The net effect is most certainly the same.

[mhgaffney]

Bolt,

Did you watch Zeitgeist? (the movie)

Go here to see it:

http://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/...movie-part-ii/

[Atwater 27]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Bolt,

Did you watch Zeitgeist? (the movie)

Go here to see it:

http://vimeo.com/13726978

Bring some Acid and some tin foil. It'll seem more believable then...

[mhgaffney]

I changed the link. Here is the correct one:

http://pressthat.wordpress.com/2007/...movie-part-ii/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DennisSmith49

Bring some Acid and some tin foil. It'll seem more believable then...

I'll take that as a "no, I can't actually refute any of the points made in the film."

How typical for you.

[MplsBronco]

[QUOTE=The Lone Bolt;2993928]There is a worldwide accepted narrative


Really

[mhgaffney]

When I visited family in the DC area couple of years ago -- a Kenyan taxi driver took he to the airport. He told me that most Kenyans think 9/11 was an inside job.

That's one data point. Take it for what it's worth.

MHG