Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Osama Confession Video [View all]William Seger
(11,047 posts)80. Why would I alert on your funniest post yet?
> The paper is very clear about the testing of the paint chips.
"Very clear," huh? One of the many glaring omissions in that paper is that it doesn't say squat about what kind of paint they tested, which is yet another example of how laughably unscientific the paper is. But from an email from Jones, we do know this much:
We used an epoxy paint used to paint the stadium at BYU, supposing that to be relatively resistant to solvent attack.
Exactly as I said, they didn't even ATTEMPT to test paint similar to that used in the WTC, apparently "supposing" that all paint is alike, which means that (A) the paint tests described in the paper are completely meaningless, and (B) as "scientists" these guys are just clowns.
This was not something unknowable, either: From the NIST report, we do know of two specific paints that were used, and you might imagine that these "scientists" would be highly embarrassed to learn that one of them is a remarkably good match to their red/gray chips.
> You're a lying sack of crap.
You lose. Wanna play again?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
97 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So I say 'you have nothing', and ask for the *actual* refutations of the paper....
The Doctor.
Oct 2012
#65
We got here because in another thread I said that there is no hard evidence
The Doctor.
Oct 2012
#18
You seem to be having difficulty with the English Language and very simple concepts.
cpwm17
Oct 2012
#30
So a video of someone bragging about comitting a crime is not hard evidence?
The Doctor.
Oct 2012
#38
Your faulty logic, arrogant assertions, and outright distortions of what's been said in this thread
William Seger
Oct 2012
#49
Oh, so you think maybe bin Laden might have painted the buildings with exploding paint?
William Seger
Oct 2012
#56
Why should I expect that explaining it a fourth time would make a difference?
William Seger
Oct 2012
#44
Yer just about off the deep end here. I don't recall telling Tombs anything in person.
The Doctor.
Oct 2012
#46
Yes, you've convinced me that you'll keep repeating the same nonsense over and over
William Seger
Oct 2012
#59
That's rather authoritarian of you to accept the FBI so righteously, The Doctor.
Bolo Boffin
Oct 2012
#68
So now you believe there is a conspiracy theory that the FBI dismisses hard evidence?
The Doctor.
Nov 2012
#76
If you can't understand the words "hard evidence" when they are put together,
The Doctor.
Nov 2012
#79
I already showed you a link concerning Osama's claims of responsibility for 9-11
cpwm17
Nov 2012
#84