There are civilized debunkers out there. Just gotta know where to look!

This is a debate I had with a debunker awhile back. This discussion I had is total proof that it is possible to have a rational and intellectual debate with a debunker. (The tone of this debate, as you will see, is completely in contrast with my previous debate.) Here is my discussion with debunker Gunny467, regarding the thermite theory and nano-thermite paper. It's a short debate, but a refreshing one:

AdamT:

Hello Gunny. I wanted to pick up from where we left off in our discussion. I see from your channel that you are open to a civil debate that you would like to finish. And that's fine, just keep the debate civil on your end as well. Now, to pick up from where we left off on the chain of custody issue, I have a few questions. The claim I keep hearing from many is that there is no proper chain of custody for the four samples Dr. Jones has obtained, therby the samples are possibly contaminated. However, the one thing I have yet to hear explained is what this alleged contamination is supposed to have done to the samples. What exactly do you think happened to the samples that caused Dr. Jones and the others to come to the conclusions that they did? Because as far as I know, other studies by other groups such as the RJ Lee group and the USGS group have found similar elements in their own samples, particularly finding the iron-rich spheres. I would really like to hear your input. Thank you.

Gunny:

Well, with no clear chain of custody it can't be proven that the samples he tested were from ground zero. It's possible they were substituted en route to a destination. Another possibility is that they were contaminated by improper handling. The motive for tampering is easy, money. He's made a substantial dollar amount doing lectures and tours about his findings. Money he wouldn't have made if there wasn't a paper. If a chain of custody issue had been raised with the official samples most conspiracy theorists would have said it indicated proof of a conspiracy. I see no reason to hold Dr. Jones to the same standards. Iron rich spheres by themselves aren't indicative of a thermite reaction. His paper starts with the answer he wants and devises questions to get there. He ignores any data that doesn't fit his theory. It's bad science.

AT:

The first thing I should point out is that you're right, the samples didn't come from Ground Zero. They came from areas away from Ground Zero such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other buildings in the city. That proves that they were not contaminated by the cleanup efforts. Second, I really doubt he is doing this for money. He basically gave up his job to investigate 9/11. And I see no evidence what so ever that Dr. Jones is just lying about the dust. Again, other studies have essentially found the same things. Also, didn't NIST start with a conclusion and tried to find evidence that supported their conclusion? I do think the iron spheres are extremely important because their presence implies that iron had melted. Iron does not melt until temperatures of 2800 degrees F. I can't think of anything that could cause that except thermite.

Gunny:

Well not necessarily. Acetylene torches welding steel can have that effect, so someone collecting a sample that had been contaminated from cast of near a construction site not in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero. Specifically, if a sample was collected from the Brookline bridge, the amount of contamination from vehicle cast of would be enormous. Any truck carrying welded scraps to or from a dump could have left iron sphere contaminated dust on the bridge. The samples weren't collected by professionals, but by supposedly by random people who wanted some of the dust. He didn't then test the samples for four years after they were collected by people with no experience in handling evidence. This casts considerable doubt on the initial integrity of his samples. In addition certain types of paint (specifically rust preventative paints) have varying levels of them as a byproduct of their manufacturing process. College professors don't really make a lot of money, unless they publish an important paper. I've read the NIST report. It doesn't have a specific conclusion at all. It's presented facts indicate to an almost certain degree of probability that events happened in a manner consistent with a catastrophic failure due to an impact with a jetliner. The steel didn't melt. It was weakened by several hours of exposure to a high intensity fire caused by burning fuel. The already massive damage to the superstructure resulted in a systemic failure of the support structure resulting in collapse. In addition to the information already sent, I would like to note that the molten metal pouring from the building is suspected to be from the remains of the Jetliner itself, as it's aluminum body melted from the intense heat.

AT:

To address the iron sphere issue, I would agree with you about them except for the fact that they were also found by the RJ Lee group and the USGS group. Particularly the RJ Lee group who obtained their samples from the Deutchse Bank building for environmental studies. They found the exact same type of iron spheres across the street from the WTC, so the cleanup could not possibly have produced the spheres at least there anyway. The USGS also found these spheres in their own dust analysis. The acetylene torches have been raised as a possibility, but they are a highly unlikely cause since spheres from thermite and spheres from torches have distinct differences. This is a good video that addresses this issue:



Also, the material flowing out of the South Tower does not appear to be from the plane. I have made a video addressing this issue:



Gunny:

Well, I really want you to understand that this is not a brush off, but instead me gathering my files and taking some time to address those points in turn from the second video. This response might take a while. Perhaps by Sunday I'll have a list of compiled statements and counter theories. Is this acceptable? The amount of time needed to address all these points is something I'm going to have to juggle in my off time between retraining from injury, redeployment and continuing education. If things go well I should be out of the hospital by Saturday which will give me enough time to put a proper counter-argument together.

AT:

That's fine. Whenever you get around to it is fine with me. I'm in no rush.

Gunny:

Thank you for your generosity! In case you hadn't noticed you've made my Cool Wall in my profile for your continued good natured debating, in addition to your well articulated and presented arguments.

AT:

I did notice, and thank you. I am always open to a civil debate.
___________________________________________________________

Since then, Gunny has not responded back, but it was quite nice to have a rational debate for a change(I don't get many). You can get a good conversation out of Gunny467. As long as you're civil with him, he'll be civil with you. Which, of course, is how it always should be.

Debunkers = Fish in a Barrel

YouTube.com:

ctcole77 (2 days ago) 911 TRUTH = 911 LIES

The history channel aired your favorite show last night :) "911 DEBUNKED"

911debunkerschannel (1 day ago)

"911 TRUTH = 911 LIES"

History Channel Hit Piece = Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_dirty_tricks.htm

ctcole77 (1 hour ago)

History Channel SCIENCE Piece = Educated expert testimony

Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it

Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which a physicist claims to be an expert in chemistry

911 TRUTH = 911 LIES

911debunkerschannel (44 minutes ago)

"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it"

"The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.". Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that." - Source: http://911blogger.com/node/19963

What you need to know about "Peer-review":

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put.html

"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which a physicist claims to be an expert in chemistry"

"First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/" - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-discovered-in.html

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile Discusses 9/11 WTC Dust:

http://911blogger.com/node/20998

Oh... and the work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed!:

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150907_nist_investigate_911.html

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers Topics discussed include the "debunkers" take on the new scientific paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," and defence thereof.

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

'Debunking NIST's Conclusions About WTC 7 is as Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel' and other Responses to 8/21/08 NIST Briefing on WTC7

No fish were harmed in the posting of this blog. Being a vegetarian I prefer my fish bullet-free. But in the interest of debunking the debunkers that would have you believe shooting fish in a barrel is not actually easy: