Novella on the Jerusalem “UFO” “Video”

Ooh, look: It’s a video showing a UFO hovering over Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock Temple Mount:

Except it’s not, as Steven Novella (*swoon*) patiently explains in Jerusalem UFO:

UFO-blogger has uncovered this photograph, which looks suspiciously like the background of the video. It now seems like this photo was used to generate the CG, and the voices were just added over. Once I saw this I went back over the video to see if this fits, and it does. You’ll notice that in the video no lights in the city sparkle, twinkle, or shift at all. Their flares are all absolutely static – because it’s not a video, its a still picture. I’ll have to keep this effect one in mind for the future. Also, I think I notice some pixelization when the camera “zooms” – because it’s not a real zoom, it’s a digital zoom into the photo. I suppose it’s possible that a video camera has a digital zoom, but in my experience most video cameras these days have a pretty high optical zoom function.

So this video is totally busted as a fake.

Ayup.

92 Responses to “Novella on the Jerusalem “UFO” “Video””

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    jbc,
    Just a suggestion: until you find some decent evidence that extra-terrestrial visitors are here or on their way here, don’t bother posting…

    The last entry has all the relevance of debunking someone who claims ants are mammals.

    If you are looking for a conspiracy to debunk, what about sunspots have caused global climate change?

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    or better yet, sink your teeth into this:

    I’ve watched 3 minutes and am convinced this is the best yet:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&feature=player_embedded#

  3. jbc Says:

    I’m not claiming that was hard to debunk. I just thought it was interesting.

    I watched 30 seconds of the 9/11 conspiracy video you posted and lost interest. To each his own, clearly.

  4. knarlyknight Says:

    JBC, your explanation was appreciated, thank you.

    But I wasn’t suggesting it was hard or easy to debunk.

    I just thought that issue was unworthy of space here and that you might do better than to litter your site as Rense does with UFOs hovering over the Jurusalem and other diversions.

    Clearly you’re free to post and comment on trivial claims like UFO’s or whatever. (And I will re-evaluate whether this site lives up to it’s implied promise of standing up to those lies of folks like Oliver North.)

    If you watched 30 seconds of the video, you watched just under half of the introduction which would be boring for you as it’s purpose seems to be to set a context for viewers less knowledgable than yourself.

    The LIES portion begins at about the 1 minute 20 seconds mark.

    I AM TIRED OF BEING LIED TO! Fast forward to 1:20 & you’ll agree.

    Or maybe JBC no longer ascribes to his manifesto because he’s “lost interest” in the LIES TOLD about the biggest terrorism act in American history.

    I’m tired of being lied to. I don’t like it when other people do it to me, and I really don’t like it when I do it to myself (by which I mean, when I fool myself into accepting as true something that’s false, or accepting as false something that’s true, merely because doing so matches up with my pre-existing biases). So I’m going to do something about it.

    Henceforth, for the purposes of my posting and commenting on this site, I’m going to make a conscious effort to evaluate claims without regard to who’s making those claims.

    If someone is bullshitting, and I find out about it, I’m going to call them on it, regardless of who they are or what position they’re advocating.

    If someone is telling the truth, I’ll acknowledge it, regardless of who they are or what position they’re advocating.

    In either case, I will be do my best to evaluate sources objectively, without regard to whether their statements happen to conform with my pre-existing biases.

    Also, I will do my best to clearly distinguish between my statements of fact and my statements of opinion, and in the case of the former, to provide supporting information (like links to outside sources) so you can make your own evaluation of my conclusions.

    I’m asking you, the readers of this site, to help keep me honest about this. If you think I’ve violated one or more of the commitments given above, say so, either in email or (preferably) in a comment on the item in question.

    The LIES segment starts at 1 minute 20 second mark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&feature=player_embedded#

    That’s all I’m saying.

  5. shcb Says:

    It doesn’t seem there is anything new here but your remarks bring up an interesting tangent, the overuse of inaccurate terminology. No one knows exactly what made those buildings fall, we know terrorists flew planes into them and we know they did fall, exactly what happened between those two events is and probably always will be and engineering mystery. The reason it will be a mystery is because there is no practical way to replicate events that day enough times see a pattern.

    Which brings me to the overused and inaccurate term “lies”. We have competing theories here, opinions. Now one opinion may be more convincing than the other but that doesn’t mean anyone is lying. Just because we don’t know what is in that stream of molten metal doesn’t mean it is thermite, it just means we don’t know, and just because we don’t know doesn’t mean someone is lying. There are mysteries out there, it’s just the way it is.

  6. knarlyknight Says:

    The point you overlook here shcb is that experiments have shown what it is NOT. If the impossible is required to happen in a theory, then the theory is false. If people continue to repeat the theory after being shown the evidence, they are telling lies.

  7. shcb Says:

    That is true if the same set of circumstances can be recreated, but they can’t in this case because we don’t know what those circumstances were. You may be able to prove with reasonable certainty that the molten metal was not aluminum but that doesn’t automatically mean it was thermite. But to the broader point that doesn’t mean anyone is lying even if the aluminum theory is wrong, it might just be that the theory is wrong, that there is something else in the mixture.

    I really don’t want to debate 911 conspiracy for the umpteenth time, my thrust was that we say people are lying when they are just wrong or simply have a different opinion because it vilifies the opponent, this makes the argument easier to win, kind of an easy way to gain an advantage.

  8. enkidu Says:

    I think shcb believes his bu…. uh, popsnizzle?
    Unfortunately he’s just all too often, you know, wrong.
    Name one thing (other than the ‘beer is good!’ anecdotes) that he has ever been right about. Anything important. We’ll wait (and wait and wait). Al Gore is fat? Yes, but unimportant. It’ll be a long wait…

    knarly, I read an article recently about how modern homes are burning much hotter and faster than older homes. Turns out all the glues, resins, plastics and MDF in modern construction materials burns a whole lot faster than the old hardwood materials. I’m not saying the office furniture did it, but it does bring up the question of how would you test things like this. Answer: lots of science, math, physical testing, measurements and computer models. Just like climate change…. oh, right. wwnj’s answer: climate change is all about the socialism. http://www.lies.com/wp/2011/01/30/dunning-and-kruger-on-republicans-and-democrats-on-their-understanding-of-and-level-of-concern-about-global-warming/#comment-218582

    At least the video (which I listened to while working) had the 911 truthers performing actual experiments, looking for actual evidence. I’d support a second inquiry, but honestly, do you really think the bushies (cheney? mb) were capable of pulling this off without a hitch? They screwed up almost everything they touched, like a Reverse Midas… everything they touched turned to crap.

    Those were two very big, very state of the art (1966) buildings that got hammered by fully laden jet liners larger than they were designed to withstand. I’m just not convinced.

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    Or people say others are lying because it is incomprehensible they could be so incredibly stupid, so it seems more likely that they are lying.

    e.g. Your comment about molten metal, aluminum and thermite is astounding because it utterly obscures and ignores the key point that temperatures were hot enough to melt steel.

    Hot enough to melt steel as evidenced by
    (a) prolonged flow of molten metal that exhibits full characteristics of molten steel,
    (b) iron microspheres (thermite residue) throughout the debris,
    (c) Eutectic marks on steel beams, and more

    It is impossible for the official story to account for all the melted steel evidence. Therefore, whatever happened is different than the official story and as such different than what you say.

  10. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks Enk,

    Before saying who did something or how they did it or why they did it we have to figure out what they did.

    I do not know much about what those key players did before 911, but I sure know a lot about what they did afterwards in delaying, underfunding and interfering with the 911 investigation. That is just one example among many. Another is that they got America into Afghanistan and Iraq, and that is a million times bigger than 911.

  11. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, to answer you more directly following the logic of the video, since the 911 investigation was full of holes and contradictions we do not know what really happened. Without knowing that, we can not say with any certainty who was involved. But we can ask questions:

    Did Osama bin Laden have access to large quantities of thermite in 2001

    Okay, then who did

  12. shcb Says:

    Saddam Hussein

  13. enkidu Says:

    and there is absolutely no factual evidence that SH was involved with 9/11
    only in FauxNEWTZ fevered jingoistic wargasm run-up to that colossal mistake

    You ARE aware we never found any WMDs, right?

  14. Smith Says:

    Replace “Rudy” with “knarly”.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPOAKXBi9Pw

  15. Smith Says:

    “Saddam Hussein”

    Oh look, shcb said something stupid.

  16. shcb Says:

    The question was who would have large qtys of thermite, there is no factual evidence Bush had anything to do with it either, seems Hussein would have more motive though. So you don’t like Saddam huh? How about the Libyans, or the Israelis, or the French, no, the French would wouldn’t have been able to make enough in their 30 hour work week. Let’s see, who else hmmm James Bond? The Russians! Damn commies.

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    The questions weren’t serious, they are just examples of what comes after it is determined exactly what happened.

    But thanks for displaying your complete ignorance of when, how and by whom thermite was invented. Since detract and add nothing useful I can safely ignore you.

  18. knarlyknight Says:

    Smith,
    That was a good chuckle. Except I’d make a great president, other than being roasted alive by the media.

  19. shcb Says:

    “But thanks for displaying your complete ignorance of when, how and by whom thermite was invented.”

    Huh? what does who invented thermite have to do with anything? you just asked who had an ample supply, I presume you think Osama didn’t and Bush did, but many others did as well why are they exempt?

  20. shcb Says:

    According to Wiki a German invented thermite, is he responsible? He would be 120 years old or so. Are the Germans responsible?

  21. NorthernLite Says:

    I challenge you all to watch this and not get choked up:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q&feature=player_embedded

    It’s short and oh so very sweet.

  22. knarlyknight Says:

    Nano-thermite was fingered by independent forensic investigations. It is that to which the video refers.

    Wiki has a seperate entry for nano-thermite. It was developed in the late 1990′s and virtually unknown until it went into full military production in the ealry 2000′s.

    Regular thermite is not consistent with the forensic evidence so it can be ruled out. Regular thermite would not produce the flowing molten steel and the other results as seen in the news video and therefore can be ruled out.

    The forensic evidence of particles formed would have been impossible using regular thermite, only nano-thermite could make those particles there. Period.

    It is stupid to start pointing fingers at 120 year old Germans, but one can expect nothing less than ignorance, illogic and distraction from shcb.

  23. shcb Says:

    I supose you’ve read Stephen Chastain’s explination of why it is probably molten aluminum? Get’s pretty scientific, and he is an expert in this field.

  24. enkidu Says:

    Of course, it could just be God’s will (Allah’s/Yahweh’s/Odin’s/etc)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UyHzhtARf8M

    NL, that is wonderful, but I would disagree with the young man’s ending statement, that his parents sexual orientation had nothing to do with the content of his character… judging by their son, his parents are two fine committed parents and their uniqueness and life stories had everything to do with the fine character of their son.

    Conservatives want to deny reality, to codify bigotry, discrimination and hatred. Normal people just want justice, peace and understanding. I could see how that would mortify Rs, teabirchers, zealots and wwnjs. Good.

  25. shcb Says:

    Just for grins I melted some aluminum and poured it out in a pan, I used a hunk of 6061, some painted sheet metal and some painted extrusion that was dirty and oily. At 600c it was silvery like the metal from the tower as it cools (you have to look at an uncropped version, not Jones’ cropped version). I then took it to 970c and left it there for about 10 minutes, it was an orange color in the pan and stayed orange as it was poured, it turned silver rather quickly but I didn’t have much mass, probably only a cubic inch or so. What I found interesting is that when it was just molten it would easily pour, but when it was elevated to 960 it wouldn’t, I could turn the vessel almost upside down and it stayed put, the slag seemed to be holding it, I had to take a welding rod and break the slag for it to pour.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    Oh look, shcb has a chemistry set.

    I guess we don’t need a reall 911 investigation after all.

  27. NorthernLite Says:

    “Just for grins I melted some aluminum and poured it out in a pan, I used a hunk of 6061…”

    LOL, are you fucken serious?!

    You kill me man… lol.

  28. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk,
    That proves the B.O. is a total idiot, as if more proof was needed. Of the billions on billions on billions of galaxies that a single planet such as ours should arise is not “luck”, it is inevitable.

    However, B.O. is right to be Gobsmacked about the mooon. There are weird things about the moon. I have absolutely no opinion on this and virtually no expertise with which to evaluate the claims made by others, and claim an ignorance on the subject perhaps greater than the enormous ignorance of B.O., however for your entertainment, and only such, I present this:

    14. Moon Diameter: How does one explain the “coincidence” that the moon is just the right distance, coupled with just the right diameter, to completely cover the sun during an eclipse? Again, Isaac Asimov responds,

    “There is no astronomical reason why the moon and the sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”

    15. Spaceship Moon: As outrageous as the Moon-Is-a-Spaceship Theory is, all of the above items are resolved if one assumes that the moon is a gigantic extraterrestrial craft, brought here eons ago by intelligent beings. This is the only theory that is supported by all of the data, and there are no data that contradict this theory.

    Greek authors Aristotle and Plutarch, and Roman authors Apolllonius Rhodius and Ovid all wrote of a group of people called the Proselenes who lived in the central mountainous area of Greece called Arcadia. The Proselenes claimed title to this area because their forebears were there “before there was a moon in the heavens.”

    This claim is substantiated by symbols on the wall of the Courtyard of Kalasasaya, near the city of Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, which record that the moon came into orbit around the Earth between 11,500 and 13, 000 years ago, long before recorded history.

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_16.htm
    But if anyone really wants to press for my opinion on this, I say it’s just a rock that’s there because it is so.

  29. NorthernLite Says:

    You must drive your wife nuts. :)

  30. NorthernLite Says:

    that was @ shcb, not you knarly.

    not that you don’t either though… lol

  31. shcb Says:

    She just shrugs it off after 30 years :) well, I have an oven for heat treat that goes to 1300 c why not test what you can? That is the only way to see which of the men is really Jesus (two men say their Jesus, one of them must be wrong). It was fun, only took an hour to weld up a container and run the test, don’t know why someone else hasn’t done it, I guess not everyone has multiple machine shops at their disposal.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    yea, shcb is the only one in the world that has done that. He’s special.

  33. shcb Says:

    Of course I’m not the first to take aluminum to close to 1000c but your guy said it is impossible for molten aluminum to be orange, period, impossible. Now one of my guys said

    …THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.
    Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling….

    Now of course there is a bunch of stuff that is real technical before and after that but here we have two blogs with one saying something is impossible because he taped the melting of aluminum in his back yard. Now my guy says it might turn orange if it is taken to 1000c and has enough impurities, so I tested it, and guess what, my guy was right! Saw it with my own eyes!

    Now what your guy said is technically right, and my guy said he was, but where your guy is dishonest is he doesn’t finish the test, he doesn’t take that aluminum a few degrees hotter and prove my guy wrong (actually he probably did, but he didn’t fess up to it) he just says he is right, we should all believe him. This is the same problem I have with the AGW argument, my guys say here is the data, this is how we evaluate it, the other side does everything it can to cloudy the issue, ignoring FOI requests for years on end and then expects me to take them at their word.

    By the way, I had the same moral argument with myself as the aluminum was melting, what if it stays grey? Do I post my findings on Lies.com or do I just keep it to myself? Luckily I didn’t have to make that decision.

  34. knarlyknight Says:

    Stephen Chastain did not try to replicate the flow, his comments were his expert opinion on how he thought the mixture of aluminum and plastic etc. would mix and appear. Jones backed his expert opinion with experiments that attempted to make aluminum glow orange as it fell. While it glowed orange in the heating cauldron (as did your aluminum) the non-aluminum materials were floating on top and would not mix in. When poured, the appearance becomes silver/grey immediately upon leaving the cauldron as it separates from the impurities.

    http://stj911.org/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothesis.html

    In any event, your fixation on the colour of the molten stream seems petty relative to the full content of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0&feature=player_embedded#

  35. shcb Says:

    My fixation? :-) in a small scale experiment the crucible is maintaining the temperature because the steel (in my case) cools so much slower than the aluminum, so yes the aluminum turns color rather quickly once that support mechanism is removed. But we are talking about tons of aluminum here, the blobs we are seeing are probably several pounds each, they maintain their own heat for a longer period of time. Not very long mind you as you can see they have already turned grey just a few stories after they exit the building.

    But even without that fairly simple fact the statement was that aluminum can’t be orange when melted, it is silver, well, more grey.

  36. shcb Says:

    I didn’t see in your link where Jones says the aluminum was ever orange, did I miss something?

  37. shcb Says:

    Did you notice there is one impurity Jones didn’t include in his test? Glass.

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    Did you “miss something”?(!)

    Yes, Jones’ demonstration videos shows orange on top of the aluminum as the impurities burn, but the towers showed only an orange glow falling for many floors (no aluminum) and no dripping orange was replicated in experiments.

    If glass was not included then the flow test should be repeated using it. Or compare the pouring molten aluminum mixed with airplane/office impurities from one container and molten steel mixed with the same impurities from another container. Which result will mirror the observed WTC flow? (And allow wagers to be placed on the expected test results.)

    The point is that NIST reports and pronouncements were entirely speculative, and completely failed to investigate why the collapses exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:


    Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

    Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

    Extremely rapid onset of destruction

    Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

    Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

    Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

    Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

    1200-foot-diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found

    Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front

    Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

    Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

    Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

    Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

    And NIST did not address why the collapses exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

    Slow onset with large visible deformations

    Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

    Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

    High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.

  39. shcb Says:

    “The point is that NIST reports and pronouncements were entirely speculative,” so are yours, that is why they are theories. I get real suspicious when someone is promoting their theory and say their conclusion is absolute. Evidence is many times absolute given the parameters the experiment was run on or the method the evidence was gathered under. For instance it would be nice to have had some thermal imaging cameras take those pictures, but most people were running for their lives, not setting up scientific equipment.

    Probably my biggest issue with you truthers is that you are constantly basing your statements on a lack of proof proves something, it doesn’t. Also, when something you say is certain is proven to be totally false you tap dance. Once you know aluminum does turn orange at elevated temperatures, temperatures that were absolutely possible, proven through tests, the official theory makes a lot more sense than ninjas placing thousands of pounds of explosives in the exact location an amateur flew a plane into a building. Then you fall back on “NIST reports and pronouncements were entirely speculative” well, yes and no, they were speculative because no one alive was there to see what exactly happened, but they are also based on common sense and sound engineering.

  40. jbc Says:

    Knarly,

    I went back and watched the first 2 minutes of the video you posted. While I remain committed to the pledge I made in the manifesto, I don’t believe this video compels me to side with those pushing 9/11 conspiracy theories. At least in those first 2 minutes, all that video is doing is cherrypicking anomalies. That appears to be the same thing you do in your comments on 9/11. Having assembled enough anomalies to meet the (very low) standard you’ve set in order to claim the official explanation is inadequate, you then leap to a ridiculously far-fetched conclusion.

    It’s exactly the same process shcb uses in his global warming denial. It’s the same process antivaxxers go through in their efforts to discourage parents from immunizing their children. And so on.

    Cherrypicking anomalies, rationalizing away discordant data, and deciding things on the basis of gut feeling rather than logic is the default mode of human beings. We all do it. We all have to guard against it. It’s obvious to me that that’s what you and shcb are doing here, and I think I’ve given sufficient attention to both of your conspiracy theories to comply with the standard I set for myself in the manifesto. Having done that, I don’t feel obligated to go down those particular rabbit holes any further. I feel sorry for both of you, but not enough to join you in the particular delusions in which you’ve wrapped yourselves, or spend more of my time mapping out exactly where and how you’ve strayed from reality.

  41. knarlyknight Says:

    Thanks JBC,
    It seems each of the 3 of us thinks the others are deluded. Maybe someday we’ll know the truth.

  42. shcb Says:

    In his magnificent arrogance JBC just insulted both of us and you thanked him for it.

  43. jbc Says:

    Why is it insulting to point out the obvious fact that you and Knarly are cherrypicking data points in defense of your respective conspiracy theories? Is the rest of the world somehow obligated to squeeze their eyes shut and wish very hard along with you to help make your fantasy come true? Why? Because doing otherwise would hurt your feelings?

    That doesn’t sound very much like the sort of hard-headed self-reliance that conservatives like to trumpet as a moral virtue. It sounds more like the kind of wishy-washiness that conservatives like to attribute to liberals.

  44. knarlyknight Says:

    I could have stopped there, however…

    I will spend some of my valuable time mapping out where and how JBC has strayed from reality.

    Initially JBC said he watched 30 seconds of the video before dismissing it. To help him out I pointed to the 1 minute 20 second mark as about where the context setting ends and the LIES content begins and challenged his dedication to his self-proclaimed “manifesto” for LIES.

    JBC says he watched 2 minutes of the video, or only 30 – 40 seconds of the LIES content contained in the 14 minute clip, a clip that increases in tempo and content as it progresses. I doubt 40 seconds even covered one LIE. That was not a valid effort, by any standard.

    Based on this cursory non-viewing, JBC adds insult by proclaiming that cherry-picking anomalies is somehow invalid. Not true. Cherry-picking anomalies is a foundation of criminal justice as it is precisely how a good prosecutor destroys an alibi (and it is how scientists determine whether a theory works.) If anomalies show something cannot have happened, then another explanation must hold.

    JBC does not stop there, but assumes there is a ridiculously far-fetched conclusion. I submit that the ridiculously far-fetched conclusion is one that cannot address enormous anomalies. Too bad JBC didn’t watch the clip, he might have learned something instead of wasting his time.

    In any event, thanks again JBC, at the very least for providing this forum to vent and disagree.

  45. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    Yes, I did thank him twice, despite his magnificent arrogance and insults, I am Canadian.

    One thing I did not appreciate was his JBC’s assumption that I was rationalizing and “deciding” 911 based on my gut feeling, as do all human beings with discordant data he says, and then had jumped to ridiculously far fetched conclusions.

    Here’s what I think:

    My gut tells me that the official conspiracy theory seems reasonable.

    My gut tells me that shcb’s conspiracy theory of ninja’s planting explosives in WTC elevator shafts is preposterous in the extreme.

    My gut tells me that it’s highly improbable that spray-on nanothermite was applied by workers who thought they were adding fireproofing and others installed well placed cutter charges at various segments of the tower.

    My brain tells me that it is impossible for airplane damage and fires to create: 1. nearly free fall acceleration of all three WTC towers as if the structures below did not exist; 2. virtually no jolt at the moment the upper segment that both towers impacted the top floor of the lower tower segments; 3. tower destructions proceeding through the path of greatest resistance; 4. Eutectic micro-spheres of molten iron throughout the WTC dust; 5. Mid-air pulverization of so much concrete & metal decking; 6. total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame; 7. tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises; 8. steel samples as reported by FEMA that are unexplained but entirely consistent with thermite/eutectic action;

    My gut tells me that it is highly unlikely that I am wrong about all those 8 impossibilities, plus a few others I did not list here.

    My brain tells me that if one of the impossibilities are valid then the official conspiracy theory can not be true.

    My gut tells me that it’s reasonably likely that the Bush administration would LIE to people about what actually happened and interfere with their NIST agency investigation and appoint an insider (Phillip Zelikow) as Director of the 911 commission research so as not to pursue embarrassing or verbotten avenues.

    Those are some thoughts. At least I’m thinking about it and not dismissing things because they sound ridiculous while accepting impossibilities without question because for some reason those impossibilities fit with a “theory” that “sounds” more probable because your officials say it is so.

  46. shcb Says:

    I can take most anything that can be dished out, but I’m not going to say “thank you sir may I have another.” Comparing human cause global warming skeptics to truthers and goofballs that won’t get vaccines for their kids is a false equivalency, there is plenty of evidence to be skeptical of the players in this game and their motives. It is also proper to legitimately debate public policy regarding what can be done to mitigate the problem responsibly. I know you are passionate about this subject but understand your view that those of us that have legitimate concerns being on the same level as kooks on some of these marginal subjects only plays in a few places like San Francisco and Boulder. For the most part you would be laughed off the stage with that view everywhere else even by people that are on the some side of the AGW issue.

  47. shcb Says:

    “My gut tells me that shcb’s conspiracy theory of ninja’s planting explosives in WTC elevator shafts is preposterous in the extreme.” You understand I’m exaggerating for effect of course.

    One quick question, why the Bush administration? Let’s suppose your scenario is correct, why not another group? Let’s limit it to another country since you seem to think only a government could have access to the magic goo. Why not Israel or France or some other country?

  48. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb,

    Isn’t it true that you beleive there is a world-wide conspiracy involving thousands of scientists from almost every country to fool governments and citizens into thinking human-caused global warming is happening and that we need to make substantial changes in our lifestyles?

  49. shcb Says:

    Nl,
    Not really, I’ve explained this several times but once more won’t hurt. In the beginning the few scientists that were working on this, about 25 according to a Senate report were right as far as temps rose as co2 rose, for almost 20 years, most of a career. These scientists staked their careers on it, everyone (read thousands of scientists) believed it because they had done nothing wrong, legitimate research showed a correlation. But when the lines on the graph started to diverge a few of the 25 fudged a little because they honestly thought the theory was still right but it was just an anomaly that was causing the divergence. But feeling the ends justified the means they felt it was ok to fudge just a little, having full confidence the anomaly would finish soon and everything would get back on track.

    This is about the time it all went wrong, these few started stalling the FOI requests and such because they honestly believed in their theory and thought if the lines start to converge again worst case is they can say they did indeed fudge a little but only for a short time and they did it because they thought the sensors were getting old or something like that. But the lines didn’t re-converge, the co2 levels kept going up and the temps flattened.

    Now the other scientists, the thousands, they believe in the system, they have to believe in the system, the system makes them scientists, as far as they can see the system can’t be subverted, so they are going to believe what is conventional until it is proven otherwise. The problem is there isn’t enough data to prove otherwise yet, there isn’t enough proof of wrong doing to prove these 25 did anything illegal either, but there is enough to make one skeptical.

    So no, no worldwide conspiracy, just a bunch of good people doing what they think is right and a few bad apples. Mind you this is ignoring political forces for now.

    Consider this when you try and lump skeptics in with more traditional conspiracy theorists, 7% of the presidents in our history have rejected or presided over the congressional rejection of the socialistic aspects of this issue, Kyoto and cap and trade. If this problem were the crisis you guys make it out to be and these were the fixes they would have passed, being such a prominent issue for 3 administrations tells me our contrary views are flip sides of a mainstream issue and should be discussed as such.

  50. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    As long as you understand you are moving from the factual (e.g. impossibility of airplane crash & office fires causing a collapse at free fall accelerations as if there was no massive structure underneath the 8?th floor) to the speculative, I’ll answer your questions.

    Why the Bush admin? Because it happened on Bush’s watch and it fit with Bush’s neo-con backers’ pre-meditated agenda to capitalize upon a major domestic attack to establish the necessary diplomatic and public opinion pretense to militarily control regions with strategic natural resources and strategic transportation routes (i.e. $ Trillions).

    Why is another country not suspected? That’s not impossible and there is speculation of that, however access to the towers and other logistics make it unlikely without significant U.S. based cooperation. Also, the actions of the key players after the events are suspicious as if they are hiding the truth (e.g. in establishing unprecedented secrecy and security around the areas, removing the evidence, suppressing calls for an investigation as long as possible and then providing ridiculously meager funding for a narrow investigation with a neo-con research director suppressing key leads and testimony.)

    Again, that is all circumstantial, not proof, but it screams for a review and real investigation when considered along with the factual impossibility of the official story.

    As for the thank you, I see the debunkers of AGW, debunkers of vaccines being entirely safe, and debunkers of the government’s official conspiracy theory as similar in many ways, but not necessarily misguided kooks as JBC claims. In all cases they are working with vastly inferior funding against massively funded public relations campaigns that has already swayed public opinion; and in all cases their claims are radically warped into nonesense by those they are speaking to (e.g. Ninja’s in the towers, Wakefield was convicted in the court of public opinion for claims he didn’t make, and anti AGW have to repeat ad-nauseum that of course the world is warming but it’s due to natural phenomenums not primarily human activity.

    Then I think back to the early 1970′s Club of Rome Report and how sure everyone was that in 15 or 20 years the earth would run out of resources and there would be mass starvation and an apocalypse unless radical changes were made. Only minor changes were made, and it turns out everyone, especially the scientists contributing to Clube of Rome Report, were wrong on so many levels it is almost laughable now. Yet in the early 1970′s if you argued against the CoR Report you’d be treated as if you were shcb on this thread, and the people treating you like that had a magnificent arrogance almost as big as JBC’s.

    Yet I still thank JBC (and I guess you too) for explaining why he does not agree, it lets me see how misguided and illegitimate his opposition is. Had he just said he disagrees and stopped there I might have assumed he’d actually given the matter some serious thought. However it appears that he disagrees on the basis of probabilities for some data while ignoring factual impossibilities, e.g. he refuses to recognize laws of physics apply to the WTC 1,2 & 7 etc. That he dismisses 14 minute arguments after listening to a general introduction and 30 seconds of content speaks volumes.

  51. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, you have a number of scientists on your AGW side with credentials so you think that is backing, yet it is nothing compared to the opposition to the official conspiracy theory and calls for a new investigation coming from these people:

    http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php#supporters

    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com

    http://www.firefightersfor911truth.org

  52. knarlyknight Says:

    JBC, in contrast to my previous post, people trying to prove aliens are visiting this planet tend to have zero qualifications, as with the poster of the Jerusalem UFO video, and as such are best ignored.

  53. shcb Says:

    Fair enough, at least there is some rational there. You were also very civil. Thank you. I forgot to compliment you on the “I’m Canadian” remark, got a chuckle out of that.

    Most of those horses have been beat so much they are hardly fit for hamburger anymore and my guess is we will tenderize them some more in the future so I will go have lunch now, have a good day.

  54. NorthernLite Says:

    But what you said isn’t backed up by fact, shcb. The temps haven’t flattened at all, the past decade has seen the warmest years on record.

    So again, you just said you believe in this conspiracy theory that scientists are covering up proof that human-caused warming is bullshit just to protect their careers.

    Which is completely absurd. Scientists have given us so much knowledge and life-saving breakthroughs and there’s just no way “the thousands” would just go along with a scam like that.

    Yes, we’ve been here before so go enjoy your lunch and I’m sure we’ll go at it again in the near future.

  55. shcb Says:

    I’ve been through this with Enky, yes they are the warmest but they are also flat, with the exception of this year and 1998 they dropped a little, this year and ’98 were El Nino years making the theory this is mostly natural plausable. you can down load the data from UAH and look at it yourself. If you look at the last few decades since the last drop in temps in the late ’70s there was a definate rise in temps, then it leveled off, or let’s say the slope was much less severe, at any rate the temp slope no longer matches the co2 slope. Now make whatever theory you want out of that but the theory that co2 is the cause doesn’t hold up. I’m open minded about this, really I am, I have no dog in this fight, I’m just telling you what I see in the data.

  56. NorthernLite Says:

    So the slope matches for deacades and it’s a little off for a couple years and you’re ready to write the whole thing off?

    Doesn’t sound very open-minded to me…

  57. shcb Says:

    the slope goes up for 20 or 30 years and levels off for 10, that’s enough of a ratio for me. The slope of the co2 goes up even higher in those 10 years.

  58. enkidu Says:

    oh for the love of dog, not this again
    up is up
    up is not down, it isn’t flat, it isn’t a mystical mumbojumbo ratio, it isn’t tides

    Maybe my reading comprehension isn’t as taxamagical as wise old wwnj here, but this link (from NASA’s GISS)
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
    says 2010 was a La Nina, not El Nino year
    please back up your claim that last year was an El Nino year, with something other than the usual nonsense, please.

    Look at this graf (just look at it!):
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
    If you can look at the red line and say the line isn’t going up in the last ten years (to say nothing of the last hundred), then you are cherry picking a few data pts to support your foregone conclusion (as usual).

    Oh wait, it snowed a bunch and Al Gore is fat! har har har! dum libs!

  59. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, 2010 was both it switched to La Nina in latter half.

  60. enkidu Says:

    http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
    09 was a pretty big El Nino year, while 10 was a not-quite-polar-opposite La Nina year
    these things are averaged out in the 5 and 10 year running mean…
    oh wait… that would use, you know, science and math instead of wingnnut wishes and bullsh!t kisses

    besides, some wwnj chic said she gave Algore a ‘massage’ and… oh nm

  61. shcb Says:

    I just really don’t think Enky is capable of understanding this.

  62. enkidu Says:

    While I know you aren’t capable of understanding anything that contradicts your wrong wing nut job point of view. Arrogance? You are funny lecturing others on their purported arrogance (a word which here must mean ‘logic, reason and scientific examination of facts in the real world’)

    But hey it’s fun to laugh as you slip on the banana peel over and over again!
    So lets try something even simpler: fourth grade math

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

    Lets look at the red line (since the Northern Hemisphere is where most of humanity lives and where most of the CO2 is produced etc). Look at all the data points in 1990 thru 2000, now compare them to the data points in 2000 to 2010. Fact 1: all the data points in the 2000 to 2010 timeframe are higher than 9 out of 10 of the 1990 to 2000 data points. C’mon, my fourth grader could draw a factual conclusion from this data, can you? hurf durf seems to be your only answer.

    Now let us examine the average slope of the line over these last two decades (the mean of the mean). As an aid to bears of very little brain, may I suggest that you take a scrap of paper and use the edge to approximate the average angle of the line. Which direction is the line going, up or down? Compare your geuesstimated average for each of the last two decades. Both are going in which direction?

    Of course wrong wing nutters can’t look at data that contradicts their preexisting bias without some sort of mental gear grinding or outright lunacy.

    One could say the slope of the line is not as steep as the previous decade, but to argue that the line is flat is beyond ridiculous. Mendacious or stupid, take your pick or maybe it is a bit of both. Mendaciously stupid or stupidly mendacious.

    I’ve politely asked you to back up your claims but as usual its all bupkis and bullsh!t. Expect more hand waving ‘stoopid libs caint unerstan teh right wing Trooth!’ pshaw!

  63. shcb Says:

    Even as notoriously manipulated as NASA data is, if you analyze your graph it makes my point, but you won’t.

  64. shcb Says:

    The slope from 1991 to 2000 was 5 times greater than the slope from 2001 to 2010, it was over 20 times greater if you leave out 2010. That is pretty darn flat in comparison. Using NASA data… that you provided.

  65. enkidu Says:

    ah yes, NASA is in on the lib conspiracy now… (mb because they use lib science, math and reason instead of taxamagical ‘thinking’ and partisan belief)

    honestly if you can look at the mean of the red lines in those two decades and say one is 5 times greater, I can now understand why the nuns despaired over your ‘edumakashun’ lil ricky.

    I’ll go over it real slow like, using math (I know, evil lib math)

    So the mean of the mean for the red line (which is not the same as arbitrarily picking the end points and drawing a line, we are talking about the overall vector direction of the line over two ten year periods). The slope of the mean of the mean for 1990-2000 is about, oh I dunno maybe 70 degrees. The slope of the mean of the mean for 2000 to 2010 is about 60 degrees. Not flat (that would be zero degrees or a straight horizontal line). 70 does not equal 60. You do know what the definition of a mean is right?

    Up is up. You are so partisan you can’t even read a graph without your bullsh!t colored glasses partisan ‘opinion’ getting in the way.

    Which is why rational debate with extremist right wingers is indeed like talking to the dining room table.

  66. shcb Says:

    The trend line of 1991 to 2000 is from .12 in 1991 to .6 in 2000, for a delta of .48. The trend line for 2001 to 2010 is from .65 to .75 for a delta of .1, the delta of the trend line of the earlier decade is 4.8 time greater than the later decade. That is a simple linear line, exponential is a little over 8 times greater just to rub it in but that is not appropriate since we know what the outcome was but if we would have use that method in 2000 to predict 2010 the temp would have been over 2.0 instead of .6 .

  67. shcb Says:

    But you see I’m using real numbers and real math (with a little help from AutoCad and Excel) not just sort of guessing.

  68. shcb Says:

    Here’s my work

    http://www.mediafire.com/file/50mr9krdamjrq1m/nasa%20temp%20trendlines.xlsx

  69. enkidu Says:

    Evidently you aren’t aware of what the term ‘mean’ or ‘average’ ‘means’
    perhaps you should look up ‘running mean’ as well

    The running mean lines go… (drum roll please) up
    Up is not Down
    Up is not Flat
    (except mb over in the Wingnutoverse)

    The last decade isn’t quite as steep a slope, but to say that temp trends are flat or leveled off defies reason, logic and math.

    My condolences to those nuns…

  70. shcb Says:

    Maybe you should look up relatively, mostly and comparatively. Didn’t look at my spreadsheet did you?

  71. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    Perhaps if you labelled the data and trend lines a little better it would be comprehensible to others besides the author.

  72. shcb Says:

    I can do that, let’s see how Enky does first. You have already been through this exercise.

  73. enkidu Says:

    If you can’t look at those two decades NH 5 year running mean lines and acknowledge that they are going up, not down, not flat, not leveled off, then there really isn’t much to talk about. 2008 and 2009 weren’t as hot as the rest of the decade from this chart, but they are still hotter than 90% of the previous decade.

    In objective reality, those two means (a word which here means ‘average’) of the 5yr running mean lines go… up. I acknowledge from the first that the last decade the slope or increase in temps is not as severe as the previous decade. To say the temps are flat or leveled off is counterfactual.

    If you can’t correctly assess the slope of a line… is there any real basis for discussion when you can’t even agree on basic mathematical concepts? Up is not down, it isn’t flat, or level or whtbr. This is basic stuff.

    I’m not even going to bother looking at some cooked books excel doc (and you needed autocad for this analysis? really?) probably loaded with a virus knowing you. no thanks. But at a guess you trimmed 2010 off your ‘numbers’, am I right?

    I think this yet another Darmok at Tanagra moment. In the Wingnutoverse up is down, 2+2=gizignazoid and libs is teh stoopid4evr! As much as I’d like to help you understand concepts like up and down and 2+2=4, I doubt you have any reciprocal desire for this to occur. So. Back to mocking! ;)

  74. shcb Says:

    See what I mean Knarly?

  75. enkidu Says:

    You can’t see that those two lines are going up.
    What else is there to say?

  76. shcb Says:

    I’ve been wondering about this for a while, I really haven’t seen you add anything to a discussion for a long time if ever. You seem to know what you don’t want, conservatism of any sort, but you don’t seem to know how to get there. I’ve kind of given the benefit of the doubt that you really just think conservatives don’t deserve the time of day, but you haven’t added anything to conversations without me either.

    I was curious what you would do with this spreadsheet, especially since Knarly said it isn’t well defined, which it isn’t. There isn’t a lot there and I gave you the file so you don’t have to just look at it, you can manipulate it anyway you want, tell me where I’m wrong. Even though the graphs aren’t labeled, you can just click the line to see the range it represents, change the ranges, trendlines whatever. Just a theory but I think you are either afraid you won’t understand the spreadsheet or it will prove you wrong. Either doesn’t bode well for someone that is so free to criticize others for being wrong or stupid.

  77. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    If I may, that prior comment was all well and good with respect to school yard bully strategy but you know full well it is garbage with respect to truth.

    Picking ten years of data for simple trend analysis of climate is ridiculous. Even worse, your picking & comparing of those particular pair of decades is arbitrary and disengenuous.

    For example, had you added another year to data sets, i.e. compare the results for 1990-2000 against 2000-2010 (for an eleven year sample, instead of your ten yr samples ’91-00 & ’01-’10) then the results would be entirely different. In fact both 11 year samples have almost identical increasing trend lines.

    With variable data, such as year to year temperatures (or even decade to decade temperatures) you need to have a sample size large enough to see the trends beyond the variabililty.

  78. shcb Says:

    Very good Knarly! It is only about double (1.68 rounded wayyyy up) you’re right, we pick arbitrary timeframes, years, decades etc. Enky’s El Nino tirade is a classic example, but you were able to see through it because you had studied it before because I have goaded you into looking into it. Why do you think I picked 2001 as my start point and not 2000? It made my argument better :) now of course you used the same year in both graphs so that is a little problematic.

    I didn’t mean my comments to be school yard taunts I think it is sad when people don’t want to learn.

    Something I haven’t mentioned is I did a little work on the relationship of CO2 and temperature. I found data of CO2 for a station in Hawaii, I then graphed that with temps from my guys at UAH, the ups and downs darn near matched. Don’t know what to make of that. It seems out in the middle of nowhere without much human input the temps are regulating the CO2, not the other way around.

  79. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    I think Enk would think the same about you – that it’s sad you don’t want to learn (anything but conservative crapola.)

    …pattern interrupt…

    “It seems that out in the middle of nowhere without much human input…”

    First off, there is no such thing as without much human input on planet earth. PCB’s are at dangerous levels in the flesh of arctic mammals. Smog travels from the eastern USA to the Canadian maritimes and across the atlantic. There’s a garbage patch of plastics the size of Texas in the middle of the North Pacific. Flying south across America 20 years ago I was shocked that the smog started around Denver and continued to Houston, as far as the eye could see from an altitude of 10,000 feet.

    Second, I’d guess there is a link between human inputs and both the high CO2&Temp values. Doubtful that higher temps would cause organisms at Mona Loa altitudes to produce enough extra CO2 to measure. I’d bet if you added data for the prevailing wind direction you’d find that high CO2/higher temps were recorded when winds had blown over the massive heat producing cities in China, Japan and the other east Asian polluters, and that when the prevailing winds by byassed those areas then the values were more normal i.e. average. Cities absorbing solar radiation and radiating heat while emitting vast CO2, may be part of the answer, also simply the fact that CO2 heats up faster than other atmospheric gasses might provide some of the explanation.

    Sorry, I realize those hypothesis don’t fit with your anti-AGW mental framework. You might have to adjust that framework; or else settle on an impossible hypothesis (e.g. frigate birds fly in warm air and emit vast quantities of CO2.) I would understand a frigate bird hypothesis as it would be akin to your adoption of the official conspiracy theory which includes impossible explanations of freefalling buildings and inexplicable evidence of high explosive residue in WTC dust.

  80. shcb Says:

    I get such a kick out of you guys, I’m the only one here that has done any independent research and I’m the one that is force fed his information.

    Your remarks reinforce two of my points, we don’t know enough about this subject to upset the social economic system of the world and liberals think most everything man does is evil and harmful to the planet.

  81. enkidu Says:

    If we can’t even agree on what basic real world terms like “up” “down” “level” and “flat” there is very little basis for real communication and enlightenment.

    2+2 does not equal sociamalism! no really, try a calculator

  82. shcb Says:

    We can agree on the terms, Knarly and I agree on what we see, we just have a different opinion of what is causing what we see. You just don’t know what we’re talking about since you have taken yourself out of the conversation.

  83. knarlyknight Says:

    “I’m the only one here that has done any independent research” LOL That is one example of your “research”, making a ridiculous statement about what you think others here have not done as if it is fact. Another is to copy some data a draw graphs using cherry picked subsets of the data to suggest your contrarian opinion has some basis despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

    Evil? No, there’s not a lot of evil, just greed, apathy and in large measure the stupidity as exhibited in your post above.

    Harmful? Yes, from a biological / ecological / spiritual perspective it is a fact that human impacts on the planet are a horribly negative force. Our planet could have an abundance of whales, fish stocks, varieties of flora and fauna, buffalo, etc. ad nauseum; and overall would have been better if we’d had the awareness to change our ways when our population was about 1 or 2 billion. If we can change our ways now it will still take many generations for our natural world to rise to its full potential. Even then it is sad that the world’s “full potential” now is far less than the “full potential” that would have been possible without human activities over the past 1000 years.

  84. knarlyknight Says:

    up is up and 2+2=4, Enk knows what’s going on shcb.

  85. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, you are the one trying to argue up is down because the slope of a trend line from one decade is less than the slope of the trend line from a previous decade. Good try, although it might work that way for Formula One race car data, climate data is not so predictable with trend lines of one or two variables, that’s why fancy multivariable models are used.

  86. shcb Says:

    Leveled off, leveled off, read what I write, not what you want me to write. Also, this conversation is about Enky’s NASA graph, the UAH data, which is collected in a completely different manner does show a downward trend over a number of years.

    Enky can’t know what we are talking about, he hasn’t looked at what we are talking about, he is ignorent of our discussion.

  87. shcb Says:

    If you want to discuss other models, that is fine but the NASA data is what Enky submitted for consideration, then he dropped out of the conversation and continued repeating his original statement. Like the annoying little kid that keeps repeating he wants candy after the adults have returned to what they were talking about.

  88. enkidu Says:

    up is up – it isn’t flat, it isn’t leveled off, it isn’t down or socialism

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
    I acknowledged from the first that the last decade’s slope (ie rate of increase in temps) isn’t as severe as the previous decade’s, but they are both going (jesus this is beyond f!cking ridiculous) up. You can’t acknowledge that the 2001 to 2010 temps are all hotter than the previous decades temps (save one). Would it really shatter your fragile eggshell mind to acknowledge that up is, you know, up?

    Until you can acknowledge that up is not flat or level or whatever nonsense you currently cling to there is very little to no basis for ‘debate’.

    2+2 does not equal sociamalism

  89. shcb Says:

    I don’t have a problem saying it is rising slightly, do you have a problem saying it has leveled off considerably?

  90. enkidu Says:

    misspelling the word ignorant while lecturing others = priceless

  91. leftbehind Says:

    Isn’t that UFO video just part of a viral campaign for that movie about aliens invading L.A.?

  92. knarlyknight Says:

    Okay shcb I’ll say it on behalf of Enky:

    The UFO has levelled off considerably.

    There.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.