|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 05:17:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have never seen a group of skeptics take so many things at face value! It's as if this was a program named by the administration itself--you know how they name things the exact opposite of what they are or do--like the Clear Skies Initiative, or No Child Left Behind...
Hyuk hyuk hyuk...
Now let's review: what you have said or repeated (I know you think for yourself, but what you have said seems have to come from other sites, right?) has been challenged without refutation, and there are several items that you have not addressed, and apparently are avoiding. And you have the audacity to say:
quote:
If you are offended by a scientific approach to these conspiracy theories or are afraid of what such an approach will reveal, please just don't participate.
You sound almost exactly like any typical creationist/crack pot.
It is hi-larious to read that apparently you aren't a skeptic if you accept any government explanation for one of the ever popular events. Has it occured to you that we are being skeptical of YOU, and that we already examined what the government said and found it much more credible than YOU?
Maybe you are choking on your hubris? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/05/2006 05:22:23 |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 05:42:00 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I didn't realize you had everything figured out already. Which official conspiracy theory ended up being true?
And if you are skeptical of me, you are wasting your time. I'm just a guy asking questions. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 05:49:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123...
GM: I do indeed have a theory--and like the government's, it is a conspiracy theory.
The US government doesn't have a conspiracy theory regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
quote:
Really, anyone who believes the events of 9-11-01 could have been pulled off by 1 person would have to be a real crackpot...
Well of course nobody here believes one person was responsible for that situation. I take it you have nothing more substantial to contribute.
quote:
But I do have a theory.
Then why not just come out and propose your theory? Why have you wasted 9 pages of this thread and over 40 of your postings just continuing to insist that the official explanation of the events of 9/11 couldn't possibly be true?
quote:
It's based on many observations--like all good theories. It does not contradict any of the observable facts and it fits with all the observable facts, as far as I can tell--again, like a good theory. What makes it different from the belief of ID is that my theory is testible. All good theories can be tested. My theory, like all good theories, even allows for prediction--and predict it did.
Describe your theory.
quote:
And since we all know that all good theories are true, why not admit [okay, now I'm just messing with you; but admit it, your blood pressure just spiked].
Nahh, my blood pressure is text book normal. But thanks for acknowledging that you're a troll.
quote:
Of course it is possible that my theory is wrong. And the government's theory, which is not even that good of a theory could be wrong, too. And since my conspiracy theory is at odds with the official conspiracy theory, they can't both be rigth.
So i'm testing my conspiracy theory and the government's conspiracy theory.
There is no official conspiracy theory. The government doesn't have a conspiracy theory. That you should continue to misuse those terms even after having been reminded of their contemporary accepted meaning shows you have no interest in pursuing this discussion with any honesty or integrity. You've got no balls, ergo123.
quote:
If you are offended by a scientific approach to these conspiracy theories or are afraid of what such an approach will reveal, please just don't participate.
Your continued misuse of terminology certainly doesn't show a scientific approach. Your failed effort to discredit the official explanation of an event isn't a scientific approach. Nobody here is offended by the scientific approach, but even that's a moot point because for all your jabbering you haven't begun to approach the issue scientifically. If you have a theory, describe it.
Spelling edit. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 10/05/2006 18:44:54 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2006 : 05:54:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Cunei: It is the government's conspiracy theory--i.e., the theory the government has about the conspiracy (involving the secretive man named Osama Ben Laden, and his secretive organization called al-Qaeda) to attack targets in the USA.
Not that the government was involved in the conspiracy!
Why is it so hard for you to understand--that " ' " between "government" and "s" indicates possessive.
And like you said, if our government came out and told of its role in the attacks of 9-11-01 it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory--it would be a confession.
*Sigh* By definition, governments don't have conspiracy theories. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 06:02:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You guys are funny. First of all, where does it say that a conspiracy theory is only one that goes against the official theory?
This is the conventional definition. You have to know this. The Warren Commission is the official story, but along side that are conspiracy theories that JFK was killed by [the CIA, the mafia, Cuba, etc.]. Again, go take a poll and ask people if they know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory. You'll find that 10 our of 10 will not consider the idea (fact?) that terrorists flew planes into the WTC as a "conspiracy theory".
The web site you linked all but admits that their use of "conspiracy theory" is not conventional. And agian-- it's OK to use terms in unconventional ways, you just have to know that it's unconventional. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 07:01:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I don't think they are unreasoning--I just think they are afraid of what the truth might hold. The seem to make quite an effort reasoning away the reality that is in front of them.
I agree. They aren't unreasoning. Neither are they afraid of what the truth is. The quote was for you, but of course you already know that. Just like you know you aren't "just a guy asking questions".
If you were just asking questions, then you would pay attention to the outstanding answers already given.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 08:43:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So.... in your mind, the guy who sends us video tapes every couple months telling us thet he is going to destroy us.... is a secret?
WTF are you smoking kid?
I think its you that have been smoking the bunk stuff.
"U.S. Government Caught Red-Handed Releasing Staged Al-Qaeda Videos
Immediate Congressional investigation demanded, media oversight of clear and deliberate psychological warfare against American population non-existent"
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/051006redhanded.htm
To actually believe the current administration tells anything resembling the truth, is sheer ignorance.
I watch you skeptics and your belief system interfers with your processing of knowledge. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 08:50:11 [Permalink]
|
| Ah good ol' prisonplanet.com - I was wondering when something would be sited from there.... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 09:53:04 [Permalink]
|
Direct questions for ergo:
1A) Which parts of the 9/11 Commission Report discuss the physics of the collapse of 1 WTC?
1B) Which parts of the 9/11 Commission Report are "incongruent to" which parts of the NIST Report?
2) Before any floor was impacted, while the tower had a huge gash in its northern perimeter columns, several severed and several weakened columns in the core, freshly-buckled southern perimeter columns (let's say it's one microsecond after the last column buckled), and the top of the building visibly leaning to the south, just exactly which part(s) of the actual building, in your opinion, could have stopped the downward motion of the upper 16 stories? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 12:54:37 [Permalink]
|
Upriver babbled:
quote:
To actually believe the current administration tells anything resembling the truth, is sheer ignorance.
I watch you skeptics and your belief system interfers with your processing of knowledge.
You do realize that with that one paragraph you have placed all US news and media, all European news and media, and all Arabic news and media under the control of the current US government?
Seriously, how messed up does your head have to be to believe that the entire free press of the world is (or even could be) controlled by G.W. and friends?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 14:00:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
btw--i'm not sure why some of my posts keep repeating themselves. it might be related to the fact that i'm accessing the forum via my phone.
Or it could be that you're double-clicking the Post New Reply- (or the Submit Reply-) button.
But that's just a conspiracy-theory of mine.
The word "theory" as used in "conspiracy theory" does not mean the same thing as "scientific theory", but it means unevidenced conjecture or speculation.
As such, the 9/11 report is not a conspiracy theory, because it presents evidence to its conclusion. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/05/2006 14:37:38 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 14:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And if you are skeptical of me, you are wasting your time. I'm just a guy asking questions.
You are asking the wrong questions. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 15:03:24 [Permalink]
|
and what are the right questions?
and my tech issues were something else because my comments would be reposted several minutes later in some cases. and besides, i write all the comments myself... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/05/2006 15:16:42 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 20:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
and what are the right questions?
I don't know, I haven't read neither reports.
But from what I've read so far in this thread, some of the questions should be:
Is Ross a structural engineer with experience in the type of contruction sollution used in WTC?
How much does Ross know about demolition?
Dave has pointed out several times now that the construction differs between Ross' model and the actual contruction of WTC.
Is this true?
In case Dave is right: Is Ross aware that his model doesn't match the construction of WTC?
You have made some bold assertions so far in this thread, but you need to show evidence that they are true. Dave has asked you a number of questions that you have failed to answer, and that goes to the core of your argument. Unless you answer them, I can't see how this discussion can go forward.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/05/2006 20:17:37 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 20:59:42 [Permalink]
|
many of dave's questions deal with issues other than energy transfer--the issue i'm focusing on first; specifically whether the collapse would continue past the first impacted floor.
And Ross is a mechanical and materials engineer. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
