|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 20:10:54 [Permalink]
|
This page has a collection of data which has been accumulated since sometime around November of 2001, just a few weeks after 9/11.
|
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:05:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I told him that twice. He does not seem to care.
If Master Yoda's post is accurate, then ergo really does care, but what he cares about is not what we're giving him. He really, really, really wants someone to champion the government's case, so that after he does his song-and-dance routine he can claim victory over the skeptics, regardless of the evidence presented.
Of course, I'm quite sure that the NIST researchers can speak for themselves, although I doubt they'd give someone with ergo's background the proverbial time of day - they've got families and hobbies, and their work on that particular report is finished and they're spending their workdays on something else. It's not their job to repeat themselves to any hack from the Internet.
(Of course, ergo didn't even know about the NIST report until last week, which is pretty pathetic coming from someone who self-describes as a seeker of truth on this particular subject - the NIST report wasn't hidden anywhere, every word of 43 freakin' volumes is freely available on the Web, and he must have seen references to it in other works, like the Popular Mechanics article or Wikipedia.)
Anyway, ergo must be disappointed that nobody here seems to be willing to play the role of the government in his little bit of theatre. He will, of course, deny that he's after any such thing, but his repetitive whining about nobody providing any evidence when he's got the NIST report and all its footnotes and references in his grubby little tongs is over-the-top melodrama, and ruins the whole production. Had he managed to avoid hamming it up so much, he might have hooked someone.
you can't be serious! that's like relying on luke to tell you if his gospels are really the chronicle of jesus' life! certainly not the most rigorous of tests! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:08:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
Why would anyone? There is no evidence for 'other theories'.
Controlled demolition? Look at the collapse of the south tower, the explosions happen after the collapse starts. North tower, the top of the tower tilts to one side during the collapse.
are you familar with controlled demolitions? what you describe is consistent with one. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:15:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
Why would anyone? There is no evidence for 'other theories'.
Controlled demolition? Look at the collapse of the south tower, the explosions happen after the collapse starts. North tower, the top of the tower tilts to one side during the collapse.
are you familar with controlled demolitions? what you describe is consistent with one.
Absolutely not in any universe. In controlled demolitions the explosions would come first.
Guess what else is consistant with controlled demolition. The buildings fall. Guess that proves it was a demolition huh! LOL |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:19:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Are you familar with controlled demolitions? What you describe is consistent with one.
Everything is consistant with a plane crashing into the building and a fire spreading over several floors and weakening the structural supports. Then the top floors falling onto one another generating a pancaking effect and bringing down the building. Hey, it seems like someone already presented this theory... now who was that? The government? Several physics experts? Several data analysist pouring over mounds of data? Scientist after scientist after scientist after... |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/09/2006 21:20:29 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:31:32 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
you can't be serious! that's like relying on luke to tell you if his gospels are really the chronicle of jesus' life! certainly not the most rigorous of tests!
Your comparison is invalid. The gospel of luke contains no footnotes, no external independent references, and no rigorous evaluation with the conclusions.
The NIST report, as is obvious to anyone who bothers to examine it, is a collection of evidence with extensive references, in addition to containing conclusions.
The gospel of Luke is an annecdote.
Your conflation of the two is rejected for the obvious straw-man it is.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 21:32:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
you can't be serious! that's like relying on luke to tell you if his gospels are really the chronicle of jesus' life! certainly not the most rigorous of tests!
Not at all, since the references used by NIST aren't generally hearsay, but are actual hard evidence that people can see and touch, like reports from non-governmental civil engineers, metalurgists, and other professionals. Nobody is asking you to take NIST at their word, ergo - and in fact we're suggesting that you examine their references. Nobody here needs to do this homework for you because nobody here was involved in creating the NIST report - it's not our report to defend, and nobody here is claiming that it's the ultimate source of truth on this matter.
You want evidence in support of the government's case? The NIST report shows you where all the evidence they used came from, so you can go check it out yourself and make sure that NIST is not misrepresenting it. This situation is so unlike your Bible analogy that it's difficult to see how an educated chap like yourself could make such a horrendous mistake. And your continued denial that you have no references to non-governmental evidence supporting the government's case simply makes you look delusional. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 02:03:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
Did my naughty boy actually say he'd never heard of the NIST report until last week? Can I call BS?
Troofy/Ergo, don't make me go look up all the citations you and we have made over the last months! Is ums making up fibsy wibsies again? Don't be such a fuzzy-headed little scamp, okay? Who's leg is ums pulling? Yeah, c'mon, you know! Right.. you're the snuggy uggums making up nonsense stories! You full well know what the NIST is and have read selected passages. Hell, someone even posted you a picture of the entire report, books and cd combined!
I truly like that someone seeking "evidence" is now saying that he's going by intuition. Have they got some new meds at the outpatient clinic? You've been talking about your brilliant intellectual debating ability and screaming for evidence on the two forums that I know of (and probably others) for several months. Now it's down to intuition????  More of that "well, it just ummm looks like something I've never seen before, so it must be CD..." crap? Of course it looks like something you've never seen before - NO ONE HAD EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT BEFORE. It was the first time in history that someone had the actual will to take fully loaded, fully fueled aircraft and fly them, at full speed, into inhabited office towers, jack***!
I'd never seen anything like it, either. (And I SAW it, by the way - I was there!)
So, I think it looked just like a piece of coconut pustard pie was left on a stairway and a cleaning guy slipped on it, and accidentally hit the "do not press this button" button that you see in all Ren and Stimpy cartoons, and when he hit the button, it brought the towers down. I can say that intuitively, of course, because I've never seen anything like that in my life, so it had to be just like I imagine it should have been!
I can't go looking through all these threads. Have you introduced your Ross report on seismic evidence, yet? Or are you saving that for the next thread when you've totally had your butt waxed in this one? How about some of the more intriguing ideas you have on WTC 7? Have you been over and seen Gravy's latest work on that topic? I'm sure he misses your erudition.
I also seem to have missed the part about Purdue. Are you saying you attended Purdue, know someone who attends/attended Purdue, once passed through a town that was nearby Purdue, or know a guy who's sister knew a guy who went out with a girl whose brother had a Purdue sweatshirt? Why didn't you mention that when discussing the Purdue computer models of the collapse, I wonder? Is this something that came up just recently?
Along with your advanced knowledge of the Vienna School (economics), I see you're also claiming some variation of a degree or certificate in Psychology? Busy busy bee, aren't you?
May I ask our favorite question? Proof? Evidence? Proof? Or did you intuitively attend Purdue and obtain a degree? Most schools I know of require that you attend in person, not via ESP.
Fun isn't it? I pick up little bitty comments here and there and run around like a madman making accusations. I'm studying under you and Killtown as to how to be a tinfoil nutter. I am cheating like you cheat. Just mine a nugget here and there and make a big deal of it, and if you prove that anything I said above is wrong? Well, so what? I'll just change the subject and start talkin' 'bout how fat your mamma is!
|
| Edited by - Master Yoda on 10/10/2006 03:02:01 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 03:53:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
Why would anyone? There is no evidence for 'other theories'.
Controlled demolition? Look at the collapse of the south tower, the explosions happen after the collapse starts. North tower, the top of the tower tilts to one side during the collapse.
are you familar with controlled demolitions? what you describe is consistent with one.
Yes, I am familiar with controlled demolitions. No, the buildings only start to collapse after the explosions in such a demolitions. They also do not topple at the top. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 04:06:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
Dave,
Did my naughty boy actually say he'd never heard of the NIST report until last week? Can I call BS?
Troofy/Ergo, don't make me go look up all the citations you and we have made over the last months! Is ums making up fibsy wibsies again? Don't be such a fuzzy-headed little scamp, okay? Who's leg is ums pulling? Yeah, c'mon, you know! Right.. you're the snuggy uggums making up nonsense stories! You full well know what the NIST is and have read selected passages. Hell, someone even posted you a picture of the entire report, books and cd combined!
I truly like that someone seeking "evidence" is now saying that he's going by intuition. Have they got some new meds at the outpatient clinic? You've been talking about your brilliant intellectual debating ability and screaming for evidence on the two forums that I know of (and probably others) for several months. Now it's down to intuition???? More of that "well, it just ummm looks like something I've never seen before, so it must be CD..." crap? Of course it looks like something you've never seen before - NO ONE HAD EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT BEFORE. It was the first time in history that someone had the actual will to take fully loaded, fully fueled aircraft and fly them, at full speed, into inhabited office towers, jack***!
I'd never seen anything like it, either. (And I SAW it, by the way - I was there!)
So, I think it looked just like a piece of coconut pustard pie was left on a stairway and a cleaning guy slipped on it, and accidentally hit the "do not press this button" button that you see in all Ren and Stimpy cartoons, and when he hit the button, it brought the towers down. I can say that intuitively, of course, because I've never seen anything like that in my life, so it had to be just like I imagine it should have been!
I can't go looking through all these threads. Have you introduced your Ross report on seismic evidence, yet? Or are you saving that for the next thread when you've totally had your butt waxed in this one? How about some of the more intriguing ideas you have on WTC 7? Have you been over and seen Gravy's latest work on that topic? I'm sure he misses your erudition.
I also seem to have missed the part about Purdue. Are you saying you attended Purdue, know someone who attends/attended Purdue, once passed through a town that was nearby Purdue, or know a guy who's sister knew a guy who went out with a girl whose brother had a Purdue sweatshirt? Why didn't you mention that when discussing the Purdue computer models of the collapse, I wonder? Is this something that came up just recently?
Along with your advanced knowledge of the Vienna School (economics), I see you're also claiming some variation of a degree or certificate in Psychology? Busy busy bee, aren't you?
May I ask our favorite question? Proof? Evidence? Proof? Or did you intuitively attend Purdue and obtain a degree? Most schools I know of require that you attend in person, not via ESP.
Fun isn't it? I pick up little bitty comments here and there and run around like a madman making accusations. I'm studying under you and Killtown as to how to be a tinfoil nutter. I am cheating like you cheat. Just mine a nugget here and there and make a big deal of it, and if you prove that anything I said above is wrong? Well, so what? I'll just change the subject and start talkin' 'bout how fat your mamma is!
LOL! You actually think I am this person from the other site--truthseeker1234!! The stories you people will tell yourselves just to avoid looking at uncomfortable facts is amazing... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 04:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Absolutely not in any universe. In controlled demolitions the explosions would come first.
Guess what else is consistant with controlled demolition. The buildings fall. Guess that proves it was a demolition huh! LOL
[/quote]
yeah, i guess you're right ; there can only be one way to set up a cd in this universe... i suppose it would be impossible to set it up any other way... here you go dave; another one for the closed-mind pile. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 04:23:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Everything is consistant with a plane crashing into the building and a fire spreading over several floors and weakening the structural supports.
[/quote]
Everything except the buildings actually falling... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 04:40:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
you can't be serious! that's like relying on luke to tell you if his gospels are really the chronicle of jesus' life! certainly not the most rigorous of tests!
Not at all, since the references used by NIST aren't generally hearsay, but are actual hard evidence that people can see and touch, like reports from non-governmental civil engineers, metalurgists, and other professionals. Nobody is asking you to take NIST at their word, ergo - and in fact we're suggesting that you examine their references. Nobody here needs to do this homework for you because nobody here was involved in creating the NIST report - it's not our report to defend, and nobody here is claiming that it's the ultimate source of truth on this matter.
You want evidence in support of the government's case? The NIST report shows you where all the evidence they used came from, so you can go check it out yourself and make sure that NIST is not misrepresenting it. [/quote]
But I have already shown that NIST misrepresents the evidence. That's why I'm looking for INDEPENDENT validation of what NIST concludes. INDEPENDENT validation connot come from anyone involved with the original NIST analysis! Why are you being such a prick about this? If you have independent, non-federal-government-linked support for the NIST Report just st them!
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:00:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
But I have already shown that NIST misrepresents the evidence. That's why I'm looking for INDEPENDENT validation of what NIST concludes. INDEPENDENT validation connot come from anyone involved with the original NIST analysis! Why are you being such a prick about this? If you have independent, non-federal-government-linked support for the NIST Report just st them!
The problem with your request is why would anyone take the time to support a report that is already widely supported? A very few independents are speaking out against the report, but that doesn't mean a thing. A very few scientists support ID and speak out about the lack of evidence for evolution. So what?
Bottom line is if most independents find that the NIST report the most plausible explanation for what happened, why on earth would they take the time to prove it? If anyone has taken the time to support the NIST report, it is indirectly, to answer (debunk) another theory. And that has been done, over and over again. But by your criteria, that isn't acceptable since those independents are responding to the CD claims and not directly the NIST report. You have already ruled out independent sources that support the report by ruling out the reports sources…
Your request only makes sense if it was designed so that you to get to say “ah hah” as though you made a great point that in reality says absolutely nothing. A win by strawman. Only problem is, you will have to pat your own self on the back because we don't really care much for logical fallacies.
Your favorite theory is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof for that claim is on you and nothing you say or do here will change that.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:23:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
But I have already shown that NIST misrepresents the evidence. That's why I'm looking for INDEPENDENT validation of what NIST concludes. INDEPENDENT validation connot come from anyone involved with the original NIST analysis! Why are you being such a prick about this? If you have independent, non-federal-government-linked support for the NIST Report just post them!
quote:
The problem with your request is why would anyone take the time to support a report that is already widely supported?
Hmm. I hear the same argument from people when I ask them to find independent support for the bible...
quote:
A very few independents are speaking out against the report, but that doesn't mean a thing. A very few scientists support ID and speak out about the lack of evidence for evolution. So what?
How is that even relevant--I'm not looking for independents speaking out against the report. I'm looking for independents speaking in support of the report. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?!
Maybe a simple question: Are you aware of any independent, non-federal-government-linked evidence that supports the conclusions found in the NIST report? If your answer is "no," then just stop replying; if your answer is "yes," please just list one or two.
quote:
Bottom line is if most independents find that the NIST report the most plausible explanation for what happened, why on earth would they take the time to prove it?
And how would they reach the conclusion that it is the most plausible without proving it? Or without exploring alternatives?
quote:
If anyone has taken the time to support the NIST report, it is indirectly, to answer (debunk) another theory. And that has been done, over and over again. But by your criteria, that isn't acceptable since those independents are responding to the CD claims and not directly the NIST report. You have already ruled out independent sources that support the report by ruling out the reports sources…
Right, because the report sources are not independent. But it sounds like the rest who use it to debunk other theories are taking the conclusions of the NIST Report on faith...
quote:
Your request only makes sense if it was designed so that you to get to say “ah hah” as though you made a great point that in reality says absolutely nothing. A win by strawman.
Really? That's the only way it makes sense? Just because you can't phathom another reason to make such a request doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
To me, at least, it makes sense to get independent validation for any theory or set |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
