|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2006 : 05:54:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What you fail to understand is that the use of explosives to bring down the towers is unrelated to my knowledge of how to do so.
I think we all understand that you have no clue as to how explosives could have been used to bring down the towers, but still you think they were used. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2006 : 06:49:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What you fail to understand is that the use of explosives to bring down the towers is unrelated to my knowledge of how to do so.
Then how can you postulate that set explosives brought down the towers if you don't at least have an inkling of how such specialized blasting is done? An inkling, by the bye, that I, in my boundless generosity, have attempted to supply you with.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 07:42:45 [Permalink]
|
How are you doing on gathering that evidence you are going to supply us; or have you "changed your approach" again?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 08:35:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What you fail to understand is that the use of explosives to bring down the towers is unrelated to my knowledge of how to do so.
I think we all understand that you have no clue as to how explosives could have been used to bring down the towers, but still you think they were used.
What part of "working theory" do you not understand dave?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 08:52:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
What you fail to understand is that the use of explosives to bring down the towers is unrelated to my knowledge of how to do so.
Then how can you postulate that set explosives brought down the towers if you don't at least have an inkling of how such specialized blasting is done? An inkling, by the bye, that I, in my boundless generosity, have attempted to supply you with.
That's like saying a person can't suggest driving to the store is the quickest option if they don't understand how an internal combustion engine works.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 08:57:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Woah, dave. I just asked you how you can be sure the images weren't altered... No underlying assumption.
The underlying assumption is that the images can be altered. As you said earlier:What kind of scientist can't see what is assumed in a given argument?! Of course, you've never claimed to be a scientist (neither have I), and it's quite obvious you'd be a poor one.quote:
And I'm sure that your lack of providing evidence that you predicted my question was an oversight on your part, and that it will be posted soon...
Right here in this thread, on page 4:WOE be to those poor sheeple who are fooled by the Feds into thinking that photographs of airplane wreckage at the Pentagon have not been Photoshoppethed! Now where is the evidence that you promised us? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 08:58:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm not claiming it can be done another way. I'm just remaining open to the possibility.
No, you claim that you can present evidence that explosives were used, and evidence has already been presented that they must have been used in "some other way" if they were used at all. Where is that evidence you're going to present, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:00:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
What part of "working theory" do you not understand dave?
Obviously the part where your unsupported guess somehow becomes a theory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:03:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That's like saying a person can't suggest driving to the store is the quickest option if they don't understand how an internal combustion engine works.
No, it's like saying that a person can't suggest that driving to the store is the quickest option if they don't understand that automobiles tend to be faster than walking. Understanding an internal combustion engine isn't necessary to know how to drive, but knowing something about driving is necessary to be able to compare it to other methods of getting from point A to point B. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:12:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Woah, dave. I just asked you how you can be sure the images weren't altered... No underlying assumption.
The underlying assumption is that the images can be altered. As you said earlier:What kind of scientist can't see what is assumed in a given argument?! Of course, you've never claimed to be a scientist (neither have I), and it's quite obvious you'd be a poor one.quote:
And I'm sure that your lack of providing evidence that you predicted my question was an oversight on your part, and that it will be posted soon...
Right here in this thread, on page 4:WOE be to those poor sheeple who are fooled by the Feds into thinking that photographs of airplane wreckage at the Pentagon have not been Photoshoppethed! Now where is the evidence that you promised us?
Why can't the images be altered?
And that's not proof that I would ask that question. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:15:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm not claiming it can be done another way. I'm just remaining open to the possibility.
No, you claim that you can present evidence that explosives were used, and evidence has already been presented that they must have been used in "some other way" if they were used at all. Where is that evidence you're going to present, anyway?
But you have no idea if the evidence that it must be done "some other way" is true.
And it's not up to me to determine how it was done. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:18:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That's like saying a person can't suggest driving to the store is the quickest option if they don't understand how an internal combustion engine works.
No, it's like saying that a person can't suggest that driving to the store is the quickest option if they don't understand that automobiles tend to be faster than walking. Understanding an internal combustion engine isn't necessary to know how to drive, but knowing something about driving is necessary to be able to compare it to other methods of getting from point A to point B.
No. Just seeing a car go down the street would be enough. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:43:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Why can't the images be altered?
I never said they couldn't be. Never implied it, either.quote:
And that's not proof that I would ask that question.
You didn't ask for proof that you would ask that question, you asked for evidence that I predicted the question. I provided such evidence, and rather than admit it, you moved the goalposts.
Hey, where is that evidence that you said that you'd provide, anyway? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:51:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But you have no idea if the evidence that it must be done "some other way" is true.
I don't? Interesting: your objection implies that everything about the construction of the towers is up for grabs, that nobody knows how they were really put together. Which, of course, would mean that Ross' analysis is completely worthless, too.quote:
And it's not up to me to determine how it was done.
If you don't know how it was done, then how could you possibly provide evidence that it was done? Oh, that's right, that was a bluff on your part - you'll never make good on your promise to provide any evidence of anything. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:53:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No. Just seeing a car go down the street would be enough.
Only if you already know what a 'car' is and how to 'drive' it. You're obviously making assumptions about driving that you admit you can't make about explosive demolitions, and so your analogy fails miserably. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Just to be clear (part 2)
