|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2006 : 19:45:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You also seem to be under the delusion that you are completely consistent in how you think...
You certainly read a lot into fairly simple discussions. I guess that is consistent with your method of reading alot into 9/11, without the necessity of factual evidence.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 20:56:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, I think you've missed the point on how I think you think. You also seem to be under the delusion that you are completely consistent in how you think...
I'm sure that you're missing something about the way Kil thinks. You're even misunderstanding how he thinks you think he thinks. And if you don't actually understand how he thinks you think he thinks you think he thinks, then you're certainly not going to be able to understand the way you think.
Don't you think? |
- 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 : 21:19:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, I think you've missed the point on how I think you think. You also seem to be under the delusion that you are completely consistent in how you think...
I'm sure that you're missing something about the way Kil thinks. You're even misunderstanding how he thinks you think he thinks. And if you don't actually understand how he thinks you think he thinks you think he thinks, then you're certainly not going to be able to understand the way you think.
And where is your evidence for that claim? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 21:29:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And where is your evidence for that claim?
I'll show you mine after you show me yours. |
- 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 - 10/19/2006 : 03:39:41 [Permalink]
|
What we have here, I think, is verlch without the charm.
Let's get back to basics, ergo. You came here making the preposterous claim the the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. I call the claim 'preposterous' because there has been exactly no evidence produced in it's support. By anyone or from anywhere. Nothing.
Do you have anything, anything at all, that will lend a little credence to the claim? Because, you see, I would dearly love to to be able to throw it in the Administration's lying face.
Incidentaliy, I rather agree with you that the 9-11 commission was full of shit. I started thinking that when Bush testified before it without being under oath, and with the swine Cheney holding his sweaty, little hand. However, that doesn't mean that it's ultimate findings concerning the collapse were incorrect, even though it was used as a lame excuse to invade Iraq.
So how 'bout it: if you have something concrete, do put it forth.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 08:24:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Let's get back to basics, ergo. You came here making the preposterous claim the the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions.
No, I came here asking questions about the official conspiracy theory. In fact, here is my very first post on this forum:
I'm new to this site. I have just recently seen Loose Change and other sites that don't believe the government's conspiricy theory of what happened on 9/11/01.
Loose Change, as I'm sure you all know, plays fast and loose with information. But some of the other sites (like scholars for truth.org) show evidence that it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone.
Has this been discussed on the forum? If so, please direct me to that discussion. If not, does anyone have the expertise to comment on how the buildings could fall at near-free-fall speed?
I've seen one analysis by Ross that show the falling upper block of floors would not have enough energy to collapse the first impacted floor. And then there is the problem of Building 7 which had no "upper block" of floors to impact anything.
I'm looking for evidence (not just opinion) that the administration was NOT behind the events of 9/11.
Thanks!
Steve
The only thing I claim in that post relates to things I had seen on other sites--i.e., I claimed I saw evidence on the other sites. I even provided the sources for what I had seen (loose change and scholarsfortruth911.org).
So I guess I don't see what was so preposterous about that.
quote:
I call the claim 'preposterous' because there has been exactly no evidence produced in it's support. By anyone or from anywhere. Nothing.
I provided the sources, filthy. Didn't you check them out?
quote:
Do you have anything, anything at all, that will lend a little credence to the claim? Because, you see, I would dearly love to to be able to throw it in the Administration's lying face.
I don't think the administration cares if I claim other sites (like scholars for truth.org) show evidence that it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone.
As for what you call my claim that explosives or thermite brought down the buildings, I am not claiming, nor have I ever intentionnaly claimed, that happened. I said I believe that to be true--not that it is true. I get that some of you might not be native English speakers, but many of you are--and I don't get why the distinction between what I believe and what I claim to be true is so hard for you to make?
Maybe you are intentionally blurring the distinction to cover up for the fact that you claim the official story to be true without having supporting evidence for it. Is there some other information you need to help you make the distinction between what I believe and what I claim? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 08:42:38 [Permalink]
|
This post would be far more believable if you didn't just wave away all of our objections to the cd theory.
Not once have I seen serious consideration given to the problem of logistics by you. More often your replies amount to it might have been done this way or that way to a point where it really looks like nothing but apologetics given by you to support the cd theory.
You may not have made the claim that the cd theory is the correct theory, but you do walk like a duck and quack like a duck…
|
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 - 10/19/2006 : 08:53:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
This post would be far more believable if you didn't just wave away all of our objections to the cd theory.
Not once have I seen serious consideration given to the problem of logistics by you. More often your replies amount to it might have been done this way or that way to a point where it really looks like nothing but apologetics given by you to support the cd theory.
You may not have made the claim that the cd theory is the correct theory, but you do walk like a duck and quack like a duck…
But in the end, kil, it comes down to you wanting to see a duck--so you see a duck. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 09:10:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
But in the end, kil, it comes down to you wanting to see a duck--so you see a duck.
I have made every attempt to dispel that notion by you. Nothing works. It seems to make you comfortable to think we are all just close-minded.
Whatever…
|
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 - 10/19/2006 : 11:11:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
But in the end, kil, it comes down to you wanting to see a duck--so you see a duck.
I have made every attempt to dispel that notion by you. Nothing works. It seems to make you comfortable to think we are all just close-minded.
Whatever…
No, the fact that you act in a closed-minded way is very unsettling given this is supposed to be a skeptics site. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:26:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Kil isn't the one acting close-minded, you are, ergo.
That's a riot coming from the guy who deletes my comments and evidence after asking for it for days! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 11:56:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
That's a riot coming from the guy who deletes my comments and evidence after asking for it for days!
My deletion of your evidence has nothing to do with its evidenciary content, and I haven't deleted even a single one of your comments. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2006 : 12:49:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No, the fact that you act in a closed-minded way is very unsettling given this is supposed to be a skeptics site.
So why don't you give serious consideration to the problem of logistics in your scenario? Why don't you critically consider your own scenario's. For someone who is supposedly so 'open minded' you sure do not do much more then handwaving away anything that does not fit into a controlled demolition viewpoint. |
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 - 10/19/2006 : 13:50:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
So why don't you give serious consideration to the problem of logistics in your scenario?
The logistics issue of "can it be done" will be answered when it is determined if controlled demolition (regardless of what form) was involved--at least in one direction: If it is determined that a controlled demolition was involved, then it must be the case that "it can be done." Failure to determine the CD case does not mean it "couldn't" be done, but at that point who would care.
The issue of "how it was done" is another issue entirely. Answering that question would likely lead to some indication of the party or parties responsible. But again, there will be no need to determine "how it was done" if it turns out "it was not done."
Figuring out either of these logistical issues could rule out the CD theory--if, like filthy suspects, it would be impossible to do. But it is very difficult to prove something (especially like the use of CD materials) impossible. Remember, much of what we know as commonplace today was once theoretically impossible. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
Just to be clear (part 2)
