|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 06:09:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
So I'm not saying "they did it."
Yes you are. You are clearly one of the faithful.
No. There is a difference in personally thinking the cd theory is true and claiming the cd theory is true. If you don't see the difference, then you shouldn't be in this conversation.
You are here making statements supporting CD. So you are both thinking and claiming that CD is true. A very small difference in an unimportant detail, but not unexpected.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And I keep telling people like you that I am aware that I have yet to present any evidence for the CD Theory. I am still doing research and will present material I consider evidence when I have researched it to my satisfaction.
Can hardly wait. But I wonder since this unevidenced conspiracy has been alive for 5 years shouldn't you be spending more time doing research and less time denying non CD explanations.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And you seem to mix up "not finding evidence" with "not being true." Are you really so simple as to not see the fallacy in that way of thinking? Now before you flip your lid (and you will because you don't understand the fallacy there; if you did, you never would have typed what you typed...)
Typical, when your argument is floundering for reason obvious to all but you, you turn toward insults and personal attacks. Though I do not consider this a personal attack. It seems more based in frustration
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
consider that truth is logically independent of evidence (look up that phrase if you have never heard of it before...). And I'm not using logical independence to support the CD Theory--I'm just pointing out to you the fallacy of your apparent belief.
The best means that we have of arriving at the truth is the scientific method which is dependent on observable and experimentally repeatable data/evidence. Until you have evidence for CD, then all you have is speculation. You should be spending more time doing research for CD evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
All I see is denial of the official explanation which is still not evidence of CD.
Well of course the fact that the official story is impossible isn't proof that the CD Theory is true. But proving the official story is impossible opens the door to examine theories of the collapses of the 3 wtc buildings.
Well of course the official story is impossible. 
When can we expect your CD evidence? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 12:24:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If nothing else, proving the official story wrong opens the door to people like you to start waking up and considering other theories of collapse--of which the cd theory is but one.
quote:
No it isn't, not any more than leopard vomit, and that was my point.
How do you know the CD Theory is wrong? (Er, i'm assuming here that you don't also think leopard vomit could be true...)
And if you knew it was wrong, why didn't you show me the evidence?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 12:28:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let's see your promised "theory," ergo123, ready for prime-time or not. Along with whatever evidence you have so far collected to back it up. Everything else you've presented has been hogwash, lies, and personal insults.
Now, put up, or shut up.
And you have yet to refute, with evidence, even one point I made above.
And if you actually read my posts you would know that I promised to share my evidence for the CD Theory when and if I find any. It's not like you don't know what the CD Theory is, right? SO why are you all "waiting to see my theory." As I've said before--I think the CD Theory is true, and I am currently looking for evidence that it is true before I claim it to be true. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 12:38:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No. There is a difference in personally thinking the cd theory is true and claiming the cd theory is true. If you don't see the difference, then you shouldn't be in this conversation.
quote:
You are here making statements supporting CD. So you are both thinking and claiming that CD is true. A very small difference in an unimportant detail, but not unexpected.
Like I said--I knew you wouldn't get it. Try this--I have a feeling it is true but I, as of yet, have no evidence it is true, therefore I don't know it to be true.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And you seem to mix up "not finding evidence" with "not being true." Are you really so simple as to not see the fallacy in that way of thinking? Now before you flip your lid (and you will because you don't understand the fallacy there; if you did, you never would have typed what you typed...)
quote:
Typical, when your argument is floundering for reason obvious to all but you, you turn toward insults and personal attacks. Though I do not consider this a personal attack. It seems more based in frustration
I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
consider that truth is logically independent of evidence (look up that phrase if you have never heard of it before...). And I'm not using logical independence to support the CD Theory--I'm just pointing out to you the fallacy of your apparent belief.
quote:
The best means that we have of arriving at the truth is the scientific method which is dependent on observable and experimentally repeatable data/evidence.
Indeed. But failure to find evidence does not negate a Truth, it merely leaves it undiscovered.
quote:
Until you have evidence for CD, then all you have is speculation. You should be spending more time doing research for CD evidence.
Why?
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
All I see is denial of the official explanation which is still not evidence of CD.
Well of course the fact that the official story is impossible isn't proof that the CD Theory is true. But proving the official story is impossible opens the door to examine theories of the collapses of the 3 wtc buildings.
quote:
Well of course the official story is impossible.
So you don't believe the official story is true? What do you believe caused the towers to collapse? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 13:29:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
[quote]Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let's see your promised "theory," ergo123, ready for As I've said before--I think the CD Theory is true, and I am currently looking for evidence that it is true before I claim it to be true.
There's ego's scientific thinking in a nutshell:
-- I "believe" X to be true.
-- I will go in search on "evidence" to back up my belief.
What he disingenuously denies is that he really is claiming this to be true and that nothing he "finds" in his search will sway him from his belief. That's no straw man...that's evident from these senseless threads he's created.
Does any of this feel the same as talking to an ultra conservative fundamentalist Xtian to anyone? Same illogical, irrational thinking.
Here's a thought:
-- I'll examine all of the evidence of what happened leading up to, on and after 9-11-01
-- I'll use that evidence to derive my theories regardless of my beliefs.
Hmmm...what a novel approach. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 13:40:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let's see your promised "theory," ergo123, ready for prime-time or not. Along with whatever evidence you have so far collected to back it up. Everything else you've presented has been hogwash, lies, and personal insults.
Now, put up, or shut up.
And you have yet to refute, with evidence, even one point I made above.
And if you actually read my posts you would know that I promised to share my evidence for the CD Theory when and if I find any. It's not like you don't know what the CD Theory is, right? SO why are you all "waiting to see my theory." As I've said before--I think the CD Theory is true, and I am currently looking for evidence that it is true before I claim it to be true.
First, none of us is required to attempt the impossible task of proving a negative. What is so difficult for you about the concept of the burden of proof?
Okay, now I see the answer to the question I just asked, in your last sentence: First, you decide CD is true, then you look for evidence to support the idea. That demonstrates that bass-ackwards mental processes are in play.
First, you started running your mouth about your extraordinary idea, then you began a desperate search for proof.
You leapt before you looked, landed in a cesspit, and are now trying to convince yourself that it's filled with rosewater. No wonder you're feeling so uncomfortable that you must constantly resort to disparaging every skeptic here, individually, and collectively as "sheeple." And you meantime demand that we prove you aren't swimming in rosewater. In your mind, it's rosewater until we prove it ain't.
So, to sum things up:
1. You have an idea in your head that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, mysteriously carried out without the buildings' occupants noticing the internal walls being torn out to place the charges.
2. You have so far been unable to concoct a theory about how this was accomplished.
3. You have absolutely no evidence to support your CD idea.
4. So you repeatedly try to foist the burden to disprove your extraordinary CD idea onto others. But we "sheeple" reject this.
If you ever find any evidence, it would be very startling and important news. Please let us know if you do. Until then, since you can't put up... Oh, never mind, you probably can't shut up, either.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 13:48:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by McQ
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
[quote]Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let's see your promised "theory," ergo123, ready for As I've said before--I think the CD Theory is true, and I am currently looking for evidence that it is true before I claim it to be true.
There's ego's scientific thinking in a nutshell:
-- I "believe" X to be true.
-- I will go in search on "evidence" to back up my belief.
What he disingenuously denies is that he really is claiming this to be true and that nothing he "finds" in his search will sway him from his belief. That's no straw man...that's evident from these senseless threads he's created.
Does any of this feel the same as talking to an ultra conservative fundamentalist Xtian to anyone? Same illogical, irrational thinking.
Here's a thought:
-- I'll examine all of the evidence of what happened leading up to, on and after 9-11-01
-- I'll use that evidence to derive my theories regardless of my beliefs.
Hmmm...what a novel approach.
Well-stated, McQ! And your remark on the similarities of twisted "thinking" between the likes of ergo and fundies is right on the mark. Different theories, same batshit-crazy thinking style.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 14:01:25 [Permalink]
|
'mooner, he's got nothing beyond hand-waving, straw men, and ad hom, and that's all we'll ever get from him.
And ergo, the F was not a typo, as you would have seen if you'd actually read the link I put up concerning the reaction of metals to low temperatures.
Incidentally, looking at the other thread, a thread almost as ridiculous as this one, I noticed that you claimed that the support columns were designed to take an extended heat-soaking at 2,000 F. I am curious. Where did you get that? Or did I misread it?
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2006 : 14:19:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
How do you know the CD Theory is wrong? (Er, i'm assuming here that you don't also think leopard vomit could be true...)
Over your head again, I see.
"know"? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Letīs spell it out one last time. No evidence. quote:
And if you knew it was wrong, why didn't you show me the evidence?
So now I'm supposed to find the evidence for you? You really have no idea of how this works do you?
Oh dear.
Itīs like that line from Ford Fairline, "Slightly amusing, but mostly painful"
 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 14:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Let's see your promised "theory," ergo123, ready for prime-time or not. Along with whatever evidence you have so far collected to back it up. Everything else you've presented has been hogwash, lies, and personal insults.
Now, put up, or shut up.
And you have yet to refute, with evidence, even one point I made above.
And if you actually read my posts you would know that I promised to share my evidence for the CD Theory when and if I find any. It's not like you don't know what the CD Theory is, right? SO why are you all "waiting to see my theory." As I've said before--I think the CD Theory is true, and I am currently looking for evidence that it is true before I claim it to be true.
quote:
First, none of us is required to attempt the impossible task of proving a negative. What is so difficult for you about the concept of the burden of proof?
I have offered proof that the official story is a lie. You have refuted none of it. And refuting my evidence does not require the proof of a negative. For example, I claim that the NIST/UL tests show the floor systems did not fail under 2X the load for 2X the time. Attempting to refute that claim does not involve trying to prove a negative. All you need to do is read the document I referenced when I first mentioned it and see if the conclusions of the test are as I have presented them. If they are not, you will have successfully refuted my claim.
If for some reason you are talking about needing to prove a negative in order to refute my claims that the CD Theory is true, then we're in trouble because I have made no claims of fact yet about the CD Theory. So at this point, with nothing claimed there is nothing to refute.
quote:
Okay, now I see the answer to the question I just asked, in your last sentence: First, you decide CD is true, then you look for evidence to support the idea. That demonstrates that bass-ackwards mental processes are in play.
No, that's the approach you and many people here have taken with many of the points made here. You start with the conclusion of NIST and see evidence that supports that conclusion (without looking at that evidence critically).
I started with the evidence--NIST test results; NIST/UL test results; the heat transfer properties of steel, poor as they are; photo evidence; descriptions of the modeling/simulation process; the inputs to the model/simulator required to achieve a simulated collapse; etc. When I look at and follow all that evidence it does not lead me to the conclusion that the steel failed due to heat.
I have yet to examine any alleged evidence of the CD Theory. But when I do, I will approach it in the same way--gather the evidence, determine the veracity of the evidence, and see where the valid evidence leads me. It may well be that my initial beliefs (which at this point are based on intuition) are completely wrong. I'll let you know when I reach a conclusion about the CD Theory what that conclusion is.
1. You have an idea in your head that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, mysteriously carried out without the buildings' occupants noticing the internal walls being torn out to place the charges. yes!
2. You have so far been unable to concoct a theory about how this was accomplished. Right. Although failure to do this does not invalidate the CD Theory--just as being able to concoct a way it could be done doe not validate the theory.
3. You have absolutely no evidence to support your CD idea.
Not that I have scrutinized and/or found to be valid.
4. So you repeatedly try to foist the burden to disprove your extraordinary CD idea onto others. Absolutely not. I asked if anyone knew of any evidence refuting the CD Theory and no one said they did. But they tended to say that they dismissed the CD Theory because they couldn't figure out how it could be done, and because the official story seemed plausible. Well, I've just proven the official story is a lie. So I guess folks like you are left with nothing but a wish.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 15:46:54 [Permalink]
|
Ergo wrote, in part (his comments in bold are added to my points, with my original bold emphasis removed for clarity): quote:
You have an idea in your head that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, mysteriously carried out without the buildings' occupants noticing the internal walls being torn out to place the charges. yes!
2. You have so far been unable to concoct a theory about how this was accomplished. Right. Although failure to do this does not invalidate the CD Theory--just as being able to concoct a way it could be done doe not validate the theory.
3. You have absolutely no evidence to support your CD idea.
Not that I have scrutinized and/or found to be valid.
4. So you repeatedly try to foist the burden to disprove your extraordinary CD idea onto others. Absolutely not. I asked if anyone knew of any evidence refuting the CD Theory and no one said they did. But they tended to say that they dismissed the CD Theory because they couldn't figure out how it could be done, and because the official story seemed plausible. Well, I've just proven the official story is a lie. So I guess folks like you are left with nothing but a wish.
Okay, you conceded the first three points. Thank you (and I sincerely mean this) for being honest enough to admit that those points were correct.
You never proved "the official story" to be a "lie." You tried to selectively pick at some of its details, but did so quite unconvincingly. But even if you had demolished the "official story," this would not make it a "lie," it would only prove it to be inaccurate. And this would certainly do nothing to support an unevidenced CD notion.
The fourth point is now the remaining problem. You continue not to see that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, with the burden of poof being entirely on those making the extraordinary claim. (And the CD claim is clearly "extraordinary" because of my first three points, which you conceded.) Your continuing insistence that others prove a negative by disproving the CD notion poses an insurmountable blockade to a rational debate.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 16:01:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
How do you know the CD Theory is wrong? (Er, i'm assuming here that you don't also think leopard vomit could be true...)
quote:
Over your head again, I see.
"know"? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Letīs spell it out one last time. No evidence.
Well, have you looked for any evidence? Or do you wait for the evidence to walk up to you and say hello?
quote:
And if you knew it was wrong, why didn't you show me the evidence?
quote:
So now I'm supposed to find the evidence for you? You really have no idea of how this works do you?
No. I said IF YOU KNEW... That implies that if you did not know, then nothing was expected of you.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 16:06:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
ergo, the F was not a typo, as you would have seen if you'd actually read the link I put up concerning the reaction of metals to low temperatures.
Yeah, filth, I read the link. It was about tempering steel at low temperatures. Big fcuking deal. What does that have to do with the NIST/UL test that showed the floors did not fail even under twice the load and being heated for twice as long as the South Tower lasted?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 16:27:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Ergo wrote, in part (his comments in bold are added to my points, with my original bold emphasis removed for clarity): You have an idea in your head that the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, mysteriously carried out without the buildings' occupants noticing the internal walls being torn out to place the charges. yes!
2. You have so far been unable to concoct a theory about how this was accomplished. Right. Although failure to do this does not invalidate the CD Theory--just as being able to concoct a way it could be done doe not validate the theory.
3. You have absolutely no evidence to support your CD idea.
Not that I have scrutinized and/or found to be valid.
4. So you repeatedly try to foist the burden to disprove your extraordinary CD idea onto others. Absolutely not. I asked if anyone knew of any evidence refuting the CD Theory and no one said they did. But they tended to say that they dismissed the CD Theory because they couldn't figure out how it could be done, and because the official story seemed plausible. Well, I've just proven the official story is a lie. So I guess folks like you are left with nothing but a wish.
quote:
Okay, you conceded the first three points. Thank you (and I sincerely mean this) for being honest enough to admit that those points were correct.
I've been trying to tell you that for weeks! I guess you just had to put it in your own words and think that you came up with the points before you could hear the answers I've been saying all along--which says a lot about you, moonie--and I sincerely mean that.
quote:
You never proved "the official story" to be a "lie." You tried to selectively pick at some of its details, but did so quite unconvincingly.
Well, moonie, you never refuted a single piece of evidence I presented above. And those "details" are the critical points in the official story. If the steel did not weaken and/or fail, the official story collapses, not the wtc...
quote:
But even if you had demolished the "official story," this would not make it a "lie," it would only prove it to be inaccurate.
I guess some people need a weatherman to tell them which way the wind is blowing... I don't.
quote:
And this would certainly do nothing to support an unevidenced CD notion.
I've been trying to tell you that for weeks as well!!! But for some reason, you can't hear that either.
quote:
The fourth point is now the remaining problem. You continue not to see that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, with the burden of poof being entirely on those making the extraordinary claim. (And the CD claim is clearly "extraordinary" because of my first three points, which you conceded.)
Your whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is mental masturbation on your part. Who gets to define "extraordinary?" You?! I don't think so. And one could argue that any evidence that proves an extraordinary claim is extraordinary evidence.
quote:
Your continuing insistence that others prove a negative by disproving the CD notion poses an insurmountable blockade to a rational debate.
Hear me please moonie--I do not require anyone to prove a negative by disproving the CD notion.
Hear me please moonie--I do not require anyone to prove a negative by disproving the CD notion.
Hear me please moonie--I do not require anyone to prove a negative by disproving the CD notion.
That said--if anyone would like to provide me with evidence that supports or refutes the CD Theory, I will be very appreciative--like I've said many times: Even thought I have a belief in my head, I still want to find the truth. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 17:00:01 [Permalink]
|
You write (three times, wow!) that you don't require "... anyone to prove a negative by disproving the CD notion." Then you contradict that by inviting just such proof.
I give up.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
