|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2006 : 13:42:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
And that is also different than being sure someone is wrong, which are what I see here.
If ergo says, "the report says that the tests were done without insulation," and everyone can see that the report says, "the tests were done with insultion," then everyone can see that ergo is wrong, regardless of whether the "government story" is correct or not.quote:
You don't even doubt the govenment story?????????????
That's a common strawman.quote:
If you guys think everything about America is as it should be, your not doing your job.
Who here said that they think everything about America is as it should be?quote:
That's your job, to doubt(maybe a little independent thinking wouldn't hurt either).
And it's being done - if you refuse to see it because you're falling for ergo's unsupported claims, we can't open your eyes for you. |
- 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 - 11/09/2006 : 14:00:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why would one concede anything to ergo's lies and distortions?
More claims with no evidence to back them up…
quote:
It doesn't make any difference to me whether the report's conclusions are right or wrong,
That's impossible, davey.
quote:
Again: if the report is so easy to show as being wrong, why would ergo feel the need to lie about what it says?
I feel no need to lie about the NIST report because I have integrity, davey. The NIST report, on page xxxviii, says: "The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
And does NIST have any evidence from the crime scene to support their claim that thermal insulation had been widely dislodged? No, they don't. And what constitutes “widely” dislodged? And how is that quantitatively different from “minimally” dislodged?
Davey, if you think this is a lie, then find the evidence that proves it's a lie.
quote:
This stopped being about the NIST report long ago, and is now entirely about ergo's claims about the NIST report.
Well, yes—it's obvious that your statement is true for you, but I've wanted to keep the focus on the NIST report.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2006 : 14:15:38 [Permalink]
|
Very well then, the truth closes in and I confess! I did it!
Yes, I set the charges! They were hand-molded shaped charges composed of RDX-Super bound by a new type of soft plastic that could boost the cutting explosion so that it could go through the walls and into the columns. It was the work of minutes for me and my crew of dedicated master-blasters to set them in full view of the people in the buildings. T'was simplicity itself to retire to a safe distance and coordinate the demolitions with the aircraft. Electronic connections and hell-boxes; a mere push of a button.
The stupid al Quada thought the airplanes alone could do it. Morons! My underground leaders in the government told them that, and they believed it as if it had come from Allah. Imbeciles! Without my expertise, those vile symbols of capitalistic greed would yet be an obscenity insulting the world. The airplane damage would have been repaired in a trice.
Yes, it was I, and just you wait! Now that the false elections are over, I will wreak a havoc upon this country that will shake the very foundations of history!
THE ILLUMINATI SHALL YET TRIUMPH!!
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 14:31:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Very well then, the truth closes in and I confess! I did it!
Yes, I set the charges! They were hand-molded shaped charges composed of RDX-Super bound by a new type of soft plastic that could boost the cutting explosion so that it could go through the walls and into the columns. It was the work of minutes for me and my crew of dedicated master-blasters to set them in full view of the people in the buildings. T'was simplicity itself to retire to a safe distance and coordinate the demolitions with the aircraft. Electronic connections and hell-boxes; a mere push of a button.
The stupid al Quada thought the airplanes alone could do it. Morons! My underground leaders in the government told them that, and they believed it as if it had come from Allah. Imbeciles! Without my expertise, those vile symbols of capitalistic greed would yet be an obscenity insulting the world. The airplane damage would have been repaired in a trice.
Yes, it was I, and just you wait! Now that the false elections are over, I will wreak a havoc upon this country that will shake the very foundations of history!
THE ILLUMINATI SHALL YET TRIUMPH!!
See what I mean, Upriver?
I guess I should take this kind of nonsense as a concession--as it clearly skirts any real issue being discussed. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 15:03:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
More claims with no evidence to back them up…
And that assertion was evidence-free, itself.quote:
quote:
It doesn't make any difference to me whether the report's conclusions are right or wrong,
That's impossible, davey.
Another evidence-free assertion.quote:
I feel no need to lie about the NIST report because I have integrity, davey.
Then why state things like, "The fact that NIST had to construct a floating 9-story wall and have a magical force pulling on that wall, yet not connected to the wall...?" Can you provide page number(s) in which the NIST describes a simulation like that?quote:
The NIST report, on page xxxviii, says: "The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
I know that, it's not the point.quote:
And does NIST have any evidence from the crime scene to support their claim that thermal insulation had been widely dislodged? No, they don't.
Since you haven't properly described what you would accept as evidence, "they don't" is unsupported conjecture.quote:
And what constitutes “widely” dislodged? And how is that quantitatively different from “minimally” dislodged?
The NIST report explains that in NCSTAR 1-6Aquote:
Davey, if you think this is a lie, then find the evidence that proves it's a lie.
Why would you pick the above as an example, when the things I and other people have pointed out as lies are different?quote:
Well, yes—it's obvious that your statement is true for you, but I've wanted to keep the focus on the NIST report.
Then why have you refused to accurately represent the NIST report? |
- 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 - 11/09/2006 : 15:55:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
More claims with no evidence to back them up…
And that assertion was evidence-free, itself.
No it wasn't, davey--the evidence was the quote of yours I referenced with my comment. Of course, when you delete it, you mislead others by making it look like I didn't respond to your baseless claim.
quote:
quote:
quote:
It doesn't make any difference to me whether the report's conclusions are right or wrong,
That's impossible, davey.
Another evidence-free assertion.
Well, davey, your rules for the sandbox don't lit me reference the sources that would support my claim...
quote:
I feel no need to lie about the NIST report because I have integrity, davey.
quote:
Then why state things like, "The fact that NIST had to construct a floating 9-story wall and have a magical force pulling on that wall, yet not connected to the wall...?"
What part of "The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact," deals with a floating wall. Come on, davey--stick to the topic at hand.
quote:
Can you provide page number(s) in which the NIST describes a simulation like that?
No--because they don't describe it that way. But when you read how they did it, you realize that my description is correct.
quote:
The NIST report, on page xxxviii, says: "The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."
quote:
I know that, it's not the point.
Yes it is, davey. Can't you keep track? 
quote:
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 17:45:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
Well, davey, your rules for the sandbox don't lit me reference the sources that would support my claim...
Please explain the above statement.
We do have rules about copyright infringement, but it is easy to link to any source you have if that source is available anywhere on the internet. If not, a book, report, study or what have you can be used for support as long as you provide a page number and an accurate quote.
You have made a serious allegation. You have this one chance to support it.
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 18:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
See what I mean, Upriver?
I guess I should take this kind of nonsense as a concession--as it clearly skirts any real issue being discussed.
No, numbnut. There can be no concession until you put forth the 'theory' you claim to be coming up with, and it'd better be a very damned good one. The post was merely a mockery of what has become the most ridiculous topic to hit these boards in a right good while. Congratulations!
I don't think you have anything. You obviously know nothing about metallurgy nor demolitions. You haven't shown much, if anything, on structural engineering. But you make a lot of noise....
All shout and no spit.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 19:31:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Very well then, the truth closes in and I confess! I did it!
Yes, I set the charges! They were hand-molded shaped charges composed of RDX-Super bound by a new type of soft plastic that could boost the cutting explosion so that it could go through the walls and into the columns. It was the work of minutes for me and my crew of dedicated master-blasters to set them in full view of the people in the buildings. T'was simplicity itself to retire to a safe distance and coordinate the demolitions with the aircraft. Electronic connections and hell-boxes; a mere push of a button.
The stupid al Quada thought the airplanes alone could do it. Morons! My underground leaders in the government told them that, and they believed it as if it had come from Allah. Imbeciles! Without my expertise, those vile symbols of capitalistic greed would yet be an obscenity insulting the world. The airplane damage would have been repaired in a trice.
Yes, it was I, and just you wait! Now that the false elections are over, I will wreak a havoc upon this country that will shake the very foundations of history!
THE ILLUMINATI SHALL YET TRIUMPH!!
Nice try, fil! But I happen to know that tale is untrue. You failed utterly to present a plausible picture of how you could place your explosives without being noticed. Only the types of explosives used were correctly described.
I, dressed as Santa Claus, and my demolitionist crew, dressed as Elves, did it. September 11 was a bit early in the season to pull it off, but nobody really questions "Christmas Creep" anymore.
The most profound reactions we got were a few bored head-shakes and resigned shrugs from the cubicle-dwellers as we decked the support beams in the WTC with plastique boughs of holly and ho-ho-ho'ed with genuine joy as we inserted our remote-controlled igniters into strategically-placed RDX-Super nativity figures. In our bright costumes, we were effectively invisible.
Our paradoxical ability to hide ourselves and our charges in plain sight gladdened our reptilian Illuminati hearts!
|
“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 - 11/09/2006 : 20:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Well, davey, your rules for the sandbox don't lit me reference the sources that would support my claim...
Please explain the above statement.
We do have rules about copyright infringement, but it is easy to link to any source you have if that source is available anywhere on the internet. If not, a book, report, study or what have you can be used for support as long as you provide a page number and an accurate quote.
You have made a serious allegation. You have this one chance to support it.
Kil
dave issued me an "official warning" for referencing one of 3 apparently forbidden (at least for dave) in a response to one of your posts. I would provide a link for you, but i'm typing this from my phone and don't have all the functionality of a computer. But i believe the "what i don't get 2" thread has dave's warning and a link to his rule. I must say, the fact that he has these (or at least this) personal rule seems to smell of abuse of his role as a moderator. But that's not for me to decide.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 20:52:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123:
Well, davey, your rules for the sandbox don't lit me reference the sources that would support my claim...
Please explain the above statement.
We do have rules about copyright infringement, but it is easy to link to any source you have if that source is available anywhere on the internet. If not, a book, report, study or what have you can be used for support as long as you provide a page number and an accurate quote.
You have made a serious allegation. You have this one chance to support it.
Kil
dave issued me an "official warning" for referencing one of 3 apparently forbidden (at least for dave) in a response to one of your posts. I would provide a link for you, but i'm typing this from my phone and don't have all the functionality of a computer. But i believe the "what i don't get 2" thread has dave's warning and a link to his rule. I must say, the fact that he has these (or at least this) personal rule seems to smell of abuse of his role as a moderator. But that's not for me to decide.
Does this lame post count as his one chance?
Please?
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 21:12:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptics doubt the said claims(by definition).
That is different than trying to prove someone wrong(debunking).
I don't start out doubting claims, I simply would like some evidence before I accept them. I have not nor do I intend to debunk controled demolition - I just need some evidence to consider it. I wouldn't even know how to prove that CD didn't happen. See the difference between being skeptical and being a debunker?
quote:
And that is also different than being sure someone is wrong, which are what I see here.
I am not sure it is wrong but I strongly suspect it is wrong because I have not seen any evidence to support the conjecture from Ergo or other conspiracy theorist that have visited this site (like BigBrain who thinks aliens or something brought down the towers).
quote:
You don't even doubt the govenment story????????????? If you guys think everything about America is as it should be, your not doing your job.
I haves seen evidence that supports the goverment claim and not just from the goverment - there are reams of work done by many major colleges and independent sources that support that planes brought down the towers (or are they in on the conspiracy also?).
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 21:56:40 [Permalink]
|
Oh cripes. So, you going to argue that referencing Freud, Jung or Damasio is relevant to any of your threads? Tell me then, how does discussing Freud, Jung or Damasio advance your case that the NIST report is bogus?
The only reason for discussing those people is to support your psycho-bable reason for why we don't accept your premise, which we are all sick of. And yet Dave did say:
quote:
If you want to start a discussion about how we're all subject to our emotions and how that biases us to think certain things about certain other things, you go right ahead and do so, over in the General Skepticism folder. You can chirp away about Damasio or any other psychological babble you want to over there, and I won't hand out any more warnings for it. Here's a link so it'll be easy for you to start.
Gee whiz, he even provided a link to make it easy for you, which pretty much makes this statement a lie:
quote:
…your rules for the sandbox don't lit me reference the sources that would support my claim...
This isn't the first time you have accused the SFN staff of not being even handed. We will only take so much crap from you.
So here it is, official warning number three. There will be no more warnings…
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 22:40:31 [Permalink]
|
Clearly, you bastard Moderators are not being even-handed, since you've all taken sides.
Indeed, Mods here have in effect defended the bizarre "official story" that two huge, fully-fueled hijacked airliners hitting the WTC towers could somehow ignite an inferno that would weaken the structures enough to initiate a collapse. Mere evidence that this happened is no excuse.
Yet the Mods have not extended nearly the same kind of credibility to the simple and profound idea that the Illuminati did it, using a crew of invisible demolitionists, in order to create conditions for the imposition of a New World Order. Ideas, even those that are unpopular, paranoid, or unevidenced, must all be considered equally!
Where's the rational/irrational balance, Mods?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 23:30:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Indeed, Mods here have in effect defended the bizarre "official story" that two huge, fully-fueled hijacked airliners hitting the WTC towers could somehow ignite an inferno that would weaken the structures enough to initiate a collapse.
I would never - and I mean never ever - defend any story which claimed that the airplanes were "fully fueled."
Oh, and the thing I first thought of when ergo claimed that he needed to reference Freud, Jung or Damasio in order to support his claim that something about the rightness or wrongness of the "official story" does make a difference to me (however unspecified that difference might be) is that if ergo is depending on one or more of those three, and only those three, then he really does need to get a refund on his psych degree, or at least read some other author who might agree with Freud, Jung and/or Damasio. ergo's education in these matter obviously wasn't terribly broad if he relies on the same three sources for all his armchair Internet diagnoses. Personally, I think he's got no psych degree, has read a few books by Freud and Jung, and only one book by Damasio, and has bought into everything they wrote just like he's bought into the 9/11 CD theories to the point where he's become irrational about what constitutes "evidence."
But I'll reply to his last post to me tomorrow sometime. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What did cause the Towers to collapse?
