Easiest challenge for the Truthers, ever

[1337m4n]

We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them.

So here's one they can't possibly mess up.

Here's what you have to do, Truthers:

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.

In fact you don't even have to type it. You could just copy and paste it into your post. Or you could even just quote it and reply with the words "Yes I am" or "I agree".

I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls.

[DGM]

"I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

I think this could go for debunkers too. So there I said it.

[VespaGuy]

We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them.

So here's one they can't possibly mess up.

Here's what you have to do, Truthers:

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.


As a non-believer in the twoofer stuff: I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.


I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls.

I guess we can forget the LTW boys then...they've gone on record saying that nothing will convince them that they could be wrong.

Somehow I doubt you'll get many more truthers either, but this thread will be fun to watch...

[Totovader]

The problem, though, is two-fold:

1) The standard of evidence for conspiracists is often absurd and irrational ("show me a building falling at free-fall speed!!!")

2) When presented with clear, concise, and irrefutable evidence, conspiracists retreat to a position of "we can't know" or- without any justification whatsoever- "that evidence was faked". Just look at the ridiculous flyover nonsense for an example of that: the lightpoles, flight path damage, eyewitnesses, etc... all fake.

By examining what criteria a conspiracist would need to admit that they're wrong, we can see just how irrational and absurd their position is. It's often so obvious and unavoidable that they have to retreat.

Unfortunately, conspiracists often are not very skilled in critical thinking and logic, so it's not terribly obvious to them that expecting a clear picture of a plane crashing into the Pentagon is entirely irrational and cannot be applied to any other aspect of life or scientific inquiry.

[GStan]

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".


I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, however, I think it's only fair to warn you that [chuck norris facts] the only time I was ever wrong was the time I thought I had made a mistake [/chuck norris facts].

[Drudgewire]

I think this could go for debunkers too. So there I said it.
There are a few hardcores here who could stand to take that oath. But I'd like to think that being skeptics on skeptics' board, the vast majority of folks here would do that without hesitation.

UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11... whatever. Just present ANYTHING that's verifiable and/or LEGITIMATELY peer-reviewed. If the evidence changes, we change with it.

So far it simply hasn't happened, but tomorrow's a new day.

[twinstead]

There are a few hardcores here who could stand to take that oath. But I'd like to think that being skeptics on skeptics' board, the vast majority of folks here would do that without hesitation.

UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11... whatever. Just present ANYTHING that's verifiable and/or LEGITIMATELY peer-reviewed. If the evidence changes, we change with it.

So far it simply hasn't happened, but tomorrow's a new day.

yup. I would LOVE for it to be determined that UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting the Earth. I would LOVE for there to be a Bigfoot. I would LOVE if there was life after death and it could be proved. Hell, if my government actually WAS complicit in the murder of 3000 innocent people I'd LOVE to see them go down.

But, I'm not big on faith. I need some REAL, verifiable, legitimate evidence of all these things. That is what being a skeptic is all about.

[johnny karate]

...but tomorrow's a new day.

I just checked my calendar. He's right.

[Viper Daimao]

I'm suddenly reminded of celebrity jeopardy skits.

[Drudgewire]

I'm suddenly reminded of celebrity jeopardy skits.
In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."

[OldTigerCub]

In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."

You realize that name kinda stinks, right, Drudge?:p

[Billdave2]

In that case, I will only respond in this thread to those who address me as "Turd Ferguson."

I just hope you have plenty of anal bum covers. :D

[T.A.M.]

Truther:

IF someone shows me the right, NON-FAKED, NON-PLANTED, evidence, then I will consider it.

/Truther

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

[Unsecured Coins]

Now, let's opine on what makes "right evidence"

I'll make popcorn.

[Hokulele]

As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?

[X]

I will not say it.

I will, however, say the following: "I am willing to admit I am wrong if convincing factual evidence is shown to me."
In fact, I have done so in the past.

As Coins opined, the definition of "right" is sure to be an object of contention.

[Gravy]

As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?
I've never admitted to being wrong about anything here.

Wait, that's wrong.

[chillzero]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

Let's not ignore it when people respond as you requested.
:)

(although I agree about the problem with the word 'right')

[Wildy]

Has this been posted on LCF to see what their response would be?

[Dave Rogers]

As a corollary to this, how many regulars here have admitted to being wrong about something, as compared to the CTists?

I've made a couple of real howlers on this forum, and admitted to them at the time.

I deny them all now, of course.

Dave

[twinstead]

I've decided to ignore my many mistakes on this forum. From what I can see, truthers appear to make mistakes magically disappear by ignoring them. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me, dammit!

[twinstead]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

What would you consider the 'right' evidence? What more could possibly be presented to you?

[Loss Leader]

I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence.

Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable.

The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. Since most adult troothers have already been exposed to more than sufficient evidence to show their beliefs to be illogical and since they continue to maintain those beliefs, their self-reported willingness to change is of little value.

[Reality Believer]

I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence.

Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable.

The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. .......
The way I see it go is they will either choose known holes as evidence (Pentagon cameras), impossible evidence (entire aircraft reconstruction), or ridiculous criteria like knowing the certification and background of each and every lab technician that handled DNA.

It is the Chewbacca Defense really.

[Drudgewire]

I just hope you have plenty of anal bum covers. :D

Even their greatest hits CD "Penis Mightier."

You realize that name kinda stinks, right, Drudge?:p

I should mention it to the rapists.

[Terral]

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

1337 >> Here's what you have to do, Truthers: Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me". That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.


We have a deal! This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/f93_crater.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/crater-stahl_small.jpg). This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) is dead wrong (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) anytime. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

[DGM]

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.




We have a deal! This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/f93_crater.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/crater-stahl_small.jpg). This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) is dead wrong (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) anytime. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral
Talk to United airlines they have the 100 ton plane.(or at least 95% of it). Do that and the truth will set you free.

[GStan]

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.




We have a deal! This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/f93_crater.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/crater-stahl_small.jpg). This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) is dead wrong (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) anytime. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Am I the only one playing the "Take a drink every time Terral says 'Bushie' drinking game"?

I'm pretty tore up.

Am I thlurring my thpeech?

TWO MORE ROUNDS PLEATHE TWINTHTEAD!

[Totovader]

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.




We have a deal! This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/f93_crater.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/crater-stahl_small.jpg). This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) is dead wrong (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) anytime. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

This doesn't even make any sense.

What evidence do you have? Try to see if you can present some evidence without doing the whole "Bushie says" stuff. I- for one- am interested in evidence, not childish political banter.

[Dave Rogers]

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.

And thank you for failing it so dismally.

Dave

[Max Photon]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.


Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.

[Totovader]

Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.

Right- itself- is not contentious, it's what you believe is right that is a complete mystery.

[Max Photon]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.


Now, let's opine on what makes "right evidence"

I'll make popcorn.


What would you consider the 'right' evidence? What more could possibly be presented to you?


I think all troothers will claim to be willing to change their minds if shown the proper evidence.

Everybody wants to think of themselves as reasonable.

The question is whether the person actually is reasonable. This depends on just what that person will accept as "proper" evidence. Since most adult troothers have already been exposed to more than sufficient evidence to show their beliefs to be illogical and since they continue to maintain those beliefs, their self-reported willingness to change is of little value.


The way I see it go is they will either choose known holes as evidence (Pentagon cameras), impossible evidence (entire aircraft reconstruction), or ridiculous criteria like knowing the certification and background of each and every lab technician that handled DNA.

It is the Chewbacca Defense really.


Some are suggesting "right" is contentious; "right" works fine for me.


Right- itself- is not contentious, it's what you believe is right that is a complete mystery.



Really? A complete mystery? (And here I thought I was being crystal clear all this time.)


Just let me have a wee peek at fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2.


Max Timorous Beastie

[nicepants]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me

In the case of the 9/11 CTS...I think a great start would be actual physical evidence of an explosive device.

[Totovader]

Really? A complete mystery? (And here I thought I was being crystal clear all this time.)


Just let me have a wee peek at fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2.


Max Timorous Beastie

No, you weren't.

A "wee peek" is an action, not evidence. As far as what's right- it's completely non-sequitur.

To take this statement in the reverse, you're saying that the evidence that has convinced you is that you were not allowed to take a "wee peek" at the perimeter panels. I was not allowed to take a "wee peek" at the perimeter panels, and even though I never asked (and would never expect to be able to since I am in no position to have any sort of authority or scientific position) I have not arrived at the same conclusion that you have.

Who is in error? Me, or you?

Considering your qualifications, I think everyone can understand why you were not in a position to take a "wee peek". However, in the entirely unlikely event that you were granted special permission to take a "wee peek" at the panels you wish, and found evidence of your precious thermite- would you still admit you were wrong? No? Then your answer makes no sense, does it?

[Max Photon]

Fire-affected perimeter panels are the evidence.

And that evidence was destroyed.


"A wee peek" would be the action of seeing the evidence -- were it not for the spoliation.

[Totovader]

Fire -affected perimeter panels are the evidence.

And that evidence was destroyed.


"A wee peek" is the action of seeing the evidence.

The question is what evidence would you need. Fire-affected perimeter panels would be easily satisfied by looking at video or pictures, or reviewing the witness testimony.

There is absolutely no doubt that the perimeter panels were affected by fire.

You going to admit you were wrong, now? No more conspiracy theories from you?

[Max Photon]

The question is what evidence would you need.


To test the interiors of fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC2 for traces of thermite.


Fire-affected perimeter panels would be easily satisfied by looking at video or pictures, or reviewing the witness testimony.


NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2.


There is absolutely no doubt that the perimeter panels were affected by fire.


Exactly.

And there is absolutely no doubt that there was no arson investigation to determine the cause of the fires that affected the perimeter panels, and there were no tests to determine if fires were the sole cause of the heating of the columns.


Yet 99% of the steel evidence was destroyed.

[Totovader]

To test the interiors of fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC2 for traces of thermite.

"To test" is another action. Asking for evidence, not your unreasonable demands intentionally set up on non-sequitur pieces of evidence you think were intentionally destroyed.

You're so full of it.

If calling you out on your irrational and absurd claims means I'm "full of it"- then yes, to the brim, I am full of it.

NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2.

Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire.

And there is absolutely no doubt that there was no arson investigation to determine the cause of the fires that affected the perimeter panels, and there were no tests to determine if fires were the sole cause of the heating of the columns.

"No test" is not evidence, but requiring an "arson investigation" when there... uh... were these planes, is quite ridiculous. There's no need to conduct an "arson investigation" when there is absolutely no shred of evidence for arson- and a metric ton of evidence to the contrary. Again, however, that's not evidence... its a "lack of test"- which is not what was asked for.


Seriously, can you answer the question or not? If you can't- can you explain why, or at least admit that it's caused you to think FOR ONE SECOND why you can't even come up with evidence?

Are we to believe your story even though you completely lack evidence? Why?

[aggle-rithm]

We've given the Truthers here a lot of challenges, and it seems they've all been too hard for them.

So here's one they can't possibly mess up.

Here's what you have to do, Truthers:

Say: "I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me".

That's all you have to do, then you win. Just type that in exactly as you see it.

In fact you don't even have to type it. You could just copy and paste it into your post. Or you could even just quote it and reply with the words "Yes I am" or "I agree".

I just want to know that I'm arguing with humans and not brick walls.


On the LCF, I once issued the challenge: Say what you believe happened on 9/11.

I thought that was a pretty easy challenge, but only one person took me up on it. Predictably, he came across as a total loon, which is why no one else would do it.

[twinstead]

Max it appears you are purposefully giving the competing theory to yours (and I say 'competing' lightly, because the official account has even fewer holes and much more evidence to support it than yours) a higher standard of evidence for a reason.

I wonder why that is?

[cisco]

On the LCF, I once issued the challenge: Say what you believe happened on 9/11.

THAT'S the $64,000 question. I've asked this of dozens of troothers and not one of them has answered. Why won't they? Because then they couldn't move the goal posts anymore! It would be way too easy to prove exactly why they are mistaken and then it's game over. Bye-bye, trooth. Adios. See ya. Go home now please thanks.

This should be the predominant challenge from realists to troothers.

[cisco]

Double post

[Totovader]

"To test" is another action. Asking for evidence, not your unreasonable demands intentionally set up on non-sequitur pieces of evidence you think were intentionally destroyed.



If calling you out on your irrational and absurd claims means I'm "full of it"- then yes, to the brim, I am full of it.



Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire.



"No test" is not evidence, but requiring an "arson investigation" when there... uh... were these planes, is quite ridiculous. There's no need to conduct an "arson investigation" when there is absolutely no shred of evidence for arson- and a metric ton of evidence to the contrary. Again, however, that's not evidence... its a "lack of test"- which is not what was asked for.


Seriously, can you answer the question or not? If you can't- can you explain why, or at least admit that it's caused you to think FOR ONE SECOND why you can't even come up with evidence?

Are we to believe your story even though you completely lack evidence? Why?

*bump* for Max.

[MIKILLINI]

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.




We have a deal! This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/f93_crater.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/crater-stahl_small.jpg). This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) is dead wrong (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) anytime. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Hey Terral, would you admit you are wrong if the evidence presented proved your were wrong?

[1337m4n]

terral loses.

http://www.lafferty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/fail-24.jpg

http://forum.alsacreations.com/upload/2043-fail-camera.jpg

http://masklinnscans.free.fr/4chan/fail.jpg

http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/fail.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e35/omgitsvince/TruckOfFail.jpg

http://www.paulormerod.com/images/fail.jpg

Sad.

[1337m4n]

I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

CONGRATULATIONS TO MAX PHOTON!




You know, I'm beginning to wonder if Photon is even a real Truther. I mean, look at the facts. He:

--Is polite
--Is friendly
--Doesn't use "shill", "sheeple", or "bushie"
--Has a sense of humor
--Answers direct questions

These are not the qualities of a Truther.

Anyway, Max, whoever or whatever you are, here you go:

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/47/You_win_the_prize.jpg

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/1/10/Winrar_is_you.png

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/b/bf/A_winner_is_you.jpg

http://www.mikedownscenter.org/upload/images/Win%20button.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~tsaven/winnar.jpg

http://www.roomnine.com/123/winnar.jpg

[Max Photon]

Someone wrote, "Critical minds are bursting all around and you think it's applause."

[Totovader]

"To test" is another action. Asking for evidence, not your unreasonable demands intentionally set up on non-sequitur pieces of evidence you think were intentionally destroyed.



If calling you out on your irrational and absurd claims means I'm "full of it"- then yes, to the brim, I am full of it.



Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire.



"No test" is not evidence, but requiring an "arson investigation" when there... uh... were these planes, is quite ridiculous. There's no need to conduct an "arson investigation" when there is absolutely no shred of evidence for arson- and a metric ton of evidence to the contrary. Again, however, that's not evidence... its a "lack of test"- which is not what was asked for.


Seriously, can you answer the question or not? If you can't- can you explain why, or at least admit that it's caused you to think FOR ONE SECOND why you can't even come up with evidence?

Are we to believe your story even though you completely lack evidence? Why?

*bump^2

[MIKILLINI]

*bump^2

Totovader, Max tends to avoid the tough questions, then move into "The Spin Zone" of non-linear deception, propagated by MILDEC planners. Hiding fires in fires is one example...Another is believing the NIST report is written in such a way to give them plausible deniability if they were summoned for a future investigation.

[Mobyseven]

Hi 1337:

Thank you for offering 911Truthers this challenge.




We have a deal! This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/93crash2.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/f93_crater.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty hole (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/crater-stahl_small.jpg). This (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/NoWayBaby.jpg) is a picture (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/pentmorris.jpg)) of where Senor Bushie says a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed. Senor Bushie says Building Fires caused this result (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) (and this one (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg)) in just a few hours. You can admit that Senor Bushie (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/Bushie.gif) is dead wrong (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif) anytime. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

GL,

Terral

Heh, that's funny. 'Bushie' doesn't sound like a Spanish name...

[1337m4n]

I still can't get over the fact that Terral couldn't do something this simple.

[Totovader]

Wow, I've seen conspiracists dodge questions before- maybe just insert red herrings- but come on Max- just pretending like it's not there is pretty silly.

It's not even that difficult of a question (although it certainly is poignant).

[Max Photon]

Totovader,

The thread's OP asked if I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

I answered honestly and directly in the affirmative. (I have a medal to prove it.)

Someone went farther (predictably) and asked what would be the "right evidence" for me - (not for you - for me).

My response was that "right evidence" for me - i.e., that which would falsify MAX-MIHOP - would be that the inside of fire-affected perimeter panel box columns from WTC2 be examined for evidence of thermite.

This was not meant as a trick or a gimmick. However - and maybe this is what is annoying you - looking inside fire affected box columns from WTC2 is impossible because of the flagrant spoliation of steel. Had there not been destruction of evidence, falsifying MAX-MIHOP would have been a trivial affair.


Now it seems you are not satisfied with my answers. Worse, you don't even understand them. So now you're pestering me.

For example, I wrote, "NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2."

You responded, "Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire."

Your response was so stupid, and so deliberately baiting, that I simply tuned you out at that point.


Max

[pomeroo]

Fire-affected perimeter panels are the evidence.

And that evidence was destroyed.


"A wee peek" would be the action of seeing the evidence -- were it not for the spoliation.


Ooops! You've been caught lying again. No evidence was destroyed. Sorry.

By the way--


WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de planes, de pla...

[pomeroo]

Heh, that's funny. 'Bushie' doesn't sound like a Spanish name...


Isn't it odd that Senor Bushie doesn't actually say any of the things Terral imagines? Well, when you're nuts, you hear things...

[Totovader]

Totovader,

The thread's OP asked if I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

I answered honestly and directly in the affirmative. (I have a medal to prove it.)

Someone went farther (predictably) and asked what would be the "right evidence" for me - (not for you - for me).

My response was that "right evidence" for me - i.e., that which would falsify MAX-MIHOP - would be that the inside of fire-affected perimeter panel box columns from WTC2 be examined for evidence of thermite.

This was not meant as a trick or a gimmick. However - and maybe this is what is annoying you - looking inside fire affected box columns from WTC2 is impossible because of the flagrant spoliation of steel. Had there not been destruction of evidence, falsifying MAX-MIHOP would have been a trivial affair.


Now it seems you are not satisfied with my answers. Worse, you don't even understand them. So now you're pestering me.

For example, I wrote, "NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2."

You responded, "Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire."

Your response was so stupid, and so deliberately baiting, that I simply tuned you out at that point.


Max

So assuming you're right- the criteria you have given to believe that you're wrong would be something that is absolutely impossible?

And you think that's rational?

I realize that you feel you're being baited and you don't want to answer such simple questions- but the reason you dodged this question and will subsequently avoid this thread like the plague is so important to the weakness of your position that I cannot simply give up.

[Totovader]

For the record- I messaged Max because I had already bumped the question a couple of times and mentioned it in other threads he was posting in. Since his evasion was obvious- I sent him a message to confirm that he was unable to address the question.

If this were a simple factual question- about something specific or moot- I wouldn't give a crap... but this question gets to the root of the problem. The fact that Max cannot address the evidence, and specifically what evidence his story would need or what he would need to believe he's wrong (along with every other conspiracist) is the issue.

We can sit around all day long and debate the claims, the conjecture, the lies, and the nonsense coming from conspiracists... but the second they behave as Max has in this thread and concede that facts will not convince them... they're done.

[MIKILLINI]

Totovader,

The thread's OP asked if I am willing to admit that I am wrong if the right evidence is presented to me.

I answered honestly and directly in the affirmative. (I have a medal to prove it.)

Someone went farther (predictably) and asked what would be the "right evidence" for me - (not for you - for me).

My response was that "right evidence" for me - i.e., that which would falsify MAX-MIHOP - would be that the inside of fire-affected perimeter panel box columns from WTC2 be examined for evidence of thermite.

This was not meant as a trick or a gimmick. However - and maybe this is what is annoying you - looking inside fire affected box columns from WTC2 is impossible because of the flagrant spoliation of steel. Had there not been destruction of evidence, falsifying MAX-MIHOP would have been a trivial affair.


Now it seems you are not satisfied with my answers. Worse, you don't even understand them. So now you're pestering me.

For example, I wrote, "NIST did not identify, collect, or examined fire-affected panels from WTC2."

You responded, "Do you need NIST to tell you what fire looks like? I don't. I can see from the videos, pictures, and I can corroborate that with the eyewitness testimony: the perimeter panels were affected by fire."

Your response was so stupid, and so deliberately baiting, that I simply tuned you out at that point.
Max

So the "right evidence" you want is the fire affected box columns from WTC2.
Since they are not available to you, your stance will remain as "I am not wrong solely for lack of the right evidence?"

Your position puts you in a narrow minded view, Max. You have a hypothesis involving thermite, but it isn't just about thermite heat-weakening steel.

Your scenario involves remote-controlled planes, no hijackers, NIST coverup using amphibolous language for plausible deniability, Al-Queda as a "power of nightmare" patsy, instead of a real terrorist organization, military deception tactics used to hide this in plain site so they could conduct "What it really is all about" a war on the economy, gold, oil.

This is your position Max. What keeps you there is heat-weakening by thermite. And remain you will, because you have no fire-affected box columns from WTC 2 to look at.

[Max Photon]

It would have been simpler to say:

Steel was quickly destroyed so that arson hypotheses could not be falsified.

[Totovader]

It would have been simpler to say:

Steel was quickly destroyed so that arson hypotheses could not be falsified.

Asking you to prove that claim, however, would require that evidence not be a factor.