voyage to the bottom of the barrel: the demise of twoof

[peteweaver]

As someone very skeptical of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 I find it unfortunate that all the conspiracy theorists can now do, is stoop to insulting the "debunkers" at every turn, instead of trying to argue their corner with hard scientific evidence and attempt to prove us wrong.

I mean c'mon, if there were truth to this, we'd want to see it.

But so far, all us "debunkers" have seen is a load of complete and total rubbish.

Fake pics of the debris pile which have been hue shifted to imply molten metal, erroneous thermite claims, laughable no planer rubbish about the pentagon, and even some claims that the twin towers were not hit by planes.
Such claims are easily disproven.

Then we see the 'but the fires were not hot enough to melt steel' distraction, it shows a complete ignorance of metallurgy, and how steel changes in composition as a material between room temperature and its melting point of 1500 degrees C.

I've also seen ignorance about the way the twin towers were constructed.

Conspiracy theorists can you please stop attacking debunkers, and start producing some hard facts.

Thank you.

[Sizzler]

As someone very skeptical of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 I find it unfortunate that all the conspiracy theorists can now do, is stoop to insulting the "debunkers" at every turn, instead of trying to argue their corner with hard scientific evidence and attempt to prove us wrong.

I mean c'mon, if there were truth to this, we'd want to see it.

But so far, all us "debunkers" have seen is a load of complete and total rubbish.

Fake pics of the debris pile which have been hue shifted to imply molten metal, erroneous thermite claims, laughable no planer rubbish about the pentagon, and even some claims that the twin towers were not hit by planes.
Such claims are easily disproven.

Then we see the 'but the fires were not hot enough to melt steel' distraction, it shows a complete ignorance of metallurgy, and how steel changes in composition as a material between room temperature and its melting point of 1500 degrees C.

I've also seen ignorance about the way the twin towers were constructed.

Conspiracy theorists can you please stop attacking debunkers, and start producing some hard facts.

Thank you.

You just listed about every strawman possible.

What exactly is your point?

[The Doc]

You just listed about every strawman possible.

What exactly is your point?

You'd have to be daft to miss his point. He's questioning why, after allegedly discovering that your government murdered 3,000 of its own citizens, the conspiracist response consists solely on whining about debunkers.

[Alferd_Packer]

You just listed about every strawman possible.

What exactly is your point?

I think you just proved it.

(the point of the OP, that is)

[Dave Rogers]

You just listed about every strawman possible.

Please illustrate an example of the strawman logical fallacy in the OP. I'll give you a multiple choice option. Which of these points is a strawman?

(a) Truthers insult debunkers.
(b) Pictures of the rubble pile have been hue shifted to imply molten metal.
(c) Claims have been made about thermite which have been shown to be in error.
(d) No-planers make laughable claims about the Pentagon attack.
(e) There are claims that the Twin Towers were not hit by planes.
(f) Claims have been made that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel.
(g) Some truthers have shown ignorance over the way the towers were constructed.

Fake accusations of strawman arguments are just another example of what the OP is talking about.

Dave

[peteweaver]

Exactly Doc.

Why are they whining about debunkers, when there's this 'mountain of evidence that the world needs to see' ? Shouldn't they be pooling their efforts into bringing a trial against those they think did it ? If enough of them pooled their resources, they'd raise the cash to cover legal expenses.

But no, its easier for them to complain about debunkers.

[peteweaver]

Cheers Dave.

[Sizzler]

Then we see the 'but the fires were not hot enough to melt steel' distraction, it shows a complete ignorance of metallurgy, and how steel changes in composition as a material between room temperature and its melting point of 1500 degrees C.

This is one straw man.

[Sizzler]

And, how many truthers actually post here. 10 at best?

Just to let you know. Life exists beyond this JREF sub-forum.

OP is silly in my opinion.

Go to 911blogger. How many posts there are directed at debunkers? Not many.

[Alferd_Packer]

I know this is a bit off tpic, but Sizzler, do you or do you not agree that strucutral steel will fail to support the loads imposed upon it long before the melting point of that steel is reached?

[DavidJames]

This is one straw man.
It's not a straw man because it's a claim I've seen repeated numerous times - Most recently by that actress, but I've seen it many many times.

[The Doc]

This is one straw man.

How is it? The leaders of your movement are still peddling this argument. It's why whenever a celebrity truther comes out, they always say "fire can't melt steel" as their first point.

You've got two options now:
a) Admitting you were wrong, and acknowledging the fact that fire didn't need to melt steel, but merely weaken it to cause a collapse.
b) Withdrawing your "straw man" claim.

[Sizzler]

Post one recent (post NIST report) claim that fire can't melt steel by a truther and I'll retract.

I haven't seen that claim made recently. I generally see that claim being made (long ago) in reference to early claims by scientists that steel melted. Oh and Rosie, but she doesn't count.

Anyway, post one recent claim and I will retract.

Oh, and slightly related. Doesn't the Lee report note that iron melted in the WTC event, forming microspheres? I am pretty sure it does.

[rwguinn]

Post one recent (post NIST report) claim that fire can't melt steel by a truther and I'll retract.

I haven't seen that claim made recently. I generally see that claim being made (long ago) in reference to early claims by scientists that steel melted. Oh and Rosie, but she doesn't count.

Anyway, post one recent claim and I will retract.

Oh, and slightly related. Doesn't the Lee report note that iron melted in the WTC event, forming microspheres? I am pretty sure it does.

Oz is real! Straw men everywhere!
see "The World as a Myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic_solipsism)"

[Pardalis]

You just listed about every strawman possible.

What exactly is your point?

You consider yourself a twoofer now?

:confused:

[Sizzler]

I know this is a bit off tpic, but Sizzler, do you or do you not agree that strucutral steel will fail to support the loads imposed upon it long before the melting point of that steel is reached?

I agree.

[defaultdotxbe]

Post one recent (post NIST report) claim that fire can't melt steel by a truther and I'll retract.
you mean like rosies claim that never in history has fire melted steel? im pretty sure it popped up in loose change second edition too

[VespaGuy]

Post one recent (post NIST report) claim that fire can't melt steel by a truther and I'll retract.

I haven't seen that claim made recently. I generally see that claim being made (long ago) in reference to early claims by scientists that steel melted. Oh and Rosie, but she doesn't count.

Anyway, post one recent claim and I will retract.



http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

In the wake of the attack, numerous experts asserted that fires in the Twin Towers melted their structural steel.

http://attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm

We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.

This last one was referenced by Prison Planet last month, February 2008. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/120208Towers.htm) Is that recent enough?

[Dave Rogers]

Post one recent (post NIST report) claim that fire can't melt steel by a truther and I'll retract.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKYQ8Z6YFU0

JET KEROSENE FIRE CAN NOT WEAKEN OR MELT STEEL WTC 9/11
Added: May 28, 2007

Dave

[Alferd_Packer]

Let's not forget Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking which came out in March 07, over a year and a half after the NIST final report was released.

You lose.

[Shrinker]

And, how many truthers actually post here. 10 at best?


A recent poll (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pollquestions38-80%3Ayouandthe911truthmove) showed that 5% of truthers post here.

Although, your answer is right too. :p

[Sizzler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKYQ8Z6YFU0

JET KEROSENE FIRE CAN NOT WEAKEN OR MELT STEEL WTC 9/11
Added: May 28, 2007

Dave

This will do. statement retracted.

whoever made that video is an idiot.

[Sizzler]

Let's not forget Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking which came out in March 07, over a year and a half after the NIST final report was released.

You lose.

Yes but isn't that in reference to early claims by scientists that steel infact melted.

[Sizzler]

A recent poll (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pollquestions38-80%3Ayouandthe911truthmove) showed that 5% of truthers post here.

Although, your answer is right too. :p

Can you post the specific quote from that link.

Are you suggesting there are only 200 truthers in the world?

[Sizzler]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm



http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html



http://attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm



This last one was referenced by Prison Planet last month, February 2008. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/120208Towers.htm) Is that recent enough?


These all seem to be referencing early claims by scientists that steel melted.

[~enigma~]

These all seem to be referencing early claims by scientists that steel melted.
Peddle faster and harder. Funny though, you find yourself backpeddling alot so why do you persist in the dumb belief that 9/11 was an inside job?

[kookbreaker]

These all seem to be referencing early claims by scientists that steel melted.

Which means that they have not learned since then, yes?

Ergo, no strawman.

[uk_dave]

It may well be the case that in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, simplistic language by experts coupled with sloppy reporting by journalists may have dumbed down the explanations for how the towers failed.

However, it is no excuse for 'truthers' who, embarking on their life changing (and potentially life threatening) pursuit of those they believe were really responsible for 9-11, couldn't be arsed to actually do some real research and educate themselves regarding the vulnerability of structural steel members to ordinary office fires.

[peteweaver]

This is one straw man.

Really Sizzler ?

How.

Where exactly in my claim that its composition changes with temperature before it reaches melting point, am I mistaken ?

Please look at this steel industry website;
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/steelwork_fire_resistance/

Its a great article about steelwork fire resistance.

All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550ºC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength

Thats 950ºC lower than melting temp.

[Dave Rogers]

This will do. statement retracted.

Okay, you've got six choices left on Spot the Strawman, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g). Which one's next?

Dave

[Pardalis]

whoever made that video is an idiot.

The problem is that this pretty much is the truth movement.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=peteweaver;3537381]As someone very skeptical of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 I find it unfortunate that all the conspiracy theorists can now do, is stoop to insulting the "debunkers" at every turn, instead of trying to argue their corner with hard scientific evidence and attempt to prove us wrong.

As a self labeled skeptic, are you just as skeptical of the official conspiracy theory?

I mean c'mon, if there were truth to this, we'd want to see it.

But so far, all us "debunkers" have seen is a load of complete and total rubbish.
Ask yourself, who controls the evidence at this point?

Demise of the truth? Where can I read about more and more experts and officials coming out publicly in support of the official story?

Heck I can go to this site http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ and find more an more experts questioning the official story.

I can read about a Highly decorated former New York City detective Bo Dietl admits that his first instinct on 9/11 was that the twin towers were downed with explosives, as he conceded that he shared many questions about the official story with 9/11 truth activists he had formerly debunked on national television.at http://www.911blogger.com/

Or I can examine the 3 day conference in Australia Sydney Conference: 9/11 - Physics and Findings: Challenging the NIST Report

And then I can read how the Popular Mechanics Debunking gets debunked by the same government it purports to support as evidenced by the FAA itself...
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Freedom of Information Act response dated March 3, 2008, the FAA concedes that records for the information alleged in part by Popular Mechanics' unnamed FAA source, do not exist. (http://www.911blogger.com/node/14369)
so much for that bastion of "facts" debunkers like to point to.

Fake pics of the debris pile which have been hue shifted to imply molten metal, erroneous thermite claims, laughable no planer rubbish about the pentagon, and even some claims that the twin towers were not hit by planes.
Such claims are easily disproven.
Lots of straw.
Who faked the hue in the picture? What evidence do you have SJ faked it?
How do you debunk the thermite claim? Test the steel to prove or disprove the use of explosives. Who has the evidence to test? The U.S. Government. Have they released steel samples or allowed independent public access to the evidence? Not to my knowledge. Has NIST released their body of evidence to the world for independent verification? Not to my knowledge.
You keep pressing for evidence but who has the evidence? What you should do is petition the U.S. Government to release the evidence they do have for independent verification. Then you can scream "show us the evidence" and actually have it mean something.

Then we see the 'but the fires were not hot enough to melt steel' distraction, it shows a complete ignorance of metallurgy, and how steel changes in composition as a material between room temperature and its melting point of 1500 degrees C.
You are aware of the various theories the official story passed through before settling on the current one, correct? "Pancake...well no we reject pancakes...etc."

If you are indeed a true skeptic perhaps you should start analyzing the first conspiracy theory...the U.S. Government's conspiracy like a true skeptic would and should and then move on to the other theories.

Finally, what evidence are you using to support your statement: the demise of the twoof. It appears more and more the reverse is taking place...the demise of debunking is taking place. A debunking book that lies, government officials that lie, the vast problems with the 9/11 Commission Report, official data that contradicts the official story, and the list goes on.

[peteweaver]

There's an official conspiracy theory swing?

How does that one go, and whats the difference to the consensus of engineers the world over (University of Sydney's independant study of the WTC collapses, University of Manchester's independant study, BBC HORIZON'S independant study, Leslie E Robertson's information about it), video evidence, known metallurgical data about steel, eyewitness statements etc, and 'the official conspiracy theory' ?

I'm skeptical of the US Government, and their policies. But as for 9/11, the facts don't support the conspiracy theorists claims.

Show me some HARD EVIDENCE, and I'll look at it, but it is obviously wrong, I'll point out what I can see thats wrong with it.

[peteweaver]

Originally posted by Swingdangler: Ask yourself, who controls the evidence at this point? Metallurgical data is public domain information, and has been for a very VERY long time. As has civil engineering info about bending moments, shear force, stress strain, torsion, tension, compression, viscoplastic creep etc.
Anyone with knowledge about such things can tell when someone makes a claim about metallurgy which is obviously false. And there's plenty of metallurgists in Iran.

[Dave Rogers]

If you are indeed a true skeptic perhaps you should start analyzing the first conspiracy theory...the U.S. Government's conspiracy like a true skeptic would and should and then move on to the other theories.

Done that. It fits all the evidence. The other theories don't even fit the evidence that's advanced in their favour. Therefore, like a true skeptic, I conclude that the first theory is a good enough one to work with unless and until any evidence emerges that contradicts it, and that, even should such evidence emerge, the other theories you refer to are not the right ones to consider to replace it.

Dave

ETA: That is to say, it fits all the actual evidence, rather than the made-up evidence which Swing Dangler is about to post in response.

[~enigma~]

[quote]
Ask yourself, who controls the evidence at this point? This question is a MAJOR admission that your beliefs are not falsafiable. That means you are a woo and therefore have a worthless opinion.
Demise of the truth? Where can I read about more and more experts and officials coming out publicly in support of the official story? Why is that necessary?Or I can examine the 3 day conference in Australia Sydney Conference: 9/11 - Physics and Findings: Challenging the NIST ReportAhh...you looked at Lin's pictures. Tell me, why do they have to meet overseas? Also tell me why a member of the parliment claims there are at least 30 other parliment members that will come out when the time is right? Does that mean they are fake truthers OR that they don't exist. Fact is if that were a true claim they deserve to be thrown out of parliment for hiding information from the public. The truth movement is dead but you are just to dumb to figure that out.How do you debunk the thermite claim? Test the steel to prove or disprove the use of explosives.Thermite is an explosive now? Are you truthers just impotent or are you guys really a movement of living abortions?What you should do is petition the U.S. Government to release the evidence they do have for independent verification.Nope, that is what your movement should do but after almost 7 years your bowel movement has been shown to be nothing more than a bad case of flatulence.

[R.Mackey]

Done that. It fits all the evidence. The other theories don't even fit the evidence that's advanced in their favour. Therefore, like a true skeptic, I conclude that the first theory is a good enough one to work with unless and until any evidence emerges that contradicts it, and that, even should such evidence emerge, the other theories you refer to are not the right ones to consider to replace it.

Dave

ETA: That is to say, it fits all the actual evidence, rather than the made-up evidence which Swing Dangler is about to post in response.

Very well spoken.

Many complainers simply don't understand that, in science, you compare multiple hypotheses against each other using known facts. All the facts we have are inconsistent with Truth Movement theories, and consistent with our leading theories (e.g. NIST). You can't discard one hypothesis without likewise validating another, unless you apply the facts asymmetrically, viz. changing the body of facts from one case to another. We don't do that. We have, therefore, spent equal effort certifying our own theories as we have debunking the stupid ones.

[peteweaver]

How do you debunk the thermite claim? Test the steel to prove or disprove the use of explosives.

Truthers already did it last year with the failed truthburn project.
Result:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047ab3dd14d9f1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10637)


Thermite is not an explosive, it is a combustible incendiary mixture of metals including iron oxide, normally used for welding. It burns downwards, and the gasses it releases are of low velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Explosives on the other hand combust so fast that the gas release given off by combustion creates a blast of immense pressure. This pressure wave, not heat, cuts the target. The pressure wave also generates an extremely loud bang.
The explosive velocity of RDX (industry standard plastic explosive used in the demolitions trade) is 8,750 metres per second. I think you'll concede that RDX creates pretty loud bangs when it goes off.

[~enigma~]

. It burns downwards, and the gasses it releases are of low velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThermiteLike I said....flatulence.

[beachnut]

You just listed about every strawman possible.

What exactly is your point?
Let me clear it up. 9/11 truth movement has zero evidence, they make up ideas out of the blue to fool those who are not prepared to use knowledge and rational thought to find the real truth. If you fail to understand the OP, you may be fooled by 9/11 truth. Irony.

No evidence, no facts, just hearsay implied conclusions that are false!

Facts please, stop arguing with about those who understand 9/11 and ask 9/11 truth to produce some evidence. Like Jones, all of 9/11 is founded on false ideas; just made up ideas to help fulfill some paranoid delusion of 9/11.

[Shrinker]

Can you post the specific quote from that link.

Are you suggesting there are only 200 truthers in the world?

52. Please write P for "Post" or R for "Read only" to describe your participation in these 9/11 related internet forums. This is meant to show regular participation. If you don't know of a forum or don't read it, leave it blank.

1) Randi Rhodes forum P-3% R-9%
2) Democratic Underground P-2% R-4%
3) Loose Change Forum P-3% R-5%
4) Above Top Secret P-5% R-9%
5) 9/11 Blogger P-7% R-11%
6) JREF P-5% R-8%
7) PrisonPlanet forum P-2% R-4%
8) Pilots for Truth Forum P-1% R-3%
9) Architects & Engineers for Truth forum P-4% R-7%
10) Jack Blood forum P-1% R-2%
11) 9/11 Truth Movement Forums (Killtown) P-1% R-2%
12) nineeleven.co.uk forum P-1% R-3%



10 / 0.05 = 200

I'm just 'putting it out there'. :rolleyes:

[Swing Dangler]

There's an official conspiracy theory swing?

How does that one go, and whats the difference to the consensus of engineers the world over (University of Sydney's independant study of the WTC collapses, University of Manchester's independant study, BBC HORIZON'S independant study, Leslie E Robertson's information about it), video evidence, known metallurgical data about steel, eyewitness statements etc, and 'the official conspiracy theory' ?


Pete, did all of those studies have unfettered and unfiltered access to the body of evidence that NIST used to arrive at their conclusion?
A yes or no will suffice.

[peteweaver]

Pete, did all of those studies have unfettered and unfiltered access to the body of evidence that NIST used to arrive at their conclusion?
A yes or no will suffice.

Yes.

And btw, are you accusing every scientist at NIST involved in this investigation of covering up the facts?
Its a public body. How the heck is a cover up supposed to work with an organisation like that ?

The steel industry were given access to Nist data, for an obvious reason. Building codes, & fire safety procedures, needed updating as a result of the attacks.

I've an email from a metallurgist in the steel industry who was given access to the NIST data before the reports were published. He's fully satisfied with the NIST reports.

[Swing Dangler]

Yes.
Source, please? Remember the entire body of evidence including photographs, computer simulations, computer models, all documented videos, photographs, testimony,etc. not just the report itself. I'm quite certain there would have been news stories in trade journals about NIST releasing the computer model they used to determine the cause and behavior of the collapse to the public.


And btw, are you accusing every scientist at NIST involved in this investigation of covering up the facts?
No. Are you inserting words into my comment?
That is like saying the U.S. Government is responsible for 9/11. I mean heck, I didn't realize my local post office played a role in the conspiracy, or HUD, or the Department of Education for that matter.

Its a public body. How the heck is a cover up supposed to work with an organisation like that?
Speculation again??
When the physical evidence doesn't match the desired outcome, use computer models! Duh.
Did an independent agency conduct this investigation? Are NIST directors politically appointed to NIST an agency within the Commerce Department?

The steel industry were given access to Nist data, for an obvious reason. Building codes, & fire safety procedures, needed updating as a result of the attacks.
Source?


I've an email from a metallurgist in the steel industry who was given access to the NIST data before the reports were published. He's fully satisfied with the NIST reports.

You understand that I'm hesitant to accept this story as fact without documentation and sources cited as well.

If you don't mind me asking, why was he allowed to view the data before the public?

[~enigma~]

You understand that I'm hesitant to accept this story as fact without documentation and sources cited as well.

If you don't mind me asking, why was he allowed to view the data before the public?
Swing...why does it hurt you so much that the impotent truth movement is drying up and blowing away in the wind?

[peteweaver]

What was he allowed to view the data before the public ?

Building codes, & fire safety procedures, needed updating as a result of the attacks. In order to best update those codes, and best improve safety, the steel industry needed to get immediate access to the data without harrassment from a bunch of wannabe scooby doo's who call themselves truthers (though witch hunters would be a more appropriate description for some).

[uk_dave]

If you don't mind me asking, why was he allowed to view the data before the public?

Because experts and professionals with jobs to do trump wannabe internet sleuths every time

[peteweaver]

Exactly.

[LastChild]

As someone very skeptical of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 I find it unfortunate that all the conspiracy theorists can now do, is stoop to insulting the "debunkers" at every turn, instead of trying to argue their corner with hard scientific evidence and attempt to prove us wrong.

I mean c'mon, if there were truth to this, we'd want to see it.

But so far, all us "debunkers" have seen is a load of complete and total rubbish.

Fake pics of the debris pile which have been hue shifted to imply molten metal, erroneous thermite claims, laughable no planer rubbish about the pentagon, and even some claims that the twin towers were not hit by planes.
Such claims are easily disproven.

Then we see the 'but the fires were not hot enough to melt steel' distraction, it shows a complete ignorance of metallurgy, and how steel changes in composition as a material between room temperature and its melting point of 1500 degrees C.

I've also seen ignorance about the way the twin towers were constructed.

Conspiracy theorists can you please stop attacking debunkers, and start producing some hard facts.

Thank you.

Well here we go again with yet another JREF declaration of the death of the truth movement.

What are you debunkers going to do now that it's all over? Get a job?

I would call these declarations wishful thinking if I didn't know most of you live for this and don't want it to ever be over.

[johnny karate]

Well here we go again with yet another JREF declaration of the death of the truth movement.

What are you debunkers going to do now that it's all over? Get a job?

I would call these declarations wishful thinking if I didn't know most of you live for this and don't want it to ever be over.

Don't worry, LastChild. We'll be fine. The world is full of self-important loons awaiting mockery.

[peteweaver]

No LastChild, we'd just get a beer. I can't speak for everyone, but I already have a job.

Now would you care to address one of the points I made which you've reposted ?

Cheers.

[funk de fino]

This type of posting from Swingie and the gang just shows that they have not read the NIST report as NIST clearly state they gave samples and info to independant outlets to study.

It would help if some of them would even read the summary's before blowing off their sad little trumpets.

[16.5]

Well here we go again with yet another JREF declaration of the death of the truth movement.

What are you debunkers going to do now that it's all over? Get a job?

I would call these declarations wishful thinking if I didn't know most of you live for this and don't want it to ever be over.

I thought you and I were going to go after those holocaust deniers.... oh wait.

[peteweaver]

Steel sample heated to 300 degrees C (5 times below melting point)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047e041e34ba02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11323)


Steel sample heated to 800 degrees C
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047e04249bf534.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11324)
Though its not melted, look how the crystalline structure has changed.
Its become much much weaker.

[LastChild]

I thought you and I were going to go after those holocaust deniers.... oh wait.

I thought you were going to stop pimping out the holocaust to hide behind every time you're losing some trivial argument and instead show it a little more respect.

Oh wait that's right... you don't know any better.

[LastChild]

Don't worry, LastChild. We'll be fine. The world is full of self-important loons awaiting mockery.

Well you are the expert on self-important loons...

[~enigma~]

I thought you were going to stop pimping out the holocaust to hide behind every time you're losing some trivial argument and instead show it a little more respect.

Oh wait that's right... you don't know any better.
Respect?! For who? As if the nazi wannabe woo show ANY respect to the victims of 9/11 or anyone that doesn't buy their spiel.

[16.5]

I thought you were going to stop pimping out the holocaust to hide behind every time you're losing some trivial argument and instead show it a little more respect.

Oh wait that's right... you don't know any better.

But you learned something this week. You learned that one of your sources is a holocaust denier.

And you learned that companies use options to hedge.

Baby steps, Last Child. You'll get there some day!

[LastChild]

But you learned something this week. You learned that one of your sources is a holocaust denier.

And you learned that companies use options to hedge.

Baby steps, Last Child. You'll get there some day!

The only thing I learned is that you are a liar. But it was no surprise.

[pomeroo]

The only thing I learned is that you are a liar. But it was no surprise.


Speaking of liars, you dishonestly labeled innocent people as crooks. When I handed you your head, showing that you were incapable of distinguishing supply from demand and that your sleazy insinuations made no sense, you fled the thread with your tail between your legs.

When will you stop lying?

[LastChild]

Speaking of liars, you dishonestly labeled innocent people as crooks. When I handed you your head, showing that you were incapable of distinguishing supply from demand and that your sleazy insinuations made no sense, you fled the thread with your tail between your legs.

When will you stop lying?

You handed me nothing as usual except your useful idiot apologies for the crooks in power. And they’re never even going to let you be a real member of their club. Never ever. Give it up flunky.

Please remember to be civil and attack the argument. Name calling is inappropriate. Everyone should bear this in mind.

[peteweaver]

Where has anyone vocally stated support for Bush ?

Debunking 9/11 lunacy does not mean supporting any politicians, it just means pointing out the holes in [rule 10] poor conspiracy theories.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is one straw man.

And, how many truthers actually post here. 10 at best?


I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. You're new here. This subforum has existed long before you started posting here. Are you working under the assumption that the truthers currently posting here are the same ones that have always posted here, and that no others have come and gone before your own arrival?

Why would you do that?

If you don't mind me asking, why was he allowed to view the data before the public?


See, tanabear... There are stupid questions.

Geez... I wonder why the folks at NASA get first crack at the incoming images from those probes out there. They must be hiding something. :rolleyes:

[LastChild]

Where has anyone vocally stated support for Bush ?

Debunking 9/11 lunacy does not mean supporting any politicians, it just means pointing out the holes in [rule 10] poor conspiracy theories.

He was talking about another thread.

They may be lame apologies but they are apologies none the less.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3539454&postcount=165

BTW I thought he was done with this sub forum and wasn't going to post here anymore. Or was that just another tantrum?

[Good Lt]

Are you going to prove 9-11 was an inside job anytime soon, LC?

That IS your purpose here, after all.

[LastChild]

Are you going to prove 9-11 was an inside job anytime soon, LC?

That IS your purpose here, after all.

No THAT'S your delusion.

I'm here to show that there hasn't been a real investigation into 9/11 so you don't know if 9/11 was an inside job or not.

That and show that debunking is just a game of pretend and a waste of time.

And I'm doing really well. That's why I bother you so much.

[stateofgrace]

I'm here to show that there hasn't been a real investigation into 9/11 .

Please back this claim up with facts and evidence.

[beachnut]

... useful idiot apologies for the ... Give it up flunky.
Looks like proof of 9/11 truth is just like bigfoot truth except bigfoot members have not found a big pile of scat, and 9/11 truth dishes it out all the time.

[pomeroo]

You handed me nothing as usual except your useful idiot apologies for the crooks in power. And they’re never even going to let you be a real member of their club. Never ever. Give it up flunky.


You continue your mindless braying after I exposed you again?!?! You are slandering people who have done nothing crooked. Nobody dreams that you have the integrity to apologize for your insolent stupidity, but you could at least stop parading it.

I established that your ignorant attempt to pretend that the Iraqi oil industry's problems with sabotage and corruption cannot possibly involve America. You, typically, ran away. How about running away for good?

[pomeroo]

No THAT'S your delusion.

I'm here to show that there hasn't been a real investigation into 9/11 so you don't know if 9/11 was an inside job or not.

That and show that debunking is just a game of pretend and a waste of time.

And I'm doing really well. That's why I bother you so much.


How can you can show what you don't know? You originally tried pretending to an audience of adults that there was no investigation. Amid roars of laughter, you were spanked soundly and sent to bed. Now, you will attempt to show that the massive investigation involving several agencies never happened? Where will you start? Your usual routine of wiggling your ears and making disgusting noises won't cut it.

[pomeroo]

He was talking about another thread.

They may be lame apologies but they are apologies none the less.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3539454&postcount=165

BTW I thought he was done with this sub forum and wasn't going to post here anymore. Or was that just another tantrum?


You're confused. You throw tantrums. The rest of us laugh at you and destroy your childish pretensions.

[16.5]

The only thing I learned is that you are a liar. But it was no surprise.

Now that is RICH! I actually laughed out loud.

Anyway, you still mad that I demonstrated that you don't know anything about hedges or options? I do find it funny that you admit you didn't learn anything even AFTER I patiently explained how a hedge using put options and stocks works. Keep reaching for the Truth!

Anyway, say hi to your Neo-Nazi pal, Eric Hufschmid for us, will ya?

[peteweaver]

Eric Hufschmid is a classic example of what happens when the village idiot gets internet access. Surely even LastChild doesn't buy into Hufschmid's lies?

[LastChild]

Eric Hufschmid is a classic example of what happens when the village idiot gets internet access. Surely even LastChild doesn't buy into Hufschmid's lies?

Don't ruin it for him by asking him to support his claims. Unless you want to get reported with him every time he goes off topic. In other words don't follow the village idiot.

[Good Lt]

That and show that debunking is just a game of pretend and a waste of time.Paying attention to facts is a "game" and "a waste of time?"

Space beams. No planes. Larry Silverstein. North of Citgo. Planes, but remote controlled. Missles at the Pentagon. Loose Change V1-4. 9-11 blogger. PrisonPlanet. "Pull it." Thermate. David Ray Griffin. Controlled demolitions. Faster than freefall speeds. Fire can't melt steel.

Troofers have certainly never wasted anyone's time. No, not once. Ever. And they never will as long as TEH TROOF remains out there.

And I'm doing really well. That's why I bother you so much.

If you have to lie to yourself to sleep at night, be my guest.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing...why does it hurt you so much that the impotent truth movement is drying up and blowing away in the wind?

I'm still looking for evidence of this drying up, Enigma. And so far debunkers have presented none. Yet the European Parliament and the Japanese Parliament are beginning to examine the facts or lack there of surrounding the OS. That doesn't sound like drying up...

You know I might believe you if you could show that...9/11 Blogger shut down, that the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice shut down, if Wearechange handed in their cameras, if Patriotsquestion9/11 stopped adding people and was shut down, if AE disbanded, etc, etc. But these organizations continue to grow and be active, repeated letters to editors being published in local newspapers, etc
. Yet when I examine debunker sites, notably this one, the Gravy has hung up the towel, character attacks reign supreme as always, and more information released by the federal government places more and more doubt on the official story it told.
Do you think if the Truth Movement was dying, DRG wouldn't be able to write a book detailing contradictions in the official story? I think you and those that make the same claim about the truth movement dying and drying up are in a state of denial to be honest.

peteweaver Why was he allowed to view the data before the public ?

Quote:
Building codes, & fire safety procedures, needed updating as a result of the attacks.
In order to best update those codes, and best improve safety, the steel industry needed to get immediate access to the data without harrassment from a bunch of wannabe scooby doo's who call themselves truthers (though witch hunters would be a more appropriate description for some).
Pete, you combined two separate issues here and are treating them as one. I understand the public release of the data after the event. But you didn't address the private email that you are in a position to discuss, lumping that private email sent before the published report to your friend in with the public release of the report.

Can you clarify something? Why was your friend allowed to view data in a private email before the report was published? Can you post the content of the email as well?

Pete-peteweaver
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Pete, did all of those studies have unfettered and unfiltered access to the body of evidence that NIST used to arrive at their conclusion?
A yes or no will suffice.
Yes.

Pete, I'm now again asking for the source that you used to determine that all of those independent studies you cited had access to all of NIST's evidence that they used to determine their outcome. Can you source that or were you embellishing the truth for the sake of posterity? Or did you lie to support your claim?;)

Thanks for any response to clarify these issues.

[Unsecured Coins]

Settle down, paul

[SDC]

Don't ruin it for him by asking him to support his claims. Unless you want to get reported with him every time he goes off topic. In other words don't follow the village idiot.

As far as I can follow this, you are referring to Hufschmid as the village idiot, and thereby you are agreeing with Peteweaver?

OK.

[16.5]

As far as I can follow this, you are referring to Hufschmid as the village idiot, and thereby you are agreeing with Peteweaver?

OK.

Nope, he is referring to me as the Village Idiot, and seems to be reporting me, I don't know, every time I post? I guess.

But seeing how this thread is about the "voyage to the bottom of the barrel" I believe it is perfectly appropriate to point out that certain members of the Truth Movement appear to continue to rely upon so called "evidence" generated by Neo Nazis and holocaust deniers. Why this week alone, on this very site, a Truther linked to a site that celebrated the ground breaking work performed by one Eric Hufschmid, well known holocaust denier and all around scum bag.

After a member of this site pointed out the fact that Eric Hufschmid was a well known holocaust denier, the angry recriminations exploded, and it was made known that the "member of this site [that] pointed out the fact that Eric Hufschmid was a well known holocaust denier" was far, far more "despicable" than the holocaust denier in the first place!

Despicable. That was the word used. So, don't point out that members of the Truth Movement are holocaust deniers, because that would be "despicable."

So it seems that the Truthers have hit the bottom of the barrel, tunneled right through it and into a sewer.

[Myriad]

And I'm doing really well. That's why I bother you so much.


LastChild, I'll give it to you. You are doing very well.

But what is it that you are doing very well at? (Don't bother not answering, I'm going to tell you.) You are doing very well at evading, at avoiding being pinned down in direct logical absurdities, at making sure people have to read more than one of your posts to see the contradictions. That's why you don't answer most questions.

(The mystery is why most people here are foolish enough to keep asking them, instead of just making simple declarative statements pointing out the flaws in your argument. They expect you to point out those flaws yourself, by honestly answering questions! Is that ridiculous, or what?)

The problem with the art of evasion is that it's a game that doesn't win you anything. It can only be persuasive in a few special cases, when you control the format (such as a politician's press conference) and when your main goal is to convince ignorant people (such as a politician's press conference). Neither is the case here.

When one has any real goals in mind, such as, say, proving someone guilty (or oneself innocent) of a crime, or getting a new investigation, this tactic becomes pointless. Can you imagine, for instance, that if you were being interviewed by police on suspicion of a crime, that the police would think to themselves, "Hey, he's managed to evade the question of what he was doing in the alley six times now, he must be innocent!"? (Hold on, that's a question you won't answer, so I'll answer it for you.) No, you cannot. You are not that stupid.

Nor will a MSM news editor ever say, "Wow, he's really good at evading the question of how the evidence he presents supports his accusations in this story. Let's run with it!"

Nor -- TC, your turn to pay attention here -- will a real science editor ever say, "The calculations on which you base your conclusions are wrong, but the irrelevant distractions that you bring up when I ask you to fix them are very interesting and informative. That's just what I expect for articles in my journal/popular magazine, so let's publish it."

Nor will a prosecutor ever say, "Your evidence is lacking, but your evasions have convinced me. Let's convene the grand jury!"

Competence in demanding adequate answers is part of doing the job of police detective, prosecutor, judge, news editor, scientist, or science editor. And unlike the skeptics here, those people can force you to give non-evasive answers in exchange for something from them that you want -- such as your continued life outside of prison, or their influential support in favor of a new investigation. Also, unlike the skeptics here, they control the format. They can show you the door (their office door, or a closed prison cell door, as the case may be) if you persist in being cute.

The evidence that your only interest in 9/11 truth is playing verbal Pong on Internet message boards, is that you're using a form of discourse that only works (and only toward very limited self-centered ends) for playing verbal Pong on Internet message boards. I'm telling you this in case you're not, as I suspect, lying about actually wanting a new 9/11 investigation, but are instead too stupid to recognize the futility of playing verbal Pong here as a means toward obtaining one.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[~enigma~]

I'm still looking for evidence of this drying up, Enigma. And so far debunkers have presented none. Yet the European Parliament and the Japanese Parliament are beginning to examine the facts or lack there of surrounding the OS. That doesn't sound like drying up...

Are you really that incapable of answering a question as asked or do you always have to twist it into something you want? That by itself is more proof that the truth movement is nothing more than a fart. now we all know why it smells in here :)

[LibraryLady]

I split the last four posts to AAH and will remind everyone that the posts need to stay on topic.