Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone [Archive] - Page 3

Totovader

1st October 2008, 06:08 AM

@Totovader: Thanks for pointing that out. I frequently get my fallacies mixed up.

At the same time (And honestly I'm not being disingenuous, I want to clear up any misunderstanding):

The question of argument from ignorance arose by my questioning Gravy's repeated requests for evidence. The claim being made here was implicitly his. To paraphrase, "Where's your evidence, put up or shut up."

So, there is no evidence against (the official version). Therefore (the official version is true).

So claiming that lack of evidence (of political conspiracy) is evidence (that there is no conspiracy) is, in your opinion not a fallacy?

I'm not sure how this fails to qualify (in one form or another) but I am, again in all honesty, curious as to the opinions of others on the logic or illogic of such claims.

As evidence of my sincerity I will freely admit to be confused by the alternate structure of the fallacy:

There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p.

If we take (There is no evidence against p. Therefore, p.) we can say:

There is no evidence against there being a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon. (Fallacy)

In the second form:

There is no evidence for a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is not no mouse on the moon.

which can be read: There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is a mouse on the moon.

While this is clearly a fallacy the form "There is no evidence of a mouse on the moon. Therefore there is no mouse on the moon." seems much more in keeping with the format of the first version. (There is no evidence for p. Therefore not p.)

There are times when I can stare at something like this for ages and then someone will point out the obvious and I have to kick myself. Feel free to promote my self-flagellation.

Again, Gravy (or I) is/am not claiming that a lack of evidence for your position proves the widely held scientific version of the events. That theory stands up on its own. It is simply being pointed out that your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.

You keep inserting the "therefore" in order to avoid the fact that you're just plain wrong, and Gravy is just plain right.

Brannagyn

1st October 2008, 07:31 AM

NOTE: managed to clear up my own confusion. I was reading not-p as not negative ("-") p. Which didn't seem to make sense. It now seems clear that not-p simply means "not p". Why the need for a hyphen I don't really get. Ah well.

It is simply being pointed out that your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.

I had asked previously if Gravy was merely stating the obivious, i.e. what I myself had already explicitly expressed, that there is no hard evidence of political conspiracy. I clearly stated that it was either this (stating the obvious) or an argument of ignorance. I didn't actually think that he would simply be repeatedly stating the obvious. My apologies for mistaking his intent.

proves the widely held scientific version of the events.

I would very much like to see your proof that there was no political conspiracy involved (perhaps here you may think "Oh! He's talking about the possibility of political conspiracy, not falling towers, cell phones, etc." If so its something you could have clarified by reading my comments carefully).

Leaving that aside for the moment, as far as the structure of logical fallacies go, you're saying that you consider that lack of evidence invalidates a point of view?
("your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.")

You yourself stated the Argument from Ignorance as "There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p." Now that we've cleared up my confusion over "not hypen p" :blush: while Gravy may have simply been stating the obvious (no hard evidence) you do seem by, claiming invalidity of the argument, to be employing this fallacy.

Using another example, lets go back to the useful case of Watergate. Despite hard evidence Woodward & Bernstein advance claims to their editor that the scandal may reach all the way to the White House. Were such claims:

a) invalid
b) justified by circumstantial evidence
c) always valid as the possibility exists as long as an alternate contention did not prove them wrong
d) something else

Thankfully the editor did accept them as valid claims and permitted the further enquiries that led to hard evidence being discovered.

You keep inserting the "therefore" in order to avoid the fact that you're just plain wrong.

The "therefore" is part of the format of the structures you provided as examples. I simply presented some alternate examples to try to explain my confusion over the interpretation of this fallacy.

The "just plain wrong part" I already addressed, if Gravy was simply being repetitive and stating the obvious yes I was wrong, otherwise he and you (in you last post) were making Arguments of Ignorance.

The problem here I think was that without having a clear idea what my argument was you assumed you had proof of its invalidity. The possibility still exists of course, that you do have such proof and I will be appreciative if you can direct me to it.

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 07:44 AM

Here's a direct and non-rhetorical question.
Could you give a couple of examples of these "vast holes"? Genuinely curious.

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

mchapman

1st October 2008, 07:47 AM

Yeah thats a 20 story hole right there. Oh hold on, there wasnt a 20 storey hole after all.

funk de fino

1st October 2008, 07:52 AM

Yeah thats a 20 story hole right there. Oh hold on, there wasnt a 20 storey hole after all.

yes, there was. It was the 10 stoery hole that was not where first reported by some of the first responders that you are thinking of.

The 20 storey hole is there and is mentioned in the report.

keep up

A W Smith

1st October 2008, 08:03 AM

Yeah thats a 20 story hole right there. Oh hold on, there wasnt a 20 storey hole after all.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

KTB

1st October 2008, 08:03 AM

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

Ok, thanks. Nice to get an answer.
Though I think that the collapse theory is generally considered plausible. I have seen "argument of incredulity" types of comments about the theory, but nothing serious with e.g. math or something like that.
Where could I read about the problems in the report in more detail?

funk de fino

1st October 2008, 08:05 AM

NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

Do you think progressive collapse of buildings is impossible?

1st October 2008, 08:22 AM

Ok, thanks. Nice to get an answer.
Though I think that the collapse theory is generally considered plausible. I have seen "argument of incredulity" types of comments about the theory, but nothing serious with e.g. math or something like that.
Where could I read about the problems in the report in more detail?

here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html) for example

1st October 2008, 08:23 AM

Do you think progressive collapse of buildings is impossible?

Do you think CD companys are scammers?

Jonnyclueless

1st October 2008, 08:25 AM

Why would he think that CD companies are scammers?

funk de fino

1st October 2008, 08:26 AM

Do you think CD companys are scammers?

Reframe or reword your question. I fail to see the relevance.

PS there is a post for you to answer here first.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124771&page=3

We were getting to the root of your claim and witness and you ran away?

Hokulele

1st October 2008, 08:34 AM

I'm quite curious how the leading debunkers explain away the vast holes in the official story.

Why do you consider the people posting here to be the leading debunkers?

(This isn't a "gotcha" or anything, I am genuinely curious as to whether or not you believe this to be true and why.)

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 08:40 AM

Why do you consider the people posting here to be the leading debunkers?

(This isn't a "gotcha" or anything, I am genuinely curious as to whether or not you believe this to be true and why.)

On some level, I do believe it's true. The jref is an enormous resource on an array of topics, but Gravy is well known among people who research 9/11. I joined this forum because I was genuinely interested in how debunkers address the questions raised by skeptics of the official story.

I'm with some of the posters here who think the topic is a bit beaten to death. If the contentiousness and bluster were removed and this was simply a research sub forum on 9/11, we'd all be better for it.

twinstead

1st October 2008, 08:51 AM

This isn't a research sub. It's a conspiracy theory debate sub. It's all about contentiousness and bluster ;)

Also, I can't believe you wouldn't expect there to be SOME holes in just about any theory of an event as complicated as 911. Nobody here that I know of would even suggest the 'official story' is totally without inconsistencies and questions. It's just that most of us believe there is NO other explanation that comes to a conclusion other than 19 terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into buildings that has fewer holes.

Gravy

1st October 2008, 09:27 AM

Again, Gravy (or I) is/am not claiming that a lack of evidence for your position proves the widely held scientific version of the events. That theory stands up on its own. It is simply being pointed out that your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.

You keep inserting the "therefore" in order to avoid the fact that you're just plain wrong, and Gravy is just plain right.The problem is, his claims about us are false and his claims about 9/11 are...wait, he has no claims about 9/11. I assumed that since he's here promoting the work of conspiracist authors and criticizing us for not being open-minded, he has something to say about 9/11. But he won't say it. It's like the truther version of "The Secret."

Rationalist: "9/11? Whatcha got?"
Truther: "I can't tell you. I'm just not asking questions and demanding answers."

That's a strange way of getting the message out.

Complaints that my questions are unfair or irrelevant are whiney nonsense. If people listened to the podcast they know that I directly challenge truthers to put their cards on the table about what's most important: evidence that the "official (evidence-based) version" of 9/11 is wrong. Posting in a thread about that podcast and complaining that I'm doing what I say I do, is irrational.

Endless words, and nothing behind them. As I said, it's all about keeping the conspiracy theory going. What an unholy waste of time, and how sad for them.

Totovader

1st October 2008, 10:17 AM

NOTE: managed to clear up my own confusion. I was reading not-p as not negative ("-") p. Which didn't seem to make sense. It now seems clear that not-p simply means "not p". Why the need for a hyphen I don't really get. Ah well.

I had asked previously if Gravy was merely stating the obivious, i.e. what I myself had already explicitly expressed, that there is no hard evidence of political conspiracy. I clearly stated that it was either this (stating the obvious) or an argument of ignorance. I didn't actually think that he would simply be repeatedly stating the obvious. My apologies for mistaking his intent.

I would very much like to see your proof that there was no political conspiracy involved (perhaps here you may think "Oh! He's talking about the possibility of political conspiracy, not falling towers, cell phones, etc." If so its something you could have clarified by reading my comments carefully).

You made another fallacious argument, here.

The burden of proof is on you.

Leaving that aside for the moment, as far as the structure of logical fallacies go, you're saying that you consider that lack of evidence invalidates a point of view?
("your claims are invalid- they lack evidence.")

You can hold any point of view you want- but in order for your argument to be considered valid, it requires evidence.

While it technically doesn't mean you're wrong if you don't have evidence- it's pretty difficult to maintain an argument that you are correct by admitting that you have no evidence to substantiate your claim- any chance of being right would be purely coincidental. That's not logic- that's gambling.

And, as a point of fact, it's not merely that you lack evidence- you lack a rebuttal to the evidence. There's a mountain of information that conspiracists simply must avoid in order to peddle their fantasies. By refusing to address the facts, conspiracists have to wrap themselves into various contortions to try and get around this- and end up crapping out fallacies left and right just to get out a sentence.

You yourself stated the Argument from Ignorance as "There is no evidence for p. Therefore, not-p." Now that we've cleared up my confusion over "not hypen p" :blush: while Gravy may have simply been stating the obvious (no hard evidence) you do seem by, claiming invalidity of the argument, to be employing this fallacy.

And you seem to be completely ignoring the point. If you're offended by the fact that you lack evidence, then I suggest you rectify the situation by basing your conclusions on the evidence, not trying to find evidence to justify your conclusions.

I have not committed an argument from ignorance fallacy. Your attempts to dodge the issues by claiming that I seem to have done so is quite desperate.

You're wrong and you don't have any evidence to support your position. You also have no rebuttal to the evidence that does exist. Your argument is invalid and easily dismissed.

That has nothing to do with the widely held scientific version of the events; that version is not right because you're wrong. It's right because it has corroboration of strong evidence. Period.

Using another example, lets go back to the useful case of Watergate. Despite hard evidence Woodward & Bernstein advance claims to their editor that the scandal may reach all the way to the White House. Were such claims:

a) invalid
b) justified by circumstantial evidence
c) always valid as the possibility exists as long as an alternate contention did not prove them wrong
d) something else

Thankfully the editor did accept them as valid claims and permitted the further enquiries that led to hard evidence being discovered.

You will need to explain in great detail what this has to do with the issue, here. You seem to be claiming that "because some people have a hypothesis with only small amounts of substantiation- we should accept all arguments without evidence to be equally valid".

Clearly, the difference between the Watergate scandal and any conspiracy theory is that the Watergate scandal had evidence. Well, that's just one of the differences, I guess.

The "therefore" is part of the format of the structures you provided as examples. I simply presented some alternate examples to try to explain my confusion over the interpretation of this fallacy.

Frankly, I don't care why you were confused over your interpretation. Providing me with examples to try and justify your failed logic is irrelevant to the failure. You injected the "therefore" in the wrong spot in order to change Gravy's argument. That was my point.

The "just plain wrong part" I already addressed, if Gravy was simply being repetitive and stating the obvious yes I was wrong, otherwise he and you (in you last post) were making Arguments of Ignorance.

Either "we" were right or we were wrong.

What a stunning admission...

The part that's so painful about watching you try and circle around this particular failure is that you have had to admit that Gravy pointing out you lack any evidence to substantiate your claim is "stating the obvious".

Wow.

The problem here I think was that without having a clear idea what my argument was you assumed you had proof of its invalidity. The possibility still exists of course, that you do have such proof and I will be appreciative if you can direct me to it.

There's no such thing as proof of invalidity. Your argument was invalid because you lack the evidence to support any of it. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your argument- not on anyone else to disprove any random claim you happen to like at any particular moment.

If you have any evidence supporting your argument, then present it. Otherwise I think you can stop wasting everyone's time.

KTB

1st October 2008, 10:45 AM

here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html) for example

Ok, thanks. There appears to be a thread devoted to this, must check it out.
I assume that frank has commented about this to NIST (when they had the public comment period) and maybe we'll get some clarifications where needed.

When these possible problems are addressed are you (or RedIbis) then satisfied that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or at least that CD wasn't involved in the collapses of the buildings?

1st October 2008, 10:54 AM

Ok, thanks. There appears to be a thread devoted to this, must check it out.
I assume that frank has commented about this to NIST (when they had the public comment period) and maybe we'll get some clarifications where needed.

When these possible problems are addressed are you (or RedIbis) then satisfied that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or at least that CD wasn't involved in the collapses of the buildings?

It is impossible to know that, without knowing their answers.
This is always depending on the answer itself.
I hope you dont just belive everything that you get as an answer.
that would be very unsceptical.

we will see.

Gravy

1st October 2008, 11:17 AM

as adversity1 points out in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125315), David Ray Griffin, whom Richard Greene of Air America calls the "Guru of 9/11 Truth," is scheduled to be the star speaker at the "2nd 9/11 Truth International Conference (http://2nd911.globalpeace.jp/english.html)"

Panelists he's to speak with include Akira Dojimaru and Benjamin Fulford. From the conference website (Bolding mine):
Akira Dojimaru, one of the finest Japanese 911 Truth advocates will be coming especially for the conference from Spain. His online pseudonym is With Love From Barcelona. He has been a big voice in the Japanese 911 Truth Movement and will expose all the false truths of the official 911 story from the view point of physics.adversity1:
But who is Akira Dojimaru anyways? Did John Spiri bother to check? Maybe if he took a look at the man's Web site he would have found out that Akira is a plainly obvious anti-Semite. For example, see his article "Parasitism and Intellectual Conspiracies are Dangerous Elements among International Financiers and Traders" here: www.asyura2.com/2003/dispute8/msg/737.html (http://www.asyura2.com/2003/dispute8/msg/737.html) where he states: "And if I may add to that, we can nearly describe these kinds of dangerous elements as the Jewish ruling class (moneyed class) from a racial values standpoint." [the page is in Japanese, but when translated by Google reveals the repeated use of the words "Jew" and "parasite," as well as "international financial conspiracy," Nazi, etc. Enough to make anyone who isn't brain-dead take notice. –Gravy]

There is plenty of that on his site! In fact there is a whole section of the site devoted to Holocaust denial, one of the most disgusting efforts of the hard right to reverse the history of the Second World War.Benjamin Fulford? A frothing loon who seems to have never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't like. But he seems to have some audience in Japan, at least according to anti-Semite Jeff Rense (http://www.rense.com/general77/fulf.htm):

RENSE: Okay, back with Benjamin Fulford, live from Tokyo. He, by the way, has published 15 books written in Japanese, with cumulative sales running at over half a million copies. He's got his own weekly two-hour television program over there, appears frequently on numerous other nationally broadcast programs in Japan, and has regular columns in a variety of best-selling Japanese magazines.

Fulford: ...There was a German branch of the Rothschilds. They have laid low since Hitler was purged.

...I brought [my case against] David Rockefeller. I actually was able to link him to some murders of bankers and other people in Japan, as a part of his effort to take over the Japanese financial system.

When I confronted the former Japanese finance minister, Heizo Takanaka (ph) with this, he sent a ninja, believe it or not - a real live ninja - who offered me a gold Freemason badge. He told me I could either accept a job of great power or be killed.Ninja Freemasons offering jobs of great power. Even in our parodies we haven't come up with anything that funny. Horatius? Get on this, will you?

From a critic of Fulford (http://www.tokyofreepress.com/article.php?story=20071103205458855):
Certainly I always find his stories entertaining when he tells us about the Chinese Communist Party being funded by the Rothschilds at its inception, late Princess Diana being sent to the Royal Family from the same Jewish family, an image of Mt. Sinai being watermarked in the background of Mt. Fuji in the Bank of Japan's 1000-yen bill, the Meiji Restoration being a work by Russian Jews who stood behind the Emperor, Adolf Hitler being a Rothschild

...According to your theory, the world is filled with malicious plots and Japan is no exception. The Rockefellers have ripped us off to the bones since the 19th century with their belief that every Jew is entitled to have 2,800 Asian slaves...Holy crap. But wait, there's more! From Fulford's website (http://benjaminfulford.com/Anti.html):

Anti-Semitism is anti-Satanism

For millennia the ancient Babylonian secret slave driving cults have used the Jews like a matadors’ cape, to distract people from the real source of their anger. When the Jews are attacked, they are forced to huddle around the slave drivers for protection. Later, the cultists appeal to good heart of the people by making them feel guilty about their attacks on the Jews. In Europe and North America, humanity’s natural kindness has been used to brainwash us into a knee-jerk reaction against anything that is labeled Anti-Semitism. The way to remove this brainwash is to compile a database of everything that is called Anti-Semitic and remove from that database anything that is anti-Jew. The remaining body of knowledge can be renamed anti-Satanism. It will be useful in identifying the real villains and the things they are trying to hide.See? Just remove the Jews from Jew-hatred, and it's no longer Jew-hatred!

As I said to the Loose Change guys: if you need these people to support your claims, there's something very wrong with your claims.

I'll be asking Griffin why he intends to appear with these people.

Pardalis

1st October 2008, 11:18 AM

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that everyone questioning the official version is part of a pressure or lobby group. Once again the innaccuracy of lumping all such people into a single movement. Change can be brought about through both academic and journalistic paths that by no means require a dedicated lobby group to have wide impact. While social activism are replete with examples of individuals making critical contributions, Watergate is but one case showing their ability to highlight political conspiracy specifically.

No wonder it's taking so long.

So with so much people saying they've got evidence, so many alleged "whistleblowers", what's taking so long?

Isn't it because there is absolutely no substance to any of those claims?

KTB

1st October 2008, 11:46 AM

It is impossible to know that, without knowing their answers.
This is always depending on the answer itself.
I hope you dont just belive everything that you get as an answer.
that would be very unsceptical.

we will see.

Sure I'll believe anything my dad or the gubmint tells me :)

Seriously, sure it's nice to be skeptical. But I was thinking that if their answer, whatever it may be, satisfies you as the "correct" answer, and that answer shows a non-CD collapse as possible, will you then still believe that CD is somehow plausible and that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or more specifically. Is the CD theory the "tipping point" in your suspicion of an inside job, ie. can there still be an inside job without CD?

It's always frustrating to have to ask these questions when there seems to be no coherent alternative theories one could evaluate.
And sure I have been skeptical of everything the current US administration has said, but I still haven't figured out for myself any logical plausible alternate theory.

I mean the whole logic behind the need for a CD of tower 7 is a mystery to me. To destroy some files? Insurance fraud? Aren't those kind of dumb motives?
Have I missed some motive?

1st October 2008, 12:12 PM

Sure I'll believe anything my dad or the gubmint tells me :)

Seriously, sure it's nice to be skeptical. But I was thinking that if their answer, whatever it may be, satisfies you as the "correct" answer, and that answer shows a non-CD collapse as possible, will you then still believe that CD is somehow plausible and that 9/11 was an inside job?

Or more specifically. Is the CD theory the "tipping point" in your suspicion of an inside job, ie. can there still be an inside job without CD?

It's always frustrating to have to ask these questions when there seems to be no coherent alternative theories one could evaluate.
And sure I have been skeptical of everything the current US administration has said, but I still haven't figured out for myself any logical plausible alternate theory.

I mean the whole logic behind the need for a CD of tower 7 is a mystery to me. To destroy some files? Insurance fraud? Aren't those kind of dumb motives?
Have I missed some motive?

to make the OT short.
CD is important to the decission of MIHOP or LIHOP or OCT, more the Towers than 7.

the shredder motive is not my thingy :D

Maybe some prefered a controlled collapse over a expected uncontrolled collapse. without any sinister conspiracy involved. I think nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. And i have no clue if any evidence of whatever could have been in WTC7 that would have been effectively destroyed in a CD.

the new Reports moved me already far more to the "no CD theory" than I or any other "debunker" ever would have thought :)

i dont say im on the fence, im strongly leaning to "conspiracy larger than is known."

Totovader

1st October 2008, 12:18 PM

the new Reports moved me already far more to the "no CD theory" than I or any other "debunker" ever would have thought :)

i dont say im on the fence, im strongly leaning to "conspiracy larger than is known."

These two statements seem entirely contradictory... but don't let that bother you.

1st October 2008, 12:28 PM

sure some might be confused by a world full of colors and grey scales.

KTB

1st October 2008, 12:40 PM

to make the OT short.
CD is important to the decission of MIHOP or LIHOP or OCT, more the Towers than 7.

the shredder motive is not my thingy :D

Maybe some prefered a controlled collapse over a expected uncontrolled collapse. without any sinister conspiracy involved. I think nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. And i have no clue if any evidence of whatever could have been in WTC7 that would have been effectively destroyed in a CD.
known."

This may be a little off topic, but as long as we are not bickering I hope nobody minds :)

Why do you evaluate the CD theories by searching for holes in the official reports that deal only with "normal" collapse (well mostly, the new wtc 7 paper considered CD somewhat)? I mean if I really thought that a CD would be in order, I would try to convince at least myself with explanations of the following:
- a motive for CD
- a means for CD (explosives used, installation, etc.)
- evidence for CD before, during and after the collapses

I mean I also thought that the collapses looked like CD:s initially when I first saw them, but after some thought I realized this is only because I considered the final result when the building comes down. This of course behaves like a CD, because gravity does the job at this stage in both instances.

Finding errors in NISTs reports is of course a fruitful activity in itself, because there undoubtedly exists some, and all future buildings will benefit from finding these and correcting them.
The NIST "answer" to the collapse may of course also be wrong (maybe it was some other column or some minor variation), but I think the important point is that it is proven to be one possible way (meaning that a CD is not the only way for the collapses).

1st October 2008, 12:50 PM

This may be a little off topic, but as long as we are not bickering I hope nobody minds :)

Why do you evaluate the CD theories by searching for holes in the official reports that deal only with "normal" collapse (well mostly, the new wtc 7 paper considered CD somewhat)? I mean if I really thought that a CD would be in order, I would try to convince at least myself with explanations of the following:
- a motive for CD
- a means for CD (explosives used, installation, etc.)
- evidence for CD before, during and after the collapses

I mean I also thought that the collapses looked like CD:s initially when I first saw them, but after some thought I realized this is only because I considered the final result when the building comes down. This of course behaves like a CD, because gravity does the job at this stage in both instances.

Finding errors in NISTs reports is of course a fruitful activity in itself, because there undoubtedly exists some, and all future buildings will benefit from finding these and correcting them.
The NIST "answer" to the collapse may of course also be wrong (maybe it was some other column or some minor variation), but I think the important point is that it is proven to be one possible way (meaning that a CD is not the only way for the collapses).

I never claimed a fire cant bring down a building, i doubt a fire can bring down the building in the fashion we saw it. And in my oppinion the current Analyses did not come close enough. But indeed alot closer than i expected.

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

KTB

1st October 2008, 12:56 PM

I never claimed a fire cant bring down a building, i doubt a fire can bring down the building in the fashion we saw it. And in my oppinion the current Analyses did not come close enough. But indeed alot closer than i expected.

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

Fair enough. You sure are no "RedIbis", you actually answer questions and have some thought in your messages :)
Now if I only could get e.g. RedIbis' answer to these same questions (it's safe to ask without fearing an OT discussion, because no discussion will ensue...)

Now what was this thread about again...

funk de fino

1st October 2008, 12:58 PM

Pardalis

1st October 2008, 01:00 PM

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

Which makes this even less likely to be a conspiracy, don't you think?

1st October 2008, 01:03 PM

when i get asked nicely sometimes i indeed try to answer :)
but i only speak for my self and nobody else, everyone is free to say, think, answer or ignore whatever he wants.

When you have a diffrent oppinion than the majority in this subforum, it is not easy to say what you think. It is like running in between the guns and the target at a shooting stand.

1st October 2008, 01:05 PM

see they are firing :D

Pardalis

1st October 2008, 01:11 PM

Gravy

1st October 2008, 01:17 PM

Could you answer my question?

Don't you think that since the building code changes will make people look at the data, this makes it even less likely that the NIST's conclusions are a cover-up/conspiracy ?There have been many building code changes based on NIST's recommendations, and in Europe code changes based on the 9/11 incidents took place years before the changes in the US. These changes largely have to do with occupant safety, first responder access, and protection and redundancy of emergency systems, and less to do with structural systems. The events of 9/11 were unique, and it's probably not feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with such extraordinary circumstances. The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires, Building Code Changes (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst)

twinstead

1st October 2008, 01:24 PM

Nevermind

Sometimes that just about says it all. ;)

tomwaits

1st October 2008, 01:27 PM

Ok, this thread should probably end. When a truther is making these statements:

what irrefutable evidence have you ever presented of anything?
I havent put forward a conspiracy theory to back up. I have only asked for evidence backing up the religion of the official story.

You got that positive ID of the hijackers yet?

then I think it's time to realize we are dealing with an irrational mind, and therefore argument is impossible.

Gravy

1st October 2008, 01:38 PM

Ok, this thread should probably end. When a truther is making these statements:

then I think it's time to realize we are dealing with an irrational mind, and therefore argument is impossible.That's a good realization, but the answer isn't to end the thread. Others may make positive contributions (I just posted a link that may be of interest to people).

The answer is to disengage with people who bring nothing to the table and who show no desire or ability to learn.

Pardalis

1st October 2008, 01:48 PM

The answer is to disengage with people who bring nothing to the table and who show no desire or ability to learn.

I still think engaging them exposes their own lack of reasoning, like here:

And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

If the NIST has made recommendations which have been implemented, and more of them will be applied with the WTC 7 report, then this means that their findings have been accepted by the engineering community.

If there was a cover-up, it would instantly be known that the NIST's findings are flawed, and lies. If the NIST is part of a conspiracy, they wouldn't have made recommendations, because that would give them away.

The fact that DC can't see that contradiction shows his cognitive dissonance.

Gravy

1st October 2008, 02:04 PM

I still think engaging them exposes their own lack of reasoning, like here:I'm not familiar with DC's posting history. If you've seen improvement, great.

But in most cases truthers these days show themselves to be immune to reason within a very short time. Debunkers do them, and their conspiracy workshop, a great favor by continuing to engage with them. Starve them of attention and they wither and blow away.

tomwaits

1st October 2008, 02:13 PM

I'm not familiar with DC's posting history. If you've seen improvement, great.

But in most cases truthers these days show themselves to be immune to reason within a very short time. Debunkers do them, and their conspiracy workshop, a great favor by continuing to engage with them. Starve them of attention and they wither and blow away.

Indeed. Before the days of the internet, the Conspiracy Theorist would be a Dale Gribble (ahem...Rusty Shackleford) type: sitting in a dark room posting newspaper articles all over his desk and reading books by Jim Marrs trying to "connect the dots". Once the internet became widespread, CTists from all over the world are able to get together and reinforce their beliefs.

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 04:42 PM

Fair enough. You sure are no "RedIbis", you actually answer questions and have some thought in your messages :)
Now if I only could get e.g. RedIbis' answer to these same questions (it's safe to ask without fearing an OT discussion, because no discussion will ensue...)

Now what was this thread about again...

You seem to have forgotten this:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

KTB:
Ok, thanks. Nice to get an answer.

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 04:51 PM

The events of 9/11 were unique, and it's probably not feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with such extraordinary circumstances. The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.

Fire Safety Engineering and the Performance of Structural Steel in Fires, Building Code Changes (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst)

I know you won't respond because you have me on ignore, and I wouldn't doubt you've sent PMs asking your friends to avoid quoting me, but I just can't let stuff like this go by without a comment.

Are you honestly suggesting that airplane impact is not a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

dtugg

1st October 2008, 05:03 PM

If you ask me a direct, non rhetorical question, in which you are sincerely interested in the answer, I will respond in kind.

Around here, I get bombarded with disingenuous rhetorical questions, when there is little or no attempt to adress the questions I ask.

In another thread, you said that you have a theory about WTC7 that is better than NIST's. What is your theory and what evidence do you have to support it?

This is a direct, non-rhetorical question and I am sincerely interested in the answer. If you do not answer, or just ignore me, you are a liar.

HyJinX

1st October 2008, 05:20 PM

I know you won't respond because you have me on ignore, and I wouldn't doubt you've sent PMs asking your friends to avoid quoting me, but I just can't let stuff like this go by without a comment.

Are you honestly suggesting that airplane impact is not a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

I don't believe that Mark is suggesting that at all (though I can't speak for him). It wouldn't be feasible or cost effective to design all tall buildings to cope with fully fuel loaded passenger airliners, cruising at 500+ mph, smash into them. In fact, I doubt there's even a way to design a building to cope with such force...and if there was...the costs would more than likely be astounding. Again...this is simply my opinion and my interpretation of what Gravy was implying.

DavidJames

1st October 2008, 05:28 PM

Are you honestly suggesting that airplane impact is not a consideration when designing skyscrapers?What you need to do (yes you)is find out if airplane impact is a consideration. Can you do that Red? Will you do that Red?

Edit. Please do not respond with a question or snarky answer. Just answer the questions with a yes or no answer, it's really that simple.

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 05:40 PM

What you need to do (yes you)is find out if airplane impact is a consideration. Can you do that Red? Will you do that Red?

Edit. Please do not respond with a question or snarky answer. Just answer the questions with a yes or no answer, it's really that simple.

Yes.

Can you?

mchapman

1st October 2008, 05:57 PM

DavidJames

1st October 2008, 06:00 PM

Yes.

Can you?Yes, I could as well, but that's irrelevant as I'm not the one who believes the U.S. government is complicit in the murder of 3000 people, that would be you Red. YOU. If I was under such an impression, and asked the questions (two Red, I asked you TWO), I would have answered the second one Yes. I would not have blown it off, run away and hid, so to speak.

Here is one simple question Red.

Will you do research and find out if airplane impact is a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 06:01 PM

Yes, I could as well, but that's irrelevant as I'm not the one who believes the U.S. government is complicit in the murder of 3000 people, that would be you Red. YOU. If I was under such an impression, and asked the questions (two Red, I asked you TWO), I would have answered the second one Yes. I would not have blown it off, run away and hid, so to speak.

Here is one simple question Red.

Will you do research and find out if airplane impact is a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

Yes I have. Have you?

This is truly one of the more bizarre exchanges I've had on jref.

Cl1mh4224rd

1st October 2008, 06:10 PM

WildCat

1st October 2008, 06:10 PM

Yes I have.
And did this "research" consist of actually contacting architects and engineers who design tall buildings, or did it comprise of surfing truther sites and asking friends and family about it?

If the former, what did you learn, and from who?

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 06:14 PM

And did this "research" consist of actually contacting architects and engineers who design tall buildings, or did it comprise of surfing truther sites and asking friends and family about it?

If the former, what did you learn, and from who?

I didn't have to ask family members, but if I did, I'd ask my brother who is an architect or my cousin who was a contractor in the city for over 30 years and did work for Larry Silverstein. I mention this incidentally. I could not care less whether you believe me and I have zero intention of providing you with any information regarding my family.

That said, it's not that hard to find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand the impact of airplanes. You could do it too if you'd only try.

Cl1mh4224rd

1st October 2008, 06:20 PM

I didn't have to ask family members, but if I did, I'd ask my brother who is an architect or my cousin who was a contractor in the city for over 30 years and did work for Larry Silverstein. I mention this incidentally. I could not care less whether you believe me and I have zero intention of providing you with any information regarding my family.

That said, it's not that hard to find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand the impact of airplanes. You could do it too if you'd only try.

WildCat's question was pretty direct, RedIbis, and hardly rhetorical. Why did you not answer it?

ETA: You've claimed to have researched the likelihood of skyscrapers being designed with aircraft impact in mind. What sources did you consult, and for which buildings?

WildCat

1st October 2008, 06:23 PM

WildCat's question was pretty direct, RedIbis, and hardly rhetorical. Why did you not answer it?
He's too embarrassed to admit all he did was read conspiracy web sites.

RedIbis

1st October 2008, 06:26 PM

Seriously, you guys can't actually find out whether or not skyscrapers are designed to withstand airplane impact?

Seriously?

DavidJames

1st October 2008, 06:28 PM

In the seven years I've been a member of this forum, I've never encountered a poster as disingenuous the RedIbis. I can deal with trolls, I can deal with the normal ignorant and arrogant CTist. I have never put anyone on ignore. I've always felt, despite my disagreement there was always potential to glean something.

Perhaps information, or perhaps it would be a nuanced perspective on a belief of mine.

Maybe it's simply enjoying the rhetoric or give and take of debate, even debates between the knowledgeable and the ignorant.

Sometimes it's simply to feel the grin and smile I get from the stundie level of discourse provided by the CTists.

But I'm done with you RedIbis. You provide zero value. You bring nothing to the debate. Heck, you don't even have the ability to produce a stundie.

Edit: Welcome to Ignore, long overdue.

WildCat

1st October 2008, 06:28 PM

Seriously, you guys can't actually find out whether or not skyscrapers are designed to withstand airplane impact?

Seriously?
Red?
If the former, what did you learn, and from who?

dtugg

1st October 2008, 06:30 PM

In another thread, you said that you have a theory about WTC7 that is better than NIST's. What is your theory and what evidence do you have to support it?

This is a direct, non-rhetorical question and I am sincerely interested in the answer. If you do not answer, or just ignore me, you are a liar.

Hmm, odd, Red ignored me. I can only conclude that is is a double liar here. He does not have a theory better than NIST's and he does not always answer direct questions asked of him. Odd.

Cl1mh4224rd

1st October 2008, 06:34 PM

Seriously, you guys can't actually find out whether or not skyscrapers are designed to withstand airplane impact?

Seriously?

That's not the point, RedIbis.

You've claimed to have researched the likelihood of skyscrapers being designed with aircraft impact in mind. What sources did you consult, and for which buildings?

This question is about you, not us. You should be taking great pleasure in the chance to show us your abilities...

Brannagyn

1st October 2008, 06:35 PM

Thankfully, it seems I can finallyy bow out of this thread. While Mark Roberts was content to end the discussion without addressing my specific points in any reasonable manner (thankful for that due to his clear inability to discuss things in a civil manner) I was honestly open to the idea that Totovader had picked up a failure in my logic and/or understanding of the Argument from Ignornace. Now that he's shown that is not true I can thankfully leave this one-sided effort at discourse without regret.

You can hold any point of view you want- but in order for your argument to be considered valid, it requires evidence.

Yet again you seem to have failed to read what I clearly stated in earlier posts. I made a distinction between hard and circumstantial evidence and stated that while there was no hard evidence of conspiracy enough cricumstantial evidence existed to warrant further investigation.

Hence the use of Watergate as an example, the relevance of which you also entirely failed to appreciate.

Many 'debunkers' have stated here that political conspiracy is a valid field for further enquiry (go read mackey's thread on the 'Gravy line'). This is also the entire point of Peter Dale Scott's book "The Road to 9/11". Gravy claimed familiarity with this, something that flies in the face of his demands for 'evidence'.

'Hard' evidence is not required to justify the validity of an argument suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy. I was well aware of this and had no desire to derail the thread with discussion unrelated to the specific point I was addressing.

Robert's, and your, failure to grasp this is entirely due to your reading far more into my intent here than anything I wrote ever warranted (i.e. that I was secretly championing some claim regarding physical evidence that your 'hard' evidence had already invalidated).

You're wrong and you don't have any evidence to support your position. You also have no rebuttal to the evidence that does exist. Your argument is invalid and easily dismissed.

Ths is just getting repetitive. My above explanation was only a restatement of my earlier ones over the nature of 'evidence' (i.e. hard & circusmtantial and their relation to the possibility of conspiracy vs physical events) yet you have completely failed to apprehend my meaning. Once again, what is the nature of this 'proof' of a lack of political conspiracy that you refer to.

I'm now asking you to go read Dale Scott's book, start a thread and invalidate the central thesis that a political conspiracy possibly occured and this possibility warrants renewed investigation of those involved.

That has nothing to do with the widely held scientific version of the events

And again, my post either went over your head or bounced off it.

Frankly, I don't care why you were confused over your interpretation.

This just as an example of the civility of some of the posters here.

Please go back and check. Tell me where I wasn't honestly open to the possibility of being wrong and willing to accept the blame. It turns out I wasn't actually wrong but now that Totovader clearly doesn't appreciate the fault in his logic there is no effort made to clear up or admit to any possibility of being wrong.

Either "we" were right or we were wrong.
What a stunning admission...

Again, complete failure to understand my meaning. You were wrong. I was allowing for the possibility that I may have been wrong by misinterpreting Gravy's intent.

It is a fantastic comment on the failures of this forum that such attitudes are openly expressed without fear of disdain by others.

Previously I had said that people here should try to avoid extremes of 0 or 100% certainty and always allow for the possibility of their error.

Others believe things are always 100% right or wrong. While in logic things are either A or Not-A (that damned hyphen again) in communicating ideas between reasonable people such extremes are a method guaranteed to polarize the discourse in an entirely negative fashion that promotes dogmatism and entrenchment rather than open-minded debate.

If you have any evidence supporting your argument, then present it. Otherwise I think you can stop wasting everyone's time.

Once again, this was not a discussion about my "lack of evidence". I clearly mentioned circumstantial evidence existed related to my own personal views (views which such evidence alone is more than enough to justify, as above). The derail here was brought about by Roberts attempts to change the topic of discussion by demands for "evidence" about matters unrelated to what I was addressing, namely his faulty claims of anti-semitism's early prominence.

You can clearly see that when addressing my points on the issue Robert's repeatedly evades discussion of my specific critiques and finally begins to attempt to shift the topic of discussion entirely.

After he places me on ignore he immediately reverts back to the issue of anti-semitism.

Clearly he has a specific desire to paint the 'truth movement' in the most negative possible terms and his resorts to ad hominem attacks speak volumes against the constant refrain from him and others that it is in its last stages.

You wonder why there are so few 'truthers' here (a forum over-flowing with incivility, irrationality and dogmatism) and immediately assume there is a single specific reason. Once again, unfamiliarity with the very fallacies you frequently cite is on display.

mchapman

1st October 2008, 06:36 PM

Have you guys forgotten that a B25 hit the empire state? I should think all Manhattan sky scrapers were designed with plane impacts in mind, and we know for a fact the twin towers were.

beachnut

1st October 2008, 06:36 PM

That said, it's not that hard to find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand the impact of airplanes. You could do it too if you'd only try.
Provide examples with the parameters, speed, and scenario for aircraft impact. Speed? Produce or it is hearsay. Sources? Etc.

Wait, you can't do it.

bje

1st October 2008, 06:43 PM

Are you honestly suggesting that airplane impact is not a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

Apparently, you are not familiar with risk analysis, RedIbis. The real world operates differently than your hindsight dictates it should have operated.

There was risk analysis back in the mid-1960s, nowhere near the sophistication of that of today, but risk assessment is very much a part of building design and dictates to a large extent what risks are associated with the life of all buildings, skyscrapers in particular.

Risks can be assessed and quantified within the confines of existing knowledge, technology, and probabilities. The question faced the architects and structural engineers of the World Trade Center towers in the mid-sixties as the dealt with existing knowledge, assessments, metallurgy, structural techniques, weather conditions, and the possibility of being hit - accidentally - by an aircraft. Risk assessment, ultimately, allows one to make a decision to proceed on a project or not.

The question comes down to justifying the cost of a project. Would WTC 1 and 2 have been built in Miami in given the greater risk of hurricanes? Maybe - if the cost of strengthening the structure to withstand hurricane-force winds justified itself.

Surely you agree that those responsible for the design, risk assessments, and construction of WTC 1 and 2 some 35 years before 2001 were no more in a position than anyone to foresee the future to the extent that they would conceive the risk of a large jetliner not yet on the drawing boards would intentionally be flown into it at high speed as very high. They DID conceive of the possibility of a jet hitting it by accident at a low speed, on approach to landing at one of NYC's three major accidents. The costs of designing and building the towers to deal with this situation - to the extent that the towers could stand long enough to allow for an evacuation - were assessed. And the towers were built.

Since 9/11, the subject of assessing risk in building construction, given our new knowledge of what happened on 9/11 is a huge topic. See this article, for instance (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:NRlhk9-rKR0J:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5332/is_200211/ai_n21320495+%22risk+analysis%22+%22building+desig n%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us).

So, RedIbis, be careful how you represent history. Don't make unwarranted assumptions on how buildings should have been built.You know little and you can learn a lot.

bje

1st October 2008, 06:45 PM

mchapman

1st October 2008, 06:48 PM

I wouldn't embarrass yourself so readily with your lack of knowledge

What did I get wrong?

bje

1st October 2008, 06:57 PM

Thankfully, it seems I can finally bow out of this thread.

I love it. Like Richard Nixon, unilaterally declare victory and leave.

:bigclap

bje

1st October 2008, 06:59 PM

What did I get wrong?

Dear me. Read my reply to RedIbis, Do not alter names as an insult

beachnut

1st October 2008, 07:05 PM

Have you guys forgotten that a B25 hit the empire state? I should think all Manhattan sky scrapers were designed with plane impacts in mind, and we know for a fact the twin towers were.
Start a thread. But you have no clue the energy of impact; do you? In joules, or are you not able to function in a physics world?

What were the conditions, why did a plane hit? etc.

Leslie E. Robertson: "It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

Cl1mh4224rd

1st October 2008, 07:06 PM

Have you guys forgotten that a B25 hit the empire state? I should think all Manhattan sky scrapers were designed with plane impacts in mind, and we know for a fact the twin towers were.
What did I get wrong?

Nothing, per se. It's what you didn't say: that the B25 impact into the Empire State Building was an accident, whereas the impacts into WTCs 1 & 2 on 9/11 were not.

Designing for an accident like the B25 crash, or a theoretical 707 lost in fog and coming in for a landing, is one thing; designing for a deliberate 9/11-like crash is something else entirely.

Corsair 115

1st October 2008, 07:17 PM

Seriously, you guys can't actually find out whether or not skyscrapers are designed to withstand airplane impact?There is at least one actual architect who posts on this very forum. He goes by the board name Architect. Perhaps you can start a thread asking him what criteria currently go into designing tall buildings.

Corsair 115

1st October 2008, 07:19 PM

Have you guys forgotten that a B25 hit the empire state?And what are the specification differences between the North American B-25 Mitchell medium bomber and a modern commercial jetliner? I suggest you examine these specification differences.

Gravy

1st October 2008, 07:49 PM

Ah, I see people are still discussing this skyscraper design issue. I merely wanted to give links to the code changes above. A few points:

Calculations were done by the Twin Towers engineers to see if they would withstand the impact of a 707, but this was NOT a design requirement. You won't find paperwork from the Port Authority, the City of New York, or anyone else, specifying that the towers had to be able to withstand the impact of X plane flying at Y speed at Z floors.

Obviously, the towers did withstand the aircraft impacts.

No calculations were done to estimate the effects of fire on the towers from such an impact, nor were such calculations feasible in the 1960s. Even 35 years later, just before the Silverstein lease, his risk assessors believed the fire from an aircraft impact on WTC 1 or 2 would mostly be limited to the skin of the building and the plaza (That assessment wasn't done by an engineer, but it shows how ignorant even a professional can be about such events).

If you were to design a skyscraper to survive an airliner impact and fire, which airliner would you base the design on? A 747? An A380? A larger aircraft that might be built in the future? I'd like to see those designs!

Boeing 767-200: 2 engines, wingspan 156 feet, about 100-150 tons loaded, fuel capacity 23,980 US gal./90,770 L (the 767s that hit the towers had less than 10,000 gal. each aboard)

Airbus A380: 4 engines, wingspan 262 feet, about 400-550 tons loaded, fuel capacity 81,890 US gal./310,000 L (larger versions planned)

As Leslie Robertson says, we can't design for every eventuality, so we need to keep the planes away from the buildings. This has been covered in numerous threads. Please seek them out if you want to continue discussing this topic.

(BTW: NYC skyscrapers have been hit by aircraft five times. There is no NYC building code for aircraft impact/fire resistance.)

Mince

1st October 2008, 08:05 PM

Have you guys forgotten that a B25 hit the empire state?

No. Have you forgotten that the B-25 would have had roughly 1/gazillionth of the force a 767 would have slamming into a building? I forgot, was the B-25 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft. I also forgot, is the 767 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft? And wasn't the pilot of the 767 running at a very high speed trying to impact the building? I forgot again.

When come back, bring a sense of ratio and proportion instead of "OMG! Alex Jones said 9/11 was an inside job!!!1! That must mean 9/11 was an inside job!!!!11!1! ZOMG!!"

Mince

1st October 2008, 08:08 PM

There is at least one actual architect who posts on this very forum. He goes by the board name Architect.

Architects are clever that way.

**empahasis added

AJM8125

1st October 2008, 08:14 PM

No. Have you forgotten that the B-25 would have had roughly 1/gazillionth of the force a 767 would have slamming into a building? I forgot, was the B-25 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft. I also forgot, is the 767 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft? And wasn't the pilot of the 767 running at a very high speed trying to impact the building? I forgot again.

When come back, bring a sense of ration and proportion instead of "OMG! Alex Jones said 9/11 was an inside job!!!1! That must mean 9/11 was an inside job!!!!11!1! ZOMG!!"

Additionally, even though the pilot initiated a last-ditch attempt to bank and climb away from the building, the resulting slow speed impact still managed to kill 11, start fires on four floors and eject debris through the opposite side of the crash zone. Sounds kinda familiar.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

mchapman

1st October 2008, 08:52 PM

beachnut

1st October 2008, 08:55 PM

Totovader

1st October 2008, 09:15 PM

Thankfully, it seems I can finallyy bow out of this thread. While Mark Roberts was content to end the discussion without addressing my specific points in any reasonable manner (thankful for that due to his clear inability to discuss things in a civil manner) I was honestly open to the idea that Totovader had picked up a failure in my logic and/or understanding of the Argument from Ignornace. Now that he's shown that is not true I can thankfully leave this one-sided effort at discourse without regret.

Yet again you seem to have failed to read what I clearly stated in earlier posts. I made a distinction between hard and circumstantial evidence and stated that while there was no hard evidence of conspiracy enough cricumstantial evidence existed to warrant further investigation.

Hence the use of Watergate as an example, the relevance of which you also entirely failed to appreciate.

Many 'debunkers' have stated here that political conspiracy is a valid field for further enquiry (go read mackey's thread on the 'Gravy line'). This is also the entire point of Peter Dale Scott's book "The Road to 9/11". Gravy claimed familiarity with this, something that flies in the face of his demands for 'evidence'.

'Hard' evidence is not required to justify the validity of an argument suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy. I was well aware of this and had no desire to derail the thread with discussion unrelated to the specific point I was addressing.

Robert's, and your, failure to grasp this is entirely due to your reading far more into my intent here than anything I wrote ever warranted (i.e. that I was secretly championing some claim regarding physical evidence that your 'hard' evidence had already invalidated).

Ths is just getting repetitive. My above explanation was only a restatement of my earlier ones over the nature of 'evidence' (i.e. hard & circusmtantial and their relation to the possibility of conspiracy vs physical events) yet you have completely failed to apprehend my meaning. Once again, what is the nature of this 'proof' of a lack of political conspiracy that you refer to.

I'm now asking you to go read Dale Scott's book, start a thread and invalidate the central thesis that a political conspiracy possibly occured and this possibility warrants renewed investigation of those involved.

And again, my post either went over your head or bounced off it.

This just as an example of the civility of some of the posters here.

Please go back and check. Tell me where I wasn't honestly open to the possibility of being wrong and willing to accept the blame. It turns out I wasn't actually wrong but now that Totovader clearly doesn't appreciate the fault in his logic there is no effort made to clear up or admit to any possibility of being wrong.

Again, complete failure to understand my meaning. You were wrong. I was allowing for the possibility that I may have been wrong by misinterpreting Gravy's intent.

It is a fantastic comment on the failures of this forum that such attitudes are openly expressed without fear of disdain by others.

Previously I had said that people here should try to avoid extremes of 0 or 100% certainty and always allow for the possibility of their error.

Others believe things are always 100% right or wrong. While in logic things are either A or Not-A (that damned hyphen again) in communicating ideas between reasonable people such extremes are a method guaranteed to polarize the discourse in an entirely negative fashion that promotes dogmatism and entrenchment rather than open-minded debate.

Once again, this was not a discussion about my "lack of evidence". I clearly mentioned circumstantial evidence existed related to my own personal views (views which such evidence alone is more than enough to justify, as above). The derail here was brought about by Roberts attempts to change the topic of discussion by demands for "evidence" about matters unrelated to what I was addressing, namely his faulty claims of anti-semitism's early prominence.

You can clearly see that when addressing my points on the issue Robert's repeatedly evades discussion of my specific critiques and finally begins to attempt to shift the topic of discussion entirely.

After he places me on ignore he immediately reverts back to the issue of anti-semitism.

Clearly he has a specific desire to paint the 'truth movement' in the most negative possible terms and his resorts to ad hominem attacks speak volumes against the constant refrain from him and others that it is in its last stages.

You wonder why there are so few 'truthers' here (a forum over-flowing with incivility, irrationality and dogmatism) and immediately assume there is a single specific reason. Once again, unfamiliarity with the very fallacies you frequently cite is on display.

Wow. That was sad. You admitted you were wrong earlier, but now you were right and I just didn't understand you.

Of course. Of course.

Jonnyclueless

1st October 2008, 09:22 PM

What I would like to know is if these conspiracy theorists understand why they are not taken seriously or do they walk around wondering how no one can take them seriously? because form the perspective of a scientific person, it's pretty obvious.

Mince

1st October 2008, 09:25 PM

When did I ever say this?

Oh, you didn't say it with words...

beachnut

1st October 2008, 10:06 PM

'Hard' evidence...

Dale Scott's book, ...
You lack the evidence as does Dale's book. Complete fiction; like the Da Vinci Code. Stuff to suck you in to pure fictional implications of false conclusion he lets you take the leap to pure stupid ideas.

You start the thread, you defend the fiction. The author counts on ignorance of 9/11 and lack of thinking to sell his book of false information. You better read it again and this time use hard evidence and logic to evaluate.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

2nd October 2008, 02:24 AM

Hadn't you noticed this is a discussion forum on 911 conspiracies? What should redibis do? Post golfing anecdotes and recipes?

Are you it's secretary?
Bet you are!
Cowards never respond when cornered.

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 09:01 AM

Bump for Dictator Cheney
And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.

Could you answer my question?

Don't you think that since the building code changes will make people look at the data, this makes it even less likely that the NIST's conclusions are a cover-up/conspiracy ?

2nd October 2008, 09:06 AM

Bump for Dictator Cheney

we will see when the final reports is released and the changes implemented.

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 09:50 AM

we will see when the final reports is released and the changes implemented.

That's not an answer to my question.

2nd October 2008, 11:24 AM

That's not an answer to my question.

not necessarily

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 12:22 PM

Answer the damn question.

twinstead

2nd October 2008, 12:25 PM

Personally, as a truther I would find it fascinating that building codes are being changed due to the research on the collapse of the WTC. I suppose it can only be that the experts in charge of building codes have been fooled by the evil NWO to believe that whole plane crash, fires, and collapse theory. Fools!

2nd October 2008, 01:08 PM

Answer the damn question.

Sir! YES! Sir!

Sir! my answer to you question is Sir!
Sir! not necessarily Sir!

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 01:12 PM

troll

Gravy

2nd October 2008, 01:59 PM

trollAs you know, trolls thrive on attention. If you think trolls are undesirable, why do you keep responding? I'd appreciate a thoughtful answer.

Corsair 115

2nd October 2008, 07:40 PM

Answer the damn question.Conspiracists can't answer questions. I think that's been demonstrated amply enough in this thread alone, never mind the many others around here.

Pardalis

2nd October 2008, 08:46 PM

As you know, trolls thrive on attention. If you think trolls are undesirable, why do you keep responding? I'd appreciate a thoughtful answer.

I hear you, I had the false dream that he might answer this simple one, but I'm afraid I only deluded myself.

Good advice. :)

2nd October 2008, 11:00 PM

actually i answered your question :) It may be that the answer doesnt sweet you, but this is my answer.

not necessarily

beachnut

2nd October 2008, 11:48 PM

I hear you, I had the false dream that he might answer this simple one, but I'm afraid I only deluded myself.

Good advice. :)
The best

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 06:56 AM

Has anyone bothered to correct Gravy and find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand airliner impact?

Cl1mh4224rd

4th October 2008, 07:02 AM

Has anyone bothered to correct Gravy and find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand airliner impact?

Why haven't you?

You've claimed to have researched the likelihood of skyscrapers being designed with aircraft impact in mind. What sources did you consult, and for which buildings?

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 07:11 AM

Why haven't you?

You've claimed to have researched the likelihood of skyscrapers being designed with aircraft impact in mind. What sources did you consult, and for which buildings?

Do you mean besides the Twin Towers?

Jonnyclueless

4th October 2008, 07:14 AM

So when you consulted the twin towers, what did they say?

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 07:28 AM

So when you consulted the twin towers, what did they say?

It would be a misplaced modifier if his question didn't end with the words, "and for which buildings".

Snarky and incorrect is not a good combination.

Cl1mh4224rd

4th October 2008, 07:40 AM

Do you mean besides the Twin Towers?

Yes. That's the argument you were attempting to make when you responded to Gravy's post about WTC7, was it not?

The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.
Are you honestly suggesting that airplane impact is not a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 07:43 AM

Yes. That's the argument you were attempting to make when you responded to Gravy's post about WTC7, was it not?

His comment is ridiculous whether we're talking about the Twin Towers or we're talking about other skyscrapers.

When he said, "fly an airliner into it and all bets are off" he's insinuating that the buildings are not designed to withstand such an impact. This is patently false and I'd expect a few of his loyalists to gently point this out to him.

Cl1mh4224rd

4th October 2008, 07:46 AM

His comment is ridiculous whether we're talking about the Twin Towers or we're talking about other skyscrapers.

When he said, "fly an airliner into it and all bets are off" he's insinuating that the buildings are not designed to withstand such an impact. This is patently false and I'd expect a few of his loyalists to gently point this out to him.

I see you've switched to "the buildings" rather than just "buildings" or "skyscrapers" in general. Which buildings are we talking about now, RedIbis?

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 07:54 AM

I see you've switched to "the buildings" rather than just "buildings" or "skyscrapers" in general. Which buildings are we talking about now, RedIbis?

Well, let's take a look at the full context of what Gravy said and see if we can pull the meat out of this word stew:

Gravy: The events of 9/11 were unique, and it's probably not feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with such extraordinary circumstances. The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.

He's wrong. Not only is it feasible, it's been done and continues to be done. The bets are not off when an airliner is flown into a building.

johnny karate

4th October 2008, 08:06 AM

He's wrong. Not only is it feasible, it's been done and continues to be done. The bets are not off when an airliner is flown into a building.

Your parsing of words is both typically dishonest and glaringly obvious.

Gravy said is wasn't feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11. If you have evidence the every single tall building in the world is being designed this way, please present it or retract your claim.

Furthermore, he said "all bets are off" specifically regarding the new WTC7, not tall buildings in general. If you have evidence the new WTC7 is being designed to withstand an airliner impact, please present it, or retract your claim.

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 08:15 AM

Your parsing of words is both typically dishonest and glaringly obvious.

Gravy said is wasn't feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11. If you have evidence the every single tall building in the world is being designed this way, please present it or retract your claim.

Furthermore, he said "all bets are off" specifically regarding the new WTC7, not tall buildings in general. If you have evidence the new WTC7 is being designed to withstand an airliner impact, please present it, or retract your claim.

While we're parsing words, it is "feasible" whether or not it's done. But it is routine:

However, according to Scott Steedman, a structural engineer in London, buildings including the World Trade Centre are regularly designed to take enormous impacts. He explains:

‘Buildings are routinely designed for impact from aircraft, that’s quite normal. In the nuclear industry it is absolutely routine and these sorts of tower buildings, these buildings in particular, were designed to take the impact of large airliners.’
‘The impact of an aeroplane is relatively small in comparison to the winds blowing in a hurricane that a tall building can experience.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010914_tower.shtml

Cl1mh4224rd

4th October 2008, 08:20 AM

While we're parsing words, it is "feasible" whether or not it's done. But it is routine:

Ah-ha! Finally... You know, it really is like pulling teeth with you, RedIbis

Now... Would he be referring to accidental impacts, or 9/11-like high-speed impacts?

RedIbis

4th October 2008, 08:30 AM

Ah-ha! Finally... You know, it really is like pulling teeth with you, RedIbis

Now... Would he be referring to accidental impacts, or 9/11-like high-speed impacts?

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

johnny karate

4th October 2008, 08:44 AM

While we're parsing words, it is "feasible" whether or not it's done. But it is routine:

Why don't you go ahead and quote the part of the article you linked that says all tall buildings are designed to "cope with the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11", which would include a fuel-laden jetliner slamming into it at full speed and then burning in uncontrolled fires.

This is what Gravy said was not feasible and this is the point you're arguing against. Evidence that buildings are designed to withstand unspecified impacts with unspecified aircraft is immaterial.

johnny karate

4th October 2008, 08:50 AM

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

You're lying again, and what's so sad is how obvious it is.

Gravy made a very specify claim referring to the "extraordinary circumstances" of 9/11, which were the WTC towers collapsing due to the jetliner impacts AND the ensuing fires.

You're trying to parse that to just mean the impacts. In reference to the feasibility of the design of all tall buildings, Gravy did not make this claim.

Please stop lying.

Cl1mh4224rd

4th October 2008, 09:33 AM

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

Well, I have never claimed to be a master researcher, have I, RedIbis?

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event [...]

Actually, it is. How many commercial airliners have actually impacted skyscrapers, RedIbis?

[...] it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

How does one design a skyscraper to prevent aircraft impacts, RedIbis?

beachnut

4th October 2008, 11:32 AM

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.Too hard for you to find.

It is not like you to post any substance with your bs, so why start now. You need not explain your standard operating procedures.

It is not practical to design for 600 mph aircraft impacts. I doubt your house can take a 600 mph 300,000 pound aircraft impact. Why would you design for a 600 mph impact. Your house can't even take an F-5 tornado. Your house can't even protect you from meteorite. We can design for it, can you afford it?

Mercutio

4th October 2008, 06:12 PM

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

So...

We know you are lying.

You know you are lying.

Could you list the people you believe do not think you are lying?

I am honestly curious. I really want to know the reason you would write this extraordinary lie, given that the people you are interacting with are not fooled.

Gravy

4th October 2008, 06:56 PM

Eight points:

1) Earlier in this thread I asked that people who think I've made errors unrelated to the podcast discuss them in the Mark Roberts factual error thread.

2) On the last page I asked that this skyscraper/airplane discussion be taken elsewhere.

3) I hate to point it out again, but I think that debunkers who continue to engage with dishonest and ineducable attention-seekers are helping to perpetuate the conspiracy theories.

4-8) If you don't like trolls, don't feed them.

Corsair 115

4th October 2008, 09:51 PM

How does one design a skyscraper to prevent aircraft impacts, RedIbis?Well, that's easy: install SAMs and Phalanxes on them. Then the jets can be shot down before they hit the skyscraper!

Of course, the smaller surrounding buildings probably won't like that outcome very much...

RedIbis

5th October 2008, 12:06 PM

To clarify, I simply meant design to prevent collapse from airplane impact, but I'm sure you all knew that already.

johnny karate

5th October 2008, 12:08 PM

To clarify, I simply meant design to prevent collapse from airplane impact, but I'm sure you all knew that already.

Actually, you meant to show up Gravy by claiming he said something he didn't. But we knew that already.

adversity1

27th October 2008, 11:20 PM

Gravy, did you get a response from David Ray Griffin about appearing with Dojimaru and Fulford?

Congruentruth

15th April 2011, 04:36 PM

Well, your premise is wrong. I don't have a movement. I haven't attended any rallies, I don't own any investigate 9/11 t-shirts, I don't attend workgroups, or meet-ups. The questions were rhetorical in the sense that I really don't care what the answers are anyway. That there are bigots who think we were lied to about 9/11 is inconsequential. That rubes like Roberts are using smear-tactics to discredit a broad-based and diverse movement of people is irrelevant. He has failed to convince us with his version of the facts, and this is what he's left with.

The truth movement could be filled with axe-murderers and it wouldn't change what I think about 9/11, and it wouldn't change what happened.

Here here, the first sensible descriptive remarks I have seen here!I have studied mr Roberts for some time now and have been puzzled.He has no relevant qualifications to tackle such a scientific and technical subject and seems to pad irrelevant topics out with detail obtained from equally unscientific sources.I admire his stance against 100's of highly qualified professionals knowing that their knowledge and experience is vastly superior to his especially as his position is so obviously untenable because they wield the sword of the scientific method. To watch a 'Liberal Democrat' openly shouting down protesters, some of them WW2 veterans, and humiliating people personally in public is not only perplexing, it's disturbing, but it's not the calibre of personality that is relevant here, but the ability to accurately reveal the truth.

Mashuna

15th April 2011, 04:39 PM

Holy necrothread Batman!

ozeco41

15th April 2011, 04:51 PM

Regnad Kcin

15th April 2011, 05:11 PM

RedIbis

16th April 2011, 07:30 AM

Man, I had a lot more patience back in the day.

brazenlilraisin

16th April 2011, 09:18 AM

Back in the day you thought you were on the right side of the issue, now you're just in crumbling denial.

TruthersLie

16th April 2011, 09:30 AM

Oh look.

roscoe is back.... or wait.. another socky for stundie? or is it pdoh? Nah... It must be a coincidence...

RedIbis

16th April 2011, 09:37 AM

Back in the day you thought you were on the right side of the issue, now you're just in crumbling denial.

Rereading that thread, I caught Roberts in a whopper and asserted my position with civility.

Congruentruth

16th April 2011, 11:16 AM

Welcome to the JREF. That being said, the Humor subforum is thataway >>>.

Thanks, I have been here a while actually.If you think that the 'scientific method' is a subject to be passed off as trivial and unimportant then fine, you have that right.Creationists, afterall are entitled to their opinions based on exactly the same premise.Unfortunately for both them and yourselves it is the best and most credible way on the planet for disseminating what is considered to be true.Perhaps a visit to the humor subforum would be more fitting for yourself after that comment.

Edx

16th April 2011, 05:48 PM

Thanks, I have been here a while actually.If you think that the 'scientific method' is a subject to be passed off as trivial and unimportant then fine, you have that right.Creationists, afterall are entitled to their opinions based on exactly the same premise.Unfortunately for both them and yourselves it is the best and most credible way on the planet for disseminating what is considered to be true.Perhaps a visit to the humor subforum would be more fitting for yourself after that comment.

Interesting you should mention Creationists.

Whats the connection between truthers and Creationists do you think? Oh I remember, they both HATE peer review and think THE MAWN is out to get them and not allow them into real respected mainstream journals. Thats why they have to set up their own fake ones... yup truthers did that too.

Funny.

ozeco41

16th April 2011, 06:15 PM

Congruentruth

17th April 2011, 12:11 PM

My latest video seems appropriate here. It was in fact inspired by this thread.

Take a gander at truthers rushing to the defense of Holocaust denier Eric Williams at a truther confab in Chandler, Arizona, last year. Williams was the organizer of the conference until the ***** hit the fan thanks to wiseacre journalist Steve Lemons of the Phoenix New Times and Pat. C. (Brainster on this forum) of the Screw Loose Change blog. Pat was in the room too but is not in the video.

The video features local nutter Kent "Cow Killer" Knudson and Uncle James Fetzer singing the praises of Eric Hufschmid.

By the company they keep, ye shall know them.

Sb-qXrQ2v3E

"By the company they keep, ye shall know them". Yep. There's that ol' creationist mentality I was referring to.

Congruentruth

17th April 2011, 12:28 PM

Interesting you should mention Creationists.

Whats the connection between truthers and Creationists do you think? Oh I remember, they both HATE peer review and think THE MAWN is out to get them and not allow them into real respected mainstream journals. Thats why they have to set up their own fake ones... yup truthers did that too.

Funny.

read it again.Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.You see, any rational person that is presented with such a study say, showing nano technology and a clear thermate signature taken from microscopic balls of iron that could only be formed under extreme temperatures and pressures akin to explosive activity from a scene of a crime, is frankly not going to be entirely persuaded when the main and only credible counter case is 'paint'.If your highly qualified and knowledgeable 'leader' could present some real science and real experiments and have it verified by real scientists then I would be more than willing to give it a fair critique.'

Congruentruth

17th April 2011, 12:32 PM

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

twinstead

17th April 2011, 12:32 PM

read it again.Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.You see, any rational person that is presented with such a study say, showing nano technology and a clear thermate signature taken from microscopic balls of iron that could only be formed under extreme temperatures and pressures akin to explosive activity from a scene of a crime, is frankly not going to be entirely persuaded when the main and only credible counter case is 'paint'.If your highly qualified and knowledgeable 'leader' could present some real science and real experiments and have it verified by real scientists then I would be more than willing to give it a fair critique.'

Wow. Talk about projection. Yea, no REAL scientists have studied the collapses at all who don't find it suspicious, have they? LOL. Tell you what: Why don't YOU folks do that first, since of course you are the ones who have a problem with the commonly-held narrative of 9/11. Then we would be more than willing to give the "inside job" theory a fair critique.

Congruentruth

17th April 2011, 12:39 PM

Wow. Talk about projection. Yea, no REAL scientists have studied the collapses at all, have they? LOL. Tell you what: Why don't YOU folks do that first, since of course you are the ones who have a problem with the commonly-held narrative of 9/11. Then we would be more than willing to give the "inside job" theory a fair critique.

Sorry to pop that little bubble you have obviously been living in but the study I referred to has already gone global scientifically - the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.BTW, nice try, but I still want to see Mr Roberts scientifically accredited and review investigative findings - or would you like another go at side-stepping.

TexasJack

17th April 2011, 01:30 PM

Rereading that thread, I caught Roberts in a whopper and asserted my position with civility.

read it again.Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.You see, any rational person that is presented with such a study say, showing nano technology and a clear thermate signature taken from microscopic balls of iron that could only be formed under extreme temperatures and pressures akin to explosive activity from a scene of a crime, is frankly not going to be entirely persuaded when the main and only credible counter case is 'paint'.If your highly qualified and knowledgeable 'leader' could present some real science and real experiments and have it verified by real scientists then I would be more than willing to give it a fair critique.'

Sorry to pop that little bubble you have obviously been living in but the study I referred to has already gone global scientifically - the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.BTW, nice try, but I still want to see Mr Roberts scientifically accredited and review investigative findings - or would you like another go at side-stepping.

Survey Says:

http://1000awesomethings.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/family-feud-buzzer.jpg

Congruentruth

18th April 2011, 04:32 PM

Survey Says:

http://1000awesomethings.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/family-feud-buzzer.jpg

(sigh) another illiterate Texan.:cool:

Congruentruth

18th April 2011, 04:41 PM

Mr.Herbert

18th April 2011, 04:53 PM

It comes to something when you have to spam yourself to get an answer.

I guess you are just JAQQING off to yourself?

Horatius

18th April 2011, 04:59 PM

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

His qualifications? He's a tour guide who knows how to use his brain.

Now, I suppose you could provide evidence of all these "every times" you've posed this question, and had people "run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear"?

the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.

...and some evidence of this wouldn't be amiss, either.

Unless you'd rather "run away as if running from a grizzly bear".

TexasJack

18th April 2011, 05:23 PM

(sigh) another illiterate Texan.:cool:

Ah, you're from Texas. How is Texas?
I've never been there. Perhaps I'll visit there some day.

ElMondoHummus

18th April 2011, 05:36 PM

Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.

No, he does not. Mark Roberts never did any original investigations or experiments; the reason he is of value is because he gathered and centralized information. He never originated any of it; the value of the information lies in the details that are independently verifiable.

You are committing a type of Appeal-to-Perfection fallacy. The information on his site stands on their own merits, not because of who gathered it, therefore your call to perfecting his information via peer review is nothing more than an argumentive tactic. If you choose to disbelieve a centralized collection of quotes of witnesses, that's your failing, but don't mistake your failing for legitimate criticism. A study like Jones's and Harrit's should be subject to legit peer review because it is inherently an attempt to be scholarly. Mark Roberts pages and info does not because it is nothing more than an archive. Learn the difference.

ElMondoHummus

18th April 2011, 06:18 PM

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

It comes to something when you have to spam yourself to get an answer.
perhaps my phrasing is incorrect?

They're the same as mine, the same as yours, and the same as the vast majority of people who've studied 9/11: He's taken the time to study 9/11.

Disappointing?

Ryan Mackey is not "qualified" as a tall structures engineer to the best of my knowledge. I'm not qualified in the discipline of any sort of structural engineering or any engineering at all. Many here merely have the "qualifications" of having read the histories and looked into the original evidence as much as possible.

So, why is that not a failing?

It's because there's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Genuine authority doesn't not extend from who a person is. It extends from they say. Claims either survive or fail based on their inherent characteristics. As the common saying goes, it doesn't matter if an astronomer says the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, it'll only matter if he can say why it will and if that information ends up being validated. Authority pertaining to statements about a given subject therefore end up depending on the verifiability of the given data. It attaches to being right, not being credentialed.

This is why physicists and and engineers like Steven Jones and Tony Szamboti are wrong with their conclusions vis-a-vis 9/11, and people like those of us here with supposedly lesser credentials are right: Jones, Szamboti, and the rest of the 9/11 truth movement have forwarded conclusions based on misrepresentations and fallacies, and those conclusions can be demonstrated as wrong on their own merits, independent of the person forwarding them. Whereas we make far better attempts to base our conclusions not on predetermined answers like "inside job", but rather on where the totality of the information and context takes us. Yes, we're wrong sometimes. Early on, many of us did indeed ascribe 7 World Trade's collapse to diesel fuel fires; subsequent data showed that most of that fuel was recovered, and then NIST showed that those wouldn't have mattered anyway. But being "wrong" in this manner doesn't close us out to eventually correcting ourselves as to the truth as it develops. Information is gathered, and what do you know, we were wrong about WTC 7. But we self-corrected based on undeniable evidence plus rational, in-depth analysis.

Contrast that to the "Truth" movement. We're still seeing "Pull it" and "thermite" being pushed forward, in spite of the fundamentally damming, invalidating flaws having long been highlighted and better, non-self-contradictory explanations being readily available, considered in academic and professional circles, and showing their worth in their influence on engineering standards around the world. Everyone else but the truth movement is advancing and refining what's known.

At any rate, that's where Mark's authority derives from. Not he himself; he's just a tour guide. I'm merely an IT professional. True, there are genuinely "qualified" people here in some specific disciplines: The poster calling himself Architect is degreed, certified, and practiced in tall building design. We have a plethora of ex-military posters who can speak definitively towards military aspects of the event (gosh, where to start... Beechnut, Sabrina, Unsecured Coins, Reheat, and many others). We have Cheap Shot, Boston Air Traffic Control's Military Liason, a person who was on the front line of and involved in 9/11. But guess what? None of that gives anyone here "qualifications", not above the obvious point details directly related to their experience. What does is whether our statements are solidly based on information that's verifiable, and helps lead people to conclusions that can be validated in multiple ways. As opposed to the truth movement, who's suffered the indignity of being told that propositions like Jones's/Harrit's thermite "findings", or CIT's absurd NOC/Flyover thesis are openly contradicted by known information.

So, Mark Roberts? He's merely studied the history, accumulated and centrally deposited information. That's it. But he's still head-and-shoulders above truthers. And it's too bad that you all don't understand why.

Animal

18th April 2011, 06:39 PM

Congruentruth

19th April 2011, 12:52 PM

No, he does not. Mark Roberts never did any original investigations or experiments; the reason he is of value is because he gathered and centralized information. He never originated any of it; the value of the information lies in the details that are independently verifiable.

You are committing a type of Appeal-to-Perfection fallacy. The information on his site stands on their own merits, not because of who gathered it, therefore your call to perfecting his information via peer review is nothing more than an argumentive tactic. If you choose to disbelieve a centralized collection of quotes of witnesses, that's your failing, but don't mistake your failing for legitimate criticism. A study like Jones's and Harrit's should be subject to legit peer review because it is inherently an attempt to be scholarly. Mark Roberts pages and info does not because it is nothing more than an archive. Learn the difference.

I smiled when I read this, Thankyou it's a gem. I guess the same rule applies to the Bible,in other words useless.

Congruentruth

19th April 2011, 12:56 PM

No, he does not. Mark Roberts never did any original investigations or experiments; the reason he is of value is because he gathered and centralized information. He never originated any of it; the value of the information lies in the details that are independently verifiable.

You are committing a type of Appeal-to-Perfection fallacy. The information on his site stands on their own merits, not because of who gathered it, therefore your call to perfecting his information via peer review is nothing more than an argumentive tactic. If you choose to disbelieve a centralized collection of quotes of witnesses, that's your failing, but don't mistake your failing for legitimate criticism. A study like Jones's and Harrit's should be subject to legit peer review because it is inherently an attempt to be scholarly. Mark Roberts pages and info does not because it is nothing more than an archive. Learn the difference.

I find it alarming that you don't understand what the scientific method is and it's importance to objective reality.

carlitos

19th April 2011, 01:02 PM

:socks:

Congruentruth

19th April 2011, 01:10 PM

His qualifications? He's a tour guide who knows how to use his brain.

Ah, and scientists that devote their lives to research and the increase in mankind's knowledge - just how do they use their brains then?

Now, I suppose you could provide evidence of all these "every times" you've posed this question, and had people "run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear"?

Search these forums.I'm not the only one asking this obviously touchy question here however your typical side-step is noted.

...and some evidence of this wouldn't be amiss, either.

Unless you'd rather "run away as if running from a grizzly bear".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803
there ya go.BTW i'm only 'archiving' this page.;)

Congruentruth

19th April 2011, 01:13 PM

Ah, you're from Texas. How is Texas?
I've never been there. Perhaps I'll visit there some day.

With a name like 'Texas Jack' you are obviously far too over qualified.;)

GlennB

19th April 2011, 01:21 PM

With a name like 'Texas Jack' you are obviously far too over qualified.;)

Mark Roberts 'retired' from the 9/11 business a few years ago.

If you want to enter the debate in other specific threads I'm sure people will engage you in discussion.

newton3376

19th April 2011, 01:23 PM

With a name like 'Texas Jack' you are obviously far too over qualified.;)

Truthers often focus on personalities or "qualifications" because they can't debate facts or evidence. This is a common debate tactic of conspiracy theorists.

fourtoe

19th April 2011, 01:43 PM

read it again.Mr Roberts needs to present a scientifically accredited and peer reviewed version of his 'investigations'.You see, any rational person that is presented with such a study say, showing nano technology and a clear thermate signature taken from microscopic balls of iron that could only be formed under extreme temperatures and pressures akin to explosive activity from a scene of a crime, is frankly not going to be entirely persuaded when the main and only credible counter case is 'paint'.

Why don't you read the RJ Lee paper that actually discusses this, or at the least read the relevant parts of the paper.

If your highly qualified and knowledgeable 'leader' could present some real science and real experiments and have it verified by real scientists then I would be more than willing to give it a fair critique.'

Leader? His google.pages site hasn't been updated since early 2009...

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

I call BS. I think even other Truthers will disagree with this statement. Do you want to take it back?

Hell, RedIbis, have you seen a debunker shy away from saying that Gravy is a tour guide?

Either way, he certainly brings up his job in many times in his debates or discussions on 911. Again, you want to take it back?

Horatius

19th April 2011, 01:53 PM

the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.

...and some evidence of this wouldn't be amiss, either.

Unless you'd rather "run away as if running from a grizzly bear".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803
there ya go.BTW i'm only 'archiving' this page.;)

So, when challenged to provide evidence supporting your claim that "the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it", you posted an article about one Japanese guy who gave a speech to the Japanese Diet about 9/11 truth. And that one guy isn't even in the government, but the opposition. And the article was from 2008. And it doesn't even mention Obama.

Sadly, that's exactly the level of quality I've come to expect from truthers trying to support their allegations.

And I'll just assume that this part of my post:

Now, I suppose you could provide evidence of all these "every times" you've posed this question, and had people "run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear"?

...looks like a grizzly bear to you.

ElMondoHummus

19th April 2011, 02:16 PM

:socks:

Yeah, obviously. No kidding.

I find it alarming that you don't understand what the scientific method is and it's importance to objective reality.

(*Yawn*) Says the guy who tried to apply peer review to a collection of links and testimonies. Tell you what: When CNN reports that a bunch of people said "X", you go tell them they should submit their "research" to such review.

And if you want to talk scientific method: Read youself some Popper and understand why the so-called "Truth" movement gets stymied at every turn.

With that: Goodbye. You're already on my ignore list under another name, so I might as well add your current one.

Regnad Kcin

19th April 2011, 02:17 PM

ElMondoHummus

19th April 2011, 02:19 PM

Man, I used to never put anyone on ignore. Now I seem to be doing it for every other new account that comes through.

Then again, like I said above, that's partially offset by the fact that it endds up being the same subset of people going on ignore anyway. So to an extent, if you think about it, I'm not really "adding" anyone new. ;)

--------

Word salad.
I disagree. Salad has practical utility. :D

Regnad Kcin

19th April 2011, 02:20 PM

I smiled when I read this, Thankyou it's a gem. I guess the same rule applies to the Bible,in other words useless.I enjoyed this retort to ElMondoHummus. The very definition of "I got nothin'."

Horatius

19th April 2011, 02:39 PM

I enjoyed this retort to ElMondoHummus. The very definition of "I got nothin'."

Oh, come now. He's got articles from 2008 that don't support his claims! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7100403#post7100403)

Travis

19th April 2011, 02:42 PM

Oh boy! A new Truther! Don't scare him away too quickly guys.

So, Congruentruth, what exactly do you feel is lacking when it comes to how the scientific method is being applied?

Justin39640

19th April 2011, 02:44 PM

Makes me wonder what qualifications Alex Jones has other than looking 57 at 36 (that amazes me lol). What about Dillon, Korey, and Bermas? I would think their video has the most to do with 9/11 CT's popularity. BBC schooled Avery with one word. That was priceless to see his face. He knew the guy got him good.

To be fair. They are all good at one thing. Shamelessly promoting lies and disrespect.

angrysoba

19th April 2011, 02:49 PM

Sorry to pop that little bubble you have obviously been living in but the study I referred to has already gone global scientifically - the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it.BTW, nice try, but I still want to see Mr Roberts scientifically accredited and review investigative findings - or would you like another go at side-stepping.

This is false. One MP in the relatively new government in Japan had once made a presentation to a previous administration in the Diet.

The general reception his presentation received was one of bemusement.

After the DJP got elected the MP's Trutherism was reheated a bit and he was asked whether he believed 9/11 Truth nonsense. He had to go on the public record as saying that the views are purely his and not the views of the DJP or his government and that he was, anyway, just asking questions.

fourtoe

19th April 2011, 06:09 PM

Makes me wonder what qualifications Alex Jones has other than looking 57 at 36 (that amazes me lol). Holy crap this is* insane! Is there a CT about the authenticity of his birth certificate?

What about Dillon, Korey, and Bermas? I would think their video has the most to do with 9/11 CT's popularity.

Well, it was edited and backed by a theologian so BAM.

*He is 37 btw. This was the best way I could think of saying this without sounding like a d-bag.

beachnut

19th April 2011, 07:36 PM

Here here, the first sensible descriptive remarks I have seen here!I have studied mr Roberts for some time now and have been puzzled.He has no relevant qualifications to tackle such a scientific and technical subject and seems to pad irrelevant topics out with detail obtained from equally unscientific sources.I admire his stance against 100's of highly qualified professionals knowing that their knowledge and experience is vastly superior to his especially as his position is so obviously untenable because they wield the sword of the scientific method. To watch a 'Liberal Democrat' openly shouting down protesters, some of them WW2 veterans, and humiliating people personally in public is not only perplexing, it's disturbing, but it's not the calibre of personality that is relevant here, but the ability to accurately reveal the truth.

He used logic and critical thinking, something 911 truth does not use. There are zero highly qualified professionals who have done anything to support 911 truth lies, hearsay and fantasy. 911 truth's only product is perpetual failure.

911 truth only has moronic delusions, Gravy was able to expose their lies using knowledge, facts and evidence, the things 911 truth does not have.

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear. Knowledge and sound judgment; good grief, you could have figured this out yourself; what was stopping you?

Sorry to pop that little bubble you have obviously been living in but the study I referred to has already gone global scientifically - the Japanese insisted that Obama open a new investigation on the back of it. ... ? zero rational studies done by 911 truth, your bubble never existed, no need to pop yours. The only thing 911 truth had that went global, stupidity.

... the ability to accurately reveal the truth. Is not found with 911 truth. As they spread lies, do you support 911 truth, or upset someone is able to refute all 911 truth as using knowledge and critical thinking skills?

Gravy must of listened in school, I bet he is able to read and comprehend at levels 911 truth movement members have not reached. Why are you upset a smart person refute liars with knowledge, including PhD liars who spread hearsay, false opinions, and idiotic nonsense. If you read Jones' work, you see he made up thermite; anyone can see that, so did Gravy. Have you failed to figure out 911?

dafydd

19th April 2011, 07:48 PM

The truth movement could be filled with axe-murderers and it wouldn't change what I think about 9/11, and it wouldn't change what happened.

It certainly won't change what happened.

dafydd

19th April 2011, 07:52 PM

The problem with you, Roberts, is that you repeat ad nauseum about how the debunkers are "right" about everything, and the truthers are "wrong" about everything. Of course this is necessary for you because none of the truther's claims can be true in order for your worldview to be maintained. But the reality is, most of the "facts" surrounding 9/11 are either unknowable, conjecture, or depend upon a government and media with no credibility what-so-ever. Your mind apparently cannot deal in probabalistic reasoning, and therefore you must make assumptions that every piece of evidence surrounding 9/11 must be accepted and labeled as "true" or "false", "correct" or "incorrect". It's this mental impairment which leads you to make such ridiculous, all encompassing statements that you're famous for, and it's why you have zero credibility with me.

And the above is why you have zero credibility with me.

dafydd

19th April 2011, 07:54 PM

Well you haven't shown his information is 100% false.

Another witness to basement explosions has just died in an extremely suspicious suicide.

I don't believe that Muslims alone were responsible for the 911 attacks.
Evidence?

dafydd

19th April 2011, 07:56 PM

Hmm, odd, Red ignored me. I can only conclude that is is a double liar here. He does not have a theory better than NIST's and he does not always answer direct questions asked of him. Odd.

I once asked him for his full theory,but he refused to answer.

beachnut

19th April 2011, 07:58 PM

It certainly won't change what happened.
It would make it easy to round up Axe-murderers - just announce Charlie Sheen is doing a talk on 911 with DRG and Jones, you capture all the dolts at once.

Zombie thread, cool... closet truther, or someone upset Gravy can figure out 911 based on knowledge and sound judgment. ? Was it a key phrase that awakened the new 911 truth defender? When you hear... "Afghanistan Bananastan", attack Gravy ...

Gravy can read and comprehend; learning. He has something, sure got this guy upset.

dafydd

19th April 2011, 07:58 PM

Have you guys forgotten that a B25 hit the empire state? I should think all Manhattan sky scrapers were designed with plane impacts in mind, and we know for a fact the twin towers were.

Didn't do much good though

The Crash
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

World War II had caused many to shift to a six-day work week; thus there were many people at work in the Empire State Building that Saturday. The plane crashed into the offices of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Catherine O'Connor described the crash. The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it.2 Joe Fountain died several days later. Eleven of the office workers were burned to death, some still sitting at their desks, others while trying to run from the flames.

One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.

dafydd

19th April 2011, 08:00 PM

Has anyone bothered to correct Gravy and find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand airliner impact?

Why?

dafydd

19th April 2011, 08:04 PM

dafydd

19th April 2011, 08:07 PM

Seriously, you guys can't actually find out whether or not skyscrapers are designed to withstand airplane impact?

Seriously?

Why don't you learn a bit about engineering and find out for yourself.

dafydd

19th April 2011, 08:08 PM

I've only been on these boards for a couple months and it's obvious that you're lying here. You have fled direct confrontation many times.

The red bird has flown the coop many a time when the going gets hot.

dafydd

19th April 2011, 08:10 PM

ergo

19th April 2011, 08:58 PM

Truthers often focus on personalities or "qualifications" because they can't debate facts or evidence.

Yeah, that silly, dumb "qualifications" thing. :D

triforcharity

19th April 2011, 09:57 PM

BTW Just what are Mr Robert's qualifications? Good grief, it's a simple enough question but every time I ask it people run away from it as if they were running from a grizzly bear.

t dosn't matter what his qualifications are. His conclusions are based on fact, and can be proven as fact.

(BTW, he's a tour guide in NYC. I am not sure what or any other education he may or may not have. )

What are your's?

triforcharity

19th April 2011, 10:06 PM

Yeah, that silly, dumb "qualifications" thing. :D

And your's are...........???

Foolmewunz

20th April 2011, 02:18 AM

Yeah, that silly, dumb "qualifications" thing. :D

We've been through this with the TMers for years. The qualifications don't matter, really, if the premise is insane. If Albert Einstein came through here talking about hologram planes and CD because "it just doesn't look right", we'd question him 'til his hair straightened out. If Joe the Plumber comes in with something credible, we'll still question him, too. (It hasn't happened in 911 CT because all the claims are in-credible.)

In fact, over the five years I've been here, I've seen zero "debunkers" converted to CT, but a number of TMers sane-ified. How is that? In a forum that's perhaps the most tolerant of the myriad CT beliefs, and where the TM has thrown their best at us, not one debunker has heard the calling?

Travis

20th April 2011, 03:07 AM

In my experience tour guides are pretty smart.

I'm just saying.

Horatius

20th April 2011, 06:06 AM

In my experience tour guides are pretty smart.

I'm just saying.

And he's done more than that. He posted one thread a few years back detailing some of the other jobs he's done.

And if you look up some of his threads on his recommended walking tours of NYC, his knowledge of its history is simply amazing. You don't develop a knowledge base like that without having something going on upstairs.

TruthersLie

20th April 2011, 10:42 AM

And your's are...........???

the inability to understand the following
into vs onto
essentially vs actually
what a building footprint is
center of mass vs a debris field the "size of the moon"
about
exponentially

Those and a huge amount of arguments from ignorance and incredulity.
(oh and that his mom won't give him rides to the library to actually READ real peer reviewed journal articles)

dafydd

20th April 2011, 12:09 PM

Yeah, that silly, dumb "qualifications" thing. :D

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously. Carry on trolling.

fourtoe

20th April 2011, 03:17 PM

And he's done more than that. He posted one thread a few years back detailing some of the other jobs he's done.

And if you look up some of his threads on his recommended walking tours of NYC, his knowledge of its history is simply amazing. You don't develop a knowledge base like that without having something going on upstairs.

Didn't he get his degree in math or something?

I'd imagine the fact that he is a tour guide in NYC is a pretty smart profession considering how much money is spent there on tourism alone.

Regnad Kcin

20th April 2011, 06:00 PM

A good friend of mine, very smart fella, is a licensed tour guide in New York. He studied and prepped for the test for several months. Then did so again, having failed the first time. And...third time was the charm.

I don't recall exactly (it's been many years), but Gravy hit it out of the park first time at bat.

The term "tour guide" makes the job sound like something a 17-year-old fry cook could handle, riding around the tram at Disneyland. In fact, at least with regard to NYC, one must be a walking encyclopedia.

Cl1mh4224rd

20th April 2011, 07:58 PM

:socks:

Our old friend, pdoherty (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=206812), too. Not too surprised he would have some sleeper accounts waiting. That boy has a seriously unhealthy obsession with this forum.

Foolmewunz

20th April 2011, 08:46 PM

Our old friend, pdoherty (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=206812), too. Not too surprised he would have some sleeper accounts waiting. That boy has a seriously unhealthy obsession with this forum.

I posted something similar to this in the FM thread.

I think it's more an unhealthy obsessions with Gravy/Binglybert/Mark. I always liken his return to The Three Stooges doing "Slowly I Turn....".

I think he has an almost normal life for periods and then he'll be sitting in the Cozy Castle Tea Room in Everton and he'll overhear the waitress repeating an order, "One big breakfast with tea, one pork pie, one order of chips with gravy...".

"Gravy!!! Arggggh! He ruined my life, that bastage! Slowly I turn. Step by step. Inch by inch. ......" Then he checks his sock drawer, dusts off a pair, dons his intertube goggles and goes searching for old Gravy threads. I mean, he didn't wast any preliminaries this time. Just came in throwing big sweeping roundhouse right hooks, swinging for Mark's head.

Actually, if I hung out here more, that could become our new "I just spotted a PDOH sock" code. Just respond with.... "Niagara Falls! Slowly I turn. ..."

(And Paul, if you have a sense of humor, register as Nye Agra Fallz, next. It'll at least let me know that you still have a modicum of sanity in that monomaniacal brain.)

ElMondoHummus

20th April 2011, 08:54 PM

Our old friend, pdoherty (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=206812), too. Not too surprised he would have some sleeper accounts waiting. That boy has a seriously unhealthy obsession with this forum.

Yeah, no joke. First time I ever saw him, it was over at SLC, and he got his butt handed to him over there. Then he came here, and something about his sanity just went completely off the rails. It's almost as if you were a doctor looking at a patients EEG, and suddenly the waves take a literal pear shape... ;):D

I posted something similar to this in the FM thread.

I think it's more an unhealthy obsessions with Gravy/Binglybert/Mark. I always liken his return to The Three Stooges doing "Slowly I Turn....".

I think he has an almost normal life for periods and then he'll be sitting in the Cozy Castle Tea Room in Everton and he'll overhear the waitress repeating an order, "One big breakfast with tea, one pork pie, one order of chips with gravy...".

"Gravy!!! Arggggh! He ruined my life, that bastage! Slowly I turn. Step by step. Inch by inch. ......" Then he checks his sock drawer, dusts off a pair, dons his intertube goggles and goes searching for old Gravy threads. I mean, he didn't wast any preliminaries this time. Just came in throwing big sweeping roundhouse right hooks, swinging for Mark's head.

Actually, if I hung out here more, that could become our new "I just spotted a PDOH sock" code. Just respond with.... "Niagara Falls! Slowly I turn. ..."

(And Paul, if you have a sense of humor, register as Nye Agra Fallz, next. It'll at least let me know that you still have a modicum of sanity in that monomaniacal brain.)

I'm so going to have to remember that.

beachnut

20th April 2011, 11:28 PM

I posted something similar to this in the FM thread.

I think it's more an unhealthy obsessions with Gravy/Binglybert/Mark. I always liken his return to The Three Stooges doing "Slowly I Turn....".

I think he has an almost normal life for periods and then he'll be sitting in the Cozy Castle Tea Room in Everton and he'll overhear the waitress repeating an order, "One big breakfast with tea, one pork pie, one order of chips with gravy...".

"Gravy!!! Arggggh! He ruined my life, that bastage! Slowly I turn. Step by step. Inch by inch. ......" Then he checks his sock drawer, dusts off a pair, dons his intertube goggles and goes searching for old Gravy threads. I mean, he didn't wast any preliminaries this time. Just came in throwing big sweeping roundhouse right hooks, swinging for Mark's head.

Actually, if I hung out here more, that could become our new "I just spotted a PDOH sock" code. Just respond with.... "Niagara Falls! Slowly I turn. ..."

(And Paul, if you have a sense of humor, register as Nye Agra Fallz, next. It'll at least let me know that you still have a modicum of sanity in that monomaniacal brain.)
step by step

Redtail

21st April 2011, 12:04 AM