Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread [Archive]

View Full Version : Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread

Gravy

24th October 2006, 10:40 PM

In which Docker will provide evidence to support this claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2035771&postcount=448):

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

DavidJames

24th October 2006, 10:43 PM

In which Docker will provide evidence to support this claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2035771&postcount=448):Doc - don't forget this post of yours:The people that say I never cite sources are liars. I do if I can and if I can't I make clear it's an opinion.

steve s

24th October 2006, 11:32 PM

In which Docker will provide evidence to support this claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2035771&postcount=448):
Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

Not OKC again. Docker, do you think the front of this building was going to defy gravity once the transfer beam was taken out by McVeigh's bomb?

http://www.photochimps.com/gallery/data/604/murrah.jpg

Steve S

Docker

24th October 2006, 11:37 PM

Not OKC again. Docker, do you think the front of this building was going to defy gravity once the transfer beam was taken out by McVeigh's bomb?

http://www.photochimps.com/gallery/data/604/murrah.jpg

Steve S

It's actually column B that worries me more. But I have presented my evidence. I await gravys debunking of it.

Gravy

24th October 2006, 11:41 PM

Not OKC again. Docker, do you think the front of this building was going to defy gravity once the transfer beam was taken out by McVeigh's bomb?

http://www.photochimps.com/gallery/data/604/murrah.jpg

Steve SWTC 7 also used transfer beams in crucial areas. Docker may be experiencing some type of beam block.

Gravy

24th October 2006, 11:42 PM

It's actually column B that worries me more. But I have presented my evidence. I await gravys debunking of it.Sorry? I think you left that evidence part out. :confused:

Docker

24th October 2006, 11:42 PM

WTC 7 also used transfer beams in crucial areas. Docker may be experiencing some type of beam block.

Gravy, General Partin is an expert in these matters. I will return to this thread periodically and expect to find your full debunking of this experts tests and analyses.

Gravy

24th October 2006, 11:44 PM

Gravy, General Partin is an expert in these matters. I will return to this thread periodically and expect to find your full debunking of this experts tests and analyses.Care to post that evidence you said you had?

Docker

24th October 2006, 11:47 PM

Care to post that evidence you said you had?

I already posted it in the other thread. I gave you two reports by Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, ret.), former director of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory and one of the world’s premier explosives and ordnance authorities.

I awaiting your debunking of this experts analysis.

You always listen to experts, I am interested to hear why you won't list to this one.

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:11 AM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/multibla.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm

I haven't read the links, but this is a pretty poor source Docker.

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:13 AM

Gravy

25th October 2006, 12:13 AM

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:14 AM

Gravy I await your thorough debunking of this. BHy christmas will do, no rush.

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 12:19 AM

WTC 7 also used transfer beams in crucial areas. Docker may be experiencing some type of beam block.

Beam envy?

;)

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:24 AM

Here's an interesting snippet from the first article.

Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas,
after examining the EBES, concluded: “The Murrah Building would
still be standing and the upper floors would be intact had the truck
loaded with explosives been the only culprit.” Moreover, Frias, a
practicing engineer for over 40 years and a registered engineer in
Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: “Explosives had to have
been placed near, or on, the structural columns inside the building to
cause the collapse that occurred to the Murrah Building.”

CptColumbo

25th October 2006, 12:25 AM

Forget which website it is on. The papers are real and this mans work is well known.

Well know to whom and in what way?

Is this like Jason Bermas being world-famous on the LC forum?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66521

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:26 AM

Gravy I await your thorough debunking of this. BHy christmas will do, no rush.

If he does, you're not allowed to say its a conspiracy anymore.

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:27 AM

If he does, you're not allowed to say its a conspiracy anymore.

I agree.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 12:30 AM

Gravy I await your thorough debunking of this. BHy christmas will do, no rush.

Well, I clicked the first link and made it about 30 seconds before coming to this:
Three different explosives tests were conducted on the Eglin Test
Structure. The first test used 704 pounds of Tritonal, which is
equivalent to 830 pounds of TNT, or roughly 2,200 pounds of a
properly prepared ammonium nitrate / fuel oil (ANFO) mixture.
The Tritonal was contained in a light aluminum case and was placed outside the
structure at ground level 25 feet from the vertical surface of the
40-foot side wall. This test most closely parallels the truck bomb at
the Murrah Building and provides important parametric data for
assessing blast-wave damage at the Oklahoma City site. Besides being
external to the ETS, the aluminum casing provided a container similar
to the light shell of the Ryder truck. Like the truck bomb, the
Tritonal test attempted to effect damage to the concrete structure
with an air-couple blast wave without the help of heavy shrapnel.

By contrast, the second and third tests used steel-cased warheads
detonated inside the ETS. The second test used a standard Mk-82
warhead (equivalent to 180 pounds of TNT) placed within the first
floor corner room approximately four feet from the exterior wall. The
third test involved a 250-pound penetrating warhead (having an
equivalent explosive weight of 35 pounds TNT) which was placed in the
corner of a second floor room approximately two and a half feet from
the adjoining walls. As the photographs from Wright Laboratory
graphically show, these two explosive devices, although much smaller
than the Tritonal device, effected far greater damage to the ETS. This
disproportionate destruction was largely a function of three critical
factors: distance, mechanical coupling of the blast wave, mechanical
coupling via shrapnel, and contained pressure (due to being confined
within the structure).Quiz for Docker

How large was the OKC ANFO bomb compared to the Eglin Tritonal test bomb?

1) Half as large
2) About the same size
3) One-third larger
4) Twice as large
5) The OKC bomb was a MOAB
6) All bombs on Planet X are the same size.

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:34 AM

Well, I clicked the first link and made it about 30 seconds before coming to this:
Quiz for Docker

How large was the OKC ANFO bomb compared to the Eglin Tritonal test bomb?

1) Half as large
2) About the same size
3) One-third larger
4) Twice as large
5) The OKC bomb was a MOAB
6) All bombs on Planet X are the same size.

This is a government test. They were trying to show it was the truck bomb. I doubt they would use the wrong amount of explosive.

Keep digging.

Please debunk the other paper.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 12:35 AM

This is a government test. They were trying to show it was the truck bomb. I doubt they would use the wrong amount of explosive.

Keep digging.

Please debunk the other paper.You're acting as though I don't know the answer. I do. The quiz is for you. Answer the question.

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:38 AM

It's a trick docker, don't choose option 6!

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:39 AM

You're acting as though I don't know the answer. I do. The quiz is for you. Answer the question.

Ok the amount on the test is half that in the truck. This was a a government test so I presume they were scaling the explosive down in line with another parameter.

No please debunk the generals paper.

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:41 AM

Ok the amount on the test is half that in the truck. This was a a government test so I presume they were scaling the explosive down in line with another parameter.

No please debunk the generals paper.

“Because ANFO is also a low-energy explosive (approximately 30%
that of TNT) and due to the inherent inefficiency of eight barrels
forming the explosive assembly [according to the government’s
estimates], it is doubtful that the device produced blast pressures
close to the calculated maximum potential blast pressure,” the
study asserts. “This being the case, it is doubtful that the
radius of damage even approached the 42.37 foot range as calculated
herein.”

There you go gravy. Nice try, now please commence your debunking.

Docker

25th October 2006, 12:55 AM

Im waiting gravy. You having some trouble? Google can be slow at this time can't it.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 12:56 AM

“Because ANFO is also a low-energy explosive (approximately 30%
that of TNT) and due to the inherent inefficiency of eight barrels
forming the explosive assembly [according to the government’s
estimates], it is doubtful that the device produced blast pressures
close to the calculated maximum potential blast pressure,” the
study asserts. “This being the case, it is doubtful that the
radius of damage even approached the 42.37 foot range as calculated
herein.”

There you go gravy. Nice try, now please commence your debunking.
Don't think we're quite done here, Docker. How does this quote relate to the size of the actual and test explosives?

Gravy

25th October 2006, 01:20 AM

qarnos

25th October 2006, 01:20 AM

Im waiting gravy. You having some trouble? Google can be slow at this time can't it.

Whilest you're waiting, you may want to answer some of the questions in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66809&page=7), which you appear to have abandoned.

Docker

25th October 2006, 01:23 AM

To keep this from being an excruciatingly drawn-out lesson, I'll ask my next question, which I have a feeling would be necessary anyway:

Docker, when we double the size of an explosive charge, what should we expect to happen to its blast effects?

1) It will be twice as strong.
2) It will be 2.5x stronger
3) It will be 4x stronger
4) It will be 8x stronger
5) On Planet X, all explosions are the same size

Are you going to debunk it or not.

If you don'y want to just say so.

I have no time for your quizzes. I have presented evidence backed by many experts. If you can't refute it then stop wasting my time.

Docker

25th October 2006, 01:25 AM

Don't think we're quite done here, Docker. How does this quote relate to the size of the actual and test explosives?

The quote says that the 8 barrel assembly of the truck bomb will serious reduce the explosive force. The tes uses proper explosives and so adjustments have been made. The building in the test is considerably weaker too.

Now will you please show me why the many experts cited are wrong. We all love experts right?

Peephole

25th October 2006, 01:29 AM

EXPLAIN THIS YOU NWO SHILLS!!!1111oneoneoneone

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK2.gif

Yes, it's a Ryder truck IN A MILITARY BASE!!!1111oneoneoneone

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 01:40 AM

If you can't refute it then stop wasting my time.

ohhhh your time is VERY cheap.

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 01:41 AM

EXPLAIN THIS YOU NWO SHILLS!!!1111oneoneoneone

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/TRUCK/TRUCK2.gif

Yes, it's a Ryder truck IN A MILITARY BASE!!!1111oneoneoneone

Hey! It's a Ryder truck in a military base!

Ermmmmm..... so what?

Docker

25th October 2006, 01:45 AM

ohhhh your time is VERY cheap.

Thanks for your useful contribution. Do you have some evidence you would like to present?

Skibum

25th October 2006, 01:52 AM

ohhhh your time is VERY cheap.

Thanks for your useful contribution. Do you have some evidence you would like to present?

Join Date: 23rd October 2006
Total Posts: 458 (213.10 posts per day)

Pretty clear evidence.

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 01:53 AM

Pretty clear evidence.

There you go

:D

Docker

25th October 2006, 01:54 AM

Pretty clear evidence.

Skibum I have presented evidence in this thread and guess what? Thats right, gravy has gone AWOL. Does he always do this when someone presents irrefutable evidence?

Skibum

25th October 2006, 01:57 AM

Thats right, gravy has gone AWOL.

So you expect him to sit here 24/7 and cater to your every whim?
You gave him til Christmas.
Gravy I await your thorough debunking of this. BHy christmas will do, no rush.

Its 4 in the morning here on the east coast, mans gotta sleep sometime.
Is there a rush or were you just lying when you said there was no rush?.
By my calendar Christmas is 2 months away.

gumboot

25th October 2006, 02:02 AM

:popcorn1

-Gumboot

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:06 AM

So you expect him to sit here 24/7 and cater to your every whim?
You gave him til Christmas.

Its 4 in the morning here on the east coast, mans gotta sleep sometime.
Is there a rush or were you just lying when you said there was no rush?.
By my calendar Christmas is 2 months away.

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:07 AM

Well in gravys absence you lot (his disciples) are welcome to chip in.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 02:09 AM

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/eatdrink029.gif

defaultdotxbe

25th October 2006, 02:09 AM

Well in gravys absence you lot (his disciples) are welcome to chip in.
maybe he has better things to do at 4am than deal with people like you

Skibum

25th October 2006, 02:11 AM

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.

I suppose we will have to wait the 2 months you gave him to find out won't we, or is there some urgency we don't know about.

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:11 AM

maybe he has better things to do at 4am than deal with people like you

Erm he set the thread up and challenged me to present my evidence.

He can't debunk it.

DarkMagician

25th October 2006, 02:12 AM

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.

Hey, dealing with one-fourthers is pretty tiring. He probably went to bed. He'll be and ready to beat your assertions senseless tomorrow.

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:12 AM

I suppose we will have to wait the 2 months you gave him to find out won't we, or is there some urgency we don't know about.

I stick by the christmas thing. But do you think by christmas he can become a leading expert in munitions?

Nor do I. Lets see how he wriggles out of this one.

Skibum

25th October 2006, 02:13 AM

Erm he set the thread up and challenged me to present my evidence.

At which point you gave him exactly 2 months from today to debunk you, whats the hurry?

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:13 AM

Hey, dealing with one-fourthers is pretty tiring. He probably went to bed. He'll be and ready to beat your assertions senseless tomorrow.

In what sense am I a one-fourther?

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 02:14 AM

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.

Project much?

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:15 AM

At which point you gave him exactly 2 months from today to debunk you, whats the hurry?

No hurry, it's just that he started a feeble attempt at debunking then abandoned it.

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:16 AM

Project much?

Havent heard of that one, is it like operation northwoods?

qarnos

25th October 2006, 02:16 AM

Whilest you're waiting, you may want to answer some of the questions in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66809&page=7), which you appear to have abandoned.

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:17 AM

Gravy's having a bad night. I also called him out on his paper, which I have emailed to steven jones highlighting the libelous parts.

gumboot

25th October 2006, 02:18 AM

Why are CTers so self-obsessed?

-Gumboot

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:21 AM

Why are CTers so self-obsessed?

-Gumboot

So none of you can refute my evidence on OKC? Ok, as long as we know.

DarkMagician

25th October 2006, 02:21 AM

Havent heard of that one, is it like operation northwoods?

No, Projection. It's a defense mechanism where you project nasty thoughts onto others. Like a thief who thinks everyone else is a thief, or someone without any good evidence declaring his opposition to having no good evidence....

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:28 AM

No, Projection. It's a defense mechanism where you project nasty thoughts onto others. Like a thief who thinks everyone else is a thief, or someone without any good evidence declaring his opposition to having no good evidence....
...or where retards constantly call CTs retards?

gumboot

25th October 2006, 02:40 AM

So none of you can refute my evidence on OKC? Ok, as long as we know.

I couldn't care less about OKC. Why would I?

-Gumboot

Oliver

25th October 2006, 02:43 AM

So none of you can refute my evidence on OKC? Ok, as long as we know.

OKC = Oklahoma Bombing?

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:44 AM

I couldn't care less about OKC. Why would I?

-Gumboot

I'll take that as a no. ;)

gumboot

25th October 2006, 02:47 AM

I'll take that as a no. ;)

I'm not going to refute your precious General's study because I don't care. I'm not going to read his reports, because I don't care.

-Gumboot

CptColumbo

25th October 2006, 02:48 AM

Oliver

25th October 2006, 02:49 AM

I'll take that as a no. ;)

I guess nobody in here is familiar with this theorie or interested to talk about it - unless you have evidence it´s connected to the NWO. We have a lot of fun and laughs about the NWO. :D

ETA: Oops :boggled:

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:51 AM

The problem is we're covering ground that we already discussed here:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55243&highlight=Oklahoma+City

You've brought nothing new to the discussion and are quite boring with the same old tired accusations with no evidence.

No evidence? My sources are full of experts that agree with me. Do you have any relevent expertise? Have you consulted explosives experts or structural engineers?

MRC_Hans

25th October 2006, 02:52 AM

So none of you can refute my evidence on OKC? Ok, as long as we know.Ehr, no, you can't conclude that. There is actually a name for this fallacy, its called argument by fast talking or changing the subject. Now, Gravy called you on this discussion, and he needs to study the evidence you presented, but you cannot demand that everyone else does. I, for one, never studied the Oklahoma bombing, and I have no immidiata plans to do so. That doesn't mean you can infer that I can't counter your argument, just that I have not chosen to do so.

...or where retards constantly call CTs retards?
Hehehe, pretty good one. Of course you will need to show they ARE actually retards.

Hans

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:52 AM

Docker

25th October 2006, 02:54 AM

Ehr, no, you can't conclude that. There is actually a name for this fallacy, its called argument by fast talking or changing the subject. Now, Gravy called you on this discussion, and he needs to study the evidence you presented, but you cannot demand that everyone else does. I, for one, never studied the Oklahoma bombing, and I have no immidiata plans to do so. That doesn't mean you can infer that I can't counter your argument, just that I have not chosen to do so.

Hehehe, pretty good one. Of course you will need to show they ARE actually retards.

Hans

So at least you admitted I have presented evidence worthy of study. Gravy claims I never has.

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match

Oliver

25th October 2006, 03:02 AM

So at least you admitted I have presented evidence worthy of study. Gravy claims I never has.

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match

Could you sum it up since i also don´t care much about the OKC-Bombing?

Who was it? NWO?

gumboot

25th October 2006, 03:04 AM

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match

That may be, but he certainly hasn't met it yet.

-Gumboot

CptColumbo

25th October 2006, 03:06 AM

No evidence? My sources are full of experts that agree with me. Do you have any relevent expertise? Have you consulted explosives experts or structural engineers?

Yes, I have consulted explosive experts about the OKC bombing. Have you consulted explosive experts or just read their opinions on a web site? Did you double-check their credentials? Were their findings peer reviewed? By whom? Did they pass peer review? Did you send their findings to an qualified independent researcher to confirm their findings are more than speculation? Did you find an independent source who also came to the same conclusions that your experts did? Do you have any actual evidence or just speculation?

I would hope that someone as interested in justice as you seem to be would want to do all the research possible and send the findings to the proper authorities or the press. This would ensure that those responsible (in your opinion) were brought to justice. I can only guess your to busy making baseless accusations on the internet to do all the necessary research? Which is why I and probably most of the regulars here find you very boring.

Docker

25th October 2006, 03:11 AM

Yes, I have consulted explosive experts about the OKC bombing. Have you consulted explosive experts or just read their opinions on a web site? Did you double-check their credentials? Were their findings peer reviewed? By whom? Did they pass peer review? Did you send their findings to an qualified independent researcher to confirm their findings are more than speculation? Did you find an independent source who also came to the same conclusions that your experts did? Do you have any actual evidence or just speculation?

I would hope that someone as interested in justice as you seem to be would want to do all the research possible and send the findings to the proper authorities or the press. This would ensure that those responsible (in your opinion) were brought to justice. I can only guess your to busy making baseless accusations on the internet to do all the necessary research? Which is why I and probably most of the regulars here find you very boring.

Which experts did you consult? What did they say about my evidence?

Docker

25th October 2006, 03:12 AM

That may be, but he certainly hasn't met it yet.

-Gumboot
We shall see. I notice you didn't dispute he has a technique.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 03:13 AM

Which experts did you consult? What did they say about my evidence?

Who was it? NWO?

Docker

25th October 2006, 03:15 AM

Who was it? NWO?

No idea. My evidence simply concludes that there were explosives in the building, not who placed them there. I don't believe in NWO.

Oliver

25th October 2006, 03:17 AM

No idea. My evidence simply concludes that there were explosives in the building, not who placed them there. I don't believe in NWO.

Ok. See you in another thread. :boggled:

CptColumbo

25th October 2006, 03:17 AM

Which experts did you consult? What did they say about my evidence?

I didn't consult them about "your" evidence specifically. Your question was "Have you consulted explosives experts or structural engineers?" It was informal phone calls to people I know from college and members of law enforcement who have expertise in the field of explosives. They were just to satisfy my own curiosity about the OKC bombing.

So is this "your" evidence that you researched on your own, or is it someone else's research that you are now claiming as your own?

Docker

25th October 2006, 03:21 AM

I didn't consult them about "your" evidence specifically. Your question was "Have you consulted explosives experts or structural engineers?" It was informal phone calls to people I know from college and members of law enforcement who have expertise in the field of explosives. They were just to satisfy my own curiosity about the OKC bombing.

So is this "your" evidence that you researched on your own, or is it someone else's research that you are now claiming as your own?

Names please.

I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research.

So what did these informal (made up) phone calls reveal?

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 03:23 AM

Docker

25th October 2006, 03:25 AM

You wouldn't be accusing someone of lying now, would you?

tsk tsk

well it wouldn't be the first time i'd been lied to today.

qarnos

25th October 2006, 03:28 AM

Whilest you're waiting, you may want to answer some of the questions in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66809&page=7), which you appear to have abandoned.

Why do you keep ignoring this request?

Skibum

25th October 2006, 03:32 AM

well it wouldn't be the first time i'd been lied to today.

So you realized when she told you "size doesn't matter" and "don't worry it happens to everyone" she was lying?

Sorry couldn't resist the urge. :D

gumboot

25th October 2006, 03:34 AM

We shall see. I notice you didn't dispute he has a technique.

He has MANY clever techniques. Many of them relate to his critical thinking skills. For more demonstrations of his exceptional techniques, drop by GZ on a Saturday.

-Gumboot

MRC_Hans

25th October 2006, 03:36 AM

So at least you admitted I have presented evidence worthy of study. Gravy claims I never has.
Have. You were challenged by Gravy to enter a discussion, you responded by submitting a link to what you claim is evidence, so of course he has to study that evidence. Whether he finds it worthy remains to be seen.

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match
Perhaps so, but quite frankly I don't think you are it.

Hans

Gravy

25th October 2006, 03:36 AM

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.
Docker, the purpose of "debunking" is not to be able to type "pwned," but to educate. Are you here to learn?

If so, great. I'll help you, but I won't do all the work for you. You must be involved in your education. Let's begin:

How large was the OKC ANFO bomb compared to the Eglin Tritonal test bomb?
1) Half as large
2) About the same size
3) One-third larger
4) Twice as large
5) The OKC bomb was a MOAB
6) All bombs on Planet X are the same size.

Correct! A great start!

When we double the size of an explosive charge, what should we expect to happen to its blast effect?
1) It will be twice as strong.
2) It will be 2.5x stronger
3) It will be 4x stronger
4) It will be 8x stronger
5) On Planet X, all explosions are the same size

Compared to the Eglin test blast, the OKC explosive was
1) Twice as far from the Murrah building
2) About the same distance from the Murrah building
3) 50% closer to the Murrah building
4) Twice as close to the Murrah building
5) On Planet X, such measurements aren't possible, for personal reasons

As distance from the center of a blast increases, blast overpressure
1) Increases with the square of the distance
2) Decreases with the square of the distance
3) On Planet X, there are no squares

The visible damage to the Murrah building was because
1) The blast blew the front of the building to kingdom come
2) The blast damaged structural elements, resulting in progressive collapse
3) On Planet X, "Murrah" is unpronounceable

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Fill in the blank: A recording device in the vicinity of the OKC explosion detected a brief, loud noise, followed about 2 seconds later by another loud noise. What was the duration of the second noise? _______________
(On Planet X, fill in this blank: | )

Skibum

25th October 2006, 03:38 AM

CptColumbo

25th October 2006, 03:51 AM

Names please.

I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research.

So what did these informal (made up) phone calls reveal?

I was not planning on using it as the basis for a formal paper, it was for "my own curiosity." As I wrote most are friends of mine from college, and do not need or want their names published here. I also called the OKC office of the BATF (which if you read the other thread you can see the results).

You keep refering to it as "My evidence," and I was just asking if you did the research yourself or if you only read a website and are now representing it as research that you yourself conducted.

I notice you claim "I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research."
Yet you expect.

I stick by the christmas thing. But do you think by christmas he can become a leading expert in munitions?

Why the double-standard?

BTW I expect an apology for assuming and writing that I'm lying.

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:05 AM

Have. You were challenged by Gravy to enter a discussion, you responded by submitting a link to what you claim is evidence, so of course he has to study that evidence. Whether he finds it worthy remains to be seen.

Perhaps so, but quite frankly I don't think you are it.

Hans

Whether he feels its worthy? This evidence has been looked at by experts. Who is gravy to reject their claims?

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:06 AM

I was not planning on using it as the basis for a formal paper, it was for "my own curiosity." As I wrote most are friends of mine from college, and do not need or want their names published here. I also called the OKC office of the BATF (which if you read the other thread you can see the results).

You keep refering to it as "My evidence," and I was just asking if you did the research yourself or if you only read a website and are now representing it as research that you yourself conducted.

I notice you claim "I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research."
Yet you expect.

Why the double-standard?

BTW I expect an apology for assuming and writing that I'm lying.

No double standard. I have presented the evidence compiled by experts, how is he going to refute this unless he becomes an expert?

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:09 AM

Docker, the purpose of "debunking" is not to be able to type "pwned," but to educate. Are you here to learn?

If so, great. I'll help you, but I won't do all the work for you. You must be involved in your education. Let's begin:

How large was the OKC ANFO bomb compared to the Eglin Tritonal test bomb?
1) Half as large
2) About the same size
3) One-third larger
4) Twice as large
5) The OKC bomb was a MOAB
6) All bombs on Planet X are the same size.

Correct! A great start!

When we double the size of an explosive charge, what should we expect to happen to its blast effect?
1) It will be twice as strong.
2) It will be 2.5x stronger
3) It will be 4x stronger
4) It will be 8x stronger
5) On Planet X, all explosions are the same size

Compared to the Eglin test blast, the OKC explosive was
1) Twice as far from the Murrah building
2) About the same distance from the Murrah building
3) 50% closer to the Murrah building
4) Twice as close to the Murrah building
5) On Planet X, such measurements aren't possible, for personal reasons

As distance from the center of a blast increases, blast overpressure
1) Increases with the square of the distance
2) Decreases with the square of the distance
3) On Planet X, there are no squares

The visible damage to the Murrah building was because
1) The blast blew the front of the building to kingdom come
2) The blast damaged structural elements, resulting in progressive collapse
3) On Planet X, "Murrah" is unpronounceable

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Fill in the blank: A recording device in the vicinity of the OKC explosion detected a brief, loud noise, followed about 2 seconds later by another loud noise. What was the duration of the second noise? _______________
(On Planet X, fill in this blank: | )

Just show how this evidence from experts is invalid or admit you cant. You said this thread was opened for me to present evidence, not take quizzes designed to sidestep the issues.

Please tell us your expertise which allows you refute all the experts comments cited in my evidence. Do this or close the thread.

gumboot

25th October 2006, 04:13 AM

Just show how this evidence from experts is invalid or admit you cant. You said this thread was opened for me to present evidence, not take quizzes designed to sidestep the issues.

Please tell us your expertise which allows you refute all the experts comments cited in my evidence. Do this or close the thread.

Funny how they get in such a huffy if anyone ever dares suggest they behave or respond a certain way, yet they don't hesitate to issue orders like a regular dictator.

-Gumboot

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:16 AM

This is gravys idea of a serious debate:

"The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities"

I think that says it all.

He started a new thread for this? If he ever feels like refuting the evidence of numerous experts I will be here waiting.

qarnos

25th October 2006, 04:34 AM

Gravy

25th October 2006, 04:34 AM

Gravy

25th October 2006, 04:37 AM

Just show how this evidence from experts is invalid or admit you cant. You said this thread was opened for me to present evidence, not take quizzes designed to sidestep the issues.

Please tell us your expertise which allows you refute all the experts comments cited in my evidence. Do this or close the thread.You see, Docker, I use the facts gathered by those who actually studied the event. Shall we proceed? If you're not actually interested in learning about these things, just say so.

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:38 AM

You see, Docker, I use the facts gathered by those who actually studied the event. Shall we proceed? If you're not actually interested in learning about these things, just say so.

So you don't intend to refute the evidence. At least we know.

qarnos

25th October 2006, 04:40 AM

So you don't intend to refute the evidence. At least we know.

So you don't intend to demonstrate you have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. At least we know.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 04:42 AM

So you don't intend to refute the evidence. At least we know.Sure I do. But your participation is required. This is about learning, not winning, agreed? Then please answer the questions. Take as much time as you need. Start with the easy one and work up if you want.

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:45 AM

Sure I do. But your participation is required. This is about learning, not winning, agreed? Then please answer the questions. Take as much time as you need. Start with the easy one and work up if you want.

Look either present a summary of why my sources are incorrect and unreliable or close the thread. Its not about winning or learning. You opened a thread to refute my evidence. The stage is yours.

fuelair

25th October 2006, 04:52 AM

Gravy I await your thorough debunking of this. BHy christmas will do, no rush.

Dweebnishness is beginning to wear - i.e. this post is boring. Get life. I'm outta here.........

Gravy

25th October 2006, 04:52 AM

Look either present a summary of why my sources are incorrect and unreliable or close the thread. Its not about winning or learning. You opened a thread to refute my evidence. The stage is yours.
A summary? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Docker

25th October 2006, 04:56 AM

A summary? Are you kidding? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 04:59 AM

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

Very poor.

One might almost suspect that you don't understand your evidence and cannot, therefore, defend it.

It really was a case of my expert is bigger than your expert wasn't it?

Gravy

25th October 2006, 05:00 AM

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.Do I really need to remind you that I refuted your claim about the very first fact in the first link I clicked on?

We're working on the next. If you cannot answer the questions, just say so.

Anyone can post links and walk away. I care that you know what's in them, and why they're wrong. Do you?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:00 AM

Very poor.

One might almost suspect that you don't understand your evidence and cannot, therefore, defend it.

It really was a case of my expert is bigger than your expert wasn't it?

Would you care to refute it, since gravy cant?

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:02 AM

A summary? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Come on, Gravy, answering that question would require a few minutes of research!

Docker is a very busy guy - that's why he needs everybody else to do the research for him.

Warning: :hb: ahead.

MRC_Hans

25th October 2006, 05:04 AM

Whether he feels its worthy? This evidence has been looked at by experts. Who is gravy to reject their claims?He is your opponent in this debate. You know, normally a debate goes like this:

Debater #1 makes a claim, providing evidence. In this case, debater #2 had to challenge you first.

Debater #2 refutes the evidence.

Debater #1 Defends the evidence or provides new evidence.

....etc

I now see that Gravy has taken the educational course and is trying to make you understand your own evidence. In the circumstances I find that commendable, although I must admit that I wouldn't have had such patience meself.

I can only suggest you play along and pay careful attention because you are otherwise in serious risk of looking ridiculous. Just friendly advice ;) .

Hans

uk_dave

25th October 2006, 05:04 AM

Would you care to refute it, since gravy cant?

Refute what?

I'm a simple soul.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:05 AM

Do I really need to remind you that I refuted your claim about the very first fact in the first link I clicked on? We're working on the next. If you cannot answer the questions, just say so.

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.

Refute things like this:

"Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas,after examining the EBES, concluded: “The Murrah Building wouldstill be standing and the upper floors would be intact had the truckloaded with explosives been the only culprit.” Moreover, Frias, apracticing engineer for over 40 years and a registered engineer inTexas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: “Explosives had to havebeen placed near, or on, the structural columns inside the building tocause the collapse that occurred to the Murrah Building.”"

or stand down.

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:06 AM

He is your opponent in this debate. You know, normally a debate goes like this:

Debater #1 makes a claim, providing evidence. In this case, debater #2 had to challenge you first.

Debater #2 refutes the evidence.

Debater #1 Defends the evidence or provides new evidence.

....etc

I now see that Gravy has taken the educational course and is trying to make you understand your own evidence. In the circumstances I find that commendable, although I must admit that I wouldn't have had such patience meself.

I can only suggest you play along and pay careful attention because you are otherwise in serious risk of looking ridiculous. Just friendly advice ;) .

Hans

Exactly. All gravy wants is to catch me out. I'm not playing those games. If he can't refute it that's fine.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 05:09 AM

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:11 AM

Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:12 AM

Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?

Just tell me why it's false. Surely thats quicker than me answering questions in between.

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 05:14 AM

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?

Man, I'd never thought I'd see flop-sweaat typed out on the internet.

Why don't you just answer the questions? They are simple, not misleading, and none of them are false dichotomies. Just answer them.

MRC_Hans

25th October 2006, 05:15 AM

Exactly. All gravy wants is to catch me out. I'm not playing those games. If he can't refute it that's fine.Mmm, well to each his own, but by that attitude you ARE exactly being caught out. You see, the rest of us can easily see where Gravy's quiz is leading.

Don't you get it? You are caught out right now, and your choice now is to stay out or try and fight your way in. In that process you may very likely debunk your own evidence. In chess it would be called a gambit. I almost feel sorry for you, except I guess you are reaping what you sowed.

Hans

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:18 AM

Just tell me why it's false. Surely thats quicker than me answering questions in between.

Read the NIST 9/11 report and tell us what is false in that.

Thanks.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 05:18 AM

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?

This is not about learning? Docker, in your 500+ posts in two days you've given NO indication that you understand any of the issues that you so vehemently post about.

You've done nothing but jump from issue to issue, running from any difficult questions, and absolutely refusing to confront the evidence that's presented to you.

I will not play that game. If you want to have a discussion about the Oklahoma City bombing, you're going to have to show that you're willing to participate and learn.

Anyone can post links. I could have simply posted a bunch of links in response to yours. That doesn't make for much of a discussion forum, does it?

Learning is a process. I've been through all this OKC stuff before. You clearly haven't. I'm glad to help you to understand why your claim is wrong. Will you participate in this process? It will require work on your part. Yes or no?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:24 AM

Read the NIST 9/11 report and tell us what is false in that.

Thanks.

When did I claim the NIST report was false strawman?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:28 AM

You've done nothing but jump from issue to issue, running from any difficult questions, and absolutely refusing to confront the evidence that's presented to you.

This describes your stance.

When did I claim to be a bomb expert? You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

Please present your expertise and/or evidence that refutes this body of experts. If you cannot then I will respectfully leave the evidence here for someone else to have a crack at.

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:30 AM

When did I claim the NIST report was false strawman?

Surely that would be quicker rather than us having to answer all your questions, no?

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:33 AM

Surely that would be quicker rather than us having to answer all your questions, no?

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:35 AM

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.

:dl:

Sigh... Have you not asked questions about 9/11?

MRC_Hans

25th October 2006, 05:36 AM

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.Mmmm, can it be that you really don't get it?

No, I believe not.

Hans

Docker

25th October 2006, 05:37 AM

:dl:

Sigh... Have you not asked questions about 9/11?

I asked one question about burnt cars, which has nothing to do with NIST. Stop building strawmen

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:38 AM

Mmmm, can it be that you really don't get it?

No, I believe not.

Hans

No, I think he really doesn't get it.

:hb:

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:40 AM

I asked one question about burnt cars, which has nothing to do with NIST. Stop building strawmen

Oh yeah, you were just JAQing. Sorry, I forgot. :rolleyes:

You have an intertesting definition of strawman. Care to share it with us?

Judging from your phrasing I am getting the impression that you have no qualms with the NIST report. Is this correct?

qarnos

25th October 2006, 05:43 AM

Docker, I am going to bed now. I will continue this discussion tomorrow, if you desire.

I just thought I'd inform you so you don't get any raging clues when I stop responding, as you did with Gravy.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 05:59 AM

This describes your stance.

When did I claim to be a bomb expert? You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

Please present your expertise and/or evidence that refutes this body of experts. If you cannot then I will respectfully leave the evidence here for someone else to have a crack at.As I've already explained, I'm dealing with specifics. I started with the very first part of the first source you gave. We're still on that. My sources are the reports from the experts who actually investigated the bombing, not retirees who did not investigate the bombing.

Cpt. Columbo gave you the link to an OKC bombing thread on this very forum. Have you even bothered to look at it? You will learn a lot if you do. The CT who started the thread was a lot like you.

My questions were phrased in a particular way for a reason: because you won't find the answers on CT websites. Docker, you absolutely will not get accurate information from them.

It's disturbing to see how easily you'll claim that someone is an expert. As your first piece of "evidence" that the OKC bombing was not done by a sole truck bomb, you linked to an article about the Eglin ETS tests. You neglected to provide this information:

1) Any information about the author, beyond his name
2) Any information about the publication that the article is from
3) Any link or reference to the actual Eglin test report
4) Any indication that anyone named in the article was involved with the OKC investigation in any way.
5) Any indication that anyone quoted in the article, beyond Partin, has any experience with explosives or their effects on buildings. Expertise comes from experience.

Therefore, why do you assume that the article has any validity at all? I don't make that assumption, and therefore I choose to examine each claim, one by one. That's how I do things. I'm sorry that you didn't want to work through these problems. The methods are applicable to finding the truth behind all the claims you've made in your two days here.

You've made a serious claim: that the official version of the Oklahoma City bombing is false. Have you bothered to read the official reports on that incident?

If there were a way to verify it, I'd bet my last dollar that you haven't.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 06:03 AM

Quote of the week.

You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

By the way, it's "you're" when you mean "you are."

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 06:34 AM

Skibum I have presented evidence in this thread and guess what? Thats right, gravy has gone AWOL.

Its interesting that you made this claim all of 30-40 mintues after Gravy's last post. Do you want to apoligize for these idiotic comments? Especially in light of the fact that he has returned and that this thread was very late at night EST.

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 06:35 AM

No hurry, it's just that he started a feeble attempt at debunking then abandoned it.

This was all of a hour later. Geez, and people accuse Americans of having short attention spans.

Do you wish to apologize for these comments?

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 06:59 AM

Since a bit clarification of terminology appears to be needed:
Straw man

This fallacy takes its name from the image of someone stuffing some clothes with straw and then beating seven bells out of the resultant opponent, supposing thereby that they have somehow won a fight. The fallacy occurs when an argument is countered by taking a weaker form of it and showing where it fails, assuming that this means the original argument has also been defeated.

Take an example:

You say we should invest more in public health services, but taking everyone's money off them and deciding what they should spend it on for them is nothing less than totalitarianism.
We could render this as a syllogism as follows:

P1: Investing more in public services is equivalent to taking everyone's money and deciding how it should be spent for them;
P2: This is equivalent to totalitarianism;
P3: Totalitarianism has been refuted previously;
C: Therefore, the idea of investing more in public services is refuted.
Even if we accept P2 and P3, which we needn't, the important point is that P1 is false and does not accurately describe what was originally claimed. By making two different ideas equivalent the argument becomes easier to address but, since the refutation deals with one idea and the argument with another, nothing is actually accomplished. The argument is mischaracterized or misrepresented in order to make it easier to tackle, but by doing so it isn't tackled at all.

Another example could be this:

You advocate the death penalty but I doubt that anyone will accept televised hanging of people on meat hooks.
Here the idea of what the death penalty involves is mischaracterized (we would hope) by supposing that anyone advocating it is actually asking that people be publicly hung on meat hooks. Since (again, we would hope) this measure would not be accepted, the argument is considered defeated. A simplistic and deliberately repugnant version of the death penalty is used to discredit the idea when the person suggesting it probably said nothing of the sort; as a result, the refutation is unsuccessful.

This fallacy is unfortunately very common and some politicians tend to be adept at its use. It can be used in humour but perhaps the most important lesson to learn from it is not to unwittingly or otherwise make straw men of other people's ideas ourselves. source (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man)
Straw Man

You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn't endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position believing you have undermined the opponent's actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Example (a debate before the city council):

Opponent: Because of the killing and suffering of Indians that followed Columbus's discovery of America, the City of Berkeley should declare that Columbus Day will no longer be observed in our city.
Speaker: This is ridiculous, fellow members of the city council. It's not true that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. I say we should continue to observe Columbus Day, and vote down this resolution that will make the City of Berkeley the laughing stock of the nation.

The speaker has twisted what his opponent said; the opponent never said, nor even indirectly suggested, that everybody who ever came to America from another country somehow oppressed the Indians. source (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Straw%20Man)
Straw man
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

"To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible."
The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net. If you can't see what's wrong with it, read the "Introduction to Atheism" document source (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#strawman)
THE STRAWMAN ATTACK: The strawman is, perhaps, the most heavily-employed tactic used by Creationists. The strawman attack's name comes from the idea of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. The strawman is a false man, metaphorically representing a false argument. The strawman attack is a very dishonest one. Creationists ruthlessly use this tactic to win public support. In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument.

EXAMPLE

"Evolution is a ridiculous theory! Macro-evolution says that a fish can just evolve into a bird! Clearly this is preposterous!"
This is an example of a strawman attack. Macro-evolution does not say that one species can "evolve" into another one. Macro-evolution is one species splitting into two species due to evolutionary changes. Clearly, this argument is a gross misrepresentation, at best, and a malicious lie, at worst.

HOW TO SPOT

Spotting a strawman attack isn't that hard. Just make sure that the opposition actually makes the claim that the attacker says he or she does. In evolution's case, just think to yourself: Would our foremost men and women of biology actually propose such a ridiculous concept? While you should always check to verify the attacker's statements about what the opposition is saying, you definitely do so when the attacker's statement begs such questions as, "How stupid can the opposition possibly be?" and arouses any kind of suspicion. For example, I read many web sites devoted to the Evolution vs. Creationism debate that displayed common Creationist arguments. I found it hard to believe that people were actually making the arguments I saw, because they were so easily shot down. So, I looked on Creationist websites and, lo and behold, they had, indeed, made such moronic claims as, "Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics!"

HOW TO COUNTER

Strawman attacks, once exposed for what they are, are not all that difficult to counter. SImply ask the attacker for a documented occasion in which his opposition made such a claim. If he cannot produce one, happily point out that the attacker is putting words in his opponent's mouth and attacking that position. Pointing out that this attack is a cowardly evasion might well help, depending on how high (or low)a regard you hold the attacker in. source (http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml)
Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw man argument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when in fact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong. source (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man)
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. [1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy [2] or a scarecrow argument.

[edit] Setup of a straw man
One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Some logic textbooks define the straw man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.

However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion.

Examples
An example of such an argument could be:

Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock up children all day with no fresh air.
By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more draconian than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue.

[edit] Alternative gender usage
In recent years, some writers have used the term straw person as a gender-neutral replacement for straw man. Straw woman has also been used when the subject of easy refutation is a woman. [3] source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

StoneWT

25th October 2006, 07:45 AM

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match

What did they say about my evidence?

I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research.

For one, you should stop using the deaths of 168 people as an opportunity for an ego stroke.

You don't have to do original research in the sense of building a large bomb and detonating it in front of a building. You can read both sides of the issue. There are official reports concerning the bombing. There is also a report from the OKBIC (Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee). The 'Final Report' is a compilation of the available evidence for a larger conspiracy beyond McVeigh and Nichols as of 2001.

You can also write to the explosive/demolitions experts cited in the New American articles. This is assuming they are still alive as many were older gentleman. Upon what did they base their original statement? Do they stand by their original statements? If all you're doing is blindly citing conspiracy sources, you're still a 'sheople'. Being right and not knowing why isn't much better than being wrong and not knowing why.

Stop looking at debunkers as the enemy or people to 'whup' in an argument. If what you believe is false, they are helping you to sort matters out. If what you believe is true, they are helping you to change portions that are false or word your argument in a better manner.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 08:15 AM

For one, you should stop using the deaths of 168 people as an opportunity for an ego stroke.

You don't have to do original research in the sense of building a large bomb and detonating it in front of a building. You can read both sides of the issue. There are official reports concerning the bombing. There is also a report from the OKBIC (Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee). The 'Final Report' is a compilation of the available evidence for a larger conspiracy beyond McVeigh and Nichols as of 2001.

You can also write to the explosive/demolitions experts cited in the New American articles. This is assuming they are still alive as many were older gentleman. Upon what did they base their original statement? Do they stand by their original statements? If all you're doing is blindly citing conspiracy sources, you're still a 'sheople'. Being right and not knowing why isn't much better than being wrong and not knowing why.

Stop looking at debunkers as the enemy or people to 'whup' in an argument. If what you believe is false, they are helping you to sort matters out. If what you believe is true, they are helping you to change portions that are false or word your argument in a better manner.
That's a good way of putting it, StoneWT. Unfortunately I don't think Docker is willing to do any work to find the truth about his claims. He's repeatedly said in these forums that he doesn't trust me. I've never asked him to. I don't want to talk at him, nor would that have any effect. I want to help him figure out what sources are most valid and why. The only way he is going to learn is by getting involved in answering his own questions.

Horatius

25th October 2006, 08:36 AM

I want to help him figure out what sources are most valid and why. The only way he is going to learn is by getting involved in answering his own questions.

And this is the biggest problem with the Socratic method you've tried here. It only works if the student wants to learn, and clearly Ducker doesn't.

I don't know how we can work out our frustrations with dealing with these guys, though. Perhaps R.Mackey's declaration of victory is the only way.

CptColumbo

25th October 2006, 09:10 AM

No double standard. I have presented the evidence compiled by experts, how is he going to refute this unless he becomes an expert?

What you are saying basically is that you don't have the knowledge to research the validity of the paper yourself, so until someone does the work for you it must be true? That's just lazy and sad.

mortimer

25th October 2006, 09:29 AM

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9803575

Authors:

Paul F. Mlakar, Sr., Fellow, ASCE, (Div. Chief, U.S. Army Engr. Wtrwys. Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS), W. Gene Corley, Fellow, ASCE, (Vice Pres., Constr. Tech. Lab., Inc., Skokie, IL 60077-1030), Mete A. Sozen, Fellow, ASCE, (Kettlehut Distinguished Prof., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN), and Charles H. Thornton, Fellow, ASCE, (Prin., Thornton-Tomasette Engrs., New York, NY)

Abstract:

The truck bombing of the Murrah Building caused significant damage to this structure. From the characteristics of the bomb crater, it was determined that the explosion yielded energy comparable to that from the detonation of 1,814 kg (4,000 lbs.) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). The blast directly removed a principal exterior column, and the associated airblast caused the failure of two others. The airblast also destroyed some of the floor slabs in the immediate vicinity. This paper describes the blast loading and its effects on the building.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 09:38 AM

Well, I guess it can't hurt to kick in some more links. Sigh.

Blast Loading and Response of Murrah Building http://www.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf

Using Forensic Engineering Techniques to Obtain Data From the Oklahoma City Bombing http://www.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering1.pdf

Oklahoma City Bombing After Action Report http://www.mipt.org/pdf/Oklahoma-City-Bombing-After-Action-Report-ODCEM.pdfFill

Darth Rotor

25th October 2006, 09:38 AM

I haven't asked any questions with regard to the NIST report. It seems you are a professional strawman builder.
You provide a link to an authority, and an analysis on a modeling exercise of a structure subjected to varying explosive forces.

Mortimer has provided a link from professional engineers analysing the actual blast on the Murrah building. Compare the two, and please point out where the differences in analysis are, and why you find one more reasonable than the other.

Note: interrogations of McVeigh and Nichols, and the investigation into that matter, uncovered the nature and size of the explosive charge actually used on the Murrah building.

Why do you consider a mock up a more accurate analysis?

DR

beachnut

25th October 2006, 10:05 AM

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. I have presented my evidence. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb. Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

This seems to be a radical idea, how did you come up with this outstanding idea?

Where is your proof?

Who are your sources?

Did you know there is a reward for this knowledge?

Is this another "alex jones" secret source?

(answers for you since you are unable to reply to all the junk you start; I was making it up; I have non; not any; yes; )

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_12447453f8494776fe.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2211)

but then an extra bomb was not needed Tim had a lot of fertilizer and fuel, like you on the fertilizer, and he almost parked the darn truck in the building, look at the street.

Single bomb is the fact, due to the fact no other bombs or evidence was found of bombs. Simple facts, one big bomb. I do not even need sources since it is common knowledge except for those on the fringe of society, like Tim was. key word was!

Do CT guys always pick the most heinous acts to make up lies about and show total disrespect for the dead. AS IN no proof, no facts, no evidence, no brains?

Tell me why you, if you are a CT nut (Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb - which make you a CT nut), make up lies about things as if they are facts ( as in "Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb")?

(Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb) Is this a provable fact?

Is it just ranting cause you miss David?

Or are you just a disrespectful CT person who makes up stuff to feel good about himself as others still think about their dead brother torn apart by a home grown terrorist, what is your purpose taking up space in the world, to tell lies?

mortimer

25th October 2006, 10:06 AM

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 10:08 AM

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.

Refute things like this:

"Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas,after examining the EBES, concluded: “The Murrah Building wouldstill be standing and the upper floors would be intact had the truckloaded with explosives been the only culprit.” Moreover, Frias, apracticing engineer for over 40 years and a registered engineer inTexas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: “Explosives had to havebeen placed near, or on, the structural columns inside the building tocause the collapse that occurred to the Murrah Building.”"

or stand down.
These are conclusions. Presumably Frias did some analysis of the evidence to reach these conclusions? When two people come to contradictory conclusions about an event, it's their analyses that count. Particularly when someone is challenging the status quo position, it's important to understand how they reached their conclusions.

beachnut

25th October 2006, 10:15 AM

Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.

this is not evidence,

you have wasted another post

is this your purpose?

It would be neat if you could just make one big post on the subject.

Everything you know about it.

Oops, you have!

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 10:26 AM

Docker has not yet refuted ACSE's findings. Obviously, he is unable to.

And you gave him more time that he gives others.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 10:46 AM

Belz...

25th October 2006, 10:58 AM

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

Why don't you just answer his questions so he can get on with answering yours ? Stop dodging.

You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

So far, so good. Shouldn't he ?

Horatius

25th October 2006, 11:07 AM

Why do you consider a mock up a more accurate analysis?

DR

Because it supports his beliefs, silly!

What?

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 11:12 AM

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone weighs in on this subject:

Murrah Redux: (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12131349/911_truth_bald_regurgitation_of_another_bombing_co nspiracy) 9/11 Truth is a Bald Regurgitation of a Silly Tale We Heard Ten Years Ago

This description of a troother's website is incredible:

"His Internet entries read like a MySpace mixture of MTV's Real World meets Che's Congo Diaries, only on meth and in a German accent"

Dazed

25th October 2006, 11:32 AM

Looks like Docker's given up.

I would have just taken the quiz. Anyone would have noticed the pattern: The last answer was always right...

Drew

25th October 2006, 12:10 PM

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?

It seems kind of similar to those that follow blindly when Loose Change took over the internet by storm. People were just posting links saying "Watch loose change. It clearly shows inside job."

Here I notice people making posts...

"I need somebody to debunk this"

HUH??? You need someone to bebunk something? What is going to make you believe their debunk over the thing you want debunked?

Both sides clearly pick and choose certain things they want to talk about.

I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE

But what does anything any of you post in here actually proove?

Some of you like to attack someone on their spelling. But you only attack the people that are against your theories. I never see any of you attack those that are on your side for spelling.

Gravy...In this thread you pointed out that someone used "your" where he should have used "you're". I notice that your followers do that hundreds of times, yet you never point that out to them.

Some of you spend waaaaaaaaay too much time posting personal attacks as if it's supposed to be some sort of credibilty to your position.

I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs.

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:20 PM

I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs.

This is a relatively simple myth to disspell. Post some questions about 9/11.

There's no better way to get called a retard by 400 people who haven't even read your post. :)

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 12:24 PM

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?
....
I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBvX3P8IjE

But what does anything any of you post in here actually proove?
....
I thought that this forum stood for something bigger than petty personal attacks. I thought this forum was different than people just following blindly because someone said something that fits in with their beliefs
I suggest you read through this thread about OKC:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55243&highlight=Oklahoma+City

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 12:35 PM

Is Gravy the only one that actually does the research and the ones that believe the official theories just follow blinding because Gravy says so?

Gravy has certainly done more research than almost everyone here, but don't take that as a sign that he's the only source of info around here. He's a start quarterback, but even the best QB needs competent recievers and blockers.

We have people here with a wide variety of backgrounds and professions whose skills are often relevant in some manner to the events of 911. We have several engineers, pilots (real ones), airplane mechanics, architects. and even a truss designer. All of these folks bring sets of skills to the debunking table. Its not exclusive to those with these skillsets, after all, for just living in Manhattan can be useful for debunking the nonsense nutters like you spread. A simple bit of work and logic can make up for not being in the right field. Heck, even just interviewing firefighters rather then quote mining them can prove useful. Those who lack the skills can at least seek out the people who do have the proper skills.

The point is: We all know BS when we see it. Gravy researched a lot of this stuff and did an incredible job. He organized it and the result is about a million times better than the slops the 'troother' movement has come up with. But make no mistake: If he were to try a snow job, or to pull something that simple didn't make a lick of sense he would be called out in a heartbeat. That hasn't really needed to happen, since 100% of what the troothers pull out is nonsensical BS that fails the sniff test.

Now some folks do come out and ask for somethings to be debunked. Thats only natural. When you debunk nonsense like this you are expected to be an expert on a host of topics wheras the nutters like you merely have to pretend to be experts, while in fact all you can do is move goalposts and jump from topic to topic hoping debunkers won't catch up. So yes, we do seek help and expertise when we need to, it is the right thing to do. In your end of things, each one of you is trying to find the magic 'proof!' that, more important than exposing a conspiracy, will bring attention to you. Since the field is competative, the tnew theories become more and more outragous.

For example:

I guess I can post a link to the original news reports that report the bomb squad removed two bombs from the Murrah building that didn't explode...

I guess you could have done some research to find out those were training bombs for the BATF and weren't actually explosive.

QED.

Drew

25th October 2006, 12:38 PM

I suggest you read through this thread about OKC:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55243&highlight=Oklahoma+City

Again, it's just people posting things in a forum. Whether I'm with the prosecution or the defence, I can find "experts" to fit my theory or theories of what happened.

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.

Half the population thought OJ was guilty...Half thought he was innocent. People talked about things that fit in with their beliefs.

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 12:39 PM

Drew

25th October 2006, 12:45 PM

Gravy has certainly done more research than almost everyone here, but don't take that as a sign that he's the only source of info around here. He's a start quarterback, but even the best QB needs competent recievers and blockers.

We have people here with a wide variety of backgrounds and professions whose skills are often relevant in some manner to the events of 911. We have several engineers, pilots (real ones), airplane mechanics, architects. and even a truss designer. All of these folks bring sets of skills to the debunking table. Its not exclusive to those with these skillsets, after all, for just living in Manhattan can be useful for debunking the nonsense nutters like you spread. A simple bit of work and logic can make up for not being in the right field. Heck, even just interviewing firefighters rather then quote mining them can prove useful. Those who lack the skills can at least seek out the people who do have the proper skills.

The point is: We all know BS when we see it. Gravy researched a lot of this stuff and did an incredible job. He organized it and the result is about a million times better than the slops the 'troother' movement has come up with. But make no mistake: If he were to try a snow job, or to pull something that simple didn't make a lick of sense he would be called out in a heartbeat. That hasn't really needed to happen, since 100% of what the troothers pull out is nonsensical BS that fails the sniff test.

Now some folks do come out and ask for somethings to be debunked. Thats only natural. When you debunk nonsense like this you are expected to be an expert on a host of topics wheras the nutters like you merely have to pretend to be experts, while in fact all you can do is move goalposts and jump from topic to topic hoping debunkers won't catch up. So yes, we do seek help and expertise when we need to, it is the right thing to do. In your end of things, each one of you is trying to find the magic 'proof!' that, more important than exposing a conspiracy, will bring attention to you. Since the field is competative, the tnew theories become more and more outragous.

For example:

I guess you could have done some research to find out those were training bombs for the BATF and weren't actually explosive.

QED.

Again, calling me a nutter proves you have no credibility.

Everything you post before and after that has absolutely no value.

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 12:46 PM

Again, it's just people posting things in a forum. Whether I'm with the prosecution or the defence, I can find "experts" to fit my theory or theories of what happened.

Actually, no its not. There are references to the source of these 'bombs'. Obviously you decided reading teh whole thread linked was too much like work.

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.

The problem is that you are taking news reports of that day as gospel.

Had you bothered to read what was referred to you, rather than dismissing it you would have found (among other things) links to:

http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/his22.htm

Where is says:

11:22 a.m. - The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training.

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 12:47 PM

Again, calling me a nutter proves you have no credibility.

Everything you post before and after that has absolutely no value.

Handwaving dismissal of inconvenient facts is not an arguement.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 12:50 PM

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.
There were. The news reports were right about that. They were not planted by McVeigh or the government, though (they were not planted at all) and they turned out to be harmless and belong to BATF.

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:50 PM

Drew

25th October 2006, 12:51 PM

You're painting with an awfully broad brush there Drew. Every board, since the dawn of BBS's, has had its spectrum of posters. This forum is no different; though I do think this forum has a better signal-to-noise ratio than most.

The same brush is used here though.

Someone posted something about nuclear bombs or star wars rays and linked it to the whole truth movement. I have never heard of that "theory" before.

By the same token, I could link all that agree with the official story as racist because someone from their "group" made numerous racist comments.

I just got called a nutter because I "appear" to be going against the majority here.

The same thing happened when I went to a government involved conspiracy theory forum and went against their actions towards personal attacks.

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 12:52 PM

Just out of curiousity, does the bomb squad usually pull one of these?

Dispatch: We've got a bomb in the murrah building!

Bomb squad: Quick, get a man over there to set up fake bombs, this is the training opportunity of a lifetime!

Would you want to assume that any devices that looked like explosives were only training devices, considering the building had just been struck by car bomb? That strikes me as accidental Monday-morning-quarterbacking/9-12-thinking

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:52 PM

I'd uh.. be trying to dig the dying children out of the rubble.

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 12:55 PM

The same brush is used here though.

Someone posted something about nuclear bombs or star wars rays and linked it to the whole truth movement. I have never heard of that "theory" before.

By the same token, I could link all that agree with the official story as racist because someone from their "group" made numerous racist comments.

I just got called a nutter because I "appear" to be going against the majority here.

The same thing happened when I went to a government involved conspiracy theory forum and went against their actions towards personal attacks.

Individuals may be using hasty generalizations against the "Truth Movement", but that neither excuses, nor defends your same use of the same logical fallacy. If you find the forum to be homogeneous, and not up to your standards, why are you posting here?

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 12:55 PM

Just out of curiousity, does the bomb squad usually pull one of these?

Dispatch: We've got a bomb in the murrah building!

Bomb squad: Quick, get a man over there to set up fake bombs, this is the training opportunity of a lifetime!
The bombs were stored in the building, not planted. The bomb squad did not know they were disarmed and did not wait around to find out if they belonged to BATF.

bob_kark

25th October 2006, 12:56 PM

Again, it's just people posting things in a forum. Whether I'm with the prosecution or the defence, I can find "experts" to fit my theory or theories of what happened.

If you believe the news reports, there were bombs in the building.

Half the population thought OJ was guilty...Half thought he was innocent. People talked about things that fit in with their beliefs.
Yes, as we know, news reports are never (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/05/BL2006010500473.html) wrong.

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 12:56 PM

I'd uh.. be trying to dig the dying children out of the rubble.

That does not answer he question.

Yes, or no; would you assume any devices, that appeared to be explosives, were training materials for the BATF?

Dazed

25th October 2006, 12:56 PM

Neat. Do they store fake bombs in all buildings?

I would probably assume any suspicious devices I found in a building that had just been bombed were bombs, I think, Arkan.

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 12:58 PM

Neat. Do they store fake bombs in all buildings?

I can't answer that, but do you think it is unusual for a Federal department that has to deal with firearms, bombs and munitions to have practice bombs available for training?

Dazed

25th October 2006, 01:00 PM

No. I thought from the comments made here that they knew they weren't real bombs.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 01:00 PM

Neat. Do they store fake bombs in all buildings?
:bike:

I would probably assume any suspicious devices I found in a building that had just been bombed were bombs, I think, Arkan.
Now you're thinking.

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 01:03 PM

No. I thought from the comments made here that they knew they weren't real bombs.

10:28 a.m. - Rescuers find what they think is a second bomb. All rescuers are ordered to leave the building, and police clear a four-block area around the building. Police take this opportunity to establish a firm perimeter so they can allow only qualified rescuers back in the building.

11:22 a.m. - The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training.

http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/his22.htm

Remember, the local rescuers and PD don't have a full inventory of all the stuff in the BATF's offices when they rush in to save people.

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 01:05 PM

http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/his22.htm

Remember, the local rescuers and PD don't have a full inventory of all the stuff in the BATF's offices when they rush in to save people.

Dazed may have confused the fact that it is now common knowledge that they were training devices with what was known on that day. An understandable misinterpration.

Given that we have cleared that up, are we in agreement that there were no secondary explosive devices, that were not training aids, in the building?

Dazed

25th October 2006, 01:07 PM

So it looks like your argument has been debunked Drew. Unless you're claiming that they only SAID they were simulated bombs because there was a coverup. And you know you are.

Drew

25th October 2006, 01:08 PM

Yes, as we know, news reports are never (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/01/05/BL2006010500473.html) wrong.

Again...The people here don't seem to grasp to purpose of my posts.

Just as they didn't at the other forum.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 01:08 PM

No. I thought from the comments made here that they knew they weren't real bombs.
Which comments?
The one that quoted a report saying:
"11:22 a.m. - The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training."?
The one that said, "they turned out to be harmless"?
The one that said, "The bomb squad did not know they were disarmed"?
Or the one that said, "would you assume any devices, that appeared to be explosives, were training materials for the BATF?"

Belz...

25th October 2006, 01:09 PM

HUH??? You need someone to bebunk something? What is going to make you believe their debunk over the thing you want debunked?

Both sides clearly pick and choose certain things they want to talk about.

I follow evidence. Evidence I have makes me suspicious of certain claims. If nobody can debunk it then perhaps there's something to it. This is why I may ask for such a debunking.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 01:10 PM

Again...The people here don't seem to grasp to purpose of my posts.

Just as they didn't at the other forum.
:rub:
Hmm... What's the common denominator?

Dazed

25th October 2006, 01:10 PM

Which comments?
The one that quoted a report saying:
"11:22 a.m. - The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training."?
The one that said, "they turned out to be harmless"?
The one that said, "The bomb squad did not know they were disarmed"?
Or the one that said, "would you assume any devices, that appeared to be explosives, were training materials for the BATF?"

Yes, even the one you quoted sounds like it to me.
"The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training."

I took this to mean, simulators the bomb squad used in training, implying they were running a training excercise during the actual event, hence my obnoxious comments.

Belz...

25th October 2006, 01:13 PM

Again, it's just people posting things in a forum. Whether I'm with the prosecution or the defence, I can find "experts" to fit my theory or theories of what happened.

Skeptics may not be as gullible as the average jury, though.

Again, calling me a nutter proves you have no credibility.

Everything you post before and after that has absolutely no value.

Everything he said has no value BECAUSE he called you a nutter ?

Again...The people here don't seem to grasp to purpose of my posts.

Just as they didn't at the other forum.

Well, are news reports often wrong in the heat of the moment, or not ?

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 01:16 PM

Yes, even the one you quoted sounds like it to me.
"The bomb squad reports that there is no second bomb. The suspected bombs were simulators used in training."

I took this to mean, simulators the bomb squad used in training, implying they were running a training excercise during the actual event, hence my obnoxious comments.
I guess I can see why you read it that way. The word "suspected" just jumps out at me, though.

Dazed

25th October 2006, 01:18 PM

I'm Canadian.

:boxedin:

kookbreaker

25th October 2006, 01:20 PM

Again...The people here don't seem to grasp to purpose of my posts.

Just as they didn't at the other forum.

The surly attitude and unconstructive criticism combined with standard conspirator nonsense might be contributing to that.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 01:22 PM

I'm Canadian.

:boxedin:
Heh. I guess that explains it, then.
:bananapowerslide:

Garb

25th October 2006, 01:22 PM

Uh oh, Gravy hasn't posted here yet.

Must be ducking out of the ever so smart Docker's irrefutable arguments! ;)

Drew

25th October 2006, 01:22 PM

Skeptics may not be as gullible as the average jury, though.

Everything he said has no value BECAUSE he called you a nutter ?

Well, are news reports often wrong in the heat of the moment, or not ?
Jury selection can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty.

He (the nutter guy) has the same credibility as whatever defines a "nutter".

Just because someone posts something in a forum does not make it so.

Dazed

25th October 2006, 01:25 PM

Why did you just glaze over the debunking of your whole argument without comment?

bob_kark

25th October 2006, 01:33 PM

Again...The people here don't seem to grasp to purpose of my posts.

Just as they didn't at the other forum.
Perhaps you're not explaining yourself too well. What is your purpose?

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 01:41 PM

Again, calling me a nutter proves you have no credibility.

Everything you post before and after that has absolutely no value.

That is practically a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem. Whether or not a derogatory commented was directed at you has no bearing on the merit of other evidence presented in a given post. Using it as such is dodging the issue.

Augustine

25th October 2006, 05:08 PM

Little late to the party, but essentially Benton Partin (BG, USAF, Ret.) did his entire research by looking at photographs of the Murrah Building. However, he has no background whatsoever in structural engineering, structural mechanics, progressive collapse, or building failure. Consequently, his argument that it was impossible for certain columns to fail under blast was irrelevant given that the columns failed in the structural progressive collapse following the ONE column failure associated with the blast, column G20, closest to the explosion and failing through brisance. Also, his association with "blast research" ended in the 1970's - it would be interesting to see whether his similar calculations for St. Mary Axe and Bishopsgate prove that those also could not have failed in the blast...Interestingly, he also claimed that explosives were used at Waco - despite no evidence in that direction...

Gravy

25th October 2006, 06:16 PM

PerryLogan

25th October 2006, 07:41 PM

Game over.

gumboot

25th October 2006, 07:42 PM

I'd say Docker has been pretty thoroughly pwned.

-Gumboot

Docker

25th October 2006, 07:45 PM

Docker

25th October 2006, 07:46 PM

I'd say Docker has been pretty thoroughly pwned.

-Gumboot

How so? I presented evidence and gravy (who unfortunately forced me to put him on ignore) couldnt refute it.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 07:48 PM

How so? I presented evidence and gravy (who unfortunately forced me to put him on ignore) couldnt refute it.
He forced you? How did he do that?

Blackmail? Threats? Mind control?

gumboot

25th October 2006, 07:50 PM

How so? I presented evidence and gravy (who unfortunately forced me to put him on ignore) couldnt refute it.

You're hilarious. You lack the minerals to even front up when someone agrees to go into detail with your arguments.

Typically enough, Gravy didn't even need to go into details. Your "evidence", being someone else's report, has been shown to be irrelevant to the subject matter.

Your "expert" appears to have failed to analyse the event accurately, thus giving him the results he presents.

And it appears it's not the first time he has been wrong.

Personally, I hope Gravy continues with his argument anyway, because I was getting a little interested. Perhaps he'll proceed anyway.

-Gumboot

Docker

25th October 2006, 07:50 PM

That does not answer he question.

Yes, or no; would you assume any devices, that appeared to be explosives, were training materials for the BATF?

Is that the story? Training bombs LOL

Not to mention that no ATF got killed, witnesses heard multiple explosions, films showing john doe number 2 were never released.

Are you people that stupid?

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 07:51 PM

How so? I presented evidence and gravy (who unfortunately forced me to put him on ignore) couldnt refute it.
You presented two links. He and others (eventually, after trying to engage you in a discussion) presented several other links that refuted it.

You were so totally PWND!!!11!!1ONE!!!ELEVEN1!!!11!!

Gravy

25th October 2006, 07:52 PM

How so? I presented evidence and gravy (who unfortunately forced me to put him on ignore) couldnt refute it.Man, even when we do just post links for him, he won't read that material. I guarantee he hasn't looked at the provious OKC thread here either.

Docker, why are you doing this? What satisfaction does trolling bring you? What is missing in your life that this behavior supplies?

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 07:55 PM

Man, even when we do just post links for him, he won't read that material. I guarantee he hasn't looked at the provious OKC thread here either.

Docker, why are you doing this? What satisfaction does trolling bring you? What is missing in your life that this behavior supplies?
...

gumboot

25th October 2006, 07:57 PM

Are you people that stupid?

Attack the message, not the messenger.

-Gumboot

Docker

25th October 2006, 07:59 PM

Attack the message, not the messenger.

-Gumboot

Erm I also attacked the message but you cut that bit out

Docker

25th October 2006, 08:01 PM

You presented two links. He and others (eventually, after trying to engage you in a discussion) presented several other links that refuted it.

You were so totally PWND!!!11!!1ONE!!!ELEVEN1!!!11!!

Well why weren't these links posted at the beginning of the thread? If gravy hadn't pissed about with his childish quizzes it would have been fine.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 08:07 PM

Not to mention that no ATF got killed,
How many were wounded? Where were their offices located?

Gravy

25th October 2006, 08:09 PM

How many were wounded? Where were their offices located?Now we'll see if he has actually read anything we've provided.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2006, 08:10 PM

Well why weren't these links posted at the beginning of the thread? If gravy hadn't pissed about with his childish quizzes it would have been fine.
You said he couldn't refute it. He refuted it. What's more important to you? Style? Or substance?

gumboot

25th October 2006, 08:11 PM

Erm I also attacked the message but you cut that bit out

So it's okay to insult people, as long as you ALSO address their argument?

-Gumboot

dirtywick

25th October 2006, 08:15 PM

You said he couldn't refute it. He refuted it. What's more important to you? Style? Or substance?

It seems like he goes with whatever's convenient at the time.

Docker

25th October 2006, 08:16 PM

You said he couldn't refute it. He refuted it. What's more important to you? Style? Or substance?

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none, thats why he's on ignore.

Augustine

25th October 2006, 08:23 PM

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none, thats why he's on ignore.

Is this said with a hint of irony? I cannot recall seeing any substantive criticism from you since your arrival. Your "questions" are paper-thin, and you really have no alternate working hypothesis that I can see.

Docker

25th October 2006, 08:25 PM

Is this said with a hint of irony? I cannot recall seeing any substantive criticism from you since your arrival. Your "questions" are paper-thin, and you really have no alternate working hypothesis that I can see.

Why does disbelieving something mean I have to have another hypothesis?

Gravy

25th October 2006, 08:25 PM

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none, thats why he's on ignore.Someone ask him again how many ATF agents were wounded in the bombing. Thanks!

gumboot

25th October 2006, 08:27 PM

Someone ask him again how many ATF agents were wounded in the bombing. Thanks!

Please respond Docker.

-Gumboot

Augustine

25th October 2006, 08:28 PM

Why does disbelieving something mean I have to have another hypothesis?

Well, if your disbelief is rooted in some kind of rational logical analysis, then your disbelief must arise because of some viable alternate explanation for the observed events.

Quite right, if your disbelief is purely irrational or emotional, then you would of course have no other explanation. Then the question arises how you expect to have a reasoned discussion if you are operating irrationally.

Docker

25th October 2006, 08:31 PM

Well, if your disbelief is rooted in some kind of rational logical analysis, then your disbelief must arise because of some viable alternate explanation for the observed events.

Quite right, if your disbelief is purely irrational or emotional, then you would of course have no other explanation. Then the question arises how you expect to have a reasoned discussion if you are operating irrationally.

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.

Gravy

25th October 2006, 08:35 PM

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.Ah, the "eyewitnesses etc." That explains it. Well taken, sir!

Augustine

25th October 2006, 08:35 PM

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.

Well, first, let's stop being vague. What exactly do you disbelieve? "The OKC thing" is hardly descriptive. So let's be specific as to what precisely you disbelieve. Then you will see that you either have an alternate explanation or hypothesis that is founded in some kind of logic or reason or you do not.

But first, stop the muddy thinking and be specific.

Augustine

25th October 2006, 08:45 PM

Has he toddled off again?

eta: Hmmm...apparently so. Like little Billy from Family Circus, wandering through the neighborhood...

Arkan_Wolfshade

25th October 2006, 08:56 PM

Well, first, let's stop being vague. What exactly do you disbelieve? "The OKC thing" is hardly descriptive. So let's be specific as to what precisely you disbelieve. Then you will see that you either have an alternate explanation or hypothesis that is founded in some kind of logic or reason or you do not.

But first, stop the muddy thinking and be specific.

Very well said in both this, and your previous post.

W6102LA

25th October 2006, 11:04 PM

Please respond Docker.

-Gumboot

Have some patients, he's busy starting a dozen other threads

:D

Belz...

26th October 2006, 05:47 AM

Jury selection can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty.

Exactly. Because people have individual biases that the lawyers exploit. You just proved my point.

He (the nutter guy) has the same credibility as whatever defines a "nutter".

That sentence doesn't make sense. I'll skip it.

Just because someone posts something in a forum does not make it so.

How does that relate to what I said ? Are news reports wrong sometimes, yes or no ?

Is that the story? Training bombs LOL

Not to mention that no ATF got killed, witnesses heard multiple explosions, films showing john doe number 2 were never released.

Didn't Docker say "unexploded" or something ? Now it's "multiple explosions". Did they explode or not ? And if they didn't, why couldn't they be training devices ? And if SOME of them did, why couldn't the ones they found be training devices ?

Well why weren't these links posted at the beginning of the thread?

They don't count after page 2 ?

Substance. I realised quickly gravy had none

Hey, Gravy! I didn't know you were a ghost!

Belz...

26th October 2006, 05:48 AM

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc.

Well, THAT does it. I'm converted.

Drew

26th October 2006, 10:36 AM

Exactly. Because people have individual biases that the lawyers exploit. You just proved my point.

That sentence doesn't make sense. I'll skip it.

How does that relate to what I said ? Are news reports wrong sometimes, yes or no ?

Go back and read the posts, think about what was posted and the purpose it was posted, because it's obvious you aren't as bright as you'd like to think you are.

btw... Some of you have waaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands as well.

Both forums proved my point so easily. Maybe the definition of a "nutter" is someone who spends so much time in a forum arguing and calling people names.

Belz...

26th October 2006, 10:56 AM

Are you going to answer what I said or just keep barking insults ?

Drew

26th October 2006, 11:20 AM

Are you going to answer what I said or just keep barking insults ?
Insults?

You're joking right?

Look around the forum and tell me what you see with regards to insults from the members here.

Answer what you said? Did you said a question? :confused:

Go back and read the posts. Do I have to type slower for you to understand?

Belz...

26th October 2006, 01:35 PM

Insults?

You're joking right?

Often, but not this time.

Look around the forum and tell me what you see with regards to insults from the members here.

I'm not interested in the other members. I'm interested in your response to my points here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2040790&postcount=222).

Answer what you said? Did you said a question? :confused:

No, I did not "said" a question. I made points about what you said.

For example:

Are news reports wrong sometimes, yes or no ?

Go back and read the posts. Do I have to type slower for you to understand?

Typing slower would only delay your response. I'd rather you type faster. Hopefully that won't produce more typos.

Garb

26th October 2006, 01:45 PM

Go back and read the posts. Do I have to type slower for you to understand?

You realize that makes absolutely no sense right?

Drew

26th October 2006, 01:58 PM

Often, but not this time.

I'm not interested in the other members. I'm interested in your response to my points here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2040790&postcount=222).

No, I did not "said" a question. I made points about what you said.

For example:

Are news reports wrong sometimes, yes or no ?

Typing slower would only delay your response. I'd rather you type faster. Hopefully that won't produce more typos.

I think you need Gravy to go read the posts and then explain it to you because it's obvious you'll never get it.:boggled:

Drew

26th October 2006, 02:00 PM

You realize that makes absolutely no sense right?

Wow..Another one. Calling Gravy...Please explain it to him.

Bell

26th October 2006, 02:02 PM

Wow..Another one. Calling Gravy...Please explain it to him.

You're not another P D'oh sock, are you?

Just asking questions.

Drew

26th October 2006, 02:07 PM

You're not another P D'oh sock, are you?

Just asking questions.

What the heck are you talking about?

You people seriously have the same issues that other forum has.

Garb

26th October 2006, 02:10 PM

Wow..Another one. Calling Gravy...Please explain it to him.

Typing slower does not make a messge easier to read.

Nothing to explain.

Drew

26th October 2006, 02:16 PM

No, I did not "said" a question. I made points about what you said.

For example:

Are news reports wrong sometimes, yes or no ?

btw...

Where I went to school that IS a question. And you ASK a question.

If you look at the previous posts you'll clearly see the answer to your question. Ask Gravy if you need help because he seems to be the only one that has a certain amount of brains although he occasionally falls into the trap of the forum group's faults by joining in your childish diatribe.

Drew

26th October 2006, 02:18 PM

Typing slower does not make a messge easier to read.

Nothing to explain.

It's way over your head. :boggled:

You wouldn't know the meaning of a post even if Gravy told you.

Garb

26th October 2006, 02:27 PM

It's way over your head. :boggled:

You wouldn't know the meaning of a post even if Gravy told you.

Doesn't sound like it.

Seems like you are trying to cover up your crappy insults.

stateofgrace

26th October 2006, 03:00 PM

Wow..Another one. Calling Gravy...Please explain it to him.

Why do you continue to insult people here?

Yes I come here to read what people say, I come here see logical and well reasoned debate. I often sit on the side lines and watch.

Your remarks contribute nothing, other than to continue the childish badgering and baiting started by Docker.

Your labeling of those who have differing views to you as mindless steeple, does nothing to further you case and simply alienates you.
Docker was insulted, yes; this is because he choose to insult people’s intelligence. Drew, please stop doing this and you will not be insulted yourself. I have no desire to insult you, call you names or label you, but this is precisely what you are doing. It is offensive and does nothing but cause trouble.

Please grow up show some level of maturity and credit people with the same level of intelligence you wish to be credited with.

Belz...

27th October 2006, 05:51 AM

I think you need Gravy to go read the posts and then explain it to you because it's obvious you'll never get it.:boggled:

Oh, no, please don't let me stop you from answering my points:

Jury selection can mean the difference between guilty and not guilty.

Exactly. Because people have individual biases that the lawyers exploit. You just proved my point.

Just because someone posts something in a forum does not make it so.

How does that relate to what I said ? Are news reports wrong sometimes, yes or no ?

Belz...

27th October 2006, 05:52 AM

btw...

Where I went to school that IS a question. And you ASK a question.

If you look at the previous posts you'll clearly see the answer to your question. Ask Gravy if you need help because he seems to be the only one that has a certain amount of brains although he occasionally falls into the trap of the forum group's faults by joining in your childish diatribe.

A simple yes or no will suffice, Drew. I'm sure even you can manage this.

beachnut

28th October 2006, 04:39 AM

Thats not true at all. I disbelieve the OKC thing because of the John Doe business and the eyewitnesses etc. That doesn't mean I know who else might be involved.

What are you talking about now.