Why I despise the Truthers

[ZENSMACK89]

.....I don't even want to think about it. If you removed Zens argument and all rebuttals this thread would only be like 4 pages long.
Can I help it if everyone wants a piece of me? It would be rude not to respond.

lol

[Drudgewire]

Yes it is important. For instance Quinteres call for a second opinion on NIST is very important. I'm only pointing out if you are going to call for it on Jones call for it on your own versions and theories.
And most of us agree with Quinteres. Maybe the millionth time we say that it will finally start to sink in.

Quinteres: We want to make sure the official record is exact, and there are a couple of things in there that we could have been more thorough about.

Jones: Everything in it is wrong and is part of a cover-up and I'm the only one who can see this and everyone else is lying because they love Bush.

See? One is logical. One is idiocy.

[ZENSMACK89]

Dude. Again, he is on this forum. Apollo20 is his nick.

Start a thread and ask him how much of the official version he supports, or send him a PM, or whatever.
I know who he is. Thanks

[NYCEMT86]

Oh really? An what would be insinuating someone believes in alien lizardmen because they don't buy the official version?

Strawman. I never said anything like that. If someone here has done that, maybe you should take that issue up with them.

[ZENSMACK89]

And most of us agree with Quinteres. Maybe the millionth time we say that it will finally start to sink in.

Quinteres: We want to make sure the official record is exact, and there are a couple of things in there that we could have been more thorough about.

Jones: Everything in it is wrong and is part of a cover-up and I'm the only one who can see this and everyone else is lying because they love Bush.

See? One is logical. One is idiocy.
Actually Jones voted for Bush the first time around but nice try.

[ZENSMACK89]

Strawman. I never said anything like that. If someone here has done that, maybe you should take that issue up with them.
The quote you posted was a reply to someone who did.

[NYCEMT86]

The quote you posted was a reply to someone who did.

Well take it up with them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[twinstead]

Actually Jones voted for Bush the first time around but nice try.

See. The question 'SEE?' at the end of the post you quoted was asking if you understood the difference.

What kind of an answer is this?

[ZENSMACK89]

None of us can answer that. We don't represent Dr. Greening. Maybe YOU should talk to him and find out for yourself.
The question is rhetorical.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8573#comment-142231

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

But of course... In your world, people who disagree with you, who HAVE THE CREDENTIALS, are just ignored. Or wait, let me guess, ASCE is run by alien lizardmen using chemtrails?

Oh really? An what would be insinuating someone believes in alien lizardmen because they don't buy the official version?
I was being tongue-in-cheek with a side of sarcasm. You did take the bait though and use conjecture and ad hominem to say that yes members of the ASCE *had* something to gain therefore they must have been in on it.
Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ,there are 1.5 million engineers in the US? The authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the ASCE WTC investigation. Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.

[DavidJames]

Dude. Again, he is on this forum. Apollo20 is his nick.

Start a thread and ask him how much of the official version he supports, or send him a PM, or whatever.
He is playing childish games. He knows very well that Greening has had some issues with the NIST report. But like Quinteres the issues have nothing to do with the any "inside job" crap, but are specific to their areas of expertise and how the NIST report could be improved.

Zen provides nothing but questions, over and over again. No substance, nothing but repetitive questions. All of which have been answered over and over again.

When a questions gets answered, he ignores it, twists it or deflects it and moves on.

[ZENSMACK89]

Well take it up with them. Two wrongs don't make a right.
You're the one who chimed in.

[NYCEMT86]

The question is rhetorical.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8573#comment-142231

Actually...you should read his posts because he has brought up his own questions related to 9/11.


Why are you avoiding Dr. Greening? Why can't you just PM him and ask him what he thinks?

[ZENSMACK89]

He is playing childish games. He knows very well that Greening has had some issues with the NIST report. But like Quinteres the issues have nothing to do with the any "inside job" crap, but are specific to their areas of expertise and how the NIST report could be improved.

Zen provides nothing but questions, over and over again. No substance, nothing but repetitive questions. All of which have been answered over and over again.

When a questions gets answered, he ignores it, twists it or deflects it and moves on.
I don't think I've ignored much. Just look at the reply count.

[ZENSMACK89]

Actually...you should read his posts because he has brought up his own questions related to 9/11.


Why are you avoiding Dr. Greening? Why can't you just PM him and ask him what he thinks?
I don't have a question for him. I read what he says about NIST and molten iron. Did you? I wasn't even the one who brought him up here. I told you my question was rhetorical. Do you have a question for him? Go for it.

[NYCEMT86]

You're the one who chimed in.

To point out your fallacy.

Though you did prove SpaceMonkeyZero's point with his statement by quoting Kevin Ryan.

[twinstead]

Why are you avoiding Dr. Greening? Why can't you just PM him and ask him what he thinks?

I think he may be afraid that it will become even more clear that one does not have to believe in CD and an inside job to have issues with the NIST report.

And, everybody who has issues with the NIST report doesn't necessarily mean they support the inside job theory.

We all know that. None of us claim the report is perfect. But in truther world it is either perfect, or null and void.

[ZENSMACK89]

The question is rhetorical.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8573#comment-142231
What kind of comparison is that? Fantasy?

[NYCEMT86]

I don't think I've ignored much. Just look at the reply count.

Reply count doesn't matter. Its about the substance of the replies. Quantity doesn't equal QUALITY.

[johnny karate]

Before we let ZEN take us too far down the rabbit hole, let's remember what he originally said:

There are plenty with the same degrees and knowledge that disagree.

When challenged on this, here's what he presented (try to contain your laughter):

Take your pick.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

So, basically a list of theologians and architects. Hmm... let's take a look at that original claim once more, paying special attention to a couple of key words:

There are plenty with the same degrees and knowledge that disagree.

Now, here is a list of a few of the heavy-hitters on the NIST team* (which boasts around 200 similiar experts):

Dr. H.S. Lew – Senior Research Engineer. PhD Civil Engineering, BS in Architectural Engineering. ASCE Fellow.
With NIST: Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering, Building and Fire Research.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...p?lastname=Lew (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=Lew)
(his full profile)

Richard W. Bukowski – Senior Research Engineer. BSc Electrical Engineering.
With NIST: Co-ordinator of Building and Fire Research Lab.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...tname=bukowski (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=bukowski)
(his full profile)

Dr. Fahim H. Sadek – PhD Mechanical Engineering SMU
With NIST: Research Structural Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=sadek (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=sadek)
(his full profile)

Dr. Frank W. Gayle – PhD Metallurgy MIT, MSc Materials Science, BSc Civil Engineering.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle)
(his full profile)

Dr. David D. Evans – PhD in Engineering (Fire protection)


Dr. William Grosshandler – PhD Mechanical Engineering UC Berkley
With NIST: Head of Building and Fire Research
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...e=grosshandler (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=grosshandler)
(his full profile)

Dr. Richard G. Gann – PhD Physical Chemistry MIT
With NIST: Senior Research Scientist – Integrated Performance Assessment
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...?lastname=gann (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=gann)
(his full profile)

Dr. John L. Gross – PhD Structural Engineering, BSc/MSc Civil Engineering Cornell
With NIST: Research Engineer – Materials and Construction Research Division
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=gross (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=gross)
(his full profile)

Dr. Therese P. McAllister – PhD Structural Engineering John Hopkins
With NIST: Senior Structural Engineer.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...ame=mcallister (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=mcallister)
(her full profile)

Jason D. Averill – MSc Structural Engineering (working on PhD) John Hopkins
With NIST: Research Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...stname=averill (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=averill)
(his full profile)

J. Randall Lawson – BA, BSc Industrial Education, AA Computer Science and Math
With NIST: General Physical Scientist
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...astname=lawson (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=lawson)
(his full profile)


Architects and theologians, ZEN?

Welcome to Failureville.
Population: You






*Copied from a previous post by T.A.M.

[ZENSMACK89]

I think he may be afraid that it will become even more clear that one does not have to believe in CD and an inside job to have issues with the NIST report.

And, everybody who has issues with the NIST report doesn't necessarily mean they support the inside job theory.

We all know that. None of us claim the report is perfect. But in truther world it is either perfect, or null and void.
Well we got two experts supposedly on your side according to you that have some problems with the NIST report.

You want to offer up anymore experts to support your beliefs? Can you afford it?

lol

[ZENSMACK89]

Before we let ZEN take us too far down the rabbit hole, let's remember what he originally said:



When challenged on this, here's what he presented (try to contain your laughter):



So, basically a list of theologians and architects. Hmm... let's take a look at that original claim once more, paying special attention to a couple of key words:



Now, here is a list of a few of the heavy-hitters on the NIST team* (which boasts around 200 similiar experts):

Dr. H.S. Lew – Senior Research Engineer. PhD Civil Engineering, BS in Architectural Engineering. ASCE Fellow.
With NIST: Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering, Building and Fire Research.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...p?lastname=Lew (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=Lew)
(his full profile)

Richard W. Bukowski – Senior Research Engineer. BSc Electrical Engineering.
With NIST: Co-ordinator of Building and Fire Research Lab.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...tname=bukowski (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=bukowski)
(his full profile)

Dr. Fahim H. Sadek – PhD Mechanical Engineering SMU
With NIST: Research Structural Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=sadek (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=sadek)
(his full profile)

Dr. Frank W. Gayle – PhD Metallurgy MIT, MSc Materials Science, BSc Civil Engineering.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle (http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle)
(his full profile)

Dr. David D. Evans – PhD in Engineering (Fire protection)


Dr. William Grosshandler – PhD Mechanical Engineering UC Berkley
With NIST: Head of Building and Fire Research
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...e=grosshandler (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=grosshandler)
(his full profile)

Dr. Richard G. Gann – PhD Physical Chemistry MIT
With NIST: Senior Research Scientist – Integrated Performance Assessment
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...?lastname=gann (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=gann)
(his full profile)

Dr. John L. Gross – PhD Structural Engineering, BSc/MSc Civil Engineering Cornell
With NIST: Research Engineer – Materials and Construction Research Division
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=gross (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=gross)
(his full profile)

Dr. Therese P. McAllister – PhD Structural Engineering John Hopkins
With NIST: Senior Structural Engineer.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...ame=mcallister (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=mcallister)
(her full profile)

Jason D. Averill – MSc Structural Engineering (working on PhD) John Hopkins
With NIST: Research Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...stname=averill (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=averill)
(his full profile)

J. Randall Lawson – BA, BSc Industrial Education, AA Computer Science and Math
With NIST: General Physical Scientist
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...astname=lawson (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=lawson)
(his full profile)


Architects and theologians, ZEN?

Welcome to Failureville.
Population: You






*Copied from a previous post by T.A.M.
NIST is one disputed report. Got anymore?

[NYCEMT86]

I don't have a question for him. I read what he says about NIST and molten iron. Did you? I wasn't even the one who brought him up here. I told you my question was rhetorical. Do you have a question for him? Go for it.

You said you had a problem with Brazant's paper. I brought him up because maybe you would like to bounce some questions off of him about Brazant's paper.

If you have an issue with the paper why won't you ask Greening or Brazant themselves?

[johnny karate]

Yes it is important. For instance Quinteres call for a second opinion on NIST only regarding issues of fire safety is very important to issues regarding fire safety. To imply anything different would make me a liar.

Fixed.

[johnny karate]

NIST is one disputed report.Really? By whom? Is it that same list of experts you've yet to provide?

Got anymore?Got any at all?

[twinstead]

So the paper has to be a NON-DISPUTED paper? Not disputed for ANY reason at all?

Zen do YOU have one of those? Is there any such thing?

[pomeroo]

Opinion. And again I ask. Does Greening fully support the official version according to NIST?


Wrong--fact.

No, Dr. Greening does not fully support the NIST Report's conclusion.

There is, as you know, no "official" version. Your error stems from dishonesty more than ignorance.

Greening feels that NIST overlooked chemical reactions that provided additional sources of heat. He has demonstrated in his thorough refutation of Gordon Ross's inept calculations that there was abundant energy available for a gravity-driven collapse.

[pomeroo]

NIST is one disputed report. Got anymore?

My goodness, you are weak! Why not throw in the towel? You bring nothing to the table. Can't you emulate Lyte Foot and invent an entertaining fraud?

[ZENSMACK89]

You said you had a problem with Brazant's paper. I brought him up because maybe you would like to bounce some questions off of him about Brazant's paper.

If you have an issue with the paper why won't you ask Greening or Brazant themselves?


Because I don't have any questions for them...?

[ZENSMACK89]

Wrong--fact.

No, Dr. Greening does not fully support the NIST Report's conclusion.

There is, as you know, no "official" version. Your error stems from dishonesty more than ignorance.

Greening feels that NIST overlooked chemical reactions that provided additional sources of heat. He has demonstrated in his thorough refutation of Gordon Ross's inept calculations that there was abundant energy available for a gravity-driven collapse.
So how do you feel about Greenings criticism of NIST? You know that they "overlooked" things?

Tell me more

lol

[DavidJames]

Only a CTists can summarily dismiss an intense, thoroughly researched analysis performed by dozens of independent organizations with hundreds of participants as “one disputed report”. Then throw up (pun intended) that crap from the architects, software engineer’s and theologians and other crackpots who’s analysis (loosely called) is fraught with errors and cherry picked “facts”. None of which has been submitted to any engineering publications for review, or submitted to any non-CTists for review.

Yeah Yeah, I know, peer review is blah blah blah to you. In the adult world, where knowledge and experience matter it's important. In your world, the fantasy world of CT's, it's blah blah blah.

[ZENSMACK89]

So the paper has to be a NON-DISPUTED paper? Not disputed for ANY reason at all?

Zen do YOU have one of those? Is there any such thing?
How about Steven Jones? Does he have to be NON-DISPUTED?

[Pardalis]

I'm guessing 150 pages.

[ZENSMACK89]

Only a CTists can summarily dismiss an intense, thoroughly researched analysis performed by dozens of independent organizations with hundreds of participants as “one disputed report”. Then throw up (pun intended) that crap from the architects, software engineer’s and theologians and other crackpots who’s analysis (loosely called) is fraught with errors and cherry picked “facts”. None of which has been submitted to any engineering publications for review, or submitted to any non-CTists for review.

Yeah Yeah, I know, peer review is blah blah blah to you. In the adult world, where knowledge and experience matter it's important. In your world, the fantasy world of CT's, it's blah blah blah.
I said peer review is important I just said getting in a debate about it as far as Jones is concerned is tired.

So when will NIST be reviewed the way Quintere is calling for? Have they agreed? Have they even acknowledged him?

Do they welcome it?

[funk de fino]

Zens MO is exactly like the guy who was apparently posting under Rev91's username when he got banned

Waste of time, and just on here playing around trying to rile people and ignoring posts that call him out

No expertise on anything and giving no facts

Why waste time on him?

[ZENSMACK89]

Zens MO is exactly like the guy who was apparently posting under Rev91's username when he got banned

Waste of time, and just on here playing around trying to rile people and ignoring posts that call him out

No expertise on anything and giving no facts

Why waste time on him?
That's what I say.

Why?

[DavidJames]

Zens MO is exactly like the guy who was apparently posting under Rev91's username when he got bannedFunny, that's exactly what I was thinking.

[Pardalis]

Reading this thread is like watching a game of ping pong.

[ZENSMACK89]

Funny, that's exactly what I was thinking.
It must be nice to be able to put everyone into a category. You can even pretend they're all the same person here.

Careful...

It's sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[ZENSMACK89]

Reading this thread is like watching a game of ping pong.
What kind of ping pong is one against 30 midgets?

[leftysergeant]

How about Steven Jones? Does he have to be NON-DISPUTED?

Jones' mental deficiencies are all too obvious to anyone who has read his blather about Itzamna as Jesus. The twit gets a notion that fits his world view, and from there on, reality be damned.

[HyJinX]

Reading this thread is like watching a game of ping pong.

Or like riding on one of these...

[twinstead]

How about Steven Jones? Does he have to be NON-DISPUTED?

That's my point. If I can't use the NIST report because it's 'disputed', then you can't use Jones. Simple.

If you only require non-disputed reports, then neither of us has anything to offer, because you obviously think all disputes are created equal.

So, we're back then to physical evidence of an inside job. Have any of that?

[HyJinX]

What kind of ping pong is one against 30 midgets?

The kind like Mark Roberts dismantling the 30 "black-shirted" mental midgets at ground zero.

[DavidJames]

So, we're back then to physical evidence of an inside job. Have any of that?Yes, please, let's stop dancing, okay ZEN. How about you stop asking questions and start presenting evidence of an "inside job".

Not conjecture, not speculation, not coincidences or rumors or anyone's perceived belief in omissions of existing reports.

Please present your evidence of an inside job.

Of course, you are welcome to continue asking questions, but at least we will agree that you have no evidence of an “inside job” and any belief of such is just that, a belief, without any substance.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes, please, let's stop dancing, okay ZEN. How about you stop asking questions and start presenting evidence of an "inside job".

Not conjecture, not speculation, not coincidences or rumors or anyone's perceived belief in omissions of existing reports.

Please present your evidence of an inside job.

Of course, you are welcome to continue asking questions, but at least we will agree that you have no evidence of an “inside job” and any belief of such is just that, a belief, without any substance.
I didn't say I had evidence of an inside job. I said until there is a real investigation inside job is still on the table.

Where's your evidence that what you believe is anymore then just another CT?

Come on. Stop dancing.

[HyJinX]

Does this really need to continue?

Raise your hands if you think not.

<------------

[CptColumbo]

I didn't say I had evidence of an inside job. I said until there is a real investigation inside job is still on the table.Why should anyone investigate again, if there is no evidence that the first investigation was flawed?

Where's your evidence that what you believe is anymore then just another CT?I think your still having trouble with the definition of theory.
the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
--A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

As I've said in other threads, what the "twoof" movement has doesn't IMO qualify as a hypothesis (look it up), let alone a "theory."

[DavidJames]

I didn't say I had evidence of an inside job.
Fair enough, you have no evidence of an inside job. Thanks.

[ZENSMACK89]

Why should anyone investigate again, if there is no evidence that the first investigation was flawed?

I think your still having trouble with the definition of theory.
the·o·ry n. pl. the·o·ries
--A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

As I've said in other threads, what the "twoof" movement has doesn't IMO qualify as a hypothesis (look it up), let alone a "theory."
So what's your point? The official version isn't even a theory?

ok

[ZENSMACK89]

Fair enough, you have no evidence of an inside job. Thanks.
That's right. Just like you and your theory.

[HyJinX]

I didn't say I had evidence of an inside job. I said until there is a real investigation inside job is still on the table.

Ladies and Gentlemen...I present to you the most ridiculous thing spouted on the interwebz today.

[Drudgewire]

Does this really need to continue?

Raise your hands if you think not.

<------------
:clap:

[DavidJames]

That's right. Just like you and your theory.

Please refer to CptColumbo definition of a theory.

The NIST report was complied by hundreds of well qualified people from dozens of independent organizations. While some qualified people have expressed some concerns with bit and pieces of the report, they have not expressed concerns about the overall findings. In fact there have been no detailed refutations by anyone with qualifications consistent with the authors of the report. There have been no papers published to professional non CT organizations refuting the findings.

It's clear you are trolling and have no interest in the truth.

Please keep asking questions though and maybe like my kids, you'll eventually grow up and learn to think critically and research your own questions.

I'm done here.

[ZENSMACK89]

LOL

Where exactly do you register as a CT organization?

And why do they call it a CT if it's not a theory?

[Jonnyclueless]

Is there just no such thin as a Wooer who knows the the difference between a theory and a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theory is? Or do they just come out of a factory?

[CptColumbo]

So what's your point? The official version isn't even a theory?

ok
The so-called "official theory" is a theory, in the sense that evolution and helio-centrism is a theory.

And why do they call it a CT if it's not a theory?
When people describe a story of a vast cabal bent on taking over the world as a "conspiracy theory" they are trying to demonize the person telling the story and the story itself. When in actuality they are elevating the story to a status far beyond the level it is at.

Also "theory" is a more commonly used word than "hypothesis" and not as insulting as "lie."

[Drudgewire]

And why do they call it a CT if it's not a theory?
It's more semantics than overt misrepresentation... it's not like people propagating lies calling themselves "truthers" or anything. :p

[CHF]

I didn't say I had evidence of an inside job. I said until there is a real investigation inside job is still on the table.

So there's no evidence of an inside job but we need a new investigation to see if there's any.

Good luck with that, Zen.

[twinstead]

Zen most if not all members here would be right up there with you marching in the streets if there was compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job.

I think you folks tend to forget that fact. Many of us are not fans of the current administration, and in fact many here aren't even American.

[CptColumbo]

Zen most if not all members here would be right up there with you marching in the streets if there was compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job.

I think you folks tend to forget that fact. Many of us are not fans of the current administration, and in fact many here aren't even American.
However, those of us who are US citizens/taxpayers need more than a gut-feeling to agree to spend money on a new investigation, before the old ones results are fully known.

[ZENSMACK89]

So there's no evidence of an inside job but we need a new investigation to see if there's any.

Good luck with that, Zen.
Right back at ya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Drudgewire]

Zen most if not all members here would be right up there with you marching in the streets if there was compelling evidence that 911 was an inside job.

I think you folks tend to forget that fact. Many of us are not fans of the current administration, and in fact many here aren't even American.
I'll beat him to the punch with "useful idiots."

Because, you know, the only thing we ever used to reach our conclusions was a Government report whose findings have never been supported by science or the top experts in their respective fields or anything. :p

[ZENSMACK89]

However, those of us who are US citizens/taxpayers need more than a gut-feeling to agree to spend money on a new investigation, before the old ones results are fully known.
Really how about taxpayer money spent on Chertoffs "gut feelings" of impending terrorist attacks. Is that worth it?

[CptColumbo]

Reading this thread is like watching a game of ping pong.

I was just reading Roger Ebert's review of Balls of Fury, and he mentioned that "Ping-Pong" is a registered trademark of Parker Brothers/Hasbro. Much like his "THUMBS UP" and "THUMBS DOWN" are trademarked by him and the Gene Siskel estate, but only when capitalized....Damn, who do I make out the check to.

[CptColumbo]

Really how about taxpayer money spent on Chertoffs "gut feelings" of impending terrorist attacks. Is that worth it?
He works with more than "gut-feelings," and I would take his "gut-feelings" over yours.

But nice avoidance anyway.

[Drudgewire]

Really how about taxpayer money spent on Chertoffs "gut feelings" of impending terrorist attacks. Is that worth it?
I'm sure not to you guys, since another terrorist attack would give you a brand new chance to claim we didn't do anything to stop it.

[ZENSMACK89]

The so-called "official theory" is a theory, in the sense that evolution and helio-centrism is a theory.


When people describe a story of a vast cabal bent on taking over the world as a "conspiracy theory" they are trying to demonize the person telling the story and the story itself. When in actuality they are elevating the story to a status far beyond the level it is at.

Also "theory" is a more commonly used word than "hypothesis" and not as insulting as "lie."


So how about UBL and his involvement in 9-11. Is that even a theory?

[CptColumbo]

So how about UBL and his involvement in 9-11. Is that even a theory?
Yes.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'm sure not to you guys, since another terrorist attack would give you a brand new chance to claim we didn't do anything to stop it.

Who is "we" and what are you doing to stop anything?

[Drudgewire]

So how about UBL and his involvement in 9-11. Is that even a theory?
Not anymore. It's what we call "fact" now.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes.
How so?

[ZENSMACK89]

Not anymore. It's what we call "fact" now.
So why hasn't this been updated?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

[Drudgewire]

So why hasn't this been updated?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Because we haven't caught him yet? :confused:

[ZENSMACK89]

Because we haven't caught him yet? :confused:
Haven't caught him for what? Kenya?

lol

[Jonnyclueless]

So why hasn't this been updated?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Could your arguments be any more stereo-typical?

Go read one of the 100 other threads that already cover this so we don't have to spam redundant topics. This is really basic stuff.

[Drudgewire]

Haven't caught him for what? Kenya?

lol
It's the better crime to charge him with, since Kenyans consider machetes less "cruel and unusual" than we do. :)

[CptColumbo]

How so?A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Didn't you read that earlier?

[ZENSMACK89]

Could your arguments be any more stereo-typical?

Go read one of the 100 other threads that already cover this so we don't have to spam redundant topics. This is really basic stuff.
Still nothing for that one huh?

lol

Here refresh your memory I'll check back later and see how many of you have lost your mind.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Remember I need to know how UBL and 9-11 is more then a theory.

later

[Drudgewire]

Remember I need to know how UBL and 9-11 is more then a theory.

later
We need to know what evidence you have that warrants a new investigation. Since you were asked first we'll go in order. ;)

[beachnut]

Right back at ya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Can you pm me when you really find some facts?

[ZENSMACK89]

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Didn't you read that earlier?
How does any official version to date qualify under this?

[ZENSMACK89]

Can you pm me when you really find some facts?

Why? You don't use any.

[CptColumbo]

How does any official version to date qualify under this?

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Didn't you read that earlier?

Assuming English is your first language, the principles regarding theory and hypothesis are usually covered in Junior High School Science Class in the US, and the difference between an opinion and a fact are covered in Elementary English. At least they were where I grew up.

Adult education classes probably cover this, also assuming you are older than these particular levels of education, so if you wish to learn more about it sign up for a class.

[PhantomWolf]

That's my point. If I can't use the NIST report because it's 'disputed', then you can't use Jones. Simple.

If you only require non-disputed reports, then neither of us has anything to offer, because you obviously think all disputes are created equal.

So, we're back then to physical evidence of an inside job. Have any of that?

Well since Zen keeps refering to it, we can use Dr Quintiere's work, since if Zen is using it, it can't be disputed.

Now what does Dr Quintiere believe.

Planes hit the buildings - Check
Planes caused big fires (bigger then NIST's ones) - Check
Fires cause the Trusses rods to weaken - Check
Trusses failed pulling in the Extrerior columns - Check
Support columns failed, causing global collapse - Check
No explosives or demolision of WTC 1 & 2- Check

Cool. Now we can all agree on whay happened since this work is obviously undisputed by Zen since he keeps refering to it. Case closed. We can now all pack up and go home.

[CptColumbo]

Well since Zen keeps refering to it, we can use Dr Quintiere's work, since if Zen is using it, it can't be disputed.

Now what does Dr Quintiere believe.

Planes hit the buildings - Check
Planes caused big fires (bigger then NIST's ones) - Check
Fires cause the Trusses rods to weaken - Check
Trusses failed pulling in the Extrerior columns - Check
Support columns failed, causing global collapse - Check
No explosives or demolision of WTC 1 & 2- Check

Cool. Now we can all agree on whay happened since this work is obviously undisputed by Zen since he keeps refering to it. Case closed. We can now all pack up and go home.
Cool beans.

[Belz...]

I didn't say I had evidence of an inside job.

So you're just wasting your and our time, then. This concludes the thread, methinks.

I said until there is a real investigation inside job is still on the table.

Good, good. Then this will close the subject: http://wtc.nist.gov/

Fair enough, you have no evidence of an inside job. Thanks.
That's right. Just like you and your theory.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make you right.

Of course, it's NOT true, but hey, who needs facts, right ?

[Belz...]

LOL

Where exactly do you register as a CT organization?

And why do they call it a CT if it's not a theory?

Nice http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/608045fd3950b30f8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4645)

But instead of cherry picking, why don't you answer this:

The NIST report was complied by hundreds of well qualified people from dozens of independent organizations. While some qualified people have expressed some concerns with bit and pieces of the report, they have not expressed concerns about the overall findings. In fact there have been no detailed refutations by anyone with qualifications consistent with the authors of the report.

Right back at ya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Sorry, you fail. YOU'RE the one using the argument from ignorance. THERE IS NO evidence of an inside job. There will, therefore, be no further investigation. If you DO find some evidence, then you might get that investigation going. But, by your own admission, there is none.

Still nothing for that one huh?

Will you EVER adress anything that people tell you, troll ?

Right now all you're doing is trying to retort in clever ways but with no content.

If you finally get evidence of an inside job, then go to the authorities and get something done. Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time and stroking your own ego.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Here's what I see in Zen's latest posts...
There is no evidence of an inside job, and I will not rest until an investigation produces such evidence!

[ZENSMACK89]

Just so everyone here knows they’re not fooling anyone with their so-call evidence I thought I would post this little tidbit one more time from Apollo20 lest anyone forget ….

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”

(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.

(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

Nailed

[Drudgewire]

(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
Well we could stop right there if we were talking to sane folks who understand how big a deal that really is. :p

[Belz...]

Just so everyone here knows they’re not fooling anyone with their so-call evidence

Argument from incredulity. Either refute the evidence or concede it.

Nailed

Apollo's opinions of our behavior here is irrelevant to the supposed need for a new investigation.

[Regnad Kcin]

:words:

NailedPlease grow up. Everyone will be happier, including you.

[johnny karate]

"It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”

(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.

(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

What I find hilarious is the implication that there's something wrong with any of these "tactics". (Although the first point is questionable. I don't recall anyone here ever asserting that NIST "has covered all the bases".)


NailedBoy, you sure got us! How silly are we to demand things like "evidence" and "credentials"?

Oh, and ZEN? Feel free to express your own thoughts and opinions at any time. I'm not sure how constantly cutting and pasting what others have already said in any way advances the discussion.

[Dave Rogers]

Since when is Dewdney a physicist? I thought he was a mathematics/computer science guy.

My mistake, I was wrong here. In that case I retract that part of my apology.

Dave

[leftysergeant]

Only to an 18-year old is it a dodge to ask for evidence of the statements that you pull out of your butt and demand that we accept, out of our fear of being called Nazis for not bowing down in awe of your investigate ski...ski....
Nah, I just cant use the term "investigative skills" in the same context with a twoofer.

It's like this, junior. Debate requires the presentation of evidence. Taking you at your word, or acceptingthe word of some nutjob who has influenced your thinking is not part of the rational thought process.
you have to have evidence, and all most of the leading twoofers have is a double-handful of diddly for evidence.

[Checkmite]

If the NWO really did exist, I would rail for them just to spite Alex Jones and his goof troop, so do I loathe those lying, petulant, thinly-veiled anarchistic little slime-molds.