On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked) - Page 15

ozeco41 · 5th April 2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

How do you know it wasn't?

Typical truther arse about logic - reverse burden of proof.

A W Smith · 5th April 2012, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

What investigation? Was it independent? How do you know what evidence was really found? How do you know the investigation was credible?

Let me guess. Some guy reading a teleprompter on TV said so?

burden of proof shift which is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

BasqueArch · 5th April 2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB
Ah, but we know what didn't bring WTC7 down, and that includes explosives and incendiary devices.

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

You don't know that, you only think you do.

You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows
you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know
he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t
know You
don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know
but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know
he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know
You don’t
know he knows
you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think
you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say
he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know

leftysergeant · 5th April 2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

What investigation? Was it independent? How do you know what evidence was really found? How do you know the investigation was credible?

Let me guess. Some guy reading a teleprompter on TV said so?

No, it was more like a couple thousand fire fighters and iron workers clambering all over the pile looking for stuff or unpiling the pile and the hundreds of people who sorted through stuff at Fresh Kills and identifying stuff as large as a brief case or as small as a fingernail without ever finding a detonator casing or an oddly-melted column that didn't look like it had been in an acid bath.

SpringHallConvert · 5th April 2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

burden of proof shift which is a logical fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened.

Try again.

SpringHallConvert · 5th April 2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

No, it was more like a couple thousand fire fighters and iron workers clambering all over the pile looking for stuff or unpiling the pile and the hundreds of people who sorted through stuff at Fresh Kills and identifying stuff as large as a brief case or as small as a fingernail without ever finding a detonator casing or an oddly-melted column that didn't look like it had been in an acid bath.

In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site.

That's what I figured.

thedopefishlives · 5th April 2012, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened.

Try again.

You keep saying this, which only makes it more obvious that you just don't get it. We have a theory, we have backed it up with evidence. You are challenging our theory, that means that YOU have to prove to US how we're wrong and back YOUR theory up with evidence.

SpringHallConvert · 5th April 2012, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

You keep saying this, which only makes it more obvious that you just don't get it. We have a theory, we have backed it up with evidence.

No you haven't. You've only backed up your theory with assumptions and speculation.

thedopefishlives · 5th April 2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

No you haven't. You've only backed up your theory with assumptions and speculation.

You're still challenging our theory and you still have to prove that it's backed up with "assumptions and speculation", as you put it. Simply saying that doesn't make it so.

SpringHallConvert · 5th April 2012, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

You're still challenging our theory and you still have to prove that it's backed up with "assumptions and speculation", as you put it. Simply saying that doesn't make it so.

Simply saying you have evidence doesn't make it so either.

It's not my responsibility to disprove your unproven conspiracy theories. It's your responsibility to prove them, and you government truthers are failing miserably at that.

slowsmile · 5th April 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Simply saying you have evidence doesn't make it so either.

It's not my responsibility to disprove your unproven conspiracy theories. It's your responsibility to prove them, and you government truthers are failing miserably at that.

So who should they be proven to? You? As if trolls matter

Redtail · 5th April 2012, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site.

That's what I figured.

Why are the fire fighters, iron workers, policemen, & other investigators not credible?

thedopefishlives · 5th April 2012, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Redtail

Why are the fire fighters, iron workers, policemen, & other investigators not credible?

Because they disagree with him, that's why. Except for the ones that don't, those are obviously credible. Even though they weren't actually there, that's obviously a minor technicality.

GlennB · 5th April 2012, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

What investigation? Was it independent? How do you know what evidence was really found? How do you know the investigation was credible?

You remind me of Calvin (Hobbes' buddy), except Calvin has some self-awareness and only says such things to avoid having his bath.

leftysergeant · 6th April 2012, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site.

That's what I figured.

You figured wrong, reasoning, as you do, from a position of absolute ignorance of procedures.

I don't know whether I can dumb this down enough that you can, with your limited understanding of fire investigations, grasp the basic principles of forensics that come into play in this sort of situation.

Investigators ask questions aimed at figuring out Who did What, When, Where, How and Why. Usually, there are not several million eyewitnesses to any given crime. In this case, there were.

We know the time of the strikes of the two towers and on the Puzzle Palace and the crash at Shanksville. We know that it involved flying stolen airplanes into the targets that were hit and into the ground in the middle of Pennsylvania.
We know the times that the airliners were hijacked. We know the airports from which the planes were hijacked.

Right out of the box, we had the When, What and Where.

How they got control of the aircraft could not be determined from anything that they could find at the target sites. That would have to be determined from communications with people elsewhere, surveilance tapes at the airports. The black boxes were only important to coroborate those findings. The chances that they would find the black boxes in a recognizeable condition the GZ were slim at best. Nothing in the world is utterly indestructible. Black boxes are tough, but not so tough that they would survive the collpases of the towers.

Who did it would not be found in anything at GZ. Why they did it would have to be figured out from what evidence they could find at the airports.

So, investigators knew that the buildings collapsed because a group of criminals drove airplanes into them and set them on fire and the fires weakened the steel until it did what steel generally does when kept hot enough long enough.

It bends and drops its load.

No fire fighter with an IQ north of 100 doubts that. There was no sign that anything else had happened.

NIST and FEMA were only interested in how the buildings fell because it was their responsibility to figure out whether anything could be done to make it less likely that this sort of thing would happen again if somebody went kamikaze with an airliner or there was a major fire that could not be fought.

They did not have to look at the steel where it was to figure that out, and the rubble couldl not be left where it was for them to inspect because there was a fire under it that had to be put out as soon as possible. The investigators from NISTand FEMA were of no use on the pile. The cops, fire fighters and iron workers all had some training to tell them whether something looked wrong as they pulled it from the pile. They could tell the nerds at Fresh Kills that they needed to look at such unusual things.

So, yes, a proper investigation, to the extent that it could be done there, was done at GZ. If dirtbags like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Chris Bollyn or Eric Huffschmid tell you it wasn't, screw them. They lie a lot. Especially that piece of crap Bollyn. He's a Nazi. Lying is what he does for a living.

000063 · 6th April 2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Typical truther arse about logic - reverse burden of proof.

I don't think SHC is typical, even for Truthers.

ozeco41 · 6th April 2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

I don't think SHC is typical, even for Truthers.

Agreed. But then it is a bit of a strain of the sentence to read "Typical" as qualifying "truther"....

...when it qualifies "truther arse about logic" in which phrase the noun/object is "logic".

[/legalpedantryOFF]

...and I would be among the last to credit the troll as being a truther.

carlitos · 6th April 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Agreed. But then it is a bit of a strain of the sentence to read "Typical" as qualifying "truther"....

...when it qualifies "truther arse about logic" in which phrase the noun/object is "logic".

[/legalpedantryOFF]

...and I would be among the last to credit the troll as being a truther.

I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life.

ozeco41 · 6th April 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life.

Yes. He is our second most effective troll if "responses to baiting" are the measure.
...and a specialist in "zero content".

why we feed them is another issue.......

carlitos · 6th April 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Yes. He is our second most effective troll if "responses to baiting" are the measure.
...and a specialist in "zero content".

why we feed them is another issue.......

I really don't understand it. In ergo's very first thread here, I spotted the trolling and since I have no longer responded. With SHC, I did the same. This guy adds zero value to the forum.

I guess that, as many will readily admit, these guys serve as the virtual equivalent of cat toys. I have been guilty of responding to posters like this in the past, so will reserve judgement, other than noting that it adds no educational value to respond.

BasqueArch · 6th April 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life.

Haaaaa Right-O. Dope-smoking dorm room hey what if our universe is really small and we are just atoms orbiting some other dude's universe -woah.

It’s Performance Fart Selective Solipsism. For example in order to prove that thousands of people can keep a conspiracy without one saying no and spilling the beans and that tens of thousands of others not in the conspiracy did not notice something amiss and also didn’t say anything, he invented (earlier on some thread no I’m no looking for it) and we are to believe his bogus story of a dozen (not 11 not 13 but a pat coinkidink dozen) fellow employees that conspira-protested to more work by staging a slowdown to produce less than before. The boss cracked and reduced their work. Supposedly the boss didn’t notice the conspiracy (? yeah right) so why did he crack and not fire them? If 12 people I pay screw me I kick their ass to Iran.
Totally bogus false anonymous unsubstantiated SHC claim.
! Ha hahahahahahafarthahahah Ha … !

carlitos · 6th April 2012, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Haaaaa Right-O. Dope-smoking dorm room hey what if our universe is really small and we are just atoms orbiting some other dude's universe -woah.

It’s Performance Fart Selective Solipsism. For example in order to prove that thousands of people can keep a conspiracy without one saying no and spilling the beans and that tens of thousands of others not in the conspiracy did not notice something amiss and also didn’t say anything, he invented (earlier on some thread no I’m no looking for it) and we are to believe his bogus story of a dozen (not 11 not 13 but a pat coinkidink dozen) fellow employees that conspira-protested to more work by staging a slowdown to produce less than before. The boss cracked and reduced their work. Supposedly the boss didn’t notice the conspiracy (? yeah right) so why did he crack and not fire them? If 12 people I pay screw me I kick their ass to Iran.
Totally bogus false anonymous unsubstantiated SHC claim.
! Ha hahahahahahafarthahahah Ha … !

I'll have what he's having.

SpringHallConvert · 6th April 2012, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

So, yes, a proper investigation, to the extent that it could be done there, was done at GZ.

At least, that's what you've been told and led to believe, but I see no evidence that a proper forensics investigation was ever started or finished at the World Trade Center site.

You're living in a fantasy world.

newton3376 · 6th April 2012, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

At least, that's what you've been told and led to believe, but I see no evidence that a proper forensics investigation was ever started or finished at the World Trade Center site.

You do not see any evidence because....

1. You are not an Engineer

2. You are not a Scientist

3. You are not a Forensic Investigator

4. You are not a Law Enforcement Professional

5. You did not read and understand the FEMA reports, the 9/11 Commission reports, and the NIST reports. Add to that the many peer reviewed journal articles and independent studies/papers done by various individuals and organizations around the world.

The great thing about real life is that no one actually cares what the non expert amateurs think...so you saying that you have not seen any evidence doesn't really matter to anyone or change anything in the slightest.

SpringHallConvert · 7th April 2012, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by newton3376

The great thing about real life is that no one actually cares what the non expert amateurs think.

Obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

You're not going to sell anybody on your 9/11 conspiracy theory by attacking them.

Redtail · 7th April 2012, 06:38 AM

SHC, why are the firefighters, policemen, iron workers, etc... not credible?

000063 · 7th April 2012, 06:49 AM

Because they disagree with him.

Duh.

Justin39640 · 7th April 2012, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened.

Try again.

There's tens of thousands of pages explaining what happened (in reality). You only seem to have crickets when it comes to actually making a claim and defending it.

twinstead · 7th April 2012, 07:25 AM

Jesus, what more exactly do you need from us SHC? The commonly-held narrative, the one we generally support, has been presented and is available for the entire world to review and critique. The prosecution rests. Your turn.

Present something that makes more sense boy. We know the "official story" isn't absolutely perfect, but it makes pretty good damn sense to me, and I don't see any theory or narrative out there that makes more sense. This is your chance!

tfk · 7th April 2012, 02:10 PM

Newt,

Originally Posted by SHC

"I don't see any evidence that ... [whatever] ...

Originally Posted by newton3376

You do not see any evidence because....

1. You are not an Engineer

2. You are not a Scientist

3. You are not a Forensic Investigator

4. You are not a Law Enforcement Professional

5. You did not read and understand the FEMA reports, the 9/11 Commission reports, and the NIST reports. Add to that the many peer reviewed journal articles and independent studies/papers done by various individuals and organizations around the world.

The great thing about real life is that no one actually cares what the non expert amateurs think...so you saying that you have not seen any evidence doesn't really matter to anyone or change anything in the slightest.

6. He sees only what he wants to see.

Just thought I'd help.

tom

fess · 7th April 2012, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded.

You're not going to sell anybody on your 9/11 conspiracy theory by attacking them.

Certainly you are not claiming that by telling the truth, newton3376 is attacking you.

5th April 2012, 04:03 PM	#562
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert What investigation? Was it independent? How do you know what evidence was really found? How do you know the investigation was credible? Let me guess. Some guy reading a teleprompter on TV said so? burden of proof shift which is a logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

5th April 2012, 04:34 PM	#563
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Whispering Glades, Fredonia Posts: 1,376	Quote: Originally Posted by GlennB Ah, but we know what *didn't bring WTC7 down, and that includes explosives and incendiary devices. Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert* You don't know that, you only think you do. 　 You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know You don’t know he knows you would say he doesn’t know but he knows you only think you know he doesn’t know
	__________________ "If the true believers keep chanting their prayers when facing the enemy, their faith will save them."-LSSBB "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. " - Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.- modified Twain or Swift Last edited by BasqueArch; 5th April 2012 at 04:39 PM.

5th April 2012, 04:38 PM	#564
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert What investigation? Was it independent? How do you know what evidence was really found? How do you know the investigation was credible? Let me guess. Some guy reading a teleprompter on TV said so? No, it was more like a couple thousand fire fighters and iron workers clambering all over the pile looking for stuff or unpiling the pile and the hundreds of people who sorted through stuff at Fresh Kills and identifying stuff as large as a brief case or as small as a fingernail without ever finding a detonator casing or an oddly-melted column that didn't look like it had been in an acid bath.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

5th April 2012, 05:15 PM	#567
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 762	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened. Try again. You keep saying this, which only makes it more obvious that you just don't get it. We have a theory, we have backed it up with evidence. You are challenging our theory, that means that YOU have to prove to US how we're wrong and back YOUR theory up with evidence.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 762

5th April 2012, 05:28 PM	#569
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 762	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert No you haven't. You've only backed up your theory with assumptions and speculation. You're still challenging our theory and you still have to prove that it's backed up with "assumptions and speculation", as you put it. Simply saying that doesn't make it so.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 762

5th April 2012, 04:00 PM	#561
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by DGM How do you know it wasn't? Typical truther arse about logic - reverse burden of proof.

5th April 2012, 05:09 PM	#565
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by A W Smith burden of proof shift which is a logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened. Try again.

5th April 2012, 05:13 PM	#566
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by leftysergeant No, it was more like a couple thousand fire fighters and iron workers clambering all over the pile looking for stuff or unpiling the pile and the hundreds of people who sorted through stuff at Fresh Kills and identifying stuff as large as a brief case or as small as a fingernail without ever finding a detonator casing or an oddly-melted column that didn't look like it had been in an acid bath. In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site. That's what I figured.

5th April 2012, 05:26 PM	#568
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by thedopefishlives You keep saying this, which only makes it more obvious that you just don't get it. We have a theory, we have backed it up with evidence. No you haven't. You've only backed up your theory with assumptions and speculation.

5th April 2012, 05:44 PM	#570
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by thedopefishlives You're still challenging our theory and you still have to prove that it's backed up with "assumptions and speculation", as you put it. Simply saying that doesn't make it so. Simply saying you have evidence doesn't make it so either. It's not my responsibility to disprove your unproven conspiracy theories. It's your responsibility to prove them, and you government truthers are failing miserably at that.

5th April 2012, 05:49 PM	#571
slowsmile Thinker Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: NWO Bistro Posts: 214	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert Simply saying you have evidence doesn't make it so either. It's not my responsibility to disprove your unproven conspiracy theories. It's your responsibility to prove them, and you government truthers are failing miserably at that. So who should they be proven to? You? As if trolls matter

5th April 2012, 05:52 PM	#572
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site. That's what I figured. Why are the fire fighters, iron workers, policemen, & other investigators not credible?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

5th April 2012, 05:54 PM	#573
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 762	Originally Posted by Redtail Why are the fire fighters, iron workers, policemen, & other investigators not credible? Because they disagree with him, that's why. Except for the ones that don't, those are obviously credible. Even though they weren't actually there, that's obviously a minor technicality.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 762

5th April 2012, 11:12 PM	#574
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert What investigation? Was it independent? How do you know what evidence was really found? How do you know the investigation was credible? You remind me of Calvin (Hobbes' buddy), except Calvin has some self-awareness and only says such things to avoid having his bath.

6th April 2012, 04:35 AM	#575
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert In other words, no, there was no credible, independent investigation at the WTC site. That's what I figured. You figured wrong, reasoning, as you do, from a position of absolute ignorance of procedures. I don't know whether I can dumb this down enough that you can, with your limited understanding of fire investigations, grasp the basic principles of forensics that come into play in this sort of situation. Investigators ask questions aimed at figuring out Who did What, When, Where, How and Why. Usually, there are not several million eyewitnesses to any given crime. In this case, there were. We know the time of the strikes of the two towers and on the Puzzle Palace and the crash at Shanksville. We know that it involved flying stolen airplanes into the targets that were hit and into the ground in the middle of Pennsylvania. We know the times that the airliners were hijacked. We know the airports from which the planes were hijacked. Right out of the box, we had the When, What and Where. How they got control of the aircraft could not be determined from anything that they could find at the target sites. That would have to be determined from communications with people elsewhere, surveilance tapes at the airports. The black boxes were only important to coroborate those findings. The chances that they would find the black boxes in a recognizeable condition the GZ were slim at best. Nothing in the world is utterly indestructible. Black boxes are tough, but not so tough that they would survive the collpases of the towers. Who did it would not be found in anything at GZ. Why they did it would have to be figured out from what evidence they could find at the airports. So, investigators knew that the buildings collapsed because a group of criminals drove airplanes into them and set them on fire and the fires weakened the steel until it did what steel generally does when kept hot enough long enough. It bends and drops its load. No fire fighter with an IQ north of 100 doubts that. There was no sign that anything else had happened. NIST and FEMA were only interested in how the buildings fell because it was their responsibility to figure out whether anything could be done to make it less likely that this sort of thing would happen again if somebody went kamikaze with an airliner or there was a major fire that could not be fought. They did not have to look at the steel where it was to figure that out, and the rubble couldl not be left where it was for them to inspect because there was a fire under it that had to be put out as soon as possible. The investigators from NISTand FEMA were of no use on the pile. The cops, fire fighters and iron workers all had some training to tell them whether something looked wrong as they pulled it from the pile. They could tell the nerds at Fresh Kills that they needed to look at such unusual things. So, yes, a proper investigation, to the extent that it could be done there, was done at GZ. If dirtbags like Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, Chris Bollyn or Eric Huffschmid tell you it wasn't, screw them. They lie a lot. Especially that piece of crap Bollyn. He's a Nazi. Lying is what he does for a living.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

6th April 2012, 07:48 AM	#576
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by ozeco41 Typical truther arse about logic - reverse burden of proof. I don't think SHC is typical, even for Truthers.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

6th April 2012, 08:55 AM	#577
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by 000063 I don't think SHC is typical, even for Truthers. Agreed. But then it is a bit of a strain of the sentence to read "Typical" as qualifying "truther".... ...when it qualifies "truther arse about logic" in which phrase the noun/object is "logic". [/legalpedantryOFF] ...and I would be among the last to credit the troll as being a truther.

6th April 2012, 09:03 AM	#578
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,517	Originally Posted by ozeco41 Agreed. But then it is a bit of a strain of the sentence to read "Typical" as qualifying "truther".... ...when it qualifies "truther arse about logic" in which phrase the noun/object is "logic". [/legalpedantryOFF] ...and I would be among the last to credit the troll as being a truther. I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life.
	Last edited by carlitos; 6th April 2012 at 09:04 AM.

6th April 2012, 11:51 AM	#579
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by carlitos I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life. Yes. He is our second most effective troll if "responses to baiting" are the measure. ...and a specialist in "zero content". why we feed them is another issue.......

6th April 2012, 12:13 PM	#580
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,517	Originally Posted by ozeco41 Yes. He is our second most effective troll if "responses to baiting" are the measure. ...and a specialist in "zero content". why we feed them is another issue....... I really don't understand it. In ergo's very first thread here, I spotted the trolling and since I have no longer responded. With SHC, I did the same. This guy adds zero value to the forum. I guess that, as many will readily admit, these guys serve as the virtual equivalent of cat toys. I have been guilty of responding to posters like this in the past, so will reserve judgement, other than noting that it adds no educational value to respond.

6th April 2012, 04:32 PM	#581
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Whispering Glades, Fredonia Posts: 1,376	Originally Posted by carlitos I'm still betting on performance art. We've just seen it in the General Skepticism section on another topic. People here are predictable and rise to the bait. If SHC really believes what he espouses, then he's a solipsist. Which is interesting in a dope-smoking dorm room kind of way, but not in real life. Haaaaa Right-O. Dope-smoking dorm room hey what if our universe is really small and we are just atoms orbiting some other dude's universe -woah. It’s Performance Fart Selective Solipsism. For example in order to prove that thousands of people can keep a conspiracy without one saying no and spilling the beans and that tens of thousands of others not in the conspiracy did not notice something amiss and also didn’t say anything, he invented (earlier on some thread no I’m no looking for it) and we are to believe his bogus story of a dozen (not 11 not 13 but a pat coinkidink dozen) fellow employees that conspira-protested to more work by staging a slowdown to produce less than before. The boss cracked and reduced their work. Supposedly the boss didn’t notice the conspiracy (? yeah right) so why did he crack and not fire them? If 12 people I pay screw me I kick their ass to Iran. Totally bogus false anonymous unsubstantiated SHC claim. ! Ha hahahahahahafarthahahah Ha … !
	__________________ "If the true believers keep chanting their prayers when facing the enemy, their faith will save them."-LSSBB "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. " - Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.- modified Twain or Swift Last edited by BasqueArch; 6th April 2012 at 05:05 PM.

6th April 2012, 08:29 PM	#582
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,517	Originally Posted by BasqueArch Haaaaa Right-O. Dope-smoking dorm room hey what if our universe is really small and we are just atoms orbiting some other dude's universe -woah. It’s Performance Fart Selective Solipsism. For example in order to prove that thousands of people can keep a conspiracy without one saying no and spilling the beans and that tens of thousands of others not in the conspiracy did not notice something amiss and also didn’t say anything, he invented (earlier on some thread no I’m no looking for it) and we are to believe his bogus story of a dozen (not 11 not 13 but a pat coinkidink dozen) fellow employees that conspira-protested to more work by staging a slowdown to produce less than before. The boss cracked and reduced their work. Supposedly the boss didn’t notice the conspiracy (? yeah right) so why did he crack and not fire them? If 12 people I pay screw me I kick their ass to Iran. Totally bogus false anonymous unsubstantiated SHC claim. ! Ha hahahahahahafarthahahah Ha … ! I'll have what he's having.

6th April 2012, 09:56 PM	#583
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by leftysergeant So, yes, a proper investigation, to the extent that it could be done there, was done at GZ. At least, that's what you've been told and led to believe, but I see no evidence that a proper forensics investigation was ever started or finished at the World Trade Center site. You're living in a fantasy world.

6th April 2012, 11:22 PM	#584
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert At least, that's what you've been told and led to believe, but I see no evidence that a proper forensics investigation was ever started or finished at the World Trade Center site. You do not see any evidence because.... 1. You are not an Engineer 2. You are not a Scientist 3. You are not a Forensic Investigator 4. You are not a Law Enforcement Professional 5. You did not read and understand the FEMA reports, the 9/11 Commission reports, and the NIST reports. Add to that the many peer reviewed journal articles and independent studies/papers done by various individuals and organizations around the world. The great thing about real life is that no one actually cares what the non expert amateurs think...so you saying that you have not seen any evidence doesn't really matter to anyone or change anything in the slightest.
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

7th April 2012, 12:28 AM	#585
SpringHallConvert Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,272	Originally Posted by newton3376 The great thing about real life is that no one actually cares what the non expert amateurs think. Obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded. You're not going to sell anybody on your 9/11 conspiracy theory by attacking them.

7th April 2012, 06:38 AM	#586
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	SHC, why are the firefighters, policemen, iron workers, etc... not credible?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

7th April 2012, 06:49 AM	#587
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,735	Because they disagree with him. Duh.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

7th April 2012, 07:00 AM	#588
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert False. Because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the who claims to know exactly what happened. Try again. There's tens of thousands of pages explaining what happened (in reality). You only seem to have crickets when it comes to actually making a claim and defending it.
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

7th April 2012, 07:25 AM	#589
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,573	Jesus, what more exactly do you need from us SHC? The commonly-held narrative, the one we generally support, has been presented and is available for the entire world to review and critique. The prosecution rests. Your turn. Present something that makes more sense boy. We know the "official story" isn't absolutely perfect, but it makes pretty good damn sense to me, and I don't see any theory or narrative out there that makes more sense. This is your chance!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison Last edited by twinstead; 7th April 2012 at 07:29 AM.

7th April 2012, 02:10 PM	#590
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978	Newt, Originally Posted by SHC "I don't see any evidence that ... [whatever] ... Originally Posted by newton3376 You do not see any evidence because.... 1. You are not an Engineer 2. You are not a Scientist 3. You are not a Forensic Investigator 4. You are not a Law Enforcement Professional 5. You did not read and understand the FEMA reports, the 9/11 Commission reports, and the NIST reports. Add to that the many peer reviewed journal articles and independent studies/papers done by various individuals and organizations around the world. The great thing about real life is that no one actually cares what the non expert amateurs think...so you saying that you have not seen any evidence doesn't really matter to anyone or change anything in the slightest. 6. He sees only what he wants to see. Just thought I'd help. tom
tfk Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,978

7th April 2012, 02:24 PM	#591
fess Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Hiding in the sticks. Posts: 1,041	Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert Obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have responded. You're not going to sell anybody on your 9/11 conspiracy theory by attacking them. Certainly you are not claiming that by telling the truth, newton3376 is attacking you.
	__________________ My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.