|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th May 2011, 12:38 PM | #1201 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
Grizzly, use your words and answer the question.
Two simple, coherent sentences will suffice. |
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
28th May 2011, 12:43 PM | #1202 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
I gave you a number, and links to support it. Either rid yourself of the link-phobia or drop it.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
28th May 2011, 12:47 PM | #1203 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
28th May 2011, 01:16 PM | #1204 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
|
|
28th May 2011, 01:45 PM | #1205 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
He did. In post #1191.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...77#post7230077 Wow.......Do you look stupid! |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
28th May 2011, 02:14 PM | #1206 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
Why? Do you want your opponents to make unsupported statements without links? Trying to drag us all down to your level?
In other words, you will ignore the links we've presented. Would you like me to send you the relevant issue number of NY Mag by, I dunno, carrier pigeon? Telegraph? Pony express? Because I don't think they were trans-Atlantic. Because this is the Internet. If you want to send someone to a certain resource, you give them a link. Refusing to open links from your opponents, or even to Google the information, is so intellectually dishonest it borders on insane. So, why do you not open links from debunkers? I am honestly trying to understand your logic here. Are you worried we'll trick you in some fashion? |
28th May 2011, 02:16 PM | #1207 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
|
28th May 2011, 03:53 PM | #1208 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th May 2011, 03:54 PM | #1209 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th May 2011, 03:59 PM | #1210 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th May 2011, 04:22 PM | #1211 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
28th May 2011, 08:48 PM | #1212 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.
I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question. Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance. In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete. |
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
28th May 2011, 08:56 PM | #1213 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
28th May 2011, 09:08 PM | #1214 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=621
Like this one? You are far ahead on SACs; I would say you win, moon down, mountain high. Yes, all of them is correct. No explosives. Explosives kill people. |
28th May 2011, 09:13 PM | #1215 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
It's funny that you keep posting that link.
Have you modeled your moonful of rubble yet, bedunkers? No? How come? |
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
28th May 2011, 09:28 PM | #1216 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
I did model the moon-full of rubble. Normal collapse takes 12.08 seconds based on a simple momentum model. Your moon-full of rubble takes 8.6 seconds to collapse the WTC from the impact floors. Sorry 911 truth can't do physics to help you. BTW, placing the weight of the moon on the WTC damaged floors would cause instant failure and a collapse very close to "free-fall". Got physics? 911 truth doesn't.
You peaked with that post. It is a great post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=621 You should be proud of your post, you are a winner. A whole moon worth of ruble can't destroy your claims. |
28th May 2011, 10:52 PM | #1217 |
Atheist Tergiversator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
|
|
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so." -Phil Plait |
|
28th May 2011, 11:03 PM | #1218 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
|
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. |
|
29th May 2011, 05:27 AM | #1219 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
29th May 2011, 07:19 AM | #1220 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.
Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it. One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
29th May 2011, 09:55 AM | #1221 |
Atheist Tergiversator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
|
|
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so." -Phil Plait |
|
29th May 2011, 10:06 AM | #1222 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
|
29th May 2011, 10:14 AM | #1223 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
Grizzly did exactly that.
Why do you need full sentences? You asked for a quantity, not a thesis. you're creating an arbitrary and ridiculous standard. If you asked for a number, why won't you accept a number? If I order a cheeseburger at McDonald's, I don't reject it because it didn't come on a serving salver with a Ming plate and silverware. I get my burger wrapped in wax paper, in a brown paper bag.
Quote:
Wait a second. Something's wrong with that logic.
Quote:
|
29th May 2011, 10:20 AM | #1224 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
|
29th May 2011, 11:17 AM | #1225 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
29th May 2011, 11:33 AM | #1226 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th May 2011, 03:18 PM | #1227 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ") Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect. Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third. Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome. |
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
29th May 2011, 03:37 PM | #1228 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
No one argues that loud noises not were heard while the towers were collapsing. It would have been extraordinary if NO loud noises were heard.
But, there are loud noises and then there are LOUD NOISES. The sounds of large metal structures failing and of objects hitting the ground at high speeds can only move at the speed of sound. The shock wave made by high explosives moves faster than that. It appears on seismographs. It is heard from miles away. The real test of high explosives wouldn't have been that people right there on the site heard an explosion, but that people a mile away heard it. (Oh, and if you're arguing that an unprepared building, containing intact walls, furniture, and people, would absorb the sound of high explosives, then that is an easy claim to test. Try it out on a small scale, measure the decibal levels, and get back to us. Unless, of course, you don't WANT to know the truth.) |
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
29th May 2011, 04:01 PM | #1229 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
The argument was already stated and you know it. You asked for a number. One was provided. You made up a nonsense standard before you would accept it. I ain't singing, I ain't dancin' to your tune, nossuh.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th May 2011, 04:26 PM | #1230 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
30th May 2011, 06:16 AM | #1231 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
ROFLMAO.
Ergo giving writing advice. Have you figured out into vs onto yet? Prepositions yet? Qualifying language yet? How about essentially vs actually? Once we get past those stumbling blocks, then maybe you can focus and finish that discussion about how a buildings footprint includes the roof of the building across the street.... still waiting for that one... Keep it up |
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers) |
|
30th May 2011, 06:22 AM | #1232 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
ROFLMAO.
Ergo giving writing advice. Have you figured out into vs onto yet? Prepositions yet? Qualifying language yet? How about essentially vs actually? Once we get past those stumbling blocks, then maybe you can focus and finish that discussion about how a buildings footprint includes the roof of the building across the street.... still waiting for that one... Keep it up |
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers) |
|
30th May 2011, 07:23 AM | #1233 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
Oh, and I forgot; you're trying to distract us from the fact that none of the people outside the towers had any sort of trauma you would expect from thousands of explosives detonating a few feet away.
http://www.implosionworld.com/news/romania2.htm That's just a few kilos of boom-boom and it severely damaged nearby houses. Just one tower would've called for tons of explosives. Bottom line; no trauma within, no trauma without, no eyewitness or audio evidence, no explosives. |
30th May 2011, 04:49 PM | #1234 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
30th May 2011, 04:54 PM | #1235 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
Stating things plainly is evidently quite difficult for our bee dunkers. They have to generalize first, then couch the rest in conditions and exceptions.
There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. I've typed it out for you. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. Can I make it any easier for you without actually doing your research for you? If you can't make a simple, plain statement and back it up with facts, I guess we'll have to assume you don't really have a point on this matter. Thanks for your participation, though. Better luck next time. |
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
30th May 2011, 05:36 PM | #1236 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
And you've irrationally wasted five minutes of typing, and two days of pretending when 2 seconds of link clicking would have provided you the same answer...
In the time you've spent demanding that people repeat answers, you could have gotten your answer in the first link of post 1191 60 times over, or the first link of post 1192 about another 200 times over. The research is done. Instead of wasting two days pretending it wasn't done you could have verified the information provided in less then 30 seconds. What part of is so hard to wrap around your pinky? What part of or Do you not understand to be "supporting our facts?" I'm trying to understand your logic... you would rather spend When presented with an answer and supporting links your response was calling every respondent a "beetard" AKA "retard" and pretending your questions were never answered. The only point you have specifically conveyed is that you're willing to mock anyone who disagrees with your 9/11 truth leanings indiscriminate of whether your peers are willing to answer your questions seriously or stoop to your standards of debate etiquette. It's one thing to ignore snark responses that specifically try to ridicule you... It's a completely different matter when you ask a question, have it answered, and then post away pretending it wasn't answered. Same to you |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
30th May 2011, 05:40 PM | #1237 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses.
_____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. |
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
30th May 2011, 05:45 PM | #1238 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
You will have to live with what was provided to you already regardless of whether you are satisfied or not. If you pretend the information hasn't already been posted then that's you're problem. That's about all that's left to be said at this point.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
30th May 2011, 05:56 PM | #1239 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
|
|
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster. |
|
30th May 2011, 06:08 PM | #1240 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 147
|
The survivors from the core did not mention there were no explosives, they also didn't mention that there were no UFOs. They also didn't talk about not seeing unicorns nor did the discuss not seeing bigfoot. There is no end to the list of imaginary things that they didn't talk about not seeing.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|