AE911 Webinars

[FalseFlag]

difficulty you're having understanding simple concepts like steel weakening in fire.

I understand the concept extremely well.

I also know BS when I see it. That's the difference between myself and the skeptics on this forum.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I don't mind.
The lulz make it all worthwhile.

Speaking of lulz, let's just nail the coffin lid shut on this derail:

In Internet culture, a lurker is typically a member of an online community or PLN who observes, but does not actively participate. The exact definition depends on context. Lurkers make up a large proportion of all users in online communities. Lurking allows users to learn the conventions of an online community before they actively participate, improving their socialization when they eventually de-lurk. However, a lack of social contact while lurking sometimes causes loneliness or apathy among lurkers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I understand the concept extremely well.

Please provide proof of this. But please do so in the appropriate thread, or start a new one.


(did you see what I did there?)

 

[FalseFlag]

Speaking of lulz, let's just nail the coffin lid shut on this derail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker

OK. Wikipedia says my definition is wrong. What do you call the people who view posts but don't become a member? Those people, whatever you want to call them, are my audience.

 

[FalseFlag]

Please provide proof of this. But please do so in the appropriate thread, or start a new one.


(did you see what I did there?)

Yes, I do see what you did there. You forgot to post a link to the thread you want me to go to. I'm not about to start another one.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

OK. Wikipedia says my definition is wrong. What do you call the people who view posts but don't become a member? Those people, whatever you want to call them, are my audience.

Apathetic?

Not really bothered one way or another?

Yes, I do see what you did there.

I'm not entirely convinced you did, you know.


But back on topic, is there anything you'd like to say about those AE911 Webinars?

That's what this thread is about.

 

[FalseFlag]

But back on topic, is there anything you'd like to say about those AE911 Webinars?

That's what this thread is about.

I have posted links after each webinar. That is relevant.

You are the one who derailed the thread.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I have posted links after each webinar. That is relevant.

You are the one who derailed the thread.

Incorrect. The thread was derailed before I posted.


I'm going to watch the first of the videos though, but I'm not expecting much, what with it being an AE911Truth project.

They really are a shady bunch of reality-twisters...

 

[FalseFlag]

Incorrect. The thread was derailed before I posted.


I'm going to watch the first of the videos though, but I'm not expecting much, what with it being an AE911Truth project.

They really are a shady bunch of reality-twisters...

You're going to watch the videos?
Wow. I'm impressed.

Why don't you do this, and I think this is extremely reasonable. Take any one of the claims they make in any one of their videos and prove they are wrong. No, don't use your opinion to say they are wrong, use a legitimate, credible source to prove they are wrong.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

You're going to watch the videos?
Wow. I'm impressed.

Why don't you do this, and I think this is extremely reasonable. Take any one of the claims they make in any one of their videos and prove they are wrong. No, don't use your opinion to say they are wrong, use a legitimate, credible source to prove they are wrong.

Don't get your hopes up. it'll be a cursory viewing, when I have the time, to see if they're still up to their usual tricks. Most of us here are already very familiar with the content of AE911Truth videos.

I won't be engaging with AE911Truth polemic, and I won't be doing the 'reversed burden of proof' thing.


Remember: AE911Truth make the allegations, therefore AE911Truth must provide the proof.

 

[FalseFlag]

Remember: AE911Truth make the allegations, therefore AE911Truth must provide the proof.

And they do, skeptics just refuse to ignore it.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

And they do, skeptics just refuse to ignore it.

Keep believing it, you have a mountain to climb.

 

[FalseFlag]

Keep believing it, you have a mountain to climb.

You are entitled to your opinion, which is all you appear to be able to provide.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

You are entitled to your opinion, which is all you appear to be able to provide.

Funnily enough, much the same thing can be said of AE911Truth after almost a decade of shouting into a bucket.

 

[FalseFlag]

Funnily enough, much the same thing can be said of AE911Truth after almost a decade of shouting into a bucket.

This is amusing. I am posting evidence. You just ignore it. Can't you do any better than this?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

This is amusing. I am posting evidence. You just ignore it.

No. You're posting standard issue truther pish. This is amusing. It's entirely logical to ignore it.

Can't you do any better than this?

Yes I can. In between my last post and this one I've been to the allotment and dug over the potato bed, and now me and Mrs Ape are going for a quick bike ride before tea time

 

[WilliamSeger]

This is amusing. I am posting evidence. You just ignore it. Can't you do any better than this?

You ignore Verinage demolitions, Ronan Point, Skyline Towers, Sir Isaac Newton, a few centuries of accumulated scientific theory and empirical knowledge of structures, and offer instead links to presentations that claim to prove that magical silent explosives brought down the buildings. And then that "proof" turns out to be a highly distorted version of the facts combined with imaginary physics and bad logic, but absolutely no evidence of either these magical devices or their supposed effects on the structure. Yes, this is very amusing.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Lurkers, please take note. This is clear evidence that skeptics do not wanted to be presented with any information that conflicts with their delusions.

Lurkers already took note 6 years ago, guess what? You lost badly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174815

[qimg]http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394/jrefpicciesinnit/lurkers_zpspwmlnkm4.jpg[/qimg]

Good luck with that

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Is a lurker someone who posts? I don't think so.

From the OP of the poll:

A recent trend in this sub-forum is the "Appeal to the Lurker". You know who you are. You've registered. You've read. You think about posting but aren't sure you want to yet. Well here's your chance to get your feet wet. I'm seeking your opinion in this poll. Please take the time to select a choice. You needn't reply with a post but your input is valuable and welcome.

The information I'm seeking is:

1) If there are any lurkers regularly reading this forum and 2) How many you are and 3) Where you stand on the issues.

Let me know what in the above you don't understand.

OK. Wikipedia says my definition is wrong. What do you call the people who view posts but don't become a member? Those people, whatever you want to call them, are my audience.

Of course it's wrong, your definition is idiotic.

Good luck convincing the lurkers champ so far you're down 166-5

LOL

I believe a lurker just signed up and posted in another thread, he thinks you're a moron.

Good job!

 

[FalseFlag]

Lurkers already took note 6 years ago, guess what? You lost badly.



Thanks for saving me the trouble.



From the OP of the poll:



Let me know what in the above you don't understand.




Of course it's wrong, your definition is idiotic.

Good luck convincing the lurkers champ so far you're down 166-5

LOL

I believe a lurker just signed up and posted in another thread, he thinks you're a moron.

Good job!

Let me make this easy.

You win. Your definition is correct, and mine was wrong.

Do we need to discuss this any more?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Let me make this easy.

You win. Your definition is correct, and mine was wrong.

Do we need to discuss this any more?

The lurkers thank you.