If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

FalseFlag said:
I'm not a structural engineer, and I would never claim that I have the expertise to question a credible paper on the subject.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious that you don't recognize the contradiction built into this one sentence.

You're a 100% amateur.

And, in spite of this glaringly obvious fact proven by your every post, you delude yourself into thinking that you can determine what is a "credible" paper in structural engineering.

Such scorching irony...

FalseFlag said:
The issue is that the claims being made by the so-called experts here are so flawed that anyone can see through them.
Click to expand...

Blisering irony.

You're a clueless amateur.
You refuse to listen.
You refuse to debate honestly.
You refuse to learn anything.

Yet you think that you are competent enough to judge the claims of professionals (e.g., many here, including me) and other intelligent people who are smart enough to listen carefully to professionals (such as NIST), and other structural engineers.
__

Do you think that you're the first one to come here with your "mission".
You decided, before you even showed up, that you were going to go to that (ex-JREF) site & give those duh-bunkers "the business".

You know this.
We know this.

You view your determined refusal to concede any point as some Quixotic mission.

In reality, it is cowardice.
You refuse to debate honestly, because you know that you can't make compelling arguments. The best you can do is to retreat behind your "I'm not an expert" shield, demand that others make compelling arguments, and then, in spite of your ignorance, announce that you reject others arguments.

A 5 year old could execute this silliness.
An honest 5 year old would understand, & admit, that he doesn't understand the issues.
__

Because of the wide diversity of experience in the posters, the majority of people have contributed to the discussion.

And everyone here has learned. Learned lots of things.
Including me.
Perhaps especially me.

We all learned by listening.

And then we learned more, through open, mostly respectful, occasionally contentious discussion. Because a bunch of the points did not emerge fully formed, but emerged over time & over discussion.

Your approach is the bleeding antithesis of "respectful exchange of information". Or even "challenging exchange of information."

Yours is the clueless, Monty Python, "no, it's not."

Monty Python's schtick was a good joke.
Yours isn't.
 
tfk said:
You decided, before you even showed up, that you were going to go to that (ex-JREF) site & give those duh-bunkers "the business".
Click to expand...
When was my first post?

In what thread was it?

What did I post?

If you knew the answers, you would know how absurd your claim is. Of course, like most skeptics, you just post whatever you feel like posting, and providing proof is anathema.
 
When was my first post?

In what thread was it?

What did I post?

If you knew the answers, you would know how absurd your claim is. Of course, like most skeptics, you just post whatever you feel like posting, and providing proof is anathema.
Click to expand...

Did you obtain the paper and learn anything from it yet?
 
FalseFlag said:
When was my first post?

In what thread was it?

What did I post?

If you knew the answers, you would know how absurd your claim is. Of course, like most skeptics, you just post whatever you feel like posting, and providing proof is anathema.
Click to expand...

Your first post on this site would be this one, dated September 21, 2015.

Replied to by Oystein, who noted somebody using the nickname FalseFlag — totally by coincidence, I'm sure — here. And, gee, who signed up there 29 Aug 2015.
 
Last edited:
Bitca said:
Your first post on this site would be this one, dated September 21, 2015.

Replied to by Oystein, who noted somebody using the nickname FalseFlag — totally by coincidence, I'm sure — here. And, gee, who signed up there 29 Aug 2015.
Click to expand...

As a general point, that seems to be a characteristic of woo slingers.

They all assume, for reasons inexplicable, that nobody can see their other posts on other sites and that everyone on a given site must necessarily be unaware of whatever other nonsense they may have posted on whatever other sites.

It's rather odd.
 
FalseFlag said:
When was my first post?

In what thread was it?

What did I post?

If you knew the answers, you would know how absurd your claim is. Of course, like most skeptics, you just post whatever you feel like posting, and providing proof is anathema.
Click to expand...

IIRC, you have said more than once that you have NOT read the NIST reports.
True or not true?
If true then it matters not a whit when your first post was or what you said in it. You had already made up your mind without having actually researched the subject.

Instead, you post pictures and try to claim that ONE person in it should look different and thus "conspiracy".

You make Les Nessman look stable.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
IIRC, you have said more than once that you have NOT read the NIST reports.
True or not true?
If true then it matters not a whit when your first post was or what you said in it. You had already made up your mind without having actually researched the subject.
Click to expand...
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Instead, you post pictures and try to claim that ONE person in it should look different and thus "conspiracy".
Click to expand...

No. I have made no claim that anyone should appear differently. My observation is that Mary Matalin should NOT appear as she does in the Cheney office pictures.

You make Les Nessman look stable.
Click to expand...

Your claims, like the turkeys Nessman reported on, don't fly.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
As a general point, that seems to be a characteristic of woo slingers.

They all assume, for reasons inexplicable, that nobody can see their other posts on other sites and that everyone on a given site must necessarily be unaware of whatever other nonsense they may have posted on whatever other sites.

It's rather odd.
Click to expand...

Really?

Your claim is that I would use the same screen name and not expect my posts to show up on Google?

Really?

Seriously. Really!?!?!

You can't even come to the correct conclusion about something as basic as this, but you are so certain you're right about 9/11. This is laughable.

How many responses did I get on the other forum? One? Two? I wanted people's opinions, and that was not happening on the first place I went. For the record, if it had not taken a week to get approved, my first post would have been here.

Once again, a skeptic makes a claim without knowing all of the relevant information. There's a pattern here. The lurkers can see it. Why do you refuse to see it, too?
 
FalseFlag said:
No. I have made no claim that anyone should appear differently. My observation is that Mary Matalin should NOT appear as she does in the Cheney office pictures.
Click to expand...

And your observation undermined all of your credibility.

You demonstrated that your zeal for proof of conspiracy makes you latch onto frivolous and insignificant detail. Then you refuse to back off of them in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary.

Worse, you should a startling lack of basic knowledge of women, and women at the workplace.

You might as well get into UFOs, at least they have fuzzy pictures.
 
Axxman300 said:
And your observation undermined all of your credibility.
Click to expand...
What credibility?!?

I have no credibility. I don't have any, I never had any, and I have never claimed to have had any.

Remember, what I think does not matter.

My posts are to get YOU (and the lurkers), to think about what is being said, and evaluate all of the evidence - not just what the skeptics claim to be evidence.

You demonstrated that your zeal for proof of conspiracy makes you latch onto frivolous and insignificant detail. Then you refuse to back off of them in the face of overwhelming facts to the contrary.
Click to expand...
What facts? A skeptic posting a fact is a rare occurrence. You have to forgive me if I miss them because they are buried in so much other nonsense.

Worse, you should a startling lack of basic knowledge of women, and women at the workplace.
Click to expand...

Time to dust this off:

Wait for it...

You might as well get into UFOs, at least they have fuzzy pictures.
Click to expand...
Why would I want fuzzy pictures? Your fuzzy logic provides more than enough entertainment.
 
DGM said:
So explain how you are able to dismiss reports from people that do actually have credibility.
Click to expand...

I have already answered this many times.

You also forget that it does not matter if I accept or dismiss something. What matters is that you consider all of the evidence. Try it some time.
 
FalseFlag said:
I have already answered this many times.

You also forget that it does not matter if I accept or dismiss something. What matters is that you consider all of the evidence. Try it some time.
Click to expand...
I have and do. You are the one that dismisses reports as not credible with no basis. Your posts show this. I have no need to prove this as you have no credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom