• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oliver, it seems this thread is getting to you. If it bothers you so much, may I suggest you not participate in it at least for a while? Relax, man, because you sometimes irritate me more than Chris. And that's saying something. :D

Take a chill pill and call me in the morning.
 
Powa said:
Oliver, it seems this thread is getting to you. If it bothers you so much, may I suggest you not participate in it at least for a while? Relax, man, because you sometimes irritate me more than Chris. And that's saying something. :D

Take a chill pill and call me in the morning.
Click to expand...

I´m not reading Alfred´s BS at all but I want to
know Belz´s answer since the initial question of
this thread is answered. I have to apologize if i
irritate you, Powa... :o
 
Smiffy said:
Chris, you really are the master of cognitive distortions. A textbook example.


Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences).

Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking).

All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma).


Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization).

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness).


Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
  • Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
  • Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope).
Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
  • Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading).


Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control). When applied to others this is an example of blame.




Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.





Well done, in one post you have demonstrated every cognitive distortion that you accuse continually of others! I salute you, sir!
Click to expand...


Simply listing cognitive distortions does not suffice. You have to show how you think I am distorting. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one distorts.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.
 
Christophera said:
Meanwhile, do you have any raw evidence from the demolition of the 47, 1,300 foot steel core column?
Click to expand...

HOWS THIS FOR STARTERS?????

8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg


BV
 
Mobyseven said:
Er...so you 'corrected' yourself not by removing the contradicting lexemes, but by tacking on a prepositional phrase that in no way changes the fact that "...clear and illogical [facts]..." is a contradiction.

It is as if I said, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy," and then when someone pointed out the contadiction to change that to, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy on Wednesdays."

Notice how the contradiction hasn't been removed, I've simply tacked on a prepositional phrase. This is exactly what you have done.

Would you like to correct yourself once again? Until you are actually able to express yourself in a precise and logical manner, it is doubtful that you will be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

So, ......... if you understood what I meant, is grammer more important than justice in the case of 3,000 capitol crimes?
 
Christophera said:
Simply listing cognitive distortions does not suffice. You have to show how you think I am distorting. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one distorts.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.
Click to expand...

Simply listing absurd claims about concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first does not suffice. You have to show how you think concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first are true. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one claims absurdities.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.
 
bonavada said:
HOWS THIS FOR STARTERS?????

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748454a8c1e46c64.jpg[/qimg]

BV
Click to expand...

It does not compare in anyway to this evidence of the concrete core of WTC 2. You are presenting a bogus, misrepresentation. The evidence of the concrete core should show some of the suppposed 47, 1300 steel columns and it does not. No image does.
 
Last edited:
Bell said:
Simply listing absurd claims about concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first does not suffice. You have to show how you think concrete cores, planes hitting wrong towers, fires going out and wrong tower falling first are true. You have not done that.

You are faking it.

And, ........ you forgot to mention the critical factor.

Why one claims absurdities.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons.
Click to expand...

What is your reason for supporting the absurdity of collapse?
 
Christophera said:
Find him at democratic underground. I'm banned there.
Click to expand...

not up to me to establish YOUR source! i think you'll find it's your job.

seems like another non-existent source just like the time-warping mohawk, the "wiped" PBS documentary, and the poor the reticent retired engineer you badgered into signing a vague confession.

you really are scraping the barrel chris. your lies are dumbfounding.

BV
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous font sizes, colors, or forgetting the caps lock on does not change the meaning of what you write, nor does it make what you say true. It all reads the same. At best, the formatting is ignored, at worst it makes you look silly and incompetent.
 
I less than three logic said:
Ridiculous font sizes, colors, or forgetting the caps lock on does not change the meaning of what you write, nor does it make what you say true. It all reads the same. At best, the formatting is ignored, at worst it makes you look silly and incompetent.
Click to expand...

*lol* So you are saying you are able to convince Alfred
and his concrete core???? ;) People get angry if they are
talking to a wall - what do you suspect?
 
Christophera said:
It does not compare in anyway to this evidence of the concrete core of WTC 2. You are presenting a bogus, misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

your link is empty........[ETA seems to be working now sorry]

Christophera said:
The evidence of the concrete core should show some of the suppposed 47, 1300 steel columns and it does not. No image does.
Click to expand...

the image i displayed above shows plenty of evidence of the thousands of tons of steel that made up the core. for your own imbecilic reasons you are blind to it.

you can argue till kingdom come. it will never change the fact that you are WRONG (and a lying toerag to boot)

BV
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
*lol* So you are saying you are able to convince Alfred
and his concrete core???? ;) People get angry if they are
talking to a wall - what do you suspect?
Click to expand...
Nope. I tend to stay away from the nonsense in the CT area. I just happened to be lurking by and found myself irritated by the formatting abuse being carried out. Thought I'd voice my opinion. ;)
 
Christophera said:
It was scanned by seatnineb in a library in England. I have no idea. Ask him.
Click to expand...

So, you use a piece of 'evidence' and you don't even know where it came from or cared to verify the source? That says a lot about your ways, Christophera.

Christophera copy & past,
Who was in a gleeful daze,
Forgot to check the source,
That claimed the concrete cores.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom