Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

stundie said:
Its called logical incompatibility not inversions. This is not rocket science!

PM use the Panacke Theory. NIST Do not support it.<---Contradiction!! U

Do you see where the contradiction lies? Unless you wanna go down the 2 part road that you debunkers seem hooked on!! lol
Click to expand...

Maybe we're a little slow. Perhaps you could lay it out with a little more detail, and little less personal attack?
 
stundie said:
Its called logical incompatibility not inversions. This is not rocket science!

PM use the Panacke Theory. NIST Do not support it.<---Contradiction!! U

Do you see where the contradiction lies? Unless you wanna go down the 2 part road that you debunkers seem hooked on!! lol
Click to expand...

OH GOD! IT IS A CONSPIRACY! I mean one flaw in
the official story and one million flaws within the
troofers version. Who shall we believe? :confused:
 
beachnut said:
<<<<<<Snip the logical arguments which will be ignored by the usual gang of idiots>>>>>

Russ is funny. He said it was impossible and he did not witness it. I say it is possible and I just studied the data and witnesses and I am a pilot and it seems Russ is wrong and could be a real nut case to say what he said without facts to back it up! I have flown kids with zero experience in planes and I have to say they could fly better than the terrorist.


Simple experiment proves Russ wrong.
Click to expand...

That's 'cuz the kids you take flying are trying not to die, while the terrorists ...
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I can't watch that video from work right now. Can you please quote the specific parts that meet with the definition of yellow journalism?

"Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists."
Click to expand...

I could go onto a minute by minute report of what it is said, but it will be a lot easier if you listen too this when you get home and you'll hear all the references you are talking about that refer to Yellow Journalism!
 
stundie said:
I was expecting intelligent debate instead, yet all I’ve received are smart alex answers and people telling me things, then providing no proof to back up there claims.
Click to expand...

How about you stick to one point and debate that methodically before moving on to another?

The post that I quoted this from is full of rhetoric and misrepresentations of the arguments against you. Furthermore you are using the common tactic of going off on several points at once and answering the points made in different threads in this thread, making it hard to look back to the reference you made.

This looks to me like bluster and not argument.

But, once again, if you are interested in intelligent debate (and you've shown little evidence of this so far) please address the points raised in specific threads and STAY ON TOPIC.

The thread we are in is about people who supposedly support some kind of 9/11 conspiracy and you still haven't addressed most of the points raised in it.

This thread is about NIST vs Popular Mechanics.

This thread is about Norman Mineta's testimony.

This thread is about the NORAD 'stand down'

This thread is about the financial aspects of 9/11 including the asbestos and the put options.

If you don't want to post on more than one thread at a time, that's fine you can focus on one for a bit and then move to another later - they won't go away. As I suggested before, I think you should stick to the Mineta thread for the time being.

If, however, you continue go off topic in threads and reply to posts made in one thread in a completely different thread then I can only conclude that you're not interested in any kind of discussion at all.
 
Oliver said:
OH GOD! IT IS A CONSPIRACY! I mean one flaw in
the official story and one million flaws within the
troofers version. Who shall we believe? :confused:
Click to expand...

here we go again.

When did I ever say that this flaw means a conspiracy...???

I'll await your proof??

You guys make thing up and jump to the conclusions.

and again...There is more than one flaw in the offical version, but you guys have made your mind up that the offical version is correct, so much so that you will twist and distort observation to fit your agenda!
 
stundie said:
Contradiction
In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.

So NIST and PM do not fall under these catergories...lol

Your right science is process....Shame you don't follow it!!
Click to expand...

Please continue the NIST discussion on This thread you are way off topic for the thread here.
 
stundie said:
I do not feel they are anything. The statements are incompatible. Please read and tell which part you do not understand.

PM Support the Pancake Theory.

NIST Doesn't!

Its that simple!
Click to expand...

It is simple to know you will never present facts to disprove either.

This is simple, you will never present numbers to disprove NIST or PM.

Simple fact you have just a list of nuts and you try to say they have something?

Like your pilot Russ, you mentioned, he was wrong and you are wrong. Questions? Need some numbers to debunk Russ your special pilot?
 
maccy said:
How about you stick to one point and debate that methodically before moving on to another?

The post that I quoted this from is full of rhetoric and misrepresentations of the arguments against you. Furthermore you are using the common tactic of going off on several points at once and answering the points made in different threads in this thread, making it hard to look back to the reference you made.

This looks to me like bluster and not argument.

But, once again, if you are interested in intelligent debate (and you've shown little evidence of this so far) please address the points raised in specific threads and STAY ON TOPIC.

The thread we are in is about people who supposedly support some kind of 9/11 conspiracy and you still haven't addressed most of the points raised in it.

This thread is about NIST vs Popular Mechanics.

This thread is about Norman Mineta's testimony.

This thread is about the NORAD 'stand down'

This thread is about the financial aspects of 9/11 including the asbestos and the put options.

If you don't want to post on more than one thread at a time, that's fine you can focus on one for a bit and then move to another later - they won't go away. As I suggested before, I think you should stick to the Mineta thread for the time being.

If, however, you continue go off topic in threads and reply to posts made in one thread in a completely different thread then I can only conclude that you're not interested in any kind of discussion at all.
Click to expand...


The things is, when arguing, I'll mention something which one of you debunkers will insist on debunking and then it goes off on a tangent. We were talking about NIST V PM, but I mention WTC being a white elephant and I've got to prove it too you guys.

I'm more than happy to stick to the point, but now I'm having to explain Yellow Journalism!!
 
stundie said:
Its called logical incompatibility not inversions. This is not rocket science!

PM use the Panacke Theory. NIST Do not support it.<---Contradiction!! U

Do you see where the contradiction lies? Unless you wanna go down the 2 part road that you debunkers seem hooked on!! lol
Click to expand...

Please continue the NIST discussion on This thread you are way off topic for the thread here.
 
stundie said:
here we go again.

When did I ever say that this flaw means a conspiracy...???

I'll await your proof??

You guys make thing up and jump to the conclusions.

and again...There is more than one flaw in the offical version, but you guys have made your mind up that the offical version is correct, so much so that you will twist and distort observation to fit your agenda!
Click to expand...


Well, maybe you tell us your problem.
Controlled demolitions? Space weapons from outer Space? No Planes?

What do >you< believe?
 
stundie said:
The things is, when arguing, I'll mention something which one of you debunkers will insist on debunking and then it goes off on a tangent. We were talking about NIST V PM, but I mention WTC being a white elephant and I've got to prove it too you guys.

I'm more than happy to stick to the point, but now I'm having to explain Yellow Journalism!!
Click to expand...

Two points:

1. Don't mention it in the wrong thread in the first place

2. if you do get a response tell them you'll repond in the correct thread, post a link to the thread, and quote their post from this thread in your response in the correct thread.
 
stundie said:
2nd Lie.
Gravy said:
2) As has been mentioned, the asbestos fire protection in the north tower was only applied to less than half that building. In fact, it only went to the 38th floor.
NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, WTC Investigation, Passive Fire Protection Executive Summary page xxxv

Several materials were considered for the sprayed thermal insulation. The exterior columns required insulation not only for fire protection but also to control column temperatures under service conditions. Alcoa recommended for the exterior columns the use of a sprayed material produced by U.S. Mineral Products, Co. known as BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. The same material was eventually selected for the floor trusses and core beams and columns. This product, however, contained asbestos fibers. On April 12, 1970, New York City issued restrictions on the application of sprayed thermal insulation containing asbestos. The use of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D was discontinued in 1970 at the 38th floor of WTC 1. The asbestos-containing material was subsequently encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating. A green dye was added to the encapsulating material so that the asbestos containing SFRM could be identified. Thermal protection of the remaining floors of WTC 1 and all of WTC 2 was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D. [Details follow in the NIST NCSTAR 1-6A report.]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Gravy is wrong again.
Click to expand...
Gravy was quoting NIST.
stundie said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
Scott Bass suggests that the World Trade Center towers could still be standing or at least would have stood for longer had a 1971 ban not stopped the completion of the asbestos coating above the 64th floor.[20] This was not mentioned in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report on the Towers' collapse.
Click to expand...
www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0111/msg00258.html
For more proof off that lie.
Click to expand...
Cherry-picking. Here are some quotes from your Vanderbilt link:
This bit about the non-use of asbestos at the WTC seems to have originated with a distasteful 14 September 2001 op-ed piece Steve Milloy wrote for FoxNews.com. Milloy's piece and a 15-16 September follow-up are available at Milloy's website, www.junkscience.com.

Milloy alleged that in 1971 New York City outlawed the use of spray-on asbestos insulation in construction in the city. He said that asbestos had been used up to the 64th floor of the WTC North Tower. Other materials were substituted for the balance of 1 WTC and all of 2 WTC. Milloy offers that "not everyone was convinced they would work as well". His only named "not everyone" was Herbert Levine, President of Asbestospray, who he quotes as saying "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down".
Click to expand...
Here's a link to the Milloy piece, which the wikipedia article is using as its source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html

More from the Vanderbilt link:
The only named individuals cited by Milloy were Levine, now deceased, and Harvard physics professor Richard Wilson. I asked Wilson whether Milloy had correctly represented his thoughts. He replied, "Unlike most responsible reporters he did not check his writing with me for accuracy of fact. I have looked at the website to which you refer, www.junkscience.com, and the facts seem about right, although I disagree with some of the opinions based upon the facts." Wilson continued, expressing the opinion that asbestos insulation might be 25% better that its replacement and offering that settled policy in high-rise fires was to use helicopters to spray foam on the fire to cool it down and to remove people from the roof.

Much of what Milloy wrote in his op-ed piece and some of what Wilson wrote in his email to me seemed suspect, so I did some research.
Click to expand...
More:
A NY Times 18 Sept story by James Glanz and Andrew Revkin looked into the asbestos insulation issues. They found that the WTC builders stopped using asbestos 40 floors up in the north tower; the 1969 decision was made by the NY/NJ Port Authority in response to developing epidemiological information on the connection of asbestos with mesothelioma. NY City extended the ban to all construction in the city in 1971. The NY Times article says that both the asbestos and the non-asbestos insulations were supplied by United States Mineral, where Milloy says that Levine's company Asbestospray supplied the asbestos insulation.

The newly-created EPA doesn't seem to have been involved in any way in any of the WTC decisions.

Milloy's allegations seem to have become instant conservative, anti-regulatory myth, bringing to mind Twain's aphorism that a lie or a half-truth can get half-way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Click to expand...
All bolding mine.
stundie said:
So Gravy has been around here a long time and is definitely an independent thinker, having amassed a great deal of information….Should that be MISINFORMATION.
Click to expand...
Surely someone is spreading misinformation. Whether or not it's deliberate is a separate question.

We have three figures here. 64, 40, and 38. How do we go about discovering which one is correct? The most suspect number is 64, given its dubious source. The first step I would take is to look up the Glanz/Revkin NY Times article and the NIST report and see what sources they used to get those numbers. Why don't you take a stab at it and tell us what you find out.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
Well, maybe you tell us your problem.
Controlled demolitions? Space weapons from outer Space? No Planes?

What do >you< believe?
Click to expand...

Space Weapons....Please...I certinaly do not believe anything of a such.

No Planes. Planes hit WTC thats for sure. The only one I do doubt is the Pentagon, show me footage of the plane hitting it and I'll change my opinion.

Controlled Demolition. Yes I do kind of support this theory for various reasons, not just the squibs which you think are air pockets, not just the molten metal which you guys think is either aluminum (Laughable and unstubstantiated considering no plane hit WTC 7 and yet it was found there too) and plenty of other reasons...ignoring the people REPORTING explosions.....anyway I cannot go into because we are going off topic and I'll get a telling off....So I'll leave that one there.
 
Is there a name for the annoying habit of some debaters of dodging pertinent and rational answers to their questions by bringing up other issues instead? Conspiracy theorists are pretty adept at it.

To paraphrase Mohammed Ali, I submit we call it the "float like a bee and sting like a butterfly' tactic.
 
stundie said:
Space Weapons....Please...I certinaly do not believe anything of a such.

No Planes. Planes hit WTC thats for sure. The only one I do doubt is the Pentagon, show me footage of the plane hitting it and I'll change my opinion.

Controlled Demolition. Yes I do kind of support this theory for various reasons, not just the squibs which you think are air pockets, not just the molten metal which you guys think is either aluminum (Laughable and unstubstantiated considering no plane hit WTC 7 and yet it was found there too) and plenty of other reasons...ignoring the people REPORTING explosions.....anyway I cannot go into because we are going off topic and I'll get a telling off....So I'll leave that one there.
Click to expand...

So you believe in this Loose-Change-Scenario? :confused:

The problem i have is this:

I try to be the conspirator right now and i´m planning
to destroy the WTC:

How can i execute my plans the best way? Let´s see:
the 93 bombing is still in peoples mind and people believe
it was AQ.

The best thing would be to blow it with bombs, film the
whole mess by installing a crew at the building making
a documentary and say AQ did it again.

No one would doubt it.

But this is to easy. We need some planes for no
reason to attract the whole world and as much
cameras as possible to hide our secret inside job.

Then we crash no plane into nowhere at shanksville
and we say nevertheless it was a plane.

We blow up the highest buildings at the WTC-site
and make it look like controlled demolitions.

We also crash no plane into the pentagon but to
make it as authentic and believable as possible we
say it was a plane nevertheless.

Then we forget to involve our CIA-Osama and because
we forgot it and because we forgot that he is available
to make some cool footage, we have to fake some lousy,
doubtable video-evidence.

We also forget to start an own investigation that
affirms that the AQ-Gang did it without doubts...

We forget to put Osama on top of the FBI-most
wanted list and we forget the Hijackers that are
well and alive.

We also forget to think about why we are blowing
up the WTC and therefore we need to fake the
WMD evidence to go to war.

Seriously: Who writes this stuff?

Nothing personal at all. I simply don´t get it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom