• 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.

Freefall?

William Rea said:
OK, I typed in "911 truth" and got 1,960,000 hits.
Click to expand...

You must still be learning how to use Google. I typed in "911 truth" (in quotes) and got only 278,000 hits.

If you don't put them in quotes you get the 1.96 million you refer to. But that includes pages that contain the terms '911 truth', '911', or just 'truth'. The vast majority of those pages won't be relevant to your search.

Steve S.
 
steve s said:
You must still be learning how to use Google. I typed in "911 truth" (in quotes) and got only 278,000 hits.

If you don't put them in quotes you get the 1.96 million you refer to. But that includes pages that contain the terms '911 truth', '911', or just 'truth'. The vast majority of those pages won't be relevant to your search.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, I'll restate it...

If a Google search is really considered evidence then I make it that 100*680/270000 = 0.25% of CTers believe in faster than freefall.
 
A W Smith said:
still moving the goalposts with strawmen? troll
Click to expand...

So, you're bitter about being reprimanded by the Mods in post #76 of this thread and no doubt see these troll accusations as some sort of revenge. I can live with that.

What I wouldn't mind from you and tsig (assuming you are not also tsig) is some explanation of what this strawman is and what goal posts I have moved. I'm not as clever as you so I need some clarification so I that I can figure out exactly what heinous crime I have commited.
 
William Rea said:
So, you're bitter about being reprimanded by the Mods in post #76 of this thread and no doubt see these troll accusations as some sort of revenge. I can live with that.

What I wouldn't mind from you and tsig (assuming you are not also tsig) is some explanation of what this strawman is and what goal posts I have moved. I'm not as clever as you so I need some clarification so I that I can figure out exactly what heinous crime I have commited.
Click to expand...
Here's you moving goalposts:
Asking for a source
William Rea said:
Which CTers and where have they claimed it?
Click to expand...

Then saying one source isn't enough
William Rea said:
OK, just doing a quick calculation and adding it up bear with me...(tapping noises from keys on spreadsheet)...Hmm yeah, OK, I make that a total of one source quoted! I can't believe that because it wouldn't be like you guys to take one snippet of information and use that as a basis to debunk the whole set of data would it?
Click to expand...

Then saying a couple hundred sources are not enough
William Rea said:
267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it.

I get 11 million hits for "gravy".

You're telling me that a Google search like that is intellectual rigour? Laughable.
Click to expand...

Then saying 60 sources are not enough
William Rea said:
I don't know which Google you're using but I am following Gravy's link.

So when I first used the link I got 267, second time 184 and now 174. Wouldn't that suggest that the evidence is getting less impressive by the day! Or is it a "Twoofer" conspiracy?

Where are you getting 680 hits?

In any case how does this prove that The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall"?

For me it says that there is a very small minority of people who may be associated with an organised "truth movement" that have believed or still believe that the towers collapsed faster than freefall. I could expand it further but I think this is close enough to a correct analysis of the situation.

Using Gravy's link do you want to go through each hit one by one, starting at the first, and analyse them? They make interesting reading when you go into some and read what is ACTUALLY going on in them.
Click to expand...

Then saying that the 200+ and 600+ numbers are too small of a percentage
William Rea said:
OK, I typed in "911 truth" and got 1,960,000 hits. Let's take the worst case presented of 680 hits for ""faster than freefall" 9/11" (which I dispute).

If a Google search is really considered evidence then I make it that 100*680/1,960,000 = 0.0347% of CTers believe in faster than freefall.

I understand how ridiculous the argument I just made is. The question is, do you understand how ridiculous it is to say that 267 or even 680 hits on Google constitutes evidence that "The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall".
Click to expand...

All of which, is textbook moving the goalpost logical fallacy.
 
William Rea said:
So, you're bitter about being reprimanded by the Mods in post #76 of this thread and no doubt see these troll accusations as some sort of revenge. I can live with that.

What I wouldn't mind from you and tsig (assuming you are not also tsig) is some explanation of what this strawman is and what goal posts I have moved. I'm not as clever as you so I need some clarification so I that I can figure out exactly what heinous crime I have commited.
Click to expand...

First off. im not bitter about anything. here is where you move the goalposts.

Originally Posted by William Rea
Which CTers and where have they claimed it?
Click to expand...

which implying individuals or group or portion there of. Not all. not all encompassing. WHICH one or ones. I had time for one example as my dinner was served. Which i thought would suffice give your question anyway

from
Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Why Doubt 9/11?



Quote:
8, The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
Click to expand...


Ok here comes the goal post move

Originally Posted by william rea
OK, just doing a quick calculation and adding it up bear with me...(tapping noises from keys on spreadsheet)...Hmm yeah, OK, I make that a total of one source quoted! I can't believe that because it wouldn't be like you guys to take one snippet of information and use that as a basis to debunk the whole set of data would it?
Click to expand...


To which Gravy replied.

Originally Posted by gravy
Is intellectual sloth really a virtue where you live?
Click to expand...


Ok here comes!! your second goal post move!!

Originally Posted by william rea
267 hits on Google isn't terribly impressive is it. By the way, it dropped to 181 hits when I last pressed the link.
Click to expand...


To which I replied

Results 1 - 10 of about 680 for "faster than freefall" 9/11
Click to expand...

ok here comes goal post move number three. i think with this you are clearly out of the stadium and in the parking lot.

For me it says that there is a very small minority of people who may be associated with an organised "truth movement" that have believed or still believe that the towers collapsed faster than freefall. I could expand it further but I think this is close enough to a correct analysis of the situation.
Click to expand...

Nope you have definatly lost this argument. Which began with your original question 'Which Ones"
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Here's you moving goalposts:
Asking for a source
Then saying one source isn't enough
Then saying a couple hundred sources are not enough
Then saying 60 sources are not enough
Then saying that the 200+ and 600+ numbers are too small of a percentage
All of which, is textbook moving the goalpost logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Actually no. I haven't moved the acceptance outside the range of the evidence that exists. That same evidence existed from post#1 of this thread and was there for anyone to find. I happened to find it and called the shots for pretty much the whole of the thread whilst you all hung yourselves on your own petards.

I only needed to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion that the 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall" to completely destroy the original strawman of the OP. It is clear that this is not a widely held opinion anywhere, so the science of the collapse is irrelevant.

Now we've cleared this up I see no reason to continue the thread much further. Game, set and match.
 
William Rea said:
Actually no. I haven't moved the acceptance outside the range of the evidence that exists. That same evidence existed from post#1 of this thread and was there for anyone to find. I happened to find it and called the shots for pretty much the whole of the thread whilst you all hung yourselves on your own petards.

I only needed to demonstrate the fallacy of the assertion that the 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall" to completely destroy the original strawman of the OP. It is clear that this is not a widely held opinion anywhere, so the science of the collapse is irrelevant.

Now we've cleared this up I see no reason to continue the thread much further. Game, set and match.
Click to expand...

The OP is not a strawman as 9/11 CFists do make claims of freefall. That you do not see them as a majority is irrelevant.

Examples of freefall usage:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996 (rebuttal to Jones "freefall" argument)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#free-fall (rebuttal to Loose Change "freefall" argument)
http://911scholars.org/ (search page for 'free-fall')

Now, that hits on Judy Wood, Prof. Jones, Scholars for Truth, and Loose Change; all major players in the 9/11 CF movement.
 
Yes you have moved the goal posts.

yes you have. Again.. THIS was your initial question
Originally Posted by William Rea
Which CTers and where have they claimed it?
Click to expand...

this was the question you asked that was answered many times. again 'WHICH" not all. not most. "WHICH."

you lose.
 
A W Smith said:
First off. im not bitter about anything. here is where you move the goalposts.
which implying individuals or group or portion there of. Not all. not all encompassing. WHICH one or ones. I had time for one example as my dinner was served. Which i thought would suffice give your question anyway
Ok here comes the goal post move
To which Gravy replied.
Ok here comes!! your second goal post move!!
To which I replied
ok here comes goal post move number three. i think with this you are clearly out of the stadium and in the parking lot.
Nope you have definatly lost this argument. Which began with your original question 'Which Ones"
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a lame response. I cannot take you seriously on this topic any more.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
How do you manage to type with your fingers stuffed that far into your ears?
Click to expand...

With my penis mostly.


Arkan and William - Don't personalize your debate by exchanging insults and childish commentary. Stick to the subject and your arguments, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
The OP is not a strawman as 9/11 CFists do make claims of freefall. That you do not see them as a majority is irrelevant.

Examples of freefall usage:
http://www.physics911.net/thermite
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445996 (rebuttal to Jones "freefall" argument)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#free-fall (rebuttal to Loose Change "freefall" argument)
http://911scholars.org/ (search page for 'free-fall')

Now, that hits on Judy Wood, Prof. Jones, Scholars for Truth, and Loose Change; all major players in the 9/11 CF movement.
Click to expand...

Please return to the OP and read it again.

The 9/11 CTers are always going on about how the WTC collapsed "faster than freefall". Have any of them ever proven this? That is, told us the speed of a object free-falling through the air, and then told us the precise speed of fall of the WTC?

I know it's difficult coming in on the back end of a thread when you haven't read the whole thing so I won't make a big thing of this.
 
A W Smith said:
Thats ok. You can ignore it. You can put your fingers in your ear. But its there for all to see. you lost
Click to expand...

I bet that I get the last post on this.

Actually no I won't. It's too excruciating watching your humiliation so I'll stop posting now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom