Why do people hate Jews?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And who were those researchers? Were they just HRW staffers? Or did they have any actual expertise in forensics, ballistics, or anything military related? You can't tell, can you? Which means there's no reason to presume any expertise: the only thing which can be evaluated is the strength of their argument. And that falls apart badly. As for consultation with "international officials", ie, red cross officials, do they actually know anything beyond what the ambulance drivers told them? No evidence of that exists either. You're continuing to try to play the argument from authority card, and it still doesn't work.

They were "researchers", which has a very specific meaning. I don't know all of their expertise but they were researchers sent by a large international organization to investigate the incident and they came to a specific conclusion, which I agree with based on the relevant facts. You can trust some anonymous blogger if you want.

Intense heat of what? The Lebanese summer? This is about the silliest thing you've written, and that's saying something.

The intense heat from the Missile

Again, argument from authority: what does being an "international official" have to do with anything? And secondly, what kind of involvement is even required? If all they did is repeat what they were told by the ambulance drivers, then yeah, they're "involved", but they don't have to actually be in on the deception. All their "involvement" would demonstrate is what the version of events being given by the drivers was at that particular date - it would not indicate anything at all about the accuracy of the account.

Or the individuals who responded to the incident and saw a big hole in an ambulance and a paramedics leg blown off.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what HRW is claiming. They in fact go to some lengths to try to formulate explanations for why exactly that might have happened. You seem to be of the opinion that it's more likely that such a vanishing act actually occured than that someone was just too incompetent to figure out that that's not possible. Because despite your personal insistence that the missile might have lodged itself deep underground, HRW doesn't list that as a possible explanation. Maybe because they saw that the "hole" doesn't actually lead anywhere.

Where does HRW assert the Missile disappeared into thin air?

No, I'm not assuming that: it's perfectly possible the reporter knows but doesn't care. I cannot distinguish between the scenarios.

So all of the reporters on the scene know it is a hoax but "don't care"? Please explain your reasoning behind reasoning that as a possibility.

But you cannot simply say that: you have to square the physical evidence with that scenario, and you and HRW have both consistently FAILED to do so.

How have I or HRW failed to do so?

I'm perfectly willing to believe it was. Doesn't mean they didn't get it wrong. And they did: their arguments make no sense.

How don't they make sense? You've never explained that.

No, they aren't. As pointed out before, you STILL cannot point to ANY munition and say the evidence is consistent with this. Not a single one. You keep flipping back and forth between different possibilities, invent nonexistent munitions out of thin air, and add in nonsensical additions to try to account for the overwhelming discrepencies. Why aren't there ANY remains of the munition? Is it because it penetrated the ground? What kind of munition is that small and can still penetrate a road deep enough and cleanly enough not to leave any surface traces of its impact? And if that is what happened, what are the other marks on the roof? Pieces of the missile melting off in mid-flight? You've GOT to be kidding with that one. And why is the entry hole larger than the exit hole? It should be the reverse (quiz for the day: do you have any clue as to why it's basically always the reverse?). In fact, if the missile can penetrate the road with that clean and small a hole, the hole in the roof would be that small too, because solid pavement with transmit damage outwards from the entry point far better than thin sheet metal. You can't come up with a single coherent theory of what happened, and neither could HRW. ALL you can do, and all you HAVE done, is appeal to HRW's supposed authority. Dan Rather, line 1...

4 or 5 inch thick pavement would actually absorb much of the impact thus causing a smaller hole. The ultra thin sheet metal clearly would have a much larger hole in it.

Uh, what about the other side of that equation - America exporting goods to other countries?

What about it?

 

[Dumbledore]

And it is possible to be critical of Israel and not be an anti-semite.

No one said if you do criticize Israel you are an antisemitic! Is there a reason for your overreaction?

 

[Ziggurat]

They were "researchers", which has a very specific meaning.

No, actually, it doesn't have a specific meaning - which is why you will search in vain for any definition of the term.

I don't know all of their expertise

No, you don't know any of their expertise.

but they were researchers sent by a large international organization

Argument from authority again. By "a large international organization", you mean Human Rights Watch. But why does the fact that HRW sent these "researchers" (and yes, the term is undefined, and no, we don't have any information about their qualifications) mean that they must therefore be competent?

You can trust some anonymous blogger if you want.

I do not trust anonymous bloggers. I trust logic. And the argument that he laid out is logical. HRW's argument is not.

The intense heat from the Missile

That isn't an answer. Is it the heat from the rocket exhaust? Heat from friction with the air? Heat from the explosion? "From the missile" isn't an answer. And none of the possible answers make any sense, but I'll let you settle on one first before I rip it to shreds.

Where does HRW assert the Missile disappeared into thin air?

"Human Rights Watch cannot conclusively state which missiles were used in the attack on the ambulances, because our researchers did not find diagnostic shrapnel or missile parts at the scene, and because of the experimental nature of some missiles used by the IDF."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/4.htm
Translation: there's no actual physical trace of any munition because it's a Sooper-Sekrit Joo Weapon^TM.

4 or 5 inch thick pavement would actually absorb much of the impact thus causing a smaller hole. The ultra thin sheet metal clearly would have a much larger hole in it.

Uh, NO. You've got the effects exactly backwards. Yes, the ground will absorb much of the impact, but it's going to do so by deforming and shattering. That's HOW it is going to absorb the impact. It's precisely because pavement is thicker and stronger (and much more brittle) than thin sheet metal that one should expect shockwaves from impact to shatter a larger area around the hole. Thin sheet metal doesn't need to absorb much of the impact, the fact that it's not strong means it will rip apart immediately in the path of the missile and so won't transmit deformations outwards, and that's precisely why the hole would be smaller. Imagine trying to drive a nail through a brick versus through a sheet of aluminum foil: which is going to show more damage? The brick, precisely because it's easy to get the nail to go through aluminum foil.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, you don't know any of their expertise.

Their expertise was research. Probably of various kinds.

Argument from authority again. By "a large international organization", you mean Human Rights Watch. But why does the fact that HRW sent these "researchers" (and yes, the term is undefined, and no, we don't have any information about their qualifications) mean that they must therefore be competent?

It's an argument from reputability.

I do not trust anonymous bloggers. I trust logic. And the argument that he laid out is logical. HRW's argument is not.

How is it logical?

That isn't an answer. Is it the heat from the rocket exhaust? Heat from friction with the air? Heat from the explosion? "From the missile" isn't an answer. And none of the possible answers make any sense, but I'll let you settle on one first before I rip it to shreds.

From the rocket exhaust and/or friction with the air.

"Human Rights Watch cannot conclusively state which missiles were used in the attack on the ambulances, because our researchers did not find diagnostic shrapnel or missile parts at the scene, and because of the experimental nature of some missiles used by the IDF."
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/qana1206/4.htm
Translation: there's no actual physical trace of any munition because it's a Sooper-Sekrit Joo Weapon^TM.

I don't see how them stating they found no shrapnel equates to them stating it "disappeared into thin air".

Uh, NO. You've got the effects exactly backwards. Yes, the ground will absorb much of the impact, but it's going to do so by deforming and shattering. That's HOW it is going to absorb the impact. It's precisely because pavement is thicker and stronger (and much more brittle) than thin sheet metal that one should expect shockwaves from impact to shatter a larger area around the hole. Thin sheet metal doesn't need to absorb much of the impact, the fact that it's not strong means it will rip apart immediately in the path of the missile and so won't transmit deformations outwards, and that's precisely why the hole would be smaller. Imagine trying to drive a nail through a brick versus through a sheet of aluminum foil: which is going to show more damage? The brick, precisely because it's easy to get the nail to go through aluminum foil.

The street was Asphalt, which is fairly soft, especially in high temperatures. A high speed impact would unlikely cause any sort of large hole due to the fact it can easily absorb the impact. A super thin piece of sheet metal will show more damage because it can't absorb the impact very well. The nail through a brick comparison breaks down for several reasons. Mainly due to the fact that simply "driving" a nail through foil won't produce much of a hole due to the fact there isn't much speed associated with it, and due to the fact that bricks tend to crumble which would result in more damage.

 

[Ziggurat]

Their expertise was research. Probably of various kinds.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has expertise in "research" - that isn't a field. And all it takes to be a "researcher" is to research something: doesn't mean you're qualified to do it, doesn't mean you have any experience doing it, doesn't mean you'll do a good job, doesn't mean what you're researching is even real. Hence "paranormal researchers". You're really getting desparate here.

It's an argument from reputability.

What, you think because you can put a slightly different word there that you can turn it from a fallacy to a valid argument? How dumb do you think I am?

From the rocket exhaust and/or friction with the air.

Missiles don't go fast enough to melt metal from friction with the air. And you'd have to be a bloody stupid moron to design a missile whose exhaust heat actually melted parts of the missile. That would make the missile fatally unreliable. Furthermore, the most intense heat from the rocket exhaust is on the inside surface of the exhaust nozzle. Anything that comes off from there (through fracture or melting) is going to be propelled backwards along with the exhaust. It isn't going to continue at ballistic speeds along with the rocket.

The street was Asphalt, which is fairly soft, especially in high temperatures.

High temperatures means a lot hotter than a summer day.

A high speed impact would unlikely cause any sort of large hole due to the fact it can easily absorb the impact.

HOW does it absorb the impact? Is it through fracture? Plastic deformation? Because those processes will lead to larger holes. The only process that might not is elastic deformation, but you've GOT to be kidding me if you think asphalt, even soft asphalt, is elastic. A small hole indicates that the impact WASN'T absorbed, that the projectile didn't lose much energy while passing through.

A super thin piece of sheet metal will show more damage because it can't absorb the impact very well.

No, you've STILL got it wrong. It will punch a small hole through the sheet metal precisely because it can't absorb the impact: the metal in the immediate vicinity of the impact fails completely, and so doesn't transmit forces outwards for any extended period of time, so that the area of deformation is contained. The stronger the sheet metal, the longer it takes for the impact point to fail completely, the more time it has to pull on the surrounding metal before the projectile has puched through, and the larger the area of deformation around the impact point.

The nail through a brick comparison breaks down for several reasons. Mainly due to the fact that simply "driving" a nail through foil won't produce much of a hole due to the fact there isn't much speed associated with it, and due to the fact that bricks tend to crumble which would result in more damage.

You could do the same thing with a bullet: fire a bullet through aluminum foil and it will make a pretty clean hole about the size of the bullet. Fire a bullet at a brick and it will create a crater larger than the bullet.

 

[LibraryLady]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has expertise in "research" - that isn't a field.

Actually it is--it's called librarianship, also information management. It's what I do for a living.

However, like every profession, there are a lot a charlatans out there.

 

[firecoins]

I hate the Jews because they are dirty, smelly and cheap.

 

[firecoins]

No. Christians are currently being persecuted by the Jewish controlled media with their pro-drug, pro-gay, anti-family agenda.

Jews love gay people because they know how to shop. Those rascally Jews!

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually it is--it's called librarianship, also information management. It's what I do for a living.

Point taken. But the specific label is critical, because it's only the use of the label which Dustin is relying upon (he's got zero information besides that one word regarding their qualifications). HRW certainly didn't claim to have sent librarians.

 

[Mycroft]

And it is possible to be critical of Israel and not be an anti-semite.

It is.

And there are many people on this forum who are critical of Israel who are not anti-Semites.

 

[LibraryLady]

Point taken. But the specific label is critical, because it's only the use of the label which Dustin is relying upon (he's got zero information besides that one word regarding their qualifications). HRW certainly didn't claim to have sent librarians.

If they had sent librarians, at least the research would have been well cited and likely more reliable.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody has expertise in "research" - that isn't a field. And all it takes to be a "researcher" is to research something: doesn't mean you're qualified to do it, doesn't mean you have any experience doing it, doesn't mean you'll do a good job, doesn't mean what you're researching is even real. Hence "paranormal researchers". You're really getting desparate here.

I wouldn't call someone a "researcher" simply because they "research" something. Most people wouldn't. They would need some scientific expertise, which it's only reasonable to assume they did.

What, you think because you can put a slightly different word there that you can turn it from a fallacy to a valid argument? How dumb do you think I am?

If you want to believe fallacious arguments from a non reputable source, Be my guest.

Missiles don't go fast enough to melt metal from friction with the air. And you'd have to be a bloody stupid moron to design a missile whose exhaust heat actually melted parts of the missile. That would make the missile fatally unreliable. Furthermore, the most intense heat from the rocket exhaust is on the inside surface of the exhaust nozzle. Anything that comes off from there (through fracture or melting) is going to be propelled backwards along with the exhaust. It isn't going to continue at ballistic speeds along with the rocket.

Different missiles work different. HRW believes it was the SPIKE anti-armor missile system or the still experimental DIME (dense inert metal explosive) missile.

High temperatures means a lot hotter than a summer day.

Depends. I can go outside and easily poke a metal rod deep into asphalt on a hot summer day it's so soft.

HOW does it absorb the impact? Is it through fracture? Plastic deformation? Because those processes will lead to larger holes. The only process that might not is elastic deformation, but you've GOT to be kidding me if you think asphalt, even soft asphalt, is elastic. A small hole indicates that the impact WASN'T absorbed, that the projectile didn't lose much energy while passing through.

The same way a giant marshmallow might absorb the impact. The kinetic energy from the blast radiates through the asphalt and due to it's softness it absorbs the energy gradually without causing a large impact crater.

No, you've STILL got it wrong. It will punch a small hole through the sheet metal precisely because it can't absorb the impact: the metal in the immediate vicinity of the impact fails completely, and so doesn't transmit forces outwards for any extended period of time, so that the area of deformation is contained. The stronger the sheet metal, the longer it takes for the impact point to fail completely, the more time it has to pull on the surrounding metal before the projectile has puched through, and the larger the area of deformation around the impact point.

The sheet metal would transmit the force, It isn't as soft as tin foil. It transmit the force easily actually. When I say it "can't absorb the impact" I mean that it can't take the impact and radiate the energy through without causing much damage.

You could do the same thing with a bullet: fire a bullet through aluminum foil and it will make a pretty clean hole about the size of the bullet. Fire a bullet at a brick and it will create a crater larger than the bullet.

The difference in density and composition between foil and a brick is totally different from that of the sheet metal and asphalt. A bullet fired at aluminum foil would likely cause a larger hole simply due to the disturbance in the air from the bullet.

This thread looks like it's starting to get derailed. Please stay on topic or request a split. Thanks!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Ziggurat]

I wouldn't call someone a "researcher" simply because they "research" something. Most people wouldn't. They would need some scientific expertise, which it's only reasonable to assume they did.

Nonsense. Historians do research too. Scientific expertise is absolutely not a requirement to be a "researcher", even a well-credentialed one. And while you might hope that nobody would call someone a researcher if they didn't have relevant research experience, in the absence of any actual evidence of such expertise, we cannot actually conclude that it exists. Certainly no such expertise is in evidence: there's basically no citations or references anywhere in the whole report (in contrast to the zombietime website which you've tried so hard to disparage). Seriously, since whoever HRW sent to Lebannon can be called a researcher purely on the basis that they're doing some sort of research, what precludes them from using the label even if no prior research experience exists, or if their experience/expertise is in an unrelated field? Oh, that's right: nothing. Argument from assumed authority is even weaker than argument from authority.

If you want to believe fallacious arguments from a non reputable source, Be my guest.

Except you haven't shown how those arguments (particularly regarding the possible munitions, and why HRW's attribution of DIME or Spike missiles as possibilities makes no sense) are fallacious. Reputability has absolutely nothing to do with it: if the arguments are fallacious, you should be able to demonstrate that regardless of his reputability. You shouldn't need to refer to his identity to disprove his argument (again: see Dan Rather). And yet, that's really the only thing you can refer to.

Different missiles work different. HRW believes it was the SPIKE anti-armor missile system or the still experimental DIME (dense inert metal explosive) missile.

And the Zombietime site demolishes that argument, with references to actual authorities on those munitions so you don't have to take their word for it either. Spike is a two-warhead design intended to destroy armored vehicles: an unarmored ambulance would be demolished completely, and Spike isn't built to be a deep penetrator so it couldn't be burried under the road (a ridiculous claim that HRW doesn't even make). As for DIME, well, 1) there's no evidence Israelis have ever deployed any DIME munitions, 2) it would be silly to use an experimental munition whose purpose is to limit civilian casualties if you're going to target civilians, and 3) within the blast radius, DIME does an extraordinary amount of damage, including burning pretty much everything.

Depends. I can go outside and easily poke a metal rod deep into asphalt on a hot summer day it's so soft.

But the surface of the road isn't plastically deformed, it's broken.

The same way a giant marshmallow might absorb the impact.

Marshmallows are elastic. Asphalt, even soft asphalt, is not. It will either shatter or plastically deform.

The kinetic energy from the blast radiates through the asphalt and due to it's softness it absorbs the energy gradually without causing a large impact crater.

Your understanding of physics is pathetic, and your explanations contradictory. If the asphalt was soft, as you suggest, it would absorb energy by plastic (NOT elastic) deformation. But it clearly didn't: there's no plastic deformation at the supposed impact site at all. If it wasn't soft, it should transmit those forces by fracturing. And we can see that if any munition did actually hit that road, fracturing is exactly how it absorbed however much energy it absorbed. But the size of the fractures should be LARGER for the road than for the roof of the ambulance (and larger for the floor of the ambulance than for the roof), for reasons already explained but which you apparently can't understand.

The sheet metal would transmit the force, It isn't as soft as tin foil.

It's not as soft as alluminum foil, but it's soft compared to the forces required to punch deep into the ground through a road surface. And that's the relevant comparison.

It transmit the force easily actually.

No, it really won't. The force required to punch through sheet metal is significantly less than that required to punch through a road. If you don't believe me, take a pickaxe to the roof of your car and then the road in front of your house. Sheet metal will fail under much lower compressive loads (which is what an impact is) than a road surface will, which is precisely why the hole in the ambulance roof should be smaller than the hole in the road surface.

Furthermore, and what you still haven't addressed, the hole in the floor of the ambulance should be the same size or bigger, not smaller, than the hole in the roof. I also notice that you've stopped trying to explain the additional holes and dents in the roof. I guess even you counldn't continue to believe your own nonsense about the rocket melting in mid-flight.

 

[Elizabeth I]

If they had sent librarians, at least the research would have been well cited and likely more reliable.

You go, LL!

Elizabeth I
Library Public Relations Manager