Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

According to you- according to the scientific community, however, you're clearly wrong.

Perhaps you can settle a bet- precisely how is the report insufficient in its objective?

Remember, be specific.

 

[Totovader]

Oh- and just to make sure there's no ambiguity in your partial quote, here's the statement from the NIST WTC page:

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.

*emphasis original

Link

Is there anything in that statement that relates to the structural integrity of a building after it has already started collapsing?

If you can't figure it out, maybe we need to conduct a poll?

 

[thewholesoul]

NIST's Report states that its first objective was to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

Using your own words

The task of the NIST investigation was not to prove that the towers collapsed, - it was to find out the reason behind the structural failures and see if there's any areas of improvement in building construction.

So if you can acknowledge that their task was not to prove how and why the towers fell then why are you saying that the official hypothesis was proven??? That is a nasty lie and it needs to be retracted.

Determining why and how the WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed and discovering the reasons behind the structural failure up to and not beyond the initial collapse are not the same thing. NIST stopped short in relation to its first stated objective.

NIST was not tasked with PROVING THAT GRAVITY WORKS

Its not proving that gravity works – what a ridiculous statement - rather its proving that the TOTAL COLLAPSE ensued due to gravity. gravity and the collapsing upper section of WTC 1+2 are the proposed official reasons as to why and how we observed a total collapse. But this official hypothesis was never proven through the scientific method. although you admit yourself that

of course there's a need for experimentation, analysis, computer modeling

yet

#1 jim hoffman’s progressive collapse challenge still remains. I am not here to defend his challlenge but the greatest objection to his challenge is that it does not respect the scaling laws and to build a tower to scale and experiment on that is not feasible.

#2 no computer model pertaining to the total collapse has been provided by NIST. You admit yourself that a computer model of the collapse itself is

not technologically possible, is not feasible, and is not necessary

. yet you say

Modeling of the towers is feasible- computer modeling. And that has been done.

. yes it ahs been done but not in relation to the total collapse.


So the question is toto – when was the offiical hypothesis pertaining to the TOTAL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE proven through the scientific method of experimentation via scale models or computer models?????

To argue that (a) its not their task to prove the total collapse is self defeating because you are essentially admitting that NIST has not yet proven the total collapse. Besides it was the stated goal of NIST to determine how and why WTC 1+2 collapsed.

To argue that (b) its not necessary is self contradicting because you admit that there is a need for experimentation and computer models and claim to support the scientific method.

In closing experimentation of a hypothesis is necessary in order to prove that the hypothesis is true or not. NIST or anyone else for that matter has not PROVEN how the total collapsed ensued through experimentation.

So when are you going to retract your nasty and ignorant lie?

The "official hypothesis" has been proven for quite a long time.

To repeat

NIST's simulations model phenomena such as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes that rose from the Towers, and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missing from their study are simulations, models, or even caluclations that attempt to describe how and why the Towers came down.
NIST states that they only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse
NIST states they are unable to provide a full explanation concerning the total collapse
NIST did not produce a computer model of the total collapse.

So as for the retraction of you nasty lie i will be timing.

 

[thewholesoul]

Totovader holds the view that computer models are sufficient as a means to prove a hypothesis yet he also asserts that a computer model of the total collapse is technologically impossible. It requires patience to debate a person who holds such logically counter-intuitive positions.

Now i tried to answer totovaders question as to why some may consider a computer simulation as insufficient as a means of provng a hypothesis. I provided the reasons why i suggested some would consider it insufficient but totovader was unable or unwilling to argue against those reasons. I even added that because scale models are not a feasible means to test the official hypothesis that computer models may turn out to be the only means to prove the official hypothesis.

AZCat, for instance, stated that computer models are limited, and i agreed with that statement. Plus in the philosphy of science there is an ongoing debate as to the nature of computer simulations in terms of what they can prove. Some for instance hold that computer simulations are to be considered as genuine experiments, others disagree and maintain that simulations are just another intellectual or theoretical tool to treat real experimnets, whereas increasingly the position held is that computer simulations are an intermediate between theory and experiment. Because there is an ongoing debate as to the epistemological status of computer simulations it cannot be said that there is a scientifc consensus on the matter.

According to totovader

To claim there is no scientific consensus regarding computer simulations is probably one of the most ignorant things you have said to date- and that's no small feat

Clearly totovader is ignorant of the ongoing debate as he elequantly states

Where in the crap are you pulling this from?

Yet he prefers to dish out his usual insults with a condescending tone and demands that i prove there is no scientific consensus concerning the epistmeological status of computer simulations. He states

Provide evidence for these "views"- including statements from well-renowned individuals in their respective fields- or admit your ignorance. I'm not letting this one go, kiddo.

So perhaps you should check out some of these references, kiddo. You will find plenty of quotes that will satisfy your request.

Langton C. 1987 the methodology of scientific research programs cambridge university press

Lagay J.M 1997 L’experience et le modele. Un discours sur la methode INRA editions, Paris

Marshall A.W. 1954 “Preface”. Proc. Of the Symopsium on Monte Carlo Methods, ed. By Meyer and, Wiley and Sons, New York

Hartmann S. 1995 “Simulation” vol 3 Verlag Metzlar, Stuttgart

Dennett D 1995 “Artificial Life as Philosphy”. In Artificial Life: an Overview

Wagensberg J. 1985 Ideas Sobre la Complejidad del mundo, Barcelona, Tusquets Editores

Humphreys P 1990 “Computer Simulations”, in PSA (Philosophy of Science Association) 1990 vol. 2, 497- 506

Galison, P 1997 Image and Logic The University of Chicago Press 689-752.

 

[thewholesoul]

Oh- and just to make sure there's no ambiguity in your partial quote, here's the statement from the NIST WTC page:

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation

*emphasis original

Link

Is there anything in that statement that relates to the structural integrity of a building after it has already started collapsing?

If you can't figure it out, maybe we need to conduct a poll?

way to go totovader you have successfully self defeated yourself.

The "official hypothesis" has been proven for quite a long time

so if NIST has not investigated the structural integrity of the building AFTER IT HAS ALREADY STARTED COLLAPSING - then how do you propose they proved their hypothesis concerning TOTAL COLLAPSE???

The clock is still ticking on your restraction of that nasty lie. lets see if you will take the path of a rational adult.

 

[thewholesoul]

NIST was not tasked with "proving the official story"- because it had already been proven.

By who and was it proven by the scientifc method which requires experimenattion of the working hypothesis.

A lack of a computer model of the complete collapse is not evidence that it was not possible. Do you understand this?

Yes i do understand but do you understand that lack of a compuer model is not proof or validation that the official hypothesis is true?

 

[Totovader]

NIST's Report states that its first objective was to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

Using your own words

So if you can acknowledge that their task was not to prove how and why the towers fell then why are you saying that the official hypothesis was proven??? That is a nasty lie and it needs to be retracted.

This "nasty lie" nonsense needs to stop right now. You are inventing a strawman argument. I Never said that the task of the NIST was not to prove how and why the towers fell, I said that the task of the NIST was not to prove that the towers fell.

The "official hypothesis" has been proven- for a very long time. Your rejection of the facts will not change that.

Determining why and how the WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed and discovering the reasons behind the structural failure up to and not beyond the initial collapse are not the same thing. NIST stopped short in relation to its first stated objective.

No, it did not- for the reasons that have already been explained to you- the reasons you continue to avoid and have no rebuttal to.

Its not proving that gravity works – what a ridiculous statement - rather its proving that the TOTAL COLLAPSE ensued due to gravity.

Why would you need a computer model to confirm that?

You have yet to answer this question.

gravity and the collapsing upper section of WTC 1+2 are the proposed official reasons as to why and how we observed a total collapse. But this official hypothesis was never proven through the scientific method. although you admit yourself that

#1 jim hoffman’s progressive collapse challenge still remains. I am not here to defend his challlenge but the greatest objection to his challenge is that it does not respect the scaling laws and to build a tower to scale and experiment on that is not feasible.

Yeah- pesky reality, always getting in the way of a good conspiracy theory...

#2 no computer model pertaining to the total collapse has been provided by NIST. You admit yourself that a computer model of the collapse itself is
. yet you say
. yes it ahs been done but not in relation to the total collapse.

Equivocation fallacy. I said that modeling of the building is possible- I did not say that modeling of the total collapse is possible (in fact, I said quite the opposite, but you don't like to quote me in full). There is not a computer in the world that would be able to accurately perform this task, and even if there was there are way too many data points to enter- for no reason at all.

You are trying to say that since the towers can be modeled- the simulation should be able to perform a catastrophic collapse. The ignorance required to reach that conclusion is incomprehensible. They're two completely different operations.

So the question is toto – when was the offiical hypothesis pertaining to the TOTAL PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE proven through the scientific method of experimentation via scale models or computer models?????

There is no need to prove that gravity works. If you are questioning as to whether gravity can destroy a building or not, then I suggest you start providing some pretty serious evidence- and debunk the papers I have already mentioned in regards to this specific claim.

To argue that (a) its not their task to prove the total collapse is self defeating because you are essentially admitting that NIST has not yet proven the total collapse. Besides it was the stated goal of NIST to determine how and why WTC 1+2 collapsed.

No... not "essentially admitting" that at all- because THEY WERE NOT TASKED WITH SUCH A RIDICULOUS JOB. Are you not understanding this?

The purpose of the NIST investigation was not to prove that the buildings collapsed, it was to find the mechanism of the collapse so that we could learn from the collapse and build better buildings and codes.

Read that again if you don't understand it. Continuing to move the goalpost is not helping your position, and neither is misstating the NIST position or objective.

To argue that (b) its not necessary is self contradicting because you admit that there is a need for experimentation and computer models and claim to support the scientific method.

You again are misquoting me. I said that there is obvious a need for computer modeling- I never said that modeling a total collapse is necessary. In fact, once again- I said the complete opposite.

You're so desperate to avoid the issue that all you're going to do is try and keep misquoting me to dodge the questions.

In closing experimentation of a hypothesis is necessary in order to prove that the hypothesis is true or not. NIST or anyone else for that matter has not PROVEN how the total collapsed ensued through experimentation.

Wrong. The collapse initiation has been well documented. This is what you continue to ignore- and obviously have no rebuttal for.

So when are you going to retract your nasty and ignorant lie?

As soon as you provide evidence that it's a "nasty ignorant lie". Obviously, you're in no position to do that since all you're doing is tossing out nonsense to avoid the issues.

So as for the retraction of you nasty lie i will be timing.

So you read my post- you just have no response? I see.

 

[thewholesoul]

Appeal to emotion. If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do.

your a real charming individual totovader. a prime example of moral standards and integrity.

 

[thewholesoul]

Answer my Challenge: What fact or piece of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?

Ah the infamous totovader challenge – still unanswered!! Wow.

I need proof and validitation of the official hypothesis – not evidence. Evidence supports a hypothesis but it does not prove the hypothesis. these are separate issues amigo. This is why i demand you retract your nasty lie that the official story is proven. if the official story was proven i would have no hesitation – none – in believing it.

After reading you whinning

This "nasty lie" nonsense needs to stop right now.

And out right refusal to retract your nasty lie i must say it has come as no surprise. Again if the official hypothesis pertaining to the progressive collapse of the wtc 1+2+7 was proven then who proved it and was it proven through the scientific method??? come on answer the question or retract your nasty lie.

Heres a challenge of my own: if, hypothetically speaking, we had more sophisticated computers and the official hypothesis was not proven to be to true. Would you still believe it? Or would you seek an alternative hypothesis?

In addition: if, hypothetically speaking, years from now high level whistle blowers come out in increasing numbers – would their testimony convince you that 911 could have been an inside job?

 

[Totovader]

Totovader holds the view that computer models are sufficient as a means to prove a hypothesis yet he also asserts that a computer model of the total collapse is technologically impossible. It requires patience to debate a person who holds such logically counter-intuitive positions.

"Logically counter-intuitive" makes no sense. There are no contradictions in my statements, only in your misrepresentations of them.

Now i tried to answer totovaders question as to why some may consider a computer simulation as insufficient as a means of provng a hypothesis.

"Some" being you, of course.

I provided the reasons why i suggested some would consider it insufficient but totovader was unable or unwilling to argue against those reasons.

Did you miss my entire post?

You have yet to show where computer models are rejected by the scientific community- this was your primary claim, so I expect you to provide evidence for it. If you need me to REPOST this request, I will. Apparently, you missed it.

I even added that because scale models are not a feasible means to test the official hypothesis that computer models may turn out to be the only means to prove the official hypothesis.

I'm not sure where you think you conceded this- since between all that nonsense you were trying to claim that computer models were insufficient and that the scientific community supports what "some" (read: you) think about that.

AZCat, for instance, stated that computer models are limited, and i agreed with that statement.

Actually, you misrepresented his post as well. He was not saying that computer models themselves- the process- are invalid, he was saying that data can be manipulated by the individuals themselves, but that's easy enough to test and identify.

How you think that helps your position that computer models are verbotten is beyond me.

Plus in the philosphy of science there is an ongoing debate as to the nature of computer simulations in terms of what they can prove. Some for instance hold that computer simulations are to be considered as genuine experiments, others disagree and maintain that simulations are just another intellectual or theoretical tool to treat real experimnets, whereas increasingly the position held is that computer simulations are an intermediate between theory and experiment. Because there is an ongoing debate as to the epistemological status of computer simulations it cannot be said that there is a scientifc consensus on the matter.

In order to be taken seriously- you need to provide evidence for this claim.

Clearly totovader is ignorant of the ongoing debate as he elequantly states

Clearly, you make a fool of yourself every time you try to sound smart in your personal attacks on me- you try, "elequantly" [sic] to get away with flat-out lies, and then pretend as if no one will notice.

Yet he prefers to dish out his usual insults with a condescending tone and demands that i prove there is no scientific consensus concerning the epistmeological status of computer simulations.

Do you know what epistmeological means? Because it's not even a word. I demand that you provide proof of your claims! Sue me.

So perhaps you should check out some of these references, kiddo. You will find plenty of quotes that will satisfy your request.

Plenty of quotes?

I didn't see a single quote in the nonsense you provided... Instead of providing evidence for your claim, you try an Argumentum ad Google.

Sorry, sparky- no one buys that you're smart enough to have an opinion on this. You will need to provide quotes, page numbers, or specific references. Just listing a bunch of books will not support your argument.

Langton C. 1987 the methodology of scientific research programs cambridge university press

Lagay J.M 1997 L’experience et le modele. Un discours sur la methode INRA editions, Paris

Marshall A.W. 1954 “Preface”. Proc. Of the Symopsium on Monte Carlo Methods, ed. By Meyer and, Wiley and Sons, New York

Hartmann S. 1995 “Simulation” vol 3 Verlag Metzlar, Stuttgart

Dennett D 1995 “Artificial Life as Philosphy”. In Artificial Life: an Overview

Wagensberg J. 1985 Ideas Sobre la Complejidad del mundo, Barcelona, Tusquets Editores

Humphreys P 1990 “Computer Simulations”, in PSA (Philosophy of Science Association) 1990 vol. 2, 497- 506

Galison, P 1997 Image and Logic The University of Chicago Press 689-752.

Here's the sad thing...

YOU STOLE THIS LIST from someone's resume no less. So not only are you talking out your rear, but you can't even be bothered to do your own research and support your own claims.

This is absurd. Every title here you stole from this link. That's beyond plagiarism, it's just pure absurdity. You're pretending to have knowledge on something you clearly know nothing about, and your escape from the obvious is to lie your way through it even more.

This is sad. Sad and pathetic. You should be embarrassed.

 

[Totovader]

your a real charming individual totovader. a prime example of moral standards and integrity.

In light of your most recent spat of fraudulent plagiarism, this statement is pure irony.

 

[thewholesoul]

In light of your most recent spat of fraudulent plagiarism, this statement is pure irony.

hahahahha - loosing your temper i see.

well the link you provided and i took the references from after reading the link should point out why "some" do not consider computer simulations as a form of experimentation.

quoting me saying "beyond" or "and" computer simulation is hardly a sound reason to suggest i consider computer simulation insufficient. beyond does not necessarily mean "better than" or "superior" no matter how much you pray that it does.

so now i am the plagorist for reading a phd paper and using its references.

but what are you? a person who will not retract a lie and a person who openly admits he would disrespect family members who make a petition because they are the minority. i think you have a lot more to apologise for buddy.

 

[Totovader]

hahahahha - loosing your temper i see.

If your goal is to make me "loose" [sic] my temper, then making yourself look like a fool is not going to work.

well the link you provided and i took the references from after reading the link should point out why "some" do not consider computer simulations as a form of experimentation.

So not only did you not adequately read the information you stole, but you didn't even read the references you were giving.

And you expect people to take you seriously?

quoting me saying "beyond" or "and" computer simulation is hardly a sound reason to suggest i consider computer simulation insufficient. beyond does not necessarily mean "better than" or "superior" no matter how much you pray that it does.

Yet you try to defend the position. That's odd...

so now i am the plagorist for reading a phd paper and using its references.

Since that's what plagiarism is... YES.

but what are you? a person who will not retract a lie and a person who openly admits he would disrespect family members who make a petition because they are the minority. i think you have a lot more to apologise for buddy.

There's no lie to retract. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with 2 family members, why you think that gives you an excuse to commit lies and plagiarism is a mystery, however.

 

[thewholesoul]

(i said) In closing experimentation of a hypothesis is necessary in order to prove that the hypothesis is true or not. NIST or anyone else for that matter has not PROVEN how the total collapsed ensued through experimentation

Then you said

Wrong. The collapse initiation has been well documented. This is what you continue to ignore- and obviously have no rebuttal for.

you sent me these experiments already in a previous post.

These experiments directly address that need, and thus prove the very specifics of what happened in the cause of the collapse of the Towers.

However, you're missing the models of the collapse themselves, which have been publicly available for quite some time.

the reason i didnt respond is becasue i already outlined all the simlutions conducted by NIST in a post prior to yours!! lets see them again shall we.

1.Comparison of two computer simulations of the fire behavior in the upper stories of the WTC North Tower (1 WTC) based on different internal conditions and fuel distribution. The left simulation shows very large flames extending from the exterior damage holes with the right showing few flames extending out. The simulation on the right seems to agree more with pictorial records:
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation1.ram
2.Simulation of the WTC South Tower (2 WTC) fireball seconds after impact of the plane: http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation2.ram
3.A computer simulation showing the smoke plume generated by the fire in the WTC North Tower (1 WTC). http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation3.ram
4.A computer simulation showing the combining of the smoke plumes generated from the fires in the upper stories of WTC North and South Towers (1 WTC and 2 WTC):
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation4.ram
5.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel and two core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine1.rm
6.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel, floor system and core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine2.rm
7.Computer simulation (containing 90,000 elements) showing the response of the WTC North Tower to wind loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_windloads.rm
8.Computer simulation showing some of the progression of the fires on the 97th floor of the WTC North Tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_fireon97th.rm
9.Computer simulation (containing 40,000 elements) showing the response of the 96th floor of the WTC North Tower to gravity loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_gavityloads.rm
10.Computer simulation showing the response to gravity and elevated temperatures of a strip of floor (including floor trusses and concrete slab) connected to an exterior column of a WTC tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_stripresponse.rm
(borrowed from 911reseach.com)

Why i never bothered with a rebuttal is because these simulations are up to and not beyond the initial collapse. They do not prove the total collapse. Nobody has proven the total collapse and until the total collapse of the wtc has been proven either by scale model or computer model it the official hypothesis REMAINS LARGELY UNPORVEN.

But you claimed, and continue to claim, that the official hypothesis has been proven. This is a nasty lie that needs to be retracted. If the total collapse has been proven then please tell me who proved it, and was it proven through the scientific method. [/QUOTE]

 

[Totovader]

Then you said



you sent me these experiments already in a previous post.



the reason i didnt respond is becasue i already outlined all the simlutions conducted by NIST in a post prior to yours!! lets see them again shall we.

1.Comparison of two computer simulations of the fire behavior in the upper stories of the WTC North Tower (1 WTC) based on different internal conditions and fuel distribution. The left simulation shows very large flames extending from the exterior damage holes with the right showing few flames extending out. The simulation on the right seems to agree more with pictorial records:
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation1.ram
2.Simulation of the WTC South Tower (2 WTC) fireball seconds after impact of the plane: http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation2.ram
3.A computer simulation showing the smoke plume generated by the fire in the WTC North Tower (1 WTC). http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation3.ram
4.A computer simulation showing the combining of the smoke plumes generated from the fires in the upper stories of WTC North and South Towers (1 WTC and 2 WTC):
http://realex.nist.gov/WTCanimation4.ram
5.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel and two core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine1.rm
6.Computer simulation showing the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft engine into an exterior wall panel, floor system and core columns of a WTC tower.
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_engine2.rm
7.Computer simulation (containing 90,000 elements) showing the response of the WTC North Tower to wind loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_windloads.rm
8.Computer simulation showing some of the progression of the fires on the 97th floor of the WTC North Tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_fireon97th.rm
9.Computer simulation (containing 40,000 elements) showing the response of the 96th floor of the WTC North Tower to gravity loads. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_gavityloads.rm
10.Computer simulation showing the response to gravity and elevated temperatures of a strip of floor (including floor trusses and concrete slab) connected to an exterior column of a WTC tower. http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/WTC_stripresponse.rm
(borrowed from 911reseach.com)

Why i never bothered with a rebuttal is because these simulations are up to and not beyond the initial collapse. They do not prove the total collapse. Nobody has proven the total collapse and until the total collapse of the wtc has been proven either by scale model or computer model it the official hypothesis REMAINS LARGELY UNPORVEN.

But you claimed, and continue to claim, that the official hypothesis has been proven. This is a nasty lie that needs to be retracted. If the total collapse has been proven then please tell me who proved it, and was it proven through the scientific method.

There's nothing for me to respond to, here- I've already addressed these claims. Reposting them will not suddenly make them adequate and it will not counteract your lies.

You need to address the questions I have presented. I've given you enough rope.

 

[thewholesoul]

There's no lie to retract. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with 2 family members, why you think that gives you an excuse to commit lies and plagiarism is a mystery, however.

so total collapse was proven?

ah, so you only "disagree" with the family members. i thought you said

If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do

you also called them "wackos" earlier in that post for filing a petition.

look if you dont have the moral fibre to retract your lie that the official hypothesis pertaining to the total collapse was proven

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty?

your welcome to ignore taht last question.

 

[thewholesoul]

There's no lie to retract. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with 2 family members, why you think that gives you an excuse to commit lies and plagiarism is a mystery, however.

so total collapse was proven?

ah, so you only "disagree" with the family members. i thought you said

If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do.

you also called them "wackos" earlier in that post for filing a petition.

look if you dont have the moral fibre to retract your lie that the official hypothesis pertaining to the total collapse was proven

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty?

your welcome to ignore that last question

 

[Totovader]

so total collapse was proven?

ah, so you only "disagree" with the family members. i thought you said

I'm only going to say this one more time: you need to address the questions I have presented.

Your case- and your credibility- are both dead. In the event that you decide to visit reality again, I may hear your argument. Until then- these red herrings will be ignored.

You had to plagiarize someone else's work in order to even try and keep up with your own lies (reading the summary of some of those references- you clearly had no idea as to what they're talking about). If that is not a wakeup call to the futility of your absurd claims, I don't know what will be- but I'm certainly not going to continue to allow you to ignore the facts.

Answer the questions, or move on.

 

[thewholesoul]

You need to address the questions I have presented. I've given you enough rope.

ah, i always have to answer lord vadars questions yet he doesnot need to answer mine.

was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you need to man-up and admit when you spread nasty lies.

 

[Totovader]

ah, i always have to answer lord vadars questions yet he doesnot need to answer mine.

was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you need to man-up and admit when you spread nasty lies.

I have answered all of your questions, you just feel that you can repost them in order to ignore my responses.

Either address my questions or move on.