• 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.

JONES Religious Studies Prof Takes on Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts... Poorly

SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Does this mean you are unwilling to definitively state what you believe happened as you are worried you will not be able to defend or back up your opinion?
Click to expand...

Is this the silly question you are referring to? Ok, here goes.

I am unwilling to definitively state what I "believe" because I don't put too much stock in belief.

More importantly, there has been far too much deception and not enough disclosure of evidence for anyone, especially skeptics, to definitively state what they think caused the collapse of the towers and the collapse of 7.
 
RedIbis said:
I have a job. I can't monitor the desperation of so called debunkers for the entire day.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that your job gives you JUST ENOUGH time to check your spelling.
 
RedIbis said:
I see that the strategy here is question until you get me to accuse someone of something. Reporting and accusing are entirely different, but this is lost here for some reason.

Let's just not pretend that there is any conclusive theory about its collapse. As of now controlled demolition is equally justifiable to diesel fuel, office fire or fire combined with debris damage.
Click to expand...

No, the strategy was to pin you down to a straight answer - no need to accuse 'someone'. I suspect this is as close as we get.

CD is not equally justifiable " as of now" at all. Prima Facie evidence leans much more towards a collapse as a result of damage sustained and internal fires.
 
RedIbis said:
More importantly, there has been far too much deception and not enough disclosure of evidence for anyone, especially skeptics, to definitively state what they think caused the collapse of the towers and the collapse of 7.
Click to expand...

Please state what more evidence needs to be disclosed for you to come to the obvious conclusion that controlled demolition would be practically impossible.
 
RedIbis said:
Is this the silly question you are referring to? Ok, here goes.

I am unwilling to definitively state what I "believe" because I don't put too much stock in belief.

More importantly, there has been far too much deception and not enough disclosure of evidence for anyone, especially skeptics, to definitively state what they think caused the collapse of the towers and the collapse of 7.
Click to expand...

I think there has been more than enough evidence to definitively state what caused the collapse of the towers. Independant reports by engineers and other related professionals aside, as I watched the events unfold on the day I remember being shocked that the towers fell, but at no stage did it look like the result of anything else than the effect of damage caused by 'plane impact. That, of course, is my personal opinion - it's up for being changed otherwise if any convincing evidence or facts come along - hasn't happened yet, and there aren't enough serious holes in the OT to make it happen.
 
RedIbis said:
I see that the strategy here is question until you get me to accuse someone of something. Reporting and accusing are entirely different, but this is lost here for some reason.

I do not figure or speculate any role that anyone played. I merely posted the quote of a fire capt who stated that the word was coming down from the OEM. This corroborates the accounts of many other firefighters.

As for what actually caused WTC 7's collapse? I'm just as curious as anyone else. First I read the Commission Report, no mention, then I read FEMA, we know what they concluded, now I'm waiting on NIST, just like everyone else.

Let's just not pretend that there is any conclusive theory about its collapse. As of now controlled demolition is equally justifiable to diesel fuel, office fire or fire combined with debris damage.
Click to expand...

Red:

I personally get really fed up with accusations made without facts, based on speculation and opinion only.

It is one thing to say that the official theory on the collapse of WTC7 doesn't sit right with you. That I can accept as a pov, albeit one I do not agree with. What I do not accept, is making accusations about a group of people, without any evidence to back it up. In that case, I request a reason for why you are accusing them, and explanation, and where possible, specifics around those within the organization in question, whom you think are guilty.

You have IMPLIED, that elements of the OEM were in on deceiving members of the FDNY into believing a collapse of WTC7 was imminent. This is a very serious accusation. If your implied accusation is true, it means members of that organization have deceived not only the FDNY, but criminal investigators, and the entire world, about the account of what happened on 9/11. Such accusations require proof, even when implied.

Do you really think it is fair or just, to throw around accusations, overtly or implied, without any proof? Would you want accusations to be made about you, or the institution you work for based on...little to nothing?

TAM:)
 
Red, again, given all the available testimonies, what do you think most likely happened to WTC 7?
 
As for your last statement, Red, the two theories are not equal in terms of evidence.

CD - NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE WITNESSES, NO CREDIBLE EXPERTS WITH SCIENCE TO BACK UP THEIR THEORY.

NIST THEORY - Photos and Witness reports indicating debris damage to the south facade of the building. Witnesses Testifying to large multistory fires, and photographic/video evidence to show this. NIST is made up of a TEAM OF EXPERTS in relevant fields, and their conclusion is debris damage plus untreated sustained fires, lead to the collapse.

Both theories can exist, but it is not honest to call them both equal.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Red:

I personally get really fed up with accusations made without facts, based on speculation and opinion only.

It is one thing to say that the official theory on the collapse of WTC7 doesn't sit right with you. That I can accept as a pov, albeit one I do not agree with. What I do not accept, is making accusations about a group of people, without any evidence to back it up. In that case, I request a reason for why you are accusing them, and explanation, and where possible, specifics around those within the organization in question, whom you think are guilty.

You have IMPLIED, that elements of the OEM were in on deceiving members of the FDNY into believing a collapse of WTC7 was imminent. This is a very serious accusation. If your implied accusation is true, it means members of that organization have deceived not only the FDNY, but criminal investigators, and the entire world, about the account of what happened on 9/11. Such accusations require proof, even when implied.

Do you really think it is fair or just, to throw around accusations, overtly or implied, without any proof? Would you want accusations to be made about you, or the institution you work for based on...little to nothing?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Mother of all things holey. After emphatically stating that I'm not accusing or implying anything other than what the Capt. said, you still say that I am. TAM, you know I respect your posts, but I"m not hopping on this carousel.
 
T.A.M. said:
As for your last statement, Red, the two theories are not equal in terms of evidence.

CD - NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, NO CREDIBLE WITNESSES, NO CREDIBLE EXPERTS WITH SCIENCE TO BACK UP THEIR THEORY.

NIST THEORY - Photos and Witness reports indicating debris damage to the south facade of the building. Witnesses Testifying to large multistory fires, and photographic/video evidence to show this. NIST is made up of a TEAM OF EXPERTS in relevant fields, and their conclusion is debris damage plus untreated sustained fires, lead to the collapse.

Both theories can exist, but it is not honest to call them both equal.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


This is the essence of the strawman fallacy. You guys want to talk about controlled demolition, accustations and implications. I'm only responding to the OP, MacQueen's analysis and Gravy and Mackey's analyses.

The more specific I get, the more pissed you guys and gals get and revert to transparent tactics. Carry on. I find this particular thread very productive.
 
RedIbis said:
Mother of all things holey. After emphatically stating that I'm not accusing or implying anything other than what the Capt. said, you still say that I am. TAM, you know I respect your posts, but I"m not hopping on this carousel.
Click to expand...

Gotchya! :D;)

...Anyway, TAM is right - whether intentional or not - your posts are loaded with subtle (and not so) implication.

Besides - it doesn't matter who ordered who out of the building; it does not make CD any more viable a theory.
 
lol...sorry, I worded it poorly I guess.

Red:

1. My impression of the comments you have made about the testimonies, and comments about where the word of the collapse may have come from, is that you feel some elements within the OEM and/or FDNY had forknowledge of a collapse, because they were part of a scheme to intentionally bring down the building. Of course, my impressions could be wrong, and I am more than open to a comment from you indicating I am wrong, and explaining your official position on it, for clarification.

2. I am not expecting names, as I know that will open up the same kettle of fish you got into about Gen. Myers...and it will go nowhere.

3. If your opinion on the testimonies is that you have NO opinion, then fine, we have nothing more to argue here.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Gotchya! :D;)

...Anyway, TAM is right - whether intentional or not - your posts are loaded with subtle (and not so) implication.

Besides - it doesn't matter who ordered who out of the building; it does not make CD any more viable a theory.
Click to expand...

I left that in there for its alternative, seriously. I was deciding between holey or wholey.
 
RedIbis said:
This is the essence of the strawman fallacy. You guys want to talk about controlled demolition, accustations and implications. I'm only responding to the OP, MacQueen's analysis and Gravy and Mackey's analyses.

The more specific I get, the more pissed you guys and gals get and revert to transparent tactics. Carry on. I find this particular thread very productive.
Click to expand...

1. As YOU have said on this forum, this IS A FORUM, and from time to time, one topic will result in certain subtopics, or diversions from the main thread issue. That is not always a bad thing, or to be ridiculed, unless it is intentional. I did not purposely divert our conversation away from the OP, it just happened that way.

2. I am not pissed.

3. I am not reverting, as I do not use the tactics (at least intentionally) that you have mentioned.

4. We can drop it, if you wish. When I ask you about your reasoning, or why you may or may not feel a certain way, for me it is to get a better understanding of your pov and thought processes.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
1. As YOU have said on this forum, this IS A FORUM, and from time to time, one topic will result in certain subtopics, or diversions from the main thread issue. That is not always a bad thing, or to be ridiculed, unless it is intentional. I did not purposely divert our conversation away from the OP, it just happened that way.

2. I am not pissed.

3. I am not reverting, as I do not use the tactics (at least intentionally) that you have mentioned.

4. We can drop it, if you wish. When I ask you about your reasoning, or why you may or may not feel a certain way, for me it is to get a better understanding of your pov and thought processes.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Ditto TAM on points 1 & 4.

RedIbis, although you have the whiff of 'twoof' about you, you have a healthy amount of respect on the forum considering your views; I personally believe that you could quite emphatically and openly state your opinions on here without getting savaged too much. The only thing that frustrates people (I think) is your unwillingness at times to answer direct questions directly, and the lack of justification (or bizarre justification) for your opinions.

But that's just what I think...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom