Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Dabljuh]

Yet you quoted the very last line of his very last post?

oh i get it.. your definition of putting someone on ignore is not by the forum software. but by putting your hands over your ears and saying 'lalalalalnananana I'm not listening to you...... nanananana... i can't heeere youuuu"

No... sorry, I mean, I didn't put him on ignore, ever.

 

[beachnut]

Note that since I now proved beyond any doubt to you that thermate was used on 9/11, you can now choose to be 'troofers', or being blinded by religious dogma. Quite a bummer, I am certain.

Suicide is always an option, but in time you might realize there's worse things than being a troofer. You could be an emo. In which case, suicide is in fact the only option.

...
ANY MINUTE!

If you only had some evidence, you need a trip to the wizard. Thermite is in the top ten dumbest ideas of 9/11 truth, and your defense was pathetic. Presented very well, the zero evidence defense of thermate. No real story how it was set up, or how your fantasy works, or joules required, or any science, just hearsay, talk, waving hands, and asking all to kill themselves; and you using pure Fetzer say so anti-intellectual illogical decision making, claiming you are right! too truthy...

 

[X]

No, but you're on notice.

[bored actor drawl]"Oh no, oh no. Please don't ignore me. Whatever will I do with my life? Plase, I beg you..."[/bored actor drawl] "...hang it."

We already had someone just about as 'clever' as you with the same ridiculous argument 10 pages back, and it was very embarassing for the person who brought it forth because it illustrated that the person not only didn't know the basics of blackbody radiation, but also apparently has never heated a steel item past 200°C (Alternatively, it may be that the person has absolutely no idea of the Celsius scale and thinks 200°C is where aluminium melts)

Reading through this thread, it seems I'd be wasting my time discussing anything with you.
Go ahead. Ignore me. I can join the ranks of everyone else who has shown a flaw in your cherished theory.
Tell you what: I'll link to a bunch of sites giving steel color temperature charts. All of them will have data entries at temperatures below 500°C.
That should give you an excuse to run away from argument yet again.

http://www.muggyweld.com/color.html
http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14250/css/14250_29.htm
http://www.r2d2u.com/htm pages/color firing chart.htm
http://www.roundhousepottery.com/images/ColorTempChart.pdf
http://www.giantimpex.com/colorchart.htm
http://www.navaching.com/forge/heat.html

To put it short: No, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about blackbody radiation due to temperature. I dare you to heat a piece of steel to 200°C and see if it glows yellow.

I've done it before. I put out the lights, and saw a faint glow. Very faint. Remote thermometer read about 250°C.
(I have machining and metal fabrication experience. We were toying around with the thermometer to see how hot the CNC plasma cutter got.)

 

[1337m4n]

but in time you might realize there's worse things than being a troofer. You could be an emo. In which case, suicide is in fact the only option.

We agree on something! How about that.

As for me I'll be waiting for the money to pour in. As 9/11 is now proven to be an inside job, it can just be a matter of minutes until the CIA calls me and offers me money to shut up. Any minute.

Any minute.

ANY MINUTE!

Holy...

wait...you've been joking this whole thread, haven't you? This has all been one big prank.

Nice one...uh...Unsecured Coins???

 

[Dabljuh]

I hope you understand if the posters here don't take that as a compliment.

What was your purpose in joining this site and interacting with us? It seems a bit bizarre to join and right away begin insulting other members if you intend to gain something other than personal satisfaction from the interaction. I'd appreciate any insight you can offer into your motives.

First of all, a theory is not proven by showing it to a lot of people who agree. That's how nutjob Alex Jones comes up with stuff. He never has anyone telling him "Dude, that's a load of BS" so he goes on air ranting completely insane stuff.

A theory is only worth a damn if it can stand up to all the scrutiny, scorn, and objections it can get - and still prevails.

As for my personal satisfaction... First of all, I wanted to confirm that my suspicion was right, of course. Remove the final bits of doubt - I could be wrong.

Secondly, JREF has - in the past - shown to be a bastion of arrogance, ignorance and hivemind. There's almost no lively debate, it's just a majority side bashing the other, mostly in their absence, while the vast majority almost always represents the opinion of the mass media and thus is in fact quite the opposite of what I'd call 'skeptic' - I'm disgusted at what supposedly should be a site promoting skepticism. So it is additional personal satisfaction to prove JREF's hivemind wrong.

 

[A W Smith]

still trying to figure out how you get thermite to cut through a horizontal beam when theres a 5 inch concrete slab in the way. what horizontal surface are you putting the thermite on?

 

[AZCat]

First of all, a theory is not proven by showing it to a lot of people who agree. That's how nutjob Alex Jones comes up with stuff. He never has anyone telling him "Dude, that's a load of BS" so he goes on air ranting completely insane stuff.

Fine, but I think there are plenty of people who tell Mr. Jones his theories are a bit unrealistic.

A theory is only worth a damn if it can stand up to all the scrutiny, scorn, and objections it can get - and still prevails.

Then why the pretense of "ignoring" people, if you want to show your theories are capable of this?

As for my personal satisfaction... First of all, I wanted to confirm that my suspicion was right, of course. Secondly, JREF has - in the past - shown to be a bastion of arrogance, ignorance and hivemind. There's almost no lively debate, it's just a majority side bashing the other, mostly in their absence, while the vast majority almost always represents the opinion of the mass media and thus is in fact quite the opposite of what I'd call 'skeptic' - I'm disgusted at what supposedly should be a site promoting skepticism. So it is additional personal satisfaction to prove JREF's hivemind wrong.

It seems that we have had different experiences at the JREF. I am saddened that you have such a negative view of our forum. Have you ventured out of the 9/11 Conspiracies section? It would be unfortunate if you were forming opinions of the whole JREF forum based on a small section that attracts only a portion of the JREF forum members.
I am also surprised that you include "arrogance" as one of your criticisms of the JREF forum. Perhaps you should read back on your posts in this thread and think about how they might appear to someone else.

 

[beachnut]

Secondly, JREF has - in the past - shown to be a bastion of arrogance, ignorance and hivemind. There's almost no lively debate, it's just a majority side bashing the other, mostly in their absence, while the vast majority almost always represents the opinion of the mass media and thus is in fact quite the opposite of what I'd call 'skeptic' - I'm disgusted at what supposedly should be a site promoting skepticism. So it is additional personal satisfaction to prove JREF's hivemind wrong.

Oops. You mistake JREF demanding evidence and facts for arrogance. You have projected you own ignorance, seems complete, on all 9/11 topics but the date, on JREF. Now you declare victory as if you studied for years under Fetzer, who uses the I said so, so it is true method of debate.

You are truely a truther with honor, highest honor. Good job.

Next time bring evidence and leave the thermate/themite fantasy made up by Jones in the bit bucket.

Typical truther post, bashing JREF, when your lack of evidence and pure fantasy produces total failure. You get 9/11 wrong; you get JREF wrong, indicative of most 9/11 truth members. Wait, you are a JREF poster; maybe this is just an autobiographical post. Is that it?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yeah, as expected, Dabs little con job could only go so wrong so now it's his pathetic attempt to try and save face.Typical lemming twoofer.

 

[Dabljuh]

Fine, but I think there are plenty of people who tell Mr. Jones his theories are a bit unrealistic.

Argument ad populum really doesn't pull weight at this point.

Edit: Sorry, I was thinking of Steven E. Jones, the physicist, not Alex Jones, the mental patient slash radio host. I don't think people whose opinions Alex Jones values tell him he's wrong as often as they should.

Then why the pretense of "ignoring" people, if you want to show your theories are capable of this?

I ignore those who convince me that they are incapable of falsifying me even if I were wrong. Those that simply don't seem brainy enough to do it. Where the dealings with their posts would simply be a waste of my (and their) time because nothing good or true is going to come from it either way.

It seems that we have had different experiences at the JREF. I am saddened that you have such a negative view of our forum. Have you ventured out of the 9/11 Conspiracies section? It would be unfortunate if you were forming opinions of the whole JREF forum based on a small section that attracts only a portion of the JREF forum members.
I am also surprised that you include "arrogance" as one of your criticisms of the JREF forum. Perhaps you should read back on your posts in this thread and think about how they might appear to someone else.

In fact I have visited other sections. I wouldn't make a statement like that if I hadn't. JREF is very, very bad at what it claims it does, and gives skepticism a bad name.

What makes me curious is *why* it is so bad at what it claims it does. In other, comparable cases, such as Wikipedia, I've found that administrators were often the focus of the hivemind - everyone agrees with them or they get banned. Remember, hivemind is *always* detrimental to finding scientific truth, so it should always, at all cost, be avoided and undermined. Even though I might postulate feeling a faint bias within JREF's administrators, (if only because 'gravysites' was stickied but no truther equivalent) I do not believe this is the cause of the ridiculous lack of skepticism here.

What really is the reason, one may only speculate. Try the third link in my sig.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Argument ad populum really doesn't pull weight at this point.

Uhh... what? You basically said, "No one tells Jones his ideas are crazy." AZCat responded with, basically, "I'm sure plenty of people have told him his ideas are crazy."

That's not an argument ad populum...

 

[AZCat]

Argument ad populum really doesn't pull weight at this point.

Good, because I wasn't making one.

I ignore those who convince me that they are incapable of falsifying me even if I were wrong. Those that simply don't seem brainy enough to do it. Where the dealings with their posts would simply be a wast of my time because nothing good or true is coming from it either way.

It could also be viewed as a way of avoiding dealing with arguments or arguers which you struggled to refute.

In fact I have visited other sections. I wouldn't make a statement like that if I hadn't. JREF is very, very bad at what it claims it does, and gives skepticism a bad name.

That is your opinion. Providing evidence would be nice.

What makes me curious is *why* it is so bad at what it claims it does. In other, comparable cases, such as Wikipedia, I've found that administrators were often the focus of the hivemind - everyone agrees with them or they get banned. Even though I might postulate feeling a faint bias within JREF's administrators, I do not believe this is the cause of the ridiculous lack of skepticism here.

Again, evidence would be nice.

What really is the reason, one may only speculate. Try the third link in my sig.

I am already aware of that. I don't think the MSM is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Dabljuh]

Good, because I wasn't making one.

I misunderstood, and edited the section. Read again.

It could also be viewed as a way of avoiding dealing with arguments or arguers which you struggled to refute.

Of course they will say so. But why should I do that? I want to be refuted. I want to be wrong. That's the only way to really gain knowledge. But you shouldn't listen to me, but instead let the choice of who I ignored speak for itself. Did I put the people with the good and compelling arguments on ignore, or did I ignore the spammers, hiveminds, and the mentally challenged?

That is your opinion. Providing evidence would be nice.
Again, evidence would be nice.

This is sociology and sociology is a soft science so even if I'd link to a peer reviewed sociology journal that said that JREF is intellectually bancrupt, you'd be able to dismiss it.

Here's my suggestion for you. An experiment. You see, there's no such thing as "evidence" in the real world. There's only observations that can be repeated.

Research one or more of the following topics in depth with a critical mind (especially taking the last link from my sig into account)

- AIDS
- Fluoridation
- Vaccinations

If you're intelligent and critical enough, you'll be able to honestly make a statement after researching these, that will make the entirety of JREF scream for your blood. But they won't be able to disprove you because you would be right.

My specialty is economics but the topics in economics are so abstract and complicated and out of touch with the 'real world' that this stuff that makes me really go "OMGWTFBBQ!!1" is not stuff that I could make even an intelligent JREF user understand if I had weeks of time. But an intelligent mind would quickly expose the problems with the medical topics I posted, as nearly everyone has at least some experience with academic medicine - or should have.

I am already aware of that. I don't think the MSM is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.

I think we simply have to disagree on that point at this time.

 

[AZCat]

I misunderstood, and edited the section. Read again.

No problem. We all make mistakes.

Of course they will say so. But why should I do that? I want to be refuted. I want to be wrong. That's the only way to really gain knowledge. But you shouldn't listen to me, but instead let the choice of who I ignored speak for itself. Did I put the people with the good and compelling arguments on ignore, or did I ignore the spammers, hiveminds, and the mentally challenged?

Not to be snarky, but sometimes they are one and the same. I have seen wonderfully intelligent people post pointless, insulting posts. I have been the creator of pointless, insulting posts. I did not read through this thread with an eye to determining who was worthy of ignoring and who was not. I am more interested in why you made such "ignoring" public, rather than choosing quietly which posts deserved response and which ones did not.

This is sociology and sociology is a soft science so even if I'd link to a peer reviewed sociology journal that said that JREF is intellectually bancrupt, you'd be able to dismiss it.

Here's my suggestion for you. An experiment. You see, there's no such thing as "evidence" in the real world. There's only observations that can be repeated.

Research one or more of the following topics in depth with a critical mind (especially taking the last link from my sig into account)

- AIDS
- Fluoridation
- Vaccinations

If you're intelligent and critical enough, you'll be able to honestly make a statement after researching these, that will make the entirety of JREF scream for your blood. But they won't be able to disprove you because you would be right.

Typically when looking into medical issues I turn to people whose opinion I trust and who have experience in the relevant areas. Having a number of relatives who spent a great deal of time in third world countries promoting and performing vaccinations (among other various tasks, such as the diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis), it doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess their opinion. I'm not sure what you expect me to find out regarding the other topics. Are you suggesting that the prevalent opinion of these topics is incorrect, and some other perspective is superior?

My specialty is economics but the topics in economics are so abstract and complicated and out of touch with the 'real world' that this stuff that makes me really go "OMGWTFBBQ!!1" is not stuff that I could make even an intelligent JREF user understand if I had weeks of time. But an intelligent mind would quickly expose the problems with the medical topics I posted, as nearly everyone has at least some experience with academic medicine - or should have.

I'm not sure what "OMBWTFBBQ" is (or at least the latter three letters), nor do I know what you mean by "the problems with the medical topics I posted" other than the typical problems that arise from issues of their magnitude.
I am curious - are you an economist, or do you work in a related field? If so, how much application does game theory have in your occupation? I took some classes in this during grad school and was fascinated by the applications.

I think we simply have to disagree on that point at this time.

Fine.

 

[bynmdsue]

What really is the reason, one may only speculate. Try the third link in my sig.

So GWB is brilliant and well-loved and the Iraq War a smashing success?

 

[X]

I'm not sure what "OMBWTFBBQ" is (or at least the latter three letters),

Last three letters:

BBQ.

Means Barbeque.


And I think the first "B" is a typo. Should be a "G".


It's gibberish, meant to mock oneself or others.

 

[beachnut]

Research one or more of the following topics in depth with a critical mind (especially taking the last link from my sig into account)

- AIDS
- Fluoridation
- Vaccinations

My specialty is economics but the topics in economics are so abstract and complicated and out of touch with the 'real world' that this stuff that makes me really go "OMGWTFBBQ!!1" is not stuff that I could make even an intelligent JREF user understand if I had weeks of time. But an intelligent mind would quickly expose the problems with the medical topics I posted, as nearly everyone has at least some experience with academic medicine - or should have.

I think we simply have to disagree on that point at this time.

Econ major, no wonder you have no understanding of the towers and make up ideas that are false about fire and steel.

You are also very gullible to believe in most made up CTs, have you decided taxes are not for you too?

Your sig contains items that are indicative of your posts and ideas. Cool, at least you understand the things that give you major problems with reality. That paper in your sig, nails you exactly. No real clue, and you have no idea; that paper is you.

 

[AZCat]

Last three letters:

BBQ.

Means Barbeque.


And I think the first "B" is a typo. Should be a "G".


It's gibberish, meant to mock oneself or others.

I recognized the letter series, but couldn't make "Barbeque" fit in any logical way with what I knew was represented by the rest of the letters. I guess I wasn't meant to make sense of it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Dabljuh

You forgot chemtrails. What kind of conspiracy nut are you anyways? They really need to have a certification program. I believe the only conspiracy theory you're legally allowed to dismiss is the moon landing one.

 

[Dave_46]

How was the thermite ignited?

Unimportant, trivial, uninteresting.

Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?

For a given combustion reaction, which is a fixed quantity, the heat released or the temperature?

Is this like, a homework of yours for physics class?

I think that this demonstrates that he cannot answer your questions.

Dave