Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tfk]

I am here to support Why a one-way Crush down is not possible. I actually started the thread. And nobody seems to be able to debunk me. I wonder why?

.

Because you dwell in in a world of fantasy & self-delusions?

Because you are incapable of understanding a concisely formed engineeing or mathematical proof?

Because you refuse to have an honest, honorable conversation?

(those are the first ones that jump to my mind... There are undoubtably many, many more.)

Glad to help.



tom

 

[tfk]

You sound like you mean in his eye. lol. Well, not to get too involved in this or anything- we predicted thermite almost from the get-go and that has proved to be true.

.
LMAO...

No you did NOT "predict thermite, and it turned out to be true".

Jones predicted "thermite ... uh, thermate ... uh, thermite ... uh, nanothermite ... uh, "red colored thermitic material" ... uh, "red colored thermitic material used as a FUSE".



And it turned out to be ... paint.



Hilarious.

tk

 

[tfk]

I suppose you can tell the peer-review board that or better still produce your own peer reviewed paper to counter it. Failing that- It stands unchallenged.

.
billy likes to say stuff like this.

He thinks that his pronouncement on the issue, uh, "matters". Somehow...

tom

 

[tfk]

Let the science win the day.

Rest assured. Science will.

But right now Jones and Co. have passed the winning post.

The amusing part is that you know SO LITTLE about real science that you actually believe that this is true.

That is pretty DAMN funny, bill.

Pssst. There is that annoying little matter of "independent confirmation". "Replication of results".

Not to mention "peer review".
No, bill. Not THAT "peer review". REAL peer review.

All you can do is try to have the race disallowed. Of course it's far too late for that now.

.
Allow me to repeat. "You know SO LITTLE about science ..."

lol.

tk

 

[tfk]

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?

.
LMAO...!!

[Somebody, please tell me where to find those laughing dogs. "LMAO" just is soooo inadequate for moments like this.]

FW, clearly YOU don't understand the "scientific method". Or the standards of the peer review & publication process.

Let's get an expert - like bill - to explain it to you.

LMAO.

You tell him, bill, about all the PROPER steps required for a "peer reviewed technical paper". I'm sure that you can recite chapter-and-verse from your own extensive experience in the process.

LMFAO...

Hang in there, FW. And anyone else who ever intends to publish a paper. Billy's about to explain it all to us.

tom

PS. Bill, I've got a question for you. I've had about 6 papers reviewed & published. Four of them detailed the results of cardiac procedures that used prototype heart catheter that I designed.

How the heck did those guys replicate my results, when I had personally built every single one of those catheters that existed in the world at that time?? Boy, those guys were clever...

 

[tfk]

Well guys,

Hey TAM Professor David Ray Griffin said in the last few days I believe it was that the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it. Could that possibly be true ? If it is then the OCT is in deep do-do.
Scroll down for video link.
http://www.zend2.com/go.php?u=Oi8vY...LXNlY29uZC1sb29rLWluLWx1Y2VybmUuaHRtbA==&b=13

If Griffin says it, you know it's a lie.

Ol' Doc Grifter is funnin' with you.

He lies about EVERYTHING ELSE, so why not that.
...
TAM

___

You all owe Dr. Griffin an apology. You jumped to conclusions, and have unjustly chastised the Good Doctor.

Dr. Griffin did NOT lie.

Billy did.

[Yeah, I know. Shocking, ain't it...?]

Dr. Griffin did NOT say that "the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it."

What he said was:

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled.

.
He said that "supporters (of the OCT) CAN ONLY NAME 3 engineers (not scientists -tk) who support the official story".

Let me ask you all: "How many heart surgeons can you NAME?"

1? 2? 5?

Do you think that means that there are only 5 heart surgeons in the world??

I would venture to say that most supporters of NIST's conclusions could not provide the names of more than 3 engineers involved. So, DRG did not literally lie in THAT sentence. He was just massively deceptive.

But, while DRG didn't lie, Billy did. About what DRG really said.

Lest you worry that the world is turning upside down, rest assured. DRG DID LIE. Just not in this sentence.

He goes on to say, in that interview:

We've really now established the truth. The truth is settled. Because all these facts that I've talked about in my books are now accepted by professionals and scientists. So a few years ago, we didn't have many people in the relevant professions. But now we have, besides physicists & chemists who have discovered evidence that the WTC was definitely demolished by the use of high explosives, nanothermite in particular...

The weight of scientific and professional opinion among people who have studied the evidence is now overwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 truth movement.

Ahhhh, THAT's better.

So you can rest easy.

Twoofers wouldn't know the truth "if it sat in their lap & called 'em 'mommy'."

The world is as it was. And shall be.

tk

 

[tsig]

.
LMAO...!!

[Somebody, please tell me where to find those laughing dogs. "LMAO" just is soooo inadequate for moments like this.]

FW, clearly YOU don't understand the "scientific method". Or the standards of the peer review & publication process.

Let's get an expert - like bill - to explain it to you.

LMAO.

You tell him, bill, about all the PROPER steps required for a "peer reviewed technical paper". I'm sure that you can recite chapter-and-verse from your own extensive experience in the process.

LMFAO...

Hang in there, FW. And anyone else who ever intends to publish a paper. Billy's about to explain it all to us.

tom

PS. Bill, I've got a question for you. I've had about 6 papers reviewed & published. Four of them detailed the results of cardiac procedures that used prototype heart catheter that I designed.

How the heck did those guys replicate my results, when I had personally built every single one of those catheters that existed in the world at that time?? Boy, those guys were clever...

Did you have a mysterious power outage then? They obviously snuck into your lab and used the equipment.

 

[bill smith]

Well guys,








___

You all owe Dr. Griffin an apology. You jumped to conclusions, and have unjustly chastised the Good Doctor.

Dr. Griffin did NOT lie.

Billy did.

[Yeah, I know. Shocking, ain't it...?]

Dr. Griffin did NOT say that "the OCT only had three or four scientists in the world who stand up publicly for it."

What he said was:


.
He said that "supporters (of the OCT) CAN ONLY NAME 3 engineers (not scientists -tk) who support the official story".

Let me ask you all: "How many heart surgeons can you NAME?"

1? 2? 5?

Do you think that means that there are only 5 heart surgeons in the world??

I would venture to say that most supporters of NIST's conclusions could not provide the names of more than 3 engineers involved. So, DRG did not literally lie in THAT sentence. He was just massively deceptive.

But, while DRG didn't lie, Billy did. About what DRG really said.

Lest you worry that the world is turning upside down, rest assured. DRG DID LIE. Just not in this sentence.

He goes on to say, in that interview:



Ahhhh, THAT's better.

So you can rest easy.

Twoofers wouldn't know the truth "if it sat in their lap & called 'em 'mommy'."

The world is as it was. And shall be.

tk

Having your own stalking groupie can have an upside. Nuch obliged for the Griffin Transcripts T.. I like this one in particular...

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled...''

Damned powerful interview was that one. Be sure to pass it on.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html lucerne 09.05.09

 

[bill smith]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page. I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

 

[aggle-rithm]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page. I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're a troll. There's no way a person could really be that thick-headed and survive long enough to learn to operate a computer without first drowning in his Cheerios one morning.

 

[tfk]

Having your own stalking groupie can have an upside. Nuch obliged for the Griffin Transcripts T..

.

Let me see if I understand you.

You find someone "proving & then posting the fact that you are EITHER so completely incompetent that you cannot accurately transcribe one single sentence OR a bald-faced liar" to "have an upside"...??

Kinky...

I like this one in particular...

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled...''

Damned powerful interview was that one. Be sure to pass it on.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html lucerne 09.05.09

.
I am happy to pass it on. I'd give him a megaphone, if possible.

And you STILL don't understand.

When some idiot (like DRG or you) says that "2 + 2 = 356", it does NOT add weigh to the proposition that "2 + 2 REALLY DOES equal 356".

It simply reveals the idiot to be an idiot.

To even the most casual of observers.

tk

 

[tfk]

T....Heiwa has answered your question on the''Heiwa Challenge'' page.

I have asked Heiwa about 30 questions over the course of the last 6 weeks or so. Some of them with answers as simple as "yes" or "no".

He has yet to answer ONE of those questions.

He babbles nonsense. You may well recognize the recipe:
"Take random words.
String together.
Conclude with "See world famous Heiwa axiom."

I was wondering when you are going to reply ? This could be a highly interesting debate between you.

.
"... highly interesting ..."??

Not a chance.

I know what I'm talking about. It makes the discussion both one-sided and annoying.

 

[bill smith]

I have asked Heiwa about 30 questions over the course of the last 6 weeks or so. Some of them with answers as simple as "yes" or "no".

He has yet to answer ONE of those questions.

He babbles nonsense. You may well recognize the recipe:
"Take random words.
String together.
Conclude with "See world famous Heiwa axiom."


.
"... highly interesting ..."??

Not a chance.

I know what I'm talking about. It makes the discussion both one-sided and annoying.

Well...actually No.... I see Heiwa giving you an education in structural damage analysis (about which you know nothing btw).

 

[T.A.M.]

bill;

Peer review DOES NOT involve, in any way, shape, or form, the repeating of testing or analysis within a paper being reviewed.

Stick to what you know.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

.

Let me see if I understand you.

You find someone "proving & then posting the fact that you are EITHER so completely incompetent that you cannot accurately transcribe one single sentence OR a bald-faced liar" to "have an upside"...??

Kinky...


.
I am happy to pass it on. I'd give him a megaphone, if possible.

And you STILL don't understand.

When some idiot (like DRG or you) says that "2 + 2 = 356", it does NOT add weigh to the proposition that "2 + 2 REALLY DOES equal 356".

It simply reveals the idiot to be an idiot.

To even the most casual of observers.

tk

Hey T....Heiwa just answered your latest question....Let's all mosey on over there and watch T.get his lessons. Chin up T...

 

[FineWine]

I think you may misunderstand. The peer-review process involves insependent testing by other qualified scientists. They try to repeat the results as laid down in the paper to be reviewed. Repeatabilty is the criterium. So if the their empirical tsting matches the paper, it passes. If not, then not. Why do you think that there is such a high level of confidence about this particular paper ?

There is a high level of confidence that this paper is a total fraud. Editors of the pay-for-play vanity journal resigned over the publication of politically-driven rubbish being presented as science. Who are the "peer-reviewers"? Do they exist? How do you know?

 

[FineWine]

Having your own stalking groupie can have an upside. Nuch obliged for the Griffin Transcripts T.. I like this one in particular...

"It is very difficult to find anyone who will defend the official story. They try to arrange debates on TV or radio in America. Nobody from the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST or even Popular Mechanics will debate Because they know the story is false. But they, of course, have put their reputation on the line in support of that story.

But they know they can't defend it against pilots, and firefighters, and scientists, and so they refuse to debate. The supporters can only name 3 engineers worldwide who support the official story, and they are people whose salaries depend on their supporting the official story. So the issue of truth is settled...''

Damned powerful interview was that one. Be sure to pass it on.

http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2009/05/911-time-for-second-look-in-lucerne.html lucerne 09.05.09

Let us know why Griffin refuses to debate his army of critics.

 

[FineWine]

Dr. Haritt spent a year and a half carefully analyzing the debris and writing the paper.

Dr. Haritt knows thermite. People that simply handwave the proof away are too easily swayed by propaganda to examine the facts.

Comparing the thermitic material to paint chips was very important to Dr. Haritt. His reputation as one of Europe's leading scientists is at stake.

Maybe Greening et al would like to examine the debris themselves instead of assuming Dr. Haritt botched his analysis? They could try contacting NIST for some samples. Come to think of it - NIST has had samples since day one. I'll bet they want to puke because they've been pwnd - BIGTIME.

So, when will Dr. Haritt be submitting his samples for verification?

Oh, NEVER, you say. That's interesting.

 

[T.A.M.]

So, when will Dr. Haritt be submitting his samples for verification?

Oh, NEVER, you say. That's interesting.

Exactly. You want to talk about hand waving. Very easy for Kreel and the cult to grandstand, when they know full well that Harrit, Jones and the other whacko frauds will NEVER submit their dust for TRUE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.

NEVER!

TAM

 

[Heiwa]

Exactly. You want to talk about hand waving. Very easy for Kreel and the cult to grandstand, when they know full well that Harrit, Jones and the other whacko frauds will NEVER submit their dust for TRUE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.

NEVER!

TAM

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: TAM , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?