Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[MIKILLINI]

Heiwa has disposed of any argument or theory put to him by any and all debunkers for he six monthes or so that I have been posting here. He refers you regularly to his paper which is only a click away and for which he frequently provides a link.He dos not need to do more. YOU need to do more.

Obviously you haven't gotten a clue yet, Bill. Pay attention and you may actually see the argument Tom is making.
So, where's your argument as proof concerning the "advanced state of the disintigrated upper block?"

 

[Grizzly Bear]

bill smith, you seem to feel superior to the engineers posting on this forum. Why don't apply for a job in the profession? I'm sure the industry can use someone as......... special............ as you

 

[tfk]

Come on T- slim it down. Less is more- remember. How often hhave I told you...jeez.

I know that 3 paragraphs of clear text are too much for you, bill.

You don't have to read it, of course. And, of course, you won't understand it.

All you have to know is that Heiwa says that I'm wrong.

He says so right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4932811#post4932811

So, let's see if you have the courage of your convictions, bill.

Care for a little side bet? Say $100. On the outcome of the wager. As determined by the judges here.

That is, of course, unless your precious guru decides to decline to back up his assertion. An assertion that is at the very CORE of his massively wrong theory.

Tom

 

[bill smith]

I know that 3 paragraphs of clear text are too much for you, bill.

You don't have to read it, of course. And, of course, you won't understand it.

All you have to know is that Heiwa says that I'm wrong.

He says so right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4932811#post4932811

So, let's see if you have the courage of your convictions, bill.

Care for a little side bet? Say $100. On the outcome of the wager. As determined by the judges here.

That is, of course, unless your precious guru decides to decline to back up his assertion. An assertion that is at the very CORE of his massively wrong theory.

Tom

Lay it out in six clear lines or so. A few sentences. I'm sure you can do that if you try.

How about naming the judges while you are at it so that we can check for balance.

 

[FineWine]

I know that 3 paragraphs of clear text are too much for you, bill.

You don't have to read it, of course. And, of course, you won't understand it.

All you have to know is that Heiwa says that I'm wrong.

He says so right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4932811#post4932811

So, let's see if you have the courage of your convictions, bill.

Care for a little side bet? Say $100. On the outcome of the wager. As determined by the judges here.

That is, of course, unless your precious guru decides to decline to back up his assertion. An assertion that is at the very CORE of his massively wrong theory.

Tom

Tom, offering to bet with dishonorable people is always wrong. Consider the very simple math:

You bet $1,000 and the probability that you are right is 99.9%. This means that over 1,000 bets, you win 999 times. You collect nothing each time you win. One time in a thousand, you lose and pay out $1,000. Your expectation for each individual bet is -$1. If the probability that you're right is 99.99%, your expectation for each bet is -$.10. If your probability of being right is 99.999%, you lose a penny for each $1,000 bet. You have to be right 100% of the time to break even.

You figure to break even on this bet, with an infinitesimal chance of losing real money. You cannot hope to win anything.

 

[bill smith]

Tom, offering to bet with dishonorable people is always wrong. Consider the very simple math:

You bet $1,000 and the probability that you are right is 99.9%. This means that over 1,000 bets, you win 999 times. You collect nothing each time you win. One time in a thousand, you lose and pay out $1,000. Your expectation for each individual bet is -$1. If the probability that you're right is 99.99%, your expectation for each bet is -$.10. If your probability of being right is 99.999%, you lose a penny for each $1,000 bet. You have to be right 100% of the time to break even.

You figure to break even on this bet, with an infinitesimal chance of losing real money. You cannot hope to win anything.

Do you mean that the wager is 'worthless' ? lol

 

[beachnut]

Lay it out in six clear lines or so. A few sentences. I'm sure you can do that if you try.

How about naming the judges while you are at it so that we can check for balance.

This is easy. Go find 100 independent structural engineers who build high-rise buildings greater than 45 stories who agree with Heiwa. (the chief structural engineer for the WTC towers thinks Heiwa's ideas are nonsense; you picked a fraud) You have the delusion; you have to prove it. I know Heiwa is a fraud and any layperson can know due to the simple fact Heiwa has no Pulitzer Prize for exposing what happen on 911. Instead Heiwa has delusional web site where he posts junk science opinions that fooled you. If you thought something was wrong on 911 you could have earned a PhD by now in structural engineering and figured out for yourself Heiwa is full of BS. But instead you have perfected posting delusions based on lies, hearsay, and fantasy. You are the best at posting delusions.

 

[FineWine]

Do you mean that the wager is 'worthless' ? lol

I mean, as I generally do, what I said. Wagering with dishonorable people is a bad idea. Beating them is easy; getting paid is impossible.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

You do "annoying" very well. Is that a "French thing"?

My original statement is here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4932428#post4932428
You have already stated that you disagree with me here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4932811#post4932811

The wager is clearly laid out in the 2nd & 4th paragraphs of this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4933595
A grand total of 4 sentences.

The judges and the pot are at the bottom of that post.

As you know full well.

Well, whatcha gonna do? Stay to "defend" your position. Run?

Tom

To be perfectly fair and make it a true wager, tfk, the section about the pot should include a provision for the infinitesimally small chance that you lose.

 

[FineWine]

To be perfectly fair and make it a true wager, tfk, the section about the pot should include a provision for the infinitesimally small chance that you lose.

It can't be a true wager because only one side will behave honorably.

 

[bill smith]

I mean, as I generally do, what I said. Wagering with dishonorable people is a bad idea. Beating them is easy; getting paid is impossible.

I hope you are listening to this Heiwa. Truth in the mouths of babes.

 

[FineWine]

I hope you are listening to this Heiwa. Truth in the mouths of babes.

Heiwa is running fast and far. You see, Bill, the collapsing floors are THE BIG PART, and the single floors they crush in succession are THE SMALL PART. All of us sane folk get this simple idea, Bill. Heiwa has been exposed as few frauds have ever been exposed. He will surface to chant robotically about his garbage papers, but he won't be touching this puppy. AND NEITHER WILL YOU!

 

[FineWine]

I hope you are listening to this Heiwa. Truth in the mouths of babes.

Bill, I've been pondering a philosophical nicety. If a person is too stupid to understand anything, he can't really be a fraud, can he?

 

[tfk]

To be perfectly fair and make it a true wager, tfk, the section about the pot should include a provision for the infinitesimally small chance that you lose.

.

I've already conceded that I will do exactly what I've asked Heiwa to do: to answer any & all questions truthfully & honestly. Just like I do now. And have for the last 8 months of my posts here. And will way beyond the 2 week commitment that I'm asking from Heiwa.

So, in essence, I've already agreed to "pay" Heiwa's same loss 50x over just in the next year alone. Even tho I'm gonna win the bet.

Boy, Nooby, some of you guys are demanding...

Tom

 

[tfk]

Tom, offering to bet with dishonorable people is always wrong. Consider the very simple math:

You bet $1,000 and the probability that you are right is 99.9%. This means that over 1,000 bets, you win 999 times. You collect nothing each time you win. One time in a thousand, you lose and pay out $1,000. Your expectation for each individual bet is -$1. If the probability that you're right is 99.99%, your expectation for each bet is -$.10. If your probability of being right is 99.999%, you lose a penny for each $1,000 bet. You have to be right 100% of the time to break even.

You figure to break even on this bet, with an infinitesimal chance of losing real money. You cannot hope to win anything.

.

You haven't met my cousin, Guido, and his little friend, Louisville...!!



Tom

 

[FineWine]

.

You haven't met my cousin, Guido, and his little friend, Louisville...!!



Tom

You know what they say about power pitchers--you can't hit what you can't see.

 

[tfk]

I hope you are listening to this Heiwa. Truth in the mouths of babes.

.
Yes, that's true. But out of your mouth comes lies & deception.
.

So we know that the upper part C in WTC1 was in an advanced state of disintegration by the time it impacted the top of the lower 90% of the building as seen in the earlier proof.

.

LoL. What "earlier proof"...??

.

Pay attention T. Do try to keep up.

Maybe later if you are a good boy.

.
So, where is that proof again, bill. I went thru all of your posts on this thread, and found absolutely nothing that looks remotely like a proof.

Or did you simply lie about a proof because you have no respect for the victims, for the truth and because ... well, because "that's how you roll"??

Tom

 

[MIKILLINI]

Do you mean that the wager is 'worthless' ? lol

Hey Bill, are you at "the bar" with that comment?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Lay it out in six clear lines or so. A few sentences. I'm sure you can do that if you try.

I'm sure you can understand the premise if you can get a clue. I doubt it though, you're more into dodging the issue.

How about naming the judges while you are at it so that we can check for balance.

Translation: We want Tony, Gage, or any truther that agrees with Heiwa's axiom.

There's some balance for your side, Bill.
Good luck with gaining a clue.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

.

I've already conceded that I will do exactly what I've asked Heiwa to do: to answer any & all questions truthfully & honestly. Just like I do now. And have for the last 8 months of my posts here. And will way beyond the 2 week commitment that I'm asking from Heiwa.

So, in essence, I've already agreed to "pay" Heiwa's same loss 50x over just in the next year alone. Even tho I'm gonna win the bet.

Boy, Nooby, some of you guys are demanding...

Tom

Sorry, must have missed it.