Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

RedIbis said:
Add it to your own list of misunderstood concepts. For one, the verb in question was not used in a dependent clause; it was not the expression of a request or wish, and it was not in reference to something that did not happen, but something that did happen.
Click to expand...

Is there a conspiracy theorist's lying manual that you work from? You've taken a list of possible uses of the subjunctive, noted that it doesn't conform to some members of that list, completely ignored the fact that it conforms perfectly to another of them, and hence concluded that it's not a subjunctive. I even pointed out which usage of the subjunctive it was, and you've chosen to pretend to ignore that. Lying about 9/11 I can sort of understand, but I'm impressed that you're even prepared to lie about grammar.

RedIbis said:
It was simply indicative, which is the mood used for questions, not subjunctive.
Click to expand...

You may have intended it to be indicative, but you clearly asked for a suggestion, not a statement of fact.

RedIbis said:
I didn't ask how many there could have been, or how many might there have been, I simply asked him how many he suggests were there.
Click to expand...

Got it. You din't ask him for an estimate, you asked him to suggest an approximate number. I think we can all appreciate that distinction.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Is there a conspiracy theorist's lying manual that you work from?
Click to expand...
No, but perhaps there's some debunkers dictum that states that the debunker must never admit a mistake.

You've taken a list of possible uses of the subjunctive, noted that it doesn't conform to some members of that list, completely ignored the fact that it conforms perfectly to another of them, and hence concluded that it's not a subjunctive. I even pointed out which usage of the subjunctive it was, and you've chosen to pretend to ignore that. Lying about 9/11 I can sort of understand, but I'm impressed that you're even prepared to lie about grammar
Click to expand...
.
The use of the subjunctive is quite limited and none of its uses includes asking a question.

Subjunctive: If there were approximately 23 recording devices present at the collapse of WTC 7, certainly, we would know about them by now. ("were" is used to state the opposite of the opinion implied, supported by the subordinate conjunction, "if".

Indicative: How many recording devices do you suggest were present at the collapse of WTC 7? ("were" is being used to state the past tense of the be verb, so an actual approximation of that number is being questioned).



You may have intended it to be indicative, but you clearly asked for a suggestion, not a statement of fact.
Click to expand...
This makes zero sense since a suggestion can be a statement of fact. If I were asking for possibility, as I stated earlier, I would have used the phrase, "could have been" or "might have been." I didn't.


Got it. You din't ask him for an estimate, you asked him to suggest an approximate number. I think we can all appreciate that distinction.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm sure you appreciate any distinction without a difference. It's what you live off of in this forum.
 
RedIbis said:
No, but perhaps there's some debunkers dictum that states that the debunker must never admit a mistake.
Click to expand...

I've been corrected here a couple times on some fact or misunderstanding of theory and each time I respond with sincere thanks. That's part of how I learn.

It's better to eat some crow than it is to be considered ignorant.
 
Bottom line on this whole theory: We know there were some examples of eutectic erosion; we know that sulphur was involved in the corrosive process.

There is speculation as to what the exact source(s) of the sulphur were. It could have been multiple sources but this is unknown.

Problem: Truthers, while claiming that the eutectic erosion is 'proof' of the presence of thermate, have not actually been able to demonstrate it as a fact, in a real-world test.

So in actual fact the eutectic erosion is not 'proof' of thermate at all. The burden of proof is still on 9/11 Truthers. Worse, the very theory of thermate undermines the theory of explosive controlled demolition, because it counters the Truther claim that support was removed simultaneously (WTC7) - something an incendiary is very unlikely to be able to do, and has never before been done - certainly there is no proof to support the theory.

Nor is the erosion itself 'proof' of a vast conspiracy by the US government or it's agents. This evidence still has not been presented by truthers after 9 years, which IMHO is a devastating problem for the 'Truth' movement.
 
alienentity said:
Worse, the very theory of thermate undermines the theory of explosive controlled demolition, because it counters the Truther claim that support was removed simultaneously (WTC7) - something an incendiary is very unlikely to be able to do, and has never before been done - certainly there is no proof to support the theory.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised their heads haven't exploded from the self contradiction of this very belief. They claim everything that has no equal precedent makes anything happening for the first time is an absolutely outrageous idea, yet with no precedent of thermite used in demolition they scream about all the evidence they have. It's an amusing double standard of theirs
 
RedIbis said:
No, but perhaps there's some debunkers dictum that states that the debunker must never admit a mistake.

.
The use of the subjunctive is quite limited and none of its uses includes asking a question.

Subjunctive: If there were approximately 23 recording devices present at the collapse of WTC 7, certainly, we would know about them by now. ("were" is used to state the opposite of the opinion implied, supported by the subordinate conjunction, "if".

Indicative: How many recording devices do you suggest were present at the collapse of WTC 7? ("were" is being used to state the past tense of the be verb, so an actual approximation of that number is being questioned).




This makes zero sense since a suggestion can be a statement of fact. If I were asking for possibility, as I stated earlier, I would have used the phrase, "could have been" or "might have been." I didn't.




I'm sure you appreciate any distinction without a difference. It's what you live off of in this forum.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the use/misuse of the wrong verb tense clearly indicates inside job.
 
I'm going to bring this up yet again for whenever RI is ready to provide examples from his OP's video that would indicate any level competence beyond a room temperature IQ in design and engineering. Apparently since he sees nothing wrong:

RedIbis said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded

If this video and experiment is not the type of sincere research that can be done by independent scientists, I'd like to know what is.
Click to expand...

Would you mind picking a point or two that you would be most interested in having a discussion on? C7's known for making absolutely spontaneous bare assertions; he's wasting people's time. You gave a source can you please advise on a part of this video you're most interested in? If you're concerned about me treating this video as having below room temperature IQ then I'll be more than happy to explain but I want you to pick a topic to start with before I go wasting time on the entire thing.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
I'm sure that the use/misuse of the wrong verb tense clearly indicates inside job.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to figure out how a verb tense indicates whether or not there were 20+ recording devices at the collapse. Regardless, your quip made me laugh.
 
I really get tired of these twoofers with no experience in anything at all related to what they are discussing telling us who have dealt with some of this stuff how things work.

Back to the oroginal premise, none of the fools trying to replicate the Swiss cheese steel even bothered to introduce any battery acid into the fire. what a bunch of freaking idiots.
 
Miragememories said:
As usual, all you are providing is rant without substance.

MM
Click to expand...
As soon as you have some substance to support your delusions on 911 post it. How does the thread topic tie in to your delusions?

Dr Greening is teasing you. It is funny.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
I really get tired of these twoofers with no experience in anything at all related to what they are discussing telling us who have dealt with some of this stuff how things work.

Back to the oroginal premise, none of the fools trying to replicate the Swiss cheese steel even bothered to introduce any battery acid into the fire. what a bunch of freaking idiots.
Click to expand...
Show a case where battery acid has caused the kind of melting as seen in sample #1 or stop speculating that it could. Do an experiment to test your hypothesis and if you can replicate the intergranulsr melting as in Sample #1, publish it in a journal.
 
Christopher7 said:
Show a case where battery acid has caused the kind of melting as seen in sample #1 or stop speculating that it could. Do an experiment to test your hypothesis and if you can replicate the intergranulsr melting as in Sample #1, publish it in a journal.
Click to expand...

Show a case where battery acid thermate has caused the kind of melting as seen in sample #1 or stop speculating that it could. Do an experiment to test your hypothesis and if you can replicate the intergranulsr melting as in Sample #1, publish it in a journal.
 
I asked you this before, but all I got was irrelevant nonsense: it's been nearly a decade; what do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom