Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

Perhaps femr2 and Major_Tom could enlighten the group as to their reasons for:

1 - Doing this detailed observation of the WTC collapse
2 - Not wanting to share the observations with the engineering community

That might help.
 
Last edited:
Duh. The engineering community is IN on it, carlitos. Where have you been? Why else would the vast majority of them disagree with the Truth Warriors?
 
femr2 said:
Again, I have no intention of writing a paper, and have not suggested that I do, nor have I even inferred that I would after you lot do the trivially simple thing of just stating which of the 40 OP blindingly simple observations you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Then you'll preserve your cherished state of irrelevance.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Then you'll preserve your cherished state of irrelevance.

Dave
Click to expand...

A more appropriate response would be..."sorry femr2, yes you're right, I misinterpreted you repeatedly, and there was no basis for my accusations".

But I'm not expecting you to do so.

What I do expect, as I see no point in you spending any time within the thread if you don't, is for you to respond to this...

Which of the 40 OP observations do you agree exist, and which do you disagree with ? If you have an issue with any of them, state why.
 
Which of the 40 OP observations will be shared with the engineering community, and to what end? Will this "research" ever collide with the real world, or is it a displacement activity?
 
femr2 said:
A more appropriate response would be..."sorry femr2, yes you're right, I misinterpreted you repeatedly, and there was no basis for my accusations".
Click to expand...

I apologise unreservedly for the fact that you edited a post so as to answer a different question to the one that was asked, that you failed to include sufficient information in your edited version of the post to define what was the question you had in fact chosen to answer, and that I was unable to achieve the required level of telepathy to divine that when you answer a question, it is not the question that the questioner clearly states it to be but some other tangentially related question that you choose to imagine it to be. I also apologise unreservedly for dishonestly presenting a post in full, thus clearly changing its meaning from the edited misrepresentation of it that you claim to be an accurate representation of its original meaning.

Dave
 
carlitos said:
Which of the 40 OP observations will be shared with the engineering community
Click to expand...
What part of *I have no intention of writing a paper* do you not understand ?

Will this "research" ever collide with the real world
Click to expand...
A rather ironic thing to say in the circumstances.

The observations are taken directly from real-world photographic and video imagery.

Responses thus far have cited details from the virtual-world FEA computer simulation from NIST.

Quite bizarre really :rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
I apologise unreservedly for the fact that you edited a post so as to answer a different question to the one that was asked, that you failed to include sufficient information in your edited version of the post to define what was the question you had in fact chosen to answer, and that I was unable to achieve the required level of telepathy to divine that when you answer a question, it is not the question that the questioner clearly states it to be but some other tangentially related question that you choose to imagine it to be. I also apologise unreservedly for dishonestly presenting a post in full, thus clearly changing its meaning from the edited misrepresentation of it that you claim to be an accurate representation of its original meaning.

Dave
Click to expand...
What a lot of utter nonsense. I've highlighted your misinterpretation perfectly clearly.

As you seem to have great trouble with this, I'll waste yet more of my time with a simple additional example for you...

Person A said:
Are Bananas yellow ? Why don't you send your answer to the Queen.
Click to expand...

Person B responds...

Person B said:
Person A said:
Are Bananas yellow ?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...

Your inept *argument* is that this dialogue implies that Person B has responded to the separate statement about the Queen. Clearly not the case.

Stop wasting my time.

(ETA: If someone stoops so low as to start talking about unripened bananas, I'll have to put principles aside for a short moment and find that laughing dog GIF.)
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
Stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Please, by all means, carry on wasting it for yourself. Clearly, "Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals," means "Why don't you do the same as I've suggested Major Tom do", not "Why don't you do the same as you've suggested I do", because the question goes on to specify what the elements of "do the same" should be, but if you want to pretend otherwise then go ahead. Just don't pretend that nitpicking and demanding that everyone answer forty questions is going to achieve anything other than a waste of your precious time, or that that's anyone's fault but your own.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Clearly, "Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals," means "Why don't you do the same as I've suggested Major Tom do"
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
Here is his direct response to my question...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6596204&postcount=253

Just don't pretend that nitpicking
Click to expand...
Who is nitpicking ? Perfectly simple dialogue between triforcharity and myself, which you misinterpret and then go on to make inept and stupid accusations from. I'm simply showing why your accusations are incorrect.

and demanding that everyone answer forty questions
Click to expand...
Not demanding anything.
Not questions Dave, observations.

If you have no response to each feature posted in the OP, what on earth are you doing posting in the thread ?

Really struggling with this, aren't you.
 
Here is an even better example Femr2:

Q: Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals.


A:Sure, no problemo...
Seems to me and everyone else who cares to look at this that you clearly stated your intention too:

A)Put your observations on paper
B) Show the math
and
C) Submit the paper for peer review

All done with

NO PROBLEMO...

ROFLMAO

Why do you fail at everything?

I.E:
~Collapse simulators that are not collapse simulators, and fail at being an accurate - uh-hum - 'visual aid'?
~8th grade physics questions that you answer wrong, pretend you didnt, then, when shown you did, on a seperate physics forum no less, run like a scared monkey?
~ Conservation of momentum?
~ Plane pods? (remember that fiasco...AHAHAHA)
~ Ice crystals as proof of 'UFO's"?
~ Two Flight 175's?
~ Your "there wasnt enough energy in the collpase of the towers to hurl debris to the winter garden rooftop so it must have been explosives' uneducated nonsense?
~ Using the incorrect inferior SynthEyes program to try and foresnically analzye a video?

Having said that, I really do enjoy reading you and your socks incompetent posts and watching you get just about everything you do blatantly wrong.

Keep it up kid.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Scroll up two posts from there to see what he wanted you to "do the same" as; exactly what he'd recently asked Major Tom to do. And he even extended the question to make it more obvious.

Dave
Click to expand...
I refer the dishonourable gentleman to the post 4 above this one.

Context of the original discussion is perfectly clear, and has been quoted to you in full. Your misinterpretation is your problem, and your inept accusations similarly so.

I have no intention of writing a paper. Have not said that I do. Have repeatedly said I don't throughout this entire thread. Would not consider doing so as I didn't put the OP together. Have not even implied that I would.

As is clear from the specific point-to-point discussion, what I've said is that it's no problemo for me to post my opinion on each of the 40 OP observations after triforcharity has done so. I wonder if you can guess at what that opinion will be eh ? :rolleyes:
 
femr2 said:
I have no intention of writing a paper. Have not said that I do. Have repeatedly said I don't throughout this entire thread. Would not consider doing so as I didn't put the OP together. Have not even implied that I would.
Click to expand...

In which case, you are wasting your time. Now, I have no problem with you wasting your time obsessing over minutiae; after all, I find the same activity a trivial but enjoyable diversion. But don't accuse anyone else of wasting your time. Nobody's forcing you to sit at the keyboard and type your replies.

femr2 said:
As is clear from the specific point-to-point discussion, what I've said is that it's no problemo for me to post my opinion on each of the 40 OP observations after triforcharity has done so. I wonder if you can guess at what that opinion will be eh ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

"This detail is not explained in full by the NIST report, so another multi-million-dollar investigation of the collapses is necessary" will, I suspect, be your response to a significant proportion of them. The rest of us would, at most, agree only with the bit before the comma.

Dave
 
femr2 said:
I have no intention of writing a paper.
Click to expand...

Hmm..rather curious that.

Let's see fraud, one question comes to mind, and that question is:

WHY ?

Why do you have no intention on writing a paper for proper peer review?

I know why...and it aint cuz' ya' don't have the time kid.
 
Just to refresh your memory kid:

Triforcharity:
Q: Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals.

Femr2
A:Sure, no problemo...

First you will write a paper for proper peer review
Now, you won't write a paper.

Geesh, make up your mind...LMAO
 
Dave Rogers said:
"This detail is not explained in full by the NIST report, so another multi-million-dollar investigation of the collapses is necessary" will, I suspect, be your response to a significant proportion of them.
Click to expand...
You'd be wrong. I doubt a *new investigation* will be performed, and I'm not *calling for one* either.
 
femr2 said:
You'd be wrong. I doubt a *new investigation* will be performed, and I'm not *calling for one* either.
Click to expand...

Neither if which equates to a statement that a new investigation is necessary. But I wouldn't expect you to respond to the post I actually made, when you can just pretend I said something different and reply to that.

Dave
 
Post # 253:

Hey Femr,

Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals. Bentham and JO911S don't count.

I await your papers. I will gladly pay to see them.

Posted by triforcharity


Post # 254

Reply by femr2


Sure, no problemo...

...once you and your, er, peers post your list of 40 yes/no's


Who has the faulty memory?

Too Funny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom