Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Jackanory]

Whether he has taken physics courses or not.....and no matter what his actual credentials are or are not, the fact remains that some people were using terms incorrectly.

I've been sucked into the "jump on the truther" thing before....and afterwards I realized that I was doing the very thing I have seen truthers do to non truthers.

The bottom line is that we should demand the same level of accuracy from fellow skeptics that we do from truthers (or any group for that matter).

Are you serious? 'Using terms incorrectly' lol. Since when was it a requirement to use 'correct terms' when discussing nonsense make belief stuff pulled from a truthers arse? lol. FFS wake up. This stuff is all AAH. Nonesense. Bollox. Who gives a rats arse if it contains spelling mistakes or incorrect terminology? lol. We are talking space beams, imaginery rays beams, pods, thermite, suoerduperthermite, hushaboom, squibs, paint chips etc etc etc. All nonesense stuff............but it needs to have the correct terminolgy. lol.

Hows about before we demand such accuracy about the nonesense that first determine that we are actually discussing something worth discussing in the first place. The biggest mistake here is that posters are actually engaged in a discussion with a nut job about nut job theories. femr2 seems to have the intellectuals commenting on the importance of being accurate about irrelevant nonesense and none existant occurances. lol. Just ensure that you are talking nonesense correctly folks. lol.

You can't polish a turd. No matter how hard you try..........it's still a turd.

 

[ozeco41]

Whether he has taken physics courses or not.....and no matter what his actual credentials are or are not, the fact remains that some people were using terms incorrectly.

I've been sucked into the "jump on the truther" thing before....and afterwards I realized that I was doing the very thing I have seen truthers do to non truthers.

The bottom line is that we should demand the same level of accuracy from fellow skeptics that we do from truthers (or any group for that matter).

A false argument from a "debunker" does not defeat an argument - false or otherwise - from a "truther". It merely remains a false argument no matter how many chime in to support it.

 

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
"Whether he has taken physics courses or not.....and no matter what his actual credentials are or are not, the fact remains that some people were using terms incorrectly.

I've been sucked into the "jump on the truther" thing before....and afterwards I realized that I was doing the very thing I have seen truthers do to non truthers.

The bottom line is that we should demand the same level of accuracy from fellow skeptics that we do from truthers (or any group for that matter).@




The sane world knows what happened on 911. Are you suggesting that we take the ravings of truthers seriously? Thermite,energy beam weapons and no planes included?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm totally confused every time I read the exchanges between femr and everyone else for some reason :\

Femr, I think my main beef is that you don't come to even a tentative answer of where the evidence is taking you in the now. I don't have much a problem with you pointing out issues in the NIST report and nit picking details, but what exactly is is leaning you to is more my interest. That the code changes suggested by NIST are in whole or part are unjustified due to their errors? Aside from the use of explosives initiating/propagating the collapse (evidence of which I've never seen) I'm open to at least hearing it and reading all of the technical material associated with understanding it.

 

[newton3376]

Lets look at what I originally wrote...

Whether he has taken physics courses or not.....and no matter what his actual credentials are or are not, the fact remains that some people were using terms incorrectly.

I've been sucked into the "jump on the truther" thing before....and afterwards I realized that I was doing the very thing I have seen truthers do to non truthers.

The bottom line is that we should demand the same level of accuracy from fellow skeptics that we do from truthers (or any group for that matter).

Now here is your response to that:

"The sane world knows what happened on 911. Are you suggesting that we take the ravings of truthers seriously? Thermite,energy beam weapons and no planes included?

What you wrote above is ridiculous and has little to do with what I wrote.

I don't care if someone is a "truther" or a "debunker".....if they are wrong they should be corrected.

If Ryan Mackey, Dave Thomas, tfk, Dave Rogers, etc wrote something inaccurate or wrong I would correct them just the same as I would correct a truther posting....in fact I would be MUCH harder on them since they are all fellow Engineers/Scientists and I expect a higher degree of accuracy and competence from them.

So it has little to do with "truther" versus "debunker" and everything to do with being ACCURATE and CORRECT.

I even gave you a rather simple, real world example in another post of what I am talking about.....I used the example of some fellow Engineers I have encountered over the years use the terms "dB" and "dBm" incorrectly.....

This is simple reading comprehension....I'm not asking you to do any math, physics, or engineering......just read what I write and don't form unwarranted conclusions.

Read what I write and interpret it within the context of what I am writing and do not go beyond the scope explicitly given in what I write.

 

[DGM]

I'm totally confused every time I read the exchanges between femr and everyone else for some reason :\

Femr, I think my main beef is that you don't come to even a tentative answer of where the evidence is taking you in the now. I don't have much a problem with you pointing out issues in the NIST report and nit picking details, but what exactly is is leaning you to is more my interest.

Good luck with that. I'm not sure he knows. He does get a lot of "atta-boys" and "back-pats" on "truther" sites for all his "hard work".

 

[newton3376]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg] A false argument from a "debunker" does not defeat an argument - false or otherwise - from a "truther". It merely remains a false argument no matter how many chime in to support it.

Indeed.

 

[dafydd]

Lets look at what I originally wrote...



Now here is your response to that:




What you wrote above is ridiculous and has little to do with what I wrote.

I don't care if someone is a "truther" or a "debunker".....if they are wrong they should be corrected.

If Ryan Mackey, Dave Thomas, tfk, Dave Rogers, etc wrote something inaccurate or wrong I would correct them just the same as I would correct a truther posting....in fact I would be MUCH harder on them since they are all fellow Engineers/Scientists and I expect a higher degree of accuracy and competence from them.

So it has little to do with "truther" versus "debunker" and everything to do with being ACCURATE and CORRECT.

I even gave you a rather simple, real world example in another post of what I am talking about.....I used the example of some fellow Engineers I have encountered over the years use the terms "dB" and "dBm" incorrectly.....

This is simple reading comprehension....I'm not asking you to do any math, physics, or engineering......just read what I write and don't form unwarranted conclusions.

Read what I write and interpret it within the context of what I am writing and do not go beyond the scope explicitly given in what I write.

In supporting his nitpicking about terms you help divert attention away from the fact that femr2 does not have a clue.

 

[dafydd]

Good luck with that. I'm not sure he knows. He does get a lot of "atta-boys" and "back-pats" on "truther" sites for all his "hard work".

Drawing all those squiggly lines is very tiring.

 

[jaydeehess]

[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg] A false argument from a "debunker" does not defeat an argument - false or otherwise - from a "truther". It merely remains a false argument no matter how many chime in to support it.

I'm with newton on this. A false arguement should be pointed out as such no matter the origin.

In the cases where I have posted calculations I have often included the plea that others check my math. I do this because I want to know if I am wrong.

The basic fact that 911 conspiracists are almost invariably wrong in any arguement they make does not give licence for those who debunk to be just as wrong on occassion. Wrong is wrong, errors are errors, plain and simple.

 

[jaydeehess]

In supporting his nitpicking about terms you help divert attention away from the fact that femr2 does not have a clue.

Personally I have 'nit picked' when conspiracists use the term 'free fall speed'. This is often given in terms of an elapsed time further compounding the error.

I see no reason then why a conspiracist should not be allowed to 'nit pick' on correct usage of terms..
BTW I too chaff when people use 'dbm' or 'db' incorrectly especially when it is not clear if they refer to 'dbmW' vs. 'dbmV', or 'dbU' vs. 'dbFS'

 

[ozeco41]

I'm with newton on this. A false arguement should be pointed out as such no matter the origin.

In the cases where I have posted calculations I have often included the plea that others check my math. I do this because I want to know if I am wrong.

The basic fact that 911 conspiracists are almost invariably wrong in any arguement they make does not give licence for those who debunk to be just as wrong on occassion. Wrong is wrong, errors are errors, plain and simple.

I think it goes deeper than simply having false arguments corrected.

Anyone setting up to show someone else is wrong has an inherent obligation to be truthful. Deliberately using falsehoods in an attempt to disprove the opponents position is dishonest. The fact that you judge the other person to be an idiotic truther or any other such disparaging judgement does not excuse being dishonest yourself. Much the same goes for untruthfulness arising from laziness rather than deliberate dishonesty.

..and if you make an error out of ignorance so much for your claim to be able to show that the other person is wrong.

Needless to say it matters not that one side has been categorised as a "truther" - what they say stands in it's own right as to whether it is correct or not. One common error being to claim something is wrong because a "truther" said it. That one is probably a formal fallacy. (Around these forums it should be. )

 

[TruthersLie]

You can't polish a turd. No matter how hard you try..........it's still a turd.

I hate to say this... but I will.
Mythbusters actually proved you CAN polish a turd. It may still be a turd, but it is a polished turd.

 

[TruthersLie]

Personally I have 'nit picked' when conspiracists use the term 'free fall speed'. This is often given in terms of an elapsed time further compounding the error.

I see no reason then why a conspiracist should not be allowed to 'nit pick' on correct usage of terms..
BTW I too chaff when people use 'dbm' or 'db' incorrectly especially when it is not clear if they refer to 'dbmW' vs. 'dbmV', or 'dbU' vs. 'dbFS'

And we cannot forget the "nitpicking" about 'into its footprint.' That nit is a very important part to the claim... or the "near freefall speed." If we nail truthers for it, we have to nail fellow debunkers for it.

 

[newton3376]

Are you serious? 'Using terms incorrectly' lol. Since when was it a requirement to use 'correct terms' when discussing nonsense make belief stuff pulled from a truthers arse? lol. FFS wake up. This stuff is all AAH. Nonesense. Bollox. Who gives a rats arse if it contains spelling mistakes or incorrect terminology? lol. We are talking space beams, imaginery rays beams, pods, thermite, suoerduperthermite, hushaboom, squibs, paint chips etc etc etc. All nonesense stuff............but it needs to have the correct terminolgy. lol.

First of all.....your reply is mainly a bunch of nonesense....not really worth replying to, but since this is a debate forum I will reply anyway

Not one of the things you mention "space beams, imaginery rays beams, pods, thermite, suoerduperthermite, hushaboom, squibs, paint chips" was part of my discussion.

You will find that NONE of those words appear in my discussion.....what you WILL find are words like "gravitational potential energy" and "gravitational potential". You will also find words like "work", "energy", and "force".

You will find a reference to "dBm" and "dB"......but not one of the words you listed was a part of the discussion.

And for the record it is ALWAYS a "requirement" to use terms and concepts accurately and correctly.

Hows about before we demand such accuracy about the nonesense that first determine that we are actually discussing something worth discussing in the first place. The biggest mistake here is that posters are actually engaged in a discussion with a nut job about nut job theories. femr2 seems to have the intellectuals commenting on the importance of being accurate about irrelevant nonesense and none existant occurances. lol. Just ensure that you are talking nonesense correctly folks. lol.

You can't polish a turd. No matter how hard you try..........it's still a turd.

You may have somehow missed the rather obvious fact that you are on a DEBATE FORUM and are in the "911 Conspiracy Theories" section. If that somehow escaped your obviously "sharp" observation skills then hopefully I have now given you some enlightenment.

If you don't want to engage in a debate about 9/11 then I have a solution......DON'T.

 

[newton3376]

In supporting his nitpicking about terms you help divert attention away from the fact that femr2 does not have a clue.

While I disagree with femr2 on the 9/11 stuff.....that does not mean he is automatically wrong on every and all issues.

Each claim must be analyzed on it's own merit regardless of who is making the claim.

 

[newton3376]

I hate to say this... but I will.
Mythbusters actually proved you CAN polish a turd. It may still be a turd, but it is a polished turd.

I really want to click on that link.....but I can't since I am at work and access is blocked....

I will have to try it later tonight.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If Ryan Mackey, Dave Thomas, tfk, Dave Rogers, etc wrote something inaccurate or wrong I would correct them just the same as I would correct a truther posting....in fact I would be MUCH harder on them since they are all fellow Engineers/Scientists and I expect a higher degree of accuracy and competence from them.

Me too (but see my final paragraph below).

While I disagree with femr2 on the 9/11 stuff.....that does not mean he is automatically wrong on every and all issues.

Agreed.

Because femr2 has little or no technical background, he gets more slack.

If everyone were to jump up and shout whenever someone writes something that might not survive peer review outside of the JoNES, this subforum would be even noisier than it is. No sane person would write his posts here with the same care that should be given to a technical paper, so everyone deserves some slack.

 

[ozeco41]

I hate to say this... but I will.
Mythbusters actually proved you CAN polish a turd. It may still be a turd, but it is a polished turd.

I may be the only engineer here who was a professional turdologist and I hadn't seen that one.

 

[femr2]

Dude, the south face is clearly collapsing prior to the 'global' collapse.

There is no footage which shows anything of the sort. By all means suggest a piece of footage which you think supports your view though.

Having said that, is it really too much to imagine being able to see through the TRANSPARENT GLASS on the north face through to the outside?

You suggested that the facade distortion highlighted in the video was "the sun shining through the North face". Nonsense. The distortion is of the reflections upon the North facade, which, as I've said, allows you to the the effect of the internal building behaviour...bottom to top propogation under East penthouse, followed by top to bottom as penthouse descends.

And you suggest a 'blast wave' is that slow?

I suggest no such thing, and have stated several times the internal behaviour I refer to...

No, the video shows external disturbance of the facade due to propogation of failures upwards beneath the East penthouse, followed by similar downwards as the East penthouse and structure descends internally.
...
By the way, in your haste to whine and complain (and make a fool of yourself at the same time) did you stop to think about what that detail implies ? Well, consider whether you think it supports the notion of upward propogating failure from a low floor around a small group of columns, or not

I guess you have a problem with the word *shockwave* ... a type of propagating disturbance.

Again, engage your brain and answer the question within my quote above.

Very little makes me giggle as much as when a truther uses a link that actually proves they're wrong.

What is it that you think I am wrong about, and what link are you referring to which you think proves such ? (I'll be rather less gracious if you respond with nonsense on this point)

Do you have another view of this 'blast wave' or just that one?

Again, I make no mention or suggestion of *blast*, that is your invention. I have shown you two views, Dan rather and NIST Cam#3 viewpoints, both showing the same behaviour.