TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Apparently, you don't get out much.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Can somebody unwrap the double negatives for me in this sentence? I'm sure the words don't mean what Clayton M. thinks they do.
"Unconvinced they were not" = "convinced they were". Doesn't it?
My brain feels a bit fuzzy tonight. Serves me right, I suppose, for spending an hour stundie-hunting in the David Icke looney-bin.
Compus
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
And even if they did want to reassemble it they rarely can with planes that suffered a controlled flight into the ground.
That's because, as this thread demonstrates, we actually have things to talk about. You do not. Or, at least, after almost six weeks you've been unable to come up with anything.
Not likely. I pay far more attention to Truthers than they deserve, and have for five years -- yet I remain unaware of even a single individual who knew much about 9/11 that was convinced to join the Truthers. On the other hand, the Forum is filled with histories of those who wised up and learned better.
You have nothing.
The best your side can do is to change one flavor of insanity for another. Unless, like Dr. Steven Jones, you believe in earthquake machines and free energy devices.
The clock is still ticking. Time is starting to run short.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
I almost pity you, RedIbis. I really do. To live in your world where everything you see may be fake? That's rough.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Sorry but no!
It is convoluted but the the two negatives are about different things so it is not a straight double negative.
"Unconvinced" in the context CM uses it means "ceasing to be convinced" - that is ceasing to be convinced about the subject which follows. Ceasing to be convinced only means a loss of conviction - it does not mean adopting the opposite viewpoint. You go from believer to agnostic.
The subject is "not some kind of CD"
So the sentence means ceasing to believe that it was "not CD". Therefore coming to hold no conviction that it was "notCD"
I think.
Whether that is what CM meant is anyone's guess.
Oz1976
Muse
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 720
No, it's not ridiculous, it's a known structural engineering fact. Why the heck do you think they FIREPROOF the steel? Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
You didn't get the point. Ryan was unaware of people, who knew much about 9/11 and joined the truthers.
I believed the official story, but I didn't know much about the details. Then I heard about the details from truther sources, and for a short while became a truther. Even then I didn't know much about 9/11, eventhough I thought I did. When I learned more about the details and studied, the more alienated from trutherism I became. That was when I was beginning to know much more about 9/11, and learned that those who were truthers thought they knew much but they didn't. That's exactly the problem, truthers or whatever you call them think they know everything, but they don't. That prevents them from becoming anything else but truthers. Once they realize they actually don't know much, they have a chance of actually learning.
I know probably you won't listen, since you pretty much seem to be like an average "I know it all, you else are stupidly wrong" kind of guy. But anyway, you are wrong. If you are interested in not fooling yourself, but actually living the real truth and learning, then stop for a moment.
Pretty much, yes, we do.
People argue with you because you irritate them. Not because there's a snowball's chance in nanothermite that you could be right. As your inability to articulate any new insight proves.
You don't even know what "the official story" is. For instance:
This "argument" of yours has no bearing on "the official story." You only think it does because you don't understand it. But then, that's why you're a Truther.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
So, not satisfied with trying to expose the real story behind 9/11 by concealing your hypothesis, you're planning to blow the whole thing wide open by concealing the findings of your research too?
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Would we find you civilly accusing Silverstein of making out like a bandit, and objectively refusing to research the numbers that might back up the accusation?
Dave
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Let me clarify a little.
There are three stages of understanding of 9/11. Stage 1 is uncritical acceptance of the generally agreed narrative, and most people will simply stay at stage 1 and get on with their lives. Stage 2, which may be bypassed, is a belief, based on the deliberately deceptive arguments of truthers coupled with a lack of understanding of any of a wide range of fields of knowledge, that 9/11 was an inside job. Stage 3 is an informed understanding that the half-formed and self-contradictory theories of truthers are utterly untenable, that all the evidence converges on the generally agreed narrative, and that this is in fact why it's so generally accepted.
Progression through these stages is always in the order stated. The only variations are in which stages are skipped, and where the progression stops. I have yet to encounter anyone who has progressed from stage 3 to stage 2; trutherdom only grows in the soil of ignorance, and knowledge is a very effective weed killer.
Repeating an absurdity ad nauseam doesn't make it any less absurd. Industrial steel will, very obviously, only resist collapse if it's in the collapse path. Buckling displaces steel from the collapse path, so it can no longer offer resistance. So all you're doing is compounding your ignorance by proclaiming your refusal to learn the obvious.
Dave
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Let's see...
This? This says "I am not telling, nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaah". Pretty childish.
No report of anything means nothing we can assume. So the reasonable assumption is that this means you plan to do nothing.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Do you know what an argument from simple incredulity means? Exactly what are your crash site qualifications again?
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Errrmmm...What an odd thing for you to believe.
Absolutely no person on this forum with the slightest knowledge of fire science or experience in cleaning up the debris of a fire doubts for a second that a steel structure will collapse far sooner than a wooden one, or that steel loses structural integrity in a fire. Every fire fighter on this page who has an IQ above 100 agrees utterly with Beachnut on this.
Why would you think otherwise?
NoahFence
Banned
C7 - what's your alternate theory? If you find NIST to be so utterly wrong, surely you've got a better explanation?
WHAT IS IT
WHAT IS IT
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
No. The debris would have been thrown into the woods down-range. There you will see bits and pieces of it scattered widely. Most of the aircraft was buried in the ground. Do try to keep up.
- Status