Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

Ok...I've let this go far enough. You see I do like to do things by experiment. I realized, I may have been taken the slightly wrong approach here. Then I remembered a post by Dr. Greening...you know who he is right? He had a hypothesis..(well he didn't call it one but it can easily be made into one) of what JREFs are like. So I wanted to test it. And get it in a nice place. That is just what I have done here. What do you think the results are?
Click to expand...


Oh, so you were just pretending to be an idiot to see how people respond to idiotic trutherisms.

Your time may have been better spent trying to present a cogent argument.
 
Reactor drone said:
Oh, so you were just pretending to be an idiot to see how people respond to idiotic trutherisms.

Your time may have been better spent trying to present a cogent argument.
Click to expand...

Somebody else has taken over. As for a cogent argument,no chance.
 
Does he think that this major plot twist will induce us to take him seriously?
 
Mudcat said:
I wouldn't even if they were a fiction writer. TMD, plot twists does not a plot make.
Click to expand...

I suppose that it's hard to formulate one if you lost the plot a long time ago. The mental processes of truthers are a mystery to me.
 
How are we supposed to tell the difference between the fourteen year old tmd and the supposed scientist tmd? They both speak the same nonsense.
 
dafydd said:
I suppose that it's hard to formulate one if you lost the plot a long time ago. The mental processes of truthers are a mystery to me.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the thought processes of CTists in general are a mystery to you... And I don't blame you, they are to me as well. And I used to buy into (admittedly older) CT claptrap.
 
I don't think that his ploy of ripping the mask off and springing the dénouement on us has worked out the way he planned.
 
Ironically Dr. Greening co-wrote a paper with Dr. Bazant (one of the most respected scientists in his field, and one truthers love to attack), supporting the concept that plane impacts and fires brought down the towers. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf

I respect Dr. Greening as a scientist, but his actions, especially the one that led to his banning here, were eccentric and hateful.
 
It doesn't matter who or what tmd is,he is a truther and truthers are much of a muchness.
 
Are we at the part where we pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was, tmd?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok...I've let this go far enough. You see I do like to do things by experiment. I realized, I may have been taken the slightly wrong approach here. Then I remembered a post by Dr. Greening...you know who he is right? He had a hypothesis..(well he didn't call it one but it can easily be made into one) of what JREFs are like. So I wanted to test it. And get it in a nice place. That is just what I have done here. What do you think the results are?
Click to expand...
If you want to criticize the results of the engineering report you can go right ahead. The NIST has gotten plenty of valid crits dealing with disagreements in the details of the reports, but they don't disagree with the general conclusions that the collapses were the result of impact damage and fire. And it's gotten some extremely poor quality criticisms as well. They aren't perfect but they get general conclusions that are realistic.

I played along with your little game and told you why AE911truth isn't credible and spent considerable time giving you details on specifically what they did wrong and why their claims are wildly beyond reality. This doesn't mean you can't criticize the NIST yourself, but if you're going to do it, make sure you can criticize it without pasting someone else's words.

The forum has an ignore lift if you don't like the comments you get from people here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom