1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

Oystein said:
After 10 years and 1600 architects and engineers weighing in, it is curious that no one has yet presented a better explanation. Why do you think this is so? Do you believe a better explanation can be had? If yes, why has no one so far tried to provide one? What's stopping the 1600?
Click to expand...


9907451897c0442ad.gif


Oystein. Spare me your weaseling. Not interested.
 
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9907451897c0442ad.gif[/qimg]

Oystein. Spare me your weaseling. Not interested.
Click to expand...

Oh. When you say you don't need an explanation, I am doing the weaseling.
I think you need to look up a few words ;)
 
I see the age old appeal to authority and popularity is still being peddled around. Well at least they have ceased trying to pass their sham research articles off as evidence.
 
Marokkaan said:
2. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives],


And now we will compare it with this sentence, you said that I said it.

Quintiere has asked for a review of the nist report with input from ATF

Hmmm, i guess they don't look alike.

Maybe you have to try another sentence....
Click to expand...

Well, then, I'm a little confused as to what you think AE911T and Quintiere agree on here. Are you saying that both AE911T and Quintiere thought NIST would have enlisted the help of ATF? If so, can you say exactly where in AE911T's statements they say that they thought NIST would have done so? Because, you see, I've never heard of it being a part of AE911T's platform that they thought NIST would have performed a certain action. They are demanding a new investigation, plain and simple.

So, no evidence of AE911T and Quintiere agreeing on that particular point.

Dave
 
Childlike Empress said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/9907451897c0442ad.gif[/qimg]

Oystein. Spare me your weaseling. Not interested.
Click to expand...

Asking why Gage's list of kooks haven't done anything isn't weaseling.

Weaseling is more like the pathetic dodging done by 911 kooks whenever questioned on the shenanigans of their cult. As you just did...
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress has some warped views of how evidence gets handled that he genuinely believes is valid... it's actually impossible to educate someone who thinks that way.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You have nothing to educate me about
Click to expand...
Trust me I agree completely. For all practical purposes it's impossible to educate someone who already believes 100% he needs no other education on something, no matter how much reality indicates otherwise. Marokkan, ergo, yourself, and others have already demonstrated this quality. I always find that you learn to accept the reality after experiencing it first hand, but of course I doubt even a first hand experience of reality would do anything to help your camp.

Childlike Empress said:
Nice quotemine there, btw. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The post I quoted from here is in your own words, and the post is linked for everyone to read as it should have been. It summarizes your assumptions about how evidence is used clearer than anything else possibly could, and the meaning of the sentence doesn't change whether taken in isolation or with the full context. Therefore, you can keep any assumptions that it represents quote mining to yourself, as it's not factually sound
 
Last edited:
I encourage everyone to do so and learn about some residents integrity. It's a bit creepy to have people search my posts for stuff they think is useful to dodge completely unrelated issues, but i'm used to it and if it rocks your boat, be welcome. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I encourage everyone to do so and learn about some residents integrity. It's a bit creepy to have people search my posts for stuff they think is useful to dodge completely unrelated issues, but i'm used to it and if it rocks your boat, be welcome. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I gave up taking you seriously a long time ago.
 
I have no idea why some of you torture yourself with the childlike trolling of maro any longer. Seriously, it's an exercise in futility. He clearly is not here for intelligent discussion and he attempts to twist everything you say into a "gotcha" moment.

I really do not get your point, its gibberish talk

So you are now saying, Quintiere has asked for a review of the nist report with input from ATF?

If you say yes, you are contradicting yourselve.

If you say no, you are contradicting yourselve.
Click to expand...

^^ this is beyond ridiculous.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, then, I'm a little confused as to what you think AE911T and Quintiere agree on here. Are you saying that both AE911T and Quintiere thought NIST would have enlisted the help of ATF? If so, can you say exactly where in AE911T's statements they say that they thought NIST would have done so? Because, you see, I've never heard of it being a part of AE911T's platform that they thought NIST would have performed a certain action. They are demanding a new investigation, plain and simple.

So, no evidence of AE911T and Quintiere agreeing on that particular point.

Dave
Click to expand...

Just admit you were wrong, is that so difficult?

Tell me are those 2 sentences the same yes or no?

If not, show me the real sentence, or admit you were wrong

Its not if i want to win a debate, but its for yourselve, to learn next time from your mistakes. Try to read better and not go automatically in defense without thinking rational.

Its a weird question, asking me if ae911truth also expected NIST would enlist ATF:boggled:

Ae911truth expected controlled demolition, so ofcourse they would expect NIST to enlist ATF(thats why they started ae911truth....they never did research for explosives) ITs very very weird even funny you are asking me this, lol, im stunned by this...
 
Marokkaan said:
Just admit you were wrong, is that so difficult?

Tell me are those 2 sentences the same yes or no?

If not, show me the real sentence, or admit you were wrong
Click to expand...

You seem to have lost track of what we were talking about; it was whether AE911T and Quintiere agreed on whether they thought NIST would have enlisted the help of ATF.

Marokkaan said:
Ae911truth expected controlled demolition, so ofcourse they would expect NIST to enlist ATF(thats why they started ae911truth....they never did research for explosives) ITs very very weird even funny you are asking me this, lol, im stunned by this...
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So you're not working from what AE911T have actually said; you've made up some opinions on their behalf so you can pretend they agree with Quintiere. But your "of course" here is far from certain; AE911T certainly seem to imply that NIST is covering up for the conspiracy, and if that's their opinion then they would expect NIST not to enlist help from any agency that would have specific expertise in explosives.

So can you please stick to what AE911T actually say they think, not what you've chosen to pretend they think?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
You seem to have lost track of what we were talking about; it was whether AE911T and Quintiere agreed on whether they thought NIST would have enlisted the help of ATF.
Click to expand...

No you said to me that i said that Quintiere(or ae911truth, you can choose:rolleyes:) wants to ask for a review of the NIST report with input from ATF.

Its up to you to prove or admit your fault.

I can not debate with somebody who does not wants to admit his fault or wants to lie.

Ah, I see. So you're not working from what AE911T have actually said; you've made up some opinions on their behalf so you can pretend they agree with Quintiere. But your "of course" here is far from certain; AE911T certainly seem to imply that NIST is covering up for the conspiracy, and if that's their opinion then they would expect NIST not to enlist help from any agency that would have specific expertise in explosives.

So can you please stick to what AE911T actually say they think, not what you've chosen to pretend they think?
Click to expand...


So i have to search a quote from ae911truth, where they thought/expect NIST would enlist ATF to search for explosives, because you dont believe that???

OW MY, OW MY, OW MY....

You really mean this?


You know ae911truth is not about conspiracy, but about their expertise and about the science..... Every person with common sense and some knowledge about that kind of investigation would expect there is a team to search for explosives. THats why ae911truth several times asked NIST, why they not searched for explosives. Thats the first thing you would expect, just like Quintiere, ofcourse after you expected it, and you see NIST did nothing with it, you can think its a cover up.

Quintiere also has a reason why NIST didnt
He says:

What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
So i have to search a quote from ae911truth, where they thought/expect NIST would enlist ATF to search for explosives, because you dont believe that???

OW MY, OW MY, OW MY....

You really mean this?
Click to expand...

Yes. You've made a claim, very specifically, that AE911T thought NIST would enlist ATF, and that they therefore agree with Quintiere on this specific point. I'm asking you to substantiate that claim, because as far as I know AE911T has never made that specific statement. Please show me where they did, rather than typing gibberish.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom