Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[ElMondoHummus]

To the suggestion, implicit in this post, that the poster is able to state with absolute certainty that she can distinguish between, on the one hand, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed airplane, and on the other, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed drone which is itself an aircraft, I can imagine no more fitting comment than:



Yes, that one rates the full five dogs.

Dave

No Dave, it's worse than that.

She's saying the wake from a drone nobody saw at all anywhere, that close to the tower. As if this magic drone can somehow produce such a wake from... **** knows where

At first there was the "Gish Gallop", where pseudoscience advocates jumped from one claim to another thereby performing argumentum ad ridiculum excessus. Which they did without regard to each and every previous point getting quashed, which is what distinguished the Gallop from normal debate (i.e. no acknowledgement of defeated arguments). But what do we call this? This oddity is characterized by the utter denial of a piece of evidence as well as its implications, then a sudden acceptance of the existence of that piece of evidence, but with an utterly unrealistic, completely evidence-void explanation for it. "Moving the goalposts" is an insufficient term to describe the absolute, ludicrous idiocy that's implicit in such a move, plus doesn't get across the insanity of sudden adoption for subversion of the rebuttal's point.

This deserves some kind of name.

 

[DGM]

Silly DGM!

Ms "I have a PhD!" Blevins doesn't need to read anything, she knows EVERYTHING!

I know. I'm still hopeful that someday she'll actually back-up her "theory *" with something more than "I believe".


* Although to date I have not actually seen anything approaching a theory.

 

[Sunstealer]

At first there was the "Gish Gallop", where pseudoscience advocates jumped from one claim to another thereby performing argumentum ad ridiculum excessus. Which they did without regard to each and every previous point getting quashed, which is what distinguished the Gallop from normal debate (i.e. no acknowledgement of defeated arguments). But what do we call this? This oddity is characterized by the utter denial of a piece of evidence as well as its implications, then a sudden acceptance of the existence of that piece of evidence, but with an utterly unrealistic, completely evidence-void explanation for it. "Moving the goalposts" is an insufficient term to describe the absolute, ludicrous idiocy that's implicit in such a move, plus doesn't get across the insanity of sudden adoption for subversion of the rebuttal's point.

This deserves some kind of name.

Moving the goal-Postert? Our Dr Dust is Tracey Blevins aka Tracey Postert.

 

[Dash80]

At first there was the "Gish Gallop", where pseudoscience advocates jumped from one claim to another thereby performing argumentum ad ridiculum excessus. Which they did without regard to each and every previous point getting quashed, which is what distinguished the Gallop from normal debate (i.e. no acknowledgement of defeated arguments). But what do we call this? This oddity is characterized by the utter denial of a piece of evidence as well as its implications, then a sudden acceptance of the existence of that piece of evidence, but with an utterly unrealistic, completely evidence-void explanation for it. "Moving the goalposts" is an insufficient term to describe the absolute, ludicrous idiocy that's implicit in such a move, plus doesn't get across the insanity of sudden adoption for subversion of the rebuttal's point.

This deserves some kind of name.

ADHD complicated by delusions of granduer and reality?

Nah... too long.

 

[abaddon]

At first there was the "Gish Gallop", where pseudoscience advocates jumped from one claim to another thereby performing argumentum ad ridiculum excessus. Which they did without regard to each and every previous point getting quashed, which is what distinguished the Gallop from normal debate (i.e. no acknowledgement of defeated arguments). But what do we call this? This oddity is characterized by the utter denial of a piece of evidence as well as its implications, then a sudden acceptance of the existence of that piece of evidence, but with an utterly unrealistic, completely evidence-void explanation for it. "Moving the goalposts" is an insufficient term to describe the absolute, ludicrous idiocy that's implicit in such a move, plus doesn't get across the insanity of sudden adoption for subversion of the rebuttal's point.

This deserves some kind of name.

If I may lend a machete to your intellectual thicket, and suggest....

The Posterts progress

or

the Blevins blunderbus.

 

[LSSBB]

If I may lend a machete to your intellectual thicket, and suggest....

The Posterts progress

or

the Blevins blunderbus.

from Merriam-Webster:

trans·mog·ri·fy verb \tran(t)s-ˈmä-grə-ˌfī, tranz-\

trans·mog·ri·fied trans·mog·ri·fy·ing

transitive verb

: to change or alter greatly and often with grotesque or humorous effect

intransitive verb

: to become transmogrified

— trans·mog·ri·fi·ca·tion noun

 

[Resume]

Blevinated Bloviations & Blitherings.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The beam needs to reach the target without interference?

Correct.

So give us one plausible location. If there are no plausible locations, then the weapon can't have done it.

 

[FenerFan]

Finally, one of WTC Dust's threads actually produced some useful information: Gravy is alive and well.

 

[SUSpilot]

At first there was the "Gish Gallop", where pseudoscience advocates jumped from one claim to another thereby performing argumentum ad ridiculum excessus. Which they did without regard to each and every previous point getting quashed, which is what distinguished the Gallop from normal debate (i.e. no acknowledgement of defeated arguments). But what do we call this? This oddity is characterized by the utter denial of a piece of evidence as well as its implications, then a sudden acceptance of the existence of that piece of evidence, but with an utterly unrealistic, completely evidence-void explanation for it. "Moving the goalposts" is an insufficient term to describe the absolute, ludicrous idiocy that's implicit in such a move, plus doesn't get across the insanity of sudden adoption for subversion of the rebuttal's point.

This deserves some kind of name.

"Dustification"

 

[MIKILLINI]

You don't have any business lecturing me about physics, if you think a fragile aluminum airboat can break through steel beams without destroying itself at the south face of WTC 2. It's a stupid story, and you're the one who got suckered by it.

Why? How are you going to test anything without physics? How will you reach conclusions without backing them up from solid test results?
I'm arguing for what the evidence provides: Physics confirm the evidence found, even if people claim no planes. Plane parts were found scattered all around the area, Radar had tracked these planes to the same exact location. Forensic evidence confirmed passenger DNA, the very same passengers who booked these flights.

This is the reality>Physics confirmed the reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hY0QleiHY

 

[Harpo]

Pulling "a Blevins".

[/thread]

 

[dafydd]

So give us one plausible location.

Toontown?

 

[squealpiggy]

How surprised would you be if Elvis walked in and offered you a unicorn sandwich?

About that much.

I would be surprised. Everyone knows that Elvis would proffer a PB&J sandwich.

Nobody is talking about the Deutsche Bank, except me.
Nobody is talking about The Sphere, except me.
Nobody is mentioning the multiple types of metallic foam, except me.
Nobody is talking about the lack of a wake at 9:03AM, except me.
Nobody is talking about the smell of the WTC fumes and the duration of these fumes, except me.
Nobody is talking about the rain days in NYC, except me.

And what does this tell you? That even the kookiest truther kook thinks your ideas are out there. That you are a crank among cranks.

 

[SUSpilot]

Pulling "a Blevins".

[/thread]

 

[WTC Dust]

To the suggestion, implicit in this post, that the poster is able to state with absolute certainty that she can distinguish between, on the one hand, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed airplane, and on the other, the vortex created by the wake of a crashed drone which is itself an aircraft, I can imagine no more fitting comment than:



Yes, that one rates the full five dogs.

Dave

You added the "absolute certainty" part. I qualified my statements with doubt. "Maybe" it happened like this. Maybe it didn't.

 

[WTC Dust]

Before I discovered the WTC was a foam, when I was trying to figure out an appropriate word, I did consider "transmogrify". It's generic and it does mean to alter greatly.

Solid steel beams becoming dusty foam is a grotesque change by anyone's standards, and humor is often good to use.

from Merriam-Webster:

trans·mog·ri·fy verb \tran(t)s-ˈmä-grə-ˌfī, tranz-\

trans·mog·ri·fied trans·mog·ri·fy·ing

transitive verb

: to change or alter greatly and often with grotesque or humorous effect

intransitive verb

: to become transmogrified

— trans·mog·ri·fi·ca·tion noun

 

[WTC Dust]

Listen carefully: Conservation of momentum disproves the hijack conspiracy.

With due respect, which is admittedly little, yes, indeed, folks who have studied physics have business lecturing you about that subject.

Now, I'm not one of those folks and I don't know whether Millikin is either, but there certainly are plenty of those folks here and they've told you that you're all wet.

It takes enormous ego to assume that all of the people pointing out the role of momentum in determining the effects of a collision are wrong. To be sure, you've no reason to believe that any of them are experts, without independent verification, but why would so many people oppose you (given that you don't believe in a vast conspiracy)? Do they all have physical intuitions inferior to your own?

Is a fantastic new weapon that foamifies (some) steel, but curls bronze really more plausible to you?

God help your medical test subjects.

 

[Alareth]

Gravy is alive and well.

That's what THEY want you to think.

 

[The Big Dog]

listen carefully: Conservation of momentum disproves the hijack conspiracy.

well i'm convinced!

Lulz