• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot - serious, not follies

Morris Cod said:
Errr...sorry,I seem to have stumbled upon the Muppet Show forum.

My mistake.

By the way which muppet was Eric? Was he the drummer? Or one of the old heckling guys from the balcony?

:D
Click to expand...

That's an insult to Muppets everywhere.

Here's this for those who didn't see it on the other thread:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/beckjord.html
 
I would have been much more critical of Beckjord's ideas in PM's, but I realized with the second PM he probably is seriously delusional and I'm trained to be non-judgmental when dealing with people who exhibit symptoms. However, he insists I'm the one who's bonkers, therefore I feel justified in saying his ideas are pure hooey.

Besides, I'm not on the clock.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

WildCat said:
A B-25 wouldn't have done much damage to the WTC either. The big difference between the B-25 and a jetliner (besides size and speed) is the amount and type of fuel used.
B-25: A few hundred gallons of gasoline.
767: Thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

It was the burning jet fuel that weakened the towers and caused the collapse. I doubt the Empire State Building would have fared much better.
Click to expand...
WildCat,

I sort of agree and disagree at the same time with some of this.

I'm nitpicking somewhat. As I understand it, in the WTC incident, the jet fuel (JP-8?) all burned up within a minute or so (trying to recall the NOVA show here) but set everything else on fire, destroyed fire stops, etc., and also messed up the fireproofing material on the structural steel, allowing it to heat up to the point of failure.

The B-25 incident, if in fact it was using gasoline, would have been far more explosive (pound for pound) than a similar plane with jet fuel.

Ach......bottom line is, I'm not sure the two events are comparable.....different fuels, different structures, speeds, size, etc.

I'm just having a hard time trying to compare/contrast the two events.
 
RayG said:
Yup, dat be me. I couldn't resist the urge to roast Cedrip's nuts over an open fire. :D

I'm still waiting for his detailed explanation of shape-shifting. It should at least prove entertaining, cause I don't expect anything intelligent.

Take care LAL yer doing fine.

RayG
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you.

I just got a PM from someone who tried to be civil to Chestnuts and got a rebuke for his trouble. Beckjord is so outrageous I got a couple of apologies from sceptics for thinking I'm a "woo".

He's good for something after all. ;)
 
Morris Cod said:
Errr...sorry,I seem to have stumbled upon the Muppet Show forum.

My mistake.

By the way which muppet was Eric? Was he the drummer? Or one of the old heckling guys from the balcony?

:D
Click to expand...

Mr. Beckjord is all about the science, so my guess would be Beaker. (He doesn't have enough class to be Dr. Bunson Honeydew.)
 
LAL said:
Ah, thank you.

I just got a PM from someone who tried to be civil to Chestnuts and got a rebuke for his trouble. Beckjord is so outrageous I got a couple of apologies from sceptics for thinking I'm a "woo".

He's good for something after all. ;)
Click to expand...

I still think you're a woo, but at least you're capable of rational discussion. ;)
 
erikbeckjord said:
Exactly what are you doing here that is worth while? At least you got rid of that silly dog. All you skeptix destroy, but you never build. Never do research. :p
Click to expand...

Well I live in Southwestern Ontario Canada, hardly prime bigfoot country so doing field research is hardly feasible. As for reading and looking at pics, well that there is just anecdotal evidence.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

WildCat said:
A B-25 wouldn't have done much damage to the WTC either. The big difference between the B-25 and a jetliner (besides size and speed) is the amount and type of fuel used.
B-25: A few hundred gallons of gasoline.
767: Thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

It was the burning jet fuel that weakened the towers and caused the collapse. I doubt the Empire State Building would have fared much better.
Click to expand...

Well... we'll never know, thank goodness. However, the structure of the Twins was that all the strength was in it's outer shell. Once that was weakened, it collapsed. The ESB, constructed with self-reinforcing internal girders can take a lot more punishment (fire and/or impact) before the structure would collapse.

Having the same kind of jet hit the ESB would probably make it a condemned building, but I seriously doubt it would have collapsed.
 
Can someone explain why erik"I'm-so-crazy-I-should-have-a-disorder-named-after-me" beckjord randomly scatters BONK! in his posts?

I ask as it's the only mildly interesting aspect of any of his <strike>rantings</strike> posts.

My only guess is that he belongs to a group that are bonkers.



I'll get back later, as I have Yeti, Bigfoot, Meh-Teh, Rakshas and Sasquatch arguing with some guy in a dressing-gown and throwing letters painted on small stones all over the apartment. I think they arrived in some car that the guy mentioned.
 
H3LL said:
Can someone explain why erik"I'm-so-crazy-I-should-have-a-disorder-named-after-me" beckjord randomly scatters BONK! in his posts?

I ask as it's the only mildly interesting aspect of any of his <strike>rantings</strike> posts.

My only guess is that he belongs to a group that are bonkers.



I'll get back later, as I have Yeti, Bigfoot, Meh-Teh, Rakshas and Sasquatch arguing with some guy in a dressing-gown and throwing letters painted on small stones all over the apartment. I think they arrived in some car that the guy mentioned.
Click to expand...

GO WATCH OLD THREE STOOGES MOVIES.....AND UNDERSTAND BONK IS ON YOU! IT MEANS YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

BONK!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

jmercer said:
Well... we'll never know, thank goodness. However, the structure of the Twins was that all the strength was in it's outer shell. Once that was weakened, it collapsed. The ESB, constructed with self-reinforcing internal girders can take a lot more punishment (fire and/or impact) before the structure would collapse.

Having the same kind of jet hit the ESB would probably make it a condemned building, but I seriously doubt it would have collapsed.
Click to expand...

yOU GUYS ALL MISS THE POINT -- IN A TERROR HIJACKING, IT IS BETTER TO WRECK THE PLANE AND DIE THAN TO LET THE TERRORISTS FLY INTO ANYTHING, ANY SIZE, ANYWHERE.BECAUSE YOU WILL BE DEAD THEN ANYWAY, BONK!

Where are the skeptix intellectuals??????? WHERE????????
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

Psiload said:
It sounds like this guy should have done likewise:

http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_23/ai_57533282

Looking for Mr. Goodape
Skeptical Inquirer, Nov, 1999 by Robert Sheaffer

Pretty funny. :D

And check this out:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/vile.html



:jaw:
Click to expand...




Tossing pig meat at Muslims is a good technique in a terror jacking. Why do you question it? As I recall, GREAT RIOTS started in India when it was rumoured that pig grease was put on rifle cartridges for the Indian troops.... so I see you bonkers guys state some quiote form me, as if THAT MEANS IT IS BAD...when it is just good thinking. Next -- powdered pig spray like MACE to spray on terror muslims. Hey, put it in mortar shell for Iraq.. if it works, do it. To tell with religious respect.
 
erikbeckjord said:
GO WATCH OLD THREE STOOGES MOVIES.....AND UNDERSTAND BONK IS ON YOU! IT MEANS YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

BONK!
Click to expand...

Why, thank you. Very informative, even though I already know I'm an idiot.

Bonk has other meanings where I come from. It's not so scary now.

I have seen very few Three Stooges movies, but I'm sure it must work well for you on international forums.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

erikbeckjord said:
yOU GUYS ALL MISS THE POINT -- IN A TERROR HIJACKING, IT IS BETTER TO WRECK THE PLANE AND DIE THAN TO LET THE TERRORISTS FLY INTO ANYTHING, ANY SIZE, ANYWHERE.BECAUSE YOU WILL BE DEAD THEN ANYWAY, BONK!

Where are the skeptix intellectuals??????? WHERE????????
Click to expand...

The problem has always traditionally been that prior to 9/11, the airline's policies (as suggested by the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies) was to do what the terrorists WANT while the government tried to figure out a way to kill the terrorists without killing the passengers. This still holds true on the ground; but in the air there are now provisions for the military to shoot down hijacked airliners.

100-200 passengers on average in any given flight.

3-4 terrorists.

Unless you think terrorists are supermen, the odds are against them as long as enough people are willing to jump their a$$es. But no; you would prefer that they spend their time trying to crash the plane by attempting to open unopenable windows and doors - which wouldn't crash the plane anyway!.

And, of course, you apparently expect the terrorists to politely stand there and watch them attempt this sabotage instead of slashing that passenger to death, right?

Go get psychiatric help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom