Debate (not debase) a Truther

[Oystein]

...
What concerns me is not the status of the building(on fire, no sprinklers), it is the investigation into the collapse.
...

<-- *shaking head in disbelief*

 

[GlennB]

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

Finding some obscure/devious/deceptive way to back up a plain error is a typical Truther tactic. You're doing it again here. Which is partly why people are assuming you are a typical Truther who's simply doing a poor job of disguising the fact.

For the record, what you wrote in the Franglais above translates as is not and becomes a question purely through intonation, rather than the is it not in your original which is (as I recall) known as a question tag.

And I would have thought it should be capable d' utiliser , but then my French is not strong.

Regards

"A foreigner"

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hello Skeptics, I'm welcoming any questions, and will pose a few of my own. I hope we can all remain civil. You'll discover I am a rationalist, not a tin-foil hatter; I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

Pleading to "debate not debase" and then immediately taking a swing at someone in your opening statement is inconsistent, to put it lightly.

Beachnut is aggressive when he sights a target, but he isn't remotely delusional.

 

[240-185]

TL;DR: IamaNiceGuy's French is an insult to this language.
_______________________

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...

If you had not pretended to be an expert about French language, my post would have never appeared.
French language is a difficult language to learn, and French spelling is very exigent. What you did there is whining against a real French who showed you how pedant you are by trying to impress people with babbles like this:

Francais (1) n'est pas capable a utilize (2) (3) jargon (4), especialement (5) a l'internet? (6) (7)

Oh right, now you try to move the goalposts. Yes, I should have said that "n'est pas" was not grammatically correct when you want to say "isn't it". Here, the meaning is simply "X is not Y".

However, this sentence accumulates, once again, grammatical aberrations. I said I had to correct you at every sentence you try to write in French, so here we go:

(1) In a French phrase, every noun is preceded by an article.
(2) The right construction is: "être" + adjective + "de" (or "d'" if the verb starts with a vowel).
(3) By the way, it is "utiliSER".
(4) Same as (1)
(5) It's "spécialement".
(6) The right construction is : article + noun + "de/d'" + noun. So it is "le jargon d'Internet", not that accumulation of spookiness.
(7) As GlennB said, learn to construct correct interrogative sentences.

The right phrase should have been : "Le français n'est-il pas capable d'utiliser le jargon qui vient spécialement d'Internet ?". Very, very, very different from what you dared to write.

As French magazines are sold in Franco-Ontarian territories, do NOT pretend that every Ontarian writes like you. It's a lie.

 

[T.A.M.]

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories and Jesse Ventura on CNN and decide to do a little investigating, on our own, in our spare(and limited)time. What you learn from an initial search is that JREF is the place to go if you want straight answers. The problem is you guys dont even let us ask questions, you've heard it all before....

Don't end up chasing everyone away...

feel free to mess with jammonious though, im pretty sure hes a noplaner right?

Those of us who have been arguing this crap for 4 or more years find it hard to believe that anyone, 9 years after the event, is just now being exposed to the CTs of 9/11.

Those of us....find it hard to yet again, for the umpteenth time, explain in detail the reasons that make the CTs false.

We were working on a "Best Threads" project, but Mark Roberts got busy with real life, and the project took a derail. I am contemplating taking the project up myself, but for now, THE SEARCH FUNCTION is your best friend.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation.

But so does the wording used by NIST. As I pointed out to RedIbis, 'little' and 'none' are not the same word.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I think similarly to the other topic; literally, the heat of the structure during/after the collapse, many misunderstandings between (master)debaters have come from the spurious interchanging of specific words such as molten metal vs molten steel; mostly by truthers Big difference in this case

However, with the depth of analysis one is subjected to here(rightfully so; and including sometimes random grammar lessons from foreigners) the need to stress exact wordage within posts is a little over-the-top in your collective favor.

There is a culture here of self-serving interpretation as an excuse to debase other members. You can't pick and choose when to take something literally or not in order to marginalize them as Truthers.

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories and Jesse Ventura on CNN and decide to do a little investigating, on our own, in our spare(and limited)time. What you learn from an initial search is that JREF is the place to go if you want straight answers. The problem is you guys dont even let us ask questions, you've heard it all before....

Don't end up chasing everyone away...

feel free to mess with jammonious though, im pretty sure hes a noplaner right?

You can find the answers you putatively seek using the search function as there has been nothing new in Trutherism for years. Jref is like playing whack a mole
And I'm afraid that Jammo is so messed up already that anything we say goes right over his head.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories and Jesse Ventura on CNN and decide to do a little investigating, on our own, in our spare(and limited)time. What you learn from an initial search is that JREF is the place to go if you want straight answers. The problem is you guys dont even let us ask questions, you've heard it all before....

The problem is a little different to that. The problem is that there has, in the past, been a regular stream of new members starting off with a first post that says something like, "I don't really believe all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, and I don't know a lot of the details, but I just heard a story from a friend that the collapse of WTC7 was a little faster than it should have been, and I wondered if anyone could explain it." A few regulars promptly post an explanation, usually with a link to 9/11 Myths (which usually has links to the source material). The new member then replies by quoting Steven Jones and Richard Gage, and presenting sufficiently subtle arguments about energy balances and inelastic buckling that he can't possibly have picked up all of this after making his initial post; after about ten he starts insulting anyone who disagrees with him, by post twenty he's accusing everyone of being shills, disinformation agents or catamites to Dick Cheney, and after about fifty posts he gets suspended, often eventually to be banned as a sockpuppet of an obsessive nutter from Manchester by the name of Paul Doherty. The result is that the regulars, having seen this behaviour so many times, are excessively suspicious of anyone who claims to be just asking questions. In fact, innocent-looking first posts along the lines of "I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but I just wanted to ask...." have become so depressingly familiar as the opening gambit in this sort of pantomime that they're known as "The Mark of Woo". The reason that there isn't a great deal of trust remaining is that it's been abused so often.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

But so does the wording used by NIST. As I pointed out to RedIbis, 'little' and 'none' are not the same word.

Dave

Did Sunder say that WTC7 collapsed from fire or did he say it was fire plus a little structural damage?

Like I said before, you're trying to shoehorn structural damage into a collapse hypothesis that relies entirely on fire.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did Sunder say that WTC7 collapsed from fire or did he say it was fire plus a little structural damage?

The full report says it collapsed primarily due to fire, and the structural damage had little effect on collapse initiation.

Like I said before, you're trying to shoehorn structural damage into a collapse hypothesis that relies entirely on fire.

And it was a lie both times you said it. Read NCSTAR 1A. It's perfectly clear that the hypothesis incorporates structural damage. In particular, the effect of structural damage on collapse propagation is very clearly and explicitly described, indicating that the collapse hypothesis incorporates it.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...

Someone takes time to read your post and you deride them for it?

 

[dudalb]

The problem is a little different to that. The problem is that there has, in the past, been a regular stream of new members starting off with a first post that says something like, "I don't really believe all the conspiracy theories about 9/11, and I don't know a lot of the details, but I just heard a story from a friend that the collapse of WTC7 was a little faster than it should have been, and I wondered if anyone could explain it." A few regulars promptly post an explanation, usually with a link to 9/11 Myths (which usually has links to the source material). The new member then replies by quoting Steven Jones and Richard Gage, and presenting sufficiently subtle arguments about energy balances and inelastic buckling that he can't possibly have picked up all of this after making his initial post; after about ten he starts insulting anyone who disagrees with him, by post twenty he's accusing everyone of being shills, disinformation agents or catamites to Dick Cheney, and after about fifty posts he gets suspended, often eventually to be banned as a sockpuppet of an obsessive nutter from Manchester by the name of Paul Doherty. The result is that the regulars, having seen this behaviour so many times, are excessively suspicious of anyone who claims to be just asking questions. In fact, innocent-looking first posts along the lines of "I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but I just wanted to ask...." have become so depressingly familiar as the opening gambit in this sort of pantomime that they're known as "The Mark of Woo". The reason that there isn't a great deal of trust remaining is that it's been abused so often.

Dave

And that gambit has a specific name; JAQ for "Just Asking Questions". And I could retire if I had a dime for everytime I have seen it used here.....

 

[GlennB]

Someone takes time to read your post and you deride them for it?

The joke was that even his derision turned into a poor imitation of Franglais Il est un nincompoup qui cannot parle Franglais propaire, meme. Qu'est ce que fait-il, le doofus? Completement mental, il est.

Will he taunt us a second time?

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut drops "delusion" 3 times in this post.....turns out I can read minds! ...

Will you drop your 911 delusions and stop being a proxy for 911 truth's lies, hearsay and idiotic fantasies? Going on 9 years, is reality a choice with 911 truth?

5. Were the planes remote controlled?
Possibly
6. Were "terrorists" on board the planes?
If Truman or Kissinger had been on board, would they count?
7. Were the calls and recordings on the planes fake?
have not looked into this enough to comment
8. Did an airplane hit the Pentagon?
Did Cheney get rich from his Haliburton investments? (rhetorical question)
9. Was flight 93 shot down?
Yes

Delusions found in the false smart-alecky, disrespectful answers. About par for 911 truth.

Question #1

Did NIST accurately input the thermal conductivity of steel in their computer collapse scenario? Did NIST account for the concrete floors resting/attached to the steel-constructed floors? What effect would this have on the collapse simulation?

Did you find some stuff in NIST to help with the quesion?

... You called my ideas delusional: please tell me exactly where I have demonstrated ...

See your post...
You said Flight 93 was shot down; a delusion you have.
You said it was possible the planes were remotely controlled; a delusion you have.
You think WTC tower and WTC7 were demolished, that is a delusions based on lies, hearsay and fantasy.

as to the method of demolition as

All your answers in that post could qualify as delusions.

Beachnut, I already explained that reading NIST in its entirety would take years....they've studied subjects other than just the WTC.
...

LOL, I meant the on-topic part of NIST. Good job.

... I haven't finished reading NIST, as it is a huge organization, with lots of written material. I think I'll stcik to the 10,000 or so pages concerning the WTC reports.
...

The WTC7 part will do for this thread, not other NIST junk.

What other delusions on 911 do you need cleared up?
93 was not shot down, I was on active duty on 911 in the USAF, we were not missing missiles or ammunition on 911; we did not shoot down Flight 93, the Passengers figured out 911 in minutes and took action. I also cheated, I have the transcript of the terrorists in the cockpit and the Flight data recorder information for Flight 93.

Flight 11, 175, 77 and 93 were not remotely piloted on 911; the final flying on 911 by 77 and 93 were clearly inputs by the terrorists in the FDR. I cheated again, I have the FDR information for 77 and 93 and have flown Boeing heavy jets for over 4,000 hours since 1976.

No demolition of WTC towers and 7 on 911, the WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires, and WTC7 burned for hours and collapsed. Fire is bad for buildings. I cheated a little by going to school to be an engineer and returning for my masters. I know what explosives sound like and do, up close and glass blasted out of my office personal like, when shot at by some idiot in Iraq with rockets. I cheated and have talked to people in NYC who saw the impacting planes and were as close to WTC7 as you can get to see the massive fires. No one heard explosives, no evidence of explosives, no evidence of thermite. I have Jones' first paper where he made up the thermite scam out of thin air.

The WTC7 fire was not fought... this fire was not stopped. In buildings where fires are not fought or stopped major failures occur. Even in building with fires fought the building may be totaled.

You don't have time to read up and be rational on 911? I make time to learn while not having time to design my quad amp 4 way 7 driver center channel 5'x13"x17/21" or babysit my grandkids. The same tweeter as the 25k speakers by dunlavy.

911 truth has no evidence and only has lies. Jones said this column was cut by thermite.

Then Jones says the USA caused the Haiti earthquake; he is nuts on 911 and more. Lies = 911 truth. This column was cut after 911. Jones made up thermite as a theory. Jones was fired, Jones had to make up an on-line journal to publish his lies.

Good luck with 911 issues, sorry you don't have time to research 911 in the last 8 years to make rational conclusions.

 

[1337m4n]

Question: What is the relevance of WTC7's collapse being "unprecedented"? What does precedent have to do with the question of how it happened?

 

[Oystein]

Building collapse due to fire is not unprecedented at all.



Really unprecedented however would be the demolition of a tall building with thermite, or with explosives that do not go BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! devastatingly loudly.

Not that this lack of precedence means anything - just pointing out that truthers don't think consistently.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Specifically to 7, if you can't appreciate our skepticism towards an unprecedented phenomena in the midst of the worlds worst terrorist attacks, you need to reassess your 9/11 probability distributions. Anything is possible, n'est pas?

No. Any suggestion that the events of 9/11 were in any way the end result of an "inside job" fails immediately. Such a thing was and is 100% impossible.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes I believe there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11...

A grand conspiracy?

Believe all you like, but even any itty-bitty conspiracy of the type you "believe" would leave so much evidence as to fill volumes.

 

[Alan]

Pleading to "debate not debase" and then immediately taking a swing at someone in your opening statement is inconsistent, to put it lightly.

Beachnut is aggressive when he sights a target, but he isn't remotely delusional.

He didn't call Beachnut delusional. He predicted that Beachnut would call HIM delusional.

 

[Dog Town]

I'd still give odds that Beachnut somehow fits in the word delusional.

Don't care to read this whole thread. Guessing that you are just JAQing off.
So, if Beach hasn't done it yet. Allow me. You are delusional, even in made up French!
Pfffttt...