Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread

[Gravy]

Look either present a summary of why my sources are incorrect and unreliable or close the thread. Its not about winning or learning. You opened a thread to refute my evidence. The stage is yours.

A summary? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

 

[Docker]

A summary? Are you kidding? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

 

[uk_dave]

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

Very poor.

One might almost suspect that you don't understand your evidence and cannot, therefore, defend it.

It really was a case of my expert is bigger than your expert wasn't it?

 

[Gravy]

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.

Do I really need to remind you that I refuted your claim about the very first fact in the first link I clicked on?

We're working on the next. If you cannot answer the questions, just say so.

Anyone can post links and walk away. I care that you know what's in them, and why they're wrong. Do you?

 

[Docker]

Very poor.

One might almost suspect that you don't understand your evidence and cannot, therefore, defend it.

It really was a case of my expert is bigger than your expert wasn't it?

Would you care to refute it, since gravy cant?

 

[qarnos]

A summary? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Come on, Gravy, answering that question would require a few minutes of research!

Docker is a very busy guy - that's why he needs everybody else to do the research for him.

Warning: ahead.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Whether he feels its worthy? This evidence has been looked at by experts. Who is gravy to reject their claims?

He is your opponent in this debate. You know, normally a debate goes like this:

Debater #1 makes a claim, providing evidence. In this case, debater #2 had to challenge you first.

Debater #2 refutes the evidence.

Debater #1 Defends the evidence or provides new evidence.

....etc

I now see that Gravy has taken the educational course and is trying to make you understand your own evidence. In the circumstances I find that commendable, although I must admit that I wouldn't have had such patience meself.

I can only suggest you play along and pay careful attention because you are otherwise in serious risk of looking ridiculous. Just friendly advice .

Hans

 

[uk_dave]

Would you care to refute it, since gravy cant?

Refute what?

I'm a simple soul.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

 

[Docker]

Do I really need to remind you that I refuted your claim about the very first fact in the first link I clicked on? We're working on the next. If you cannot answer the questions, just say so.

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.

Refute things like this:

"Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas,after examining the EBES, concluded: “The Murrah Building wouldstill be standing and the upper floors would be intact had the truckloaded with explosives been the only culprit.” Moreover, Frias, apracticing engineer for over 40 years and a registered engineer inTexas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: “Explosives had to havebeen placed near, or on, the structural columns inside the building tocause the collapse that occurred to the Murrah Building.”"

or stand down.

 

[Docker]

He is your opponent in this debate. You know, normally a debate goes like this:

Debater #1 makes a claim, providing evidence. In this case, debater #2 had to challenge you first.

Debater #2 refutes the evidence.

Debater #1 Defends the evidence or provides new evidence.

....etc

I now see that Gravy has taken the educational course and is trying to make you understand your own evidence. In the circumstances I find that commendable, although I must admit that I wouldn't have had such patience meself.

I can only suggest you play along and pay careful attention because you are otherwise in serious risk of looking ridiculous. Just friendly advice .

Hans

Exactly. All gravy wants is to catch me out. I'm not playing those games. If he can't refute it that's fine.

 

[Gravy]

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.

Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?

 

[Docker]

Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?

 

[Docker]

Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?

Just tell me why it's false. Surely thats quicker than me answering questions in between.

 

[kookbreaker]

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?

Man, I'd never thought I'd see flop-sweaat typed out on the internet.

Why don't you just answer the questions? They are simple, not misleading, and none of them are false dichotomies. Just answer them.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Exactly. All gravy wants is to catch me out. I'm not playing those games. If he can't refute it that's fine.

Mmm, well to each his own, but by that attitude you ARE exactly being caught out. You see, the rest of us can easily see where Gravy's quiz is leading.

Don't you get it? You are caught out right now, and your choice now is to stay out or try and fight your way in. In that process you may very likely debunk your own evidence. In chess it would be called a gambit. I almost feel sorry for you, except I guess you are reaping what you sowed.

Hans

 

[qarnos]

Just tell me why it's false. Surely thats quicker than me answering questions in between.

Read the NIST 9/11 report and tell us what is false in that.

Thanks.

 

[Gravy]

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?

This is not about learning? Docker, in your 500+ posts in two days you've given NO indication that you understand any of the issues that you so vehemently post about.

You've done nothing but jump from issue to issue, running from any difficult questions, and absolutely refusing to confront the evidence that's presented to you.

I will not play that game. If you want to have a discussion about the Oklahoma City bombing, you're going to have to show that you're willing to participate and learn.

Anyone can post links. I could have simply posted a bunch of links in response to yours. That doesn't make for much of a discussion forum, does it?

Learning is a process. I've been through all this OKC stuff before. You clearly haven't. I'm glad to help you to understand why your claim is wrong. Will you participate in this process? It will require work on your part. Yes or no?

 

[Docker]

Read the NIST 9/11 report and tell us what is false in that.

Thanks.

When did I claim the NIST report was false strawman?

 

[Docker]

You've done nothing but jump from issue to issue, running from any difficult questions, and absolutely refusing to confront the evidence that's presented to you.

This describes your stance.

When did I claim to be a bomb expert? You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

Please present your expertise and/or evidence that refutes this body of experts. If you cannot then I will respectfully leave the evidence here for someone else to have a crack at.

 

[qarnos]

When did I claim the NIST report was false strawman?

Surely that would be quicker rather than us having to answer all your questions, no?