If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

FalseFlag said:
When an expert makes a claim that completely disregards a concept that anyone can understand, that expert destroys their credibility.

Example: A person with a PhD in Astronomy claims the sun is not a star. A person does not need to be an expert to know that the sun is a star. The "expert" has destroyed their credibility by making such an absurd claim.

The "experts" on this forum have destroyed their credibility by continually making claims that anyone can see are wrong.
Click to expand...

In your example yhis Astronomer would be Cole as he is the 'expert' disagreeing with the vast majority of experts.
In fact the example is even more like your championing of cole in that the vast majority of Astronomers haven't made public statements in support of the Sun being a star.
 
FalseFlag said:
When an expert makes a claim that completely disregards a concept that anyone can understand, that expert destroys their credibility.

Example: A person with a PhD in Astronomy claims the sun is not a star. A person does not need to be an expert to know that the sun is a star. The "expert" has destroyed their credibility by making such an absurd claim.

The "experts" on this forum have destroyed their credibility by continually making claims that anyone can see are wrong.
Click to expand...

That's strange. A few days ago you were asked a simple question a 10 year old could answer and this was your response:

Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post

Has there ever been an explosion or a report of an explosion that was NOT the result of an explosive device?
YES or NO


FalseFlag said:
I am not an expert, so I do not have an answer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So which is it, you're not an expert and therefore can't answer simple questions or you can answer them?

Why are you contradicting yourself?

Do you think this will help you get a new investigation? Do you think it endears you to the lurkers when you're caught lying?
 
FalseFlag said:
When an expert makes a claim that completely disregards a concept that anyone can understand, that expert destroys their credibility.
Click to expand...
"damages" NOT "destroys" - leave room for genuine error.
FalseFlag said:
Example: A person with a PhD in Astronomy claims the sun is not a star. A person does not need to be an expert to know that the sun is a star. The "expert" has destroyed their credibility by making such an absurd claim.
Click to expand...
With the proviso "damaged" not "destroyed" - yes - true.

The underlying issue of principle probably more important on this forum. The issue arises when the validity of a claim is questioned.

The question to resolve then is "Is the claim true?" and for most situations the qualification of the claimant is irrelevant. The only occasion qualifications arise is where the matter is not resolvable in fact - has to rely on opinion - and the weight of credibility of opinion may come into play. Note "may".

Debunkers on this forum more than truthers play the qualification card far too early and under inappropriate circumstances. Usually to support lazy debunking or rebuttal. By someone who probably cannot directly address the issue in contention.

So far you are doing OK FalseFlag. BUT....

..you blow it with this False Generalisation and lie by innuendo:

FalseFlag said:
The "experts" on this forum have destroyed their credibility by continually making claims that anyone can see are wrong.
Click to expand...
..put up or shut up False Flag - give specific examples. ;)
 
Last edited:
I think the "Sun is not a star" argument is, unsurprisingly, a little misleading; in this case it would translate to an expert saying the WTC towers didn't collapse at all. Maybe a better analogy might be an expert saying that, based on recent high-resolution measurements of the emission spectrum of the Sun, it might be more appropriate to classify it as G3V rather than G2V, and FalseFlag saying "Wikipedia says it's a G2V, so that destroys your credibility."

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think the "Sun is not a star" argument is, unsurprisingly, a little misleading; in this case it would translate to an expert saying the WTC towers didn't collapse at all. Maybe a better analogy might be an expert saying that, based on recent high-resolution measurements of the emission spectrum of the Sun, it might be more appropriate to classify it as G3V rather than G2V, and FalseFlag saying "Wikipedia says it's a G2V, so that destroys your credibility."

Dave
Click to expand...
Gawd Dave - do you realise that I will have to think to assess your comment?

L8R - the brain is in fun mode at present.

:runaway
 
FalseFlag said:
Whoever has the emails is the one who needs to post them.

*facepalm*
Click to expand...
So take it obliviousness is also part of your act.

Here's the point FF, it wouldn't matter if everyone here posted 500 anonymous emails from relevant professionals stating you are dead wrong and your interpretation of the physics is incorrect with valid arguments pointing out how you're wrong. You're S.O.P. has been to hand wave everything away and assert you're correct even when you've been proven misinformed.

The point is you've done nothing to go outside of your e-bubble on the internet to check the veracity of your claims.

The point is there has been exactly zero people here or elsewhere that support your claims.

The point is you act more like a troll than a seeker of anything resembling truth.

I've posted what engineers have stated after seeing the Cole video and reading your posts. I summarized their words and posted them anonymously yet you still ask for something that would not make any difference for the course of this thread yet you avoid doing something that would.

Oh and still waiting for you to support your implied claim that all the signers of Gage'$ petition believe explosives were used;)
 
Porkpie Hat said:
So take it obliviousness is also part of your act.

Here's the point FF, it wouldn't matter if everyone here posted 500 anonymous emails from relevant professionals stating you are dead wrong and your interpretation of the physics is incorrect with valid arguments pointing out how you're wrong. You're S.O.P. has been to hand wave everything away and assert you're correct even when you've been proven misinformed.

The point is you've done nothing to go outside of your e-bubble on the internet to check the veracity of your claims.

The point is there has been exactly zero people here or elsewhere that support your claims.

The point is you act more like a troll than a seeker of anything resembling truth.
I've posted what engineers have stated after seeing the Cole video and reading your posts. I summarized their words and posted them anonymously yet you still ask for something that would not make any difference for the course of this thread yet you avoid doing something that would.

Oh and still waiting for you to support your implied claim that all the signers of Gage'$ petition believe explosives were used;)
Click to expand...

That's certainly my take-away from the childish "you first" thing. If FF was really after the truth about what happened that day, and sincerely thought it was some nefarious conspiracy that was not accounted for in the "official story," confirming it by checking in person with experts, going outside the Internet bubble, would be a minimal effort he would undertake, the least he could do. But he avoids that, because the important thing isn't, in fact, what happened, it's winning an Internet argument. I'm not even sure that, for folks like FF, 9/11 is any more real an event than any other Internet game- the bubble is all there is.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
So take it obliviousness is also part of your act.

Here's the point FF, it wouldn't matter if everyone here posted 500 anonymous emails from relevant professionals stating you are dead wrong and your interpretation of the physics is incorrect with valid arguments pointing out how you're wrong. You're S.O.P. has been to hand wave everything away and assert you're correct even when you've been proven misinformed.

The point is you've done nothing to go outside of your e-bubble on the internet to check the veracity of your claims.

The point is there has been exactly zero people here or elsewhere that support your claims.

The point is you act more like a troll than a seeker of anything resembling truth.

I've posted what engineers have stated after seeing the Cole video and reading your posts. I summarized their words and posted them anonymously yet you still ask for something that would not make any difference for the course of this thread yet you avoid doing something that would.
Click to expand...

Those are the two key points:
1) It is an act; AND
2) trolling - specifically the "pretending" version of trolling AKA "Poe".

So there is little point in going along with the act:
Porkpie Hat said:
Oh and still waiting for you to support your implied claim that all the signers of Gage'$ petition believe explosives were used;)
Click to expand...
... he is not likely to run out of dodges or evasions.
 
At one point I took this forum seriously. The posts of the skeptics changed all that. I just can't make myself argue with people who continually reject the most obvious facts.

So, I don't consider myself a troll, but don't think for a minute that I'm going to take any of your posts seriously. I'm way past that, and you are the ones to blame for it.
 
FalseFlag said:
At one point I took this forum seriously. The posts of the skeptics changed all that. I just can't make myself argue with people who continually reject the most obvious facts.
Click to expand...

Give an example of these "obvious facts" we reject.

ETA: "Tho should never doubt Cole" is not a fact. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
At one point I took this forum seriously. The posts of the skeptics changed all that. I just can't make myself argue with people who continually reject the most obvious facts.

So, I don't consider myself a troll, but don't think for a minute that I'm going to take any of your posts seriously. I'm way past that, and you are the ones to blame for it.
Click to expand...

What ever would make you think anyone cared?
 
FalseFlag said:
At one point I took this forum seriously. The posts of the skeptics changed all that. I just can't make myself argue with people who continually reject the most obvious facts.

So, I don't consider myself a troll, but don't think for a minute that I'm going to take any of your posts seriously. I'm way past that, and you are the ones to blame for it.
Click to expand...

"Poor Fellow" *

* Gilbert, W S 1879
 
FalseFlag said:
At one point I took this forum seriously. The posts of the skeptics changed all that. I just can't make myself argue with people who continually reject the most obvious facts.

So, I don't consider myself a troll, but don't think for a minute that I'm going to take any of your posts seriously. I'm way past that, and you are the ones to blame for it.
Click to expand...

Oh, dear- a truther who doesn't take his own history-changing theory seriously enough to test it IRL is blaming everyone else for his failure to be taken seriously. If you don't even have the courage of your convictions to test them outside the bubble you proclaim them in, the least you could do is not whine so when you're called on it. Bail if you must, but this sort of preemptive, teenage-y fit lacks even a dignity you could leave with.
 
DGM said:
Give an example of these "obvious facts" we reject.

ETA: "Tho should never doubt Cole" is not a fact. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Eyewitnesses heard explosions, or what they thought were explosions. Eyewitnesses experienced the forces from explosions.
WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds. NIST never explains this.
 
turingtest said:
Oh, dear- a truther who doesn't take his own history-changing theory seriously enough to test it IRL is blaming everyone else for his failure to be taken seriously. If you don't even have the courage of your convictions to test them outside the bubble you proclaim them in, the least you could do is not whine so when you're called on it. Bail if you must, but this sort of preemptive, teenage-y fit lacks even a dignity you could leave with.
Click to expand...
I'm not bailing. There are far too many lulz yet to be had.
 
FalseFlag said:
Eyewitnesses heard explosions, or what they thought were explosions. Eyewitnesses experienced the forces from explosions.
WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds. NIST never explains this.
Click to expand...
Witnesses heard freight trains and thunder, why do you ignore them? Why do you ignore the 10 seconds of collapse before "freefall", the NIST didn't?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom