Metatheory and the NIST report

[Gravy]

Give references for each. I need you to do this because I've been correcting you on this since page one, and you still don't get it.

I checked page 1 of the thread, Jay. He's right.

R. Mackey is also one of the best explainers of -- anything -- that I've ever seen. Why not give a listen?

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, how is your search for an opponent for Ross in the disputation?

The general feeling is that Ross is a lightweight who has been convincingly crushed by Dr. Greening and R. Mackey (no, of course you haven't read about it).

When the peer-review of the new paper by Greening, Bazant, et al. has been completed, Mackey said he might be willing to thrash Ross again.

 

[pomeroo]

That's fair enough.

But you seem to be totally intransigent when it comes to the other view on this... you want everybody to accept all the evidence that suits your desired conclusion, whilst at the same time rejecting the totality of evidence to the contrary.

You realize that for 'your' version to be correct, all the other contradictory evidence has to be completely wrong , the probability of which must be v.low

Your problem might be that you fail to realize that there is no "contradictory" evidence.

 

[TerryUK]

Surprise! I'm also totally intransigent regarding the idea that pink unicorns run the IMF.

Since the totality of evidence for demolition is nil, and the evidence that building 7 was in imminent danger of collapse and then did collapse is mountainous, I'm quite comfortable with my position. This is called being a rational adult. Do not ask us to explain this to you again.

You may be under the mistaken impression that 10,000th person to raise this nonsense here gets a prize.

The sandbox is thataway.

Edit: I think a good way for conspiracists to look at this is, "Okay, what evidence do I have that wouldn't be laughed out of any prosecutor's office. Not any U.S. prosecutor's office, but any prosecutor's office in the world?"

There's plenty of evidence , as you well know, but I believe you simply disregard what you can't cope with.
I've seen a few of your dishonest arguments already.
You start attacking the poster when you can't answer something, then a few of your sycophantic apologists chime in with insults- you act like a gang of bullies.
I would despise myself if I had a fraction of the desire you lot seem to have to spew out this arrogant, dishonest drivel.

 

[beachnut]

no facts, no clues, just talk

There's plenty of evidence , as you well know, but I believe you simply disregard what you can't cope with.
I've seen a few of your dishonest arguments already.
You start attacking the poster when you can't answer something, then a few of your sycophantic apologists chime in with insults- you act like a gang of bullies.
I would despise myself if I had a fraction of the desire you lot seem to have to spew out this arrogant, dishonest drivel.

Where is this plenty of evidence? Present your data to support your ideas on 9/11.

 

[TerryUK]

there is no "contradictory" evidence.

What , really none? Not even a teenie-weenie little bit
You're not very generous are you LOL... maybe one day you will realise where you went wrong in life

 

[Gravy]

There's plenty of evidence , as you well know, but I believe you simply disregard what you can't cope with.
I've seen a few of your dishonest arguments already.
You start attacking the poster when you can't answer something, then a few of your sycophantic apologists chime in with insults- you act like a gang of bullies.
I would despise myself if I had a fraction of the desire you lot seem to have to spew out this arrogant, dishonest drivel.

You're right: I don't know what I'm talking about regarding building 7. I have simply swept the whole issue under the rug.

What juvenile crap. There's plenty of evidence? Really? Then bring it to your local UK prosecutor, or even your local newspaper, on Monday. I can't prosecute your case for you truthers. You're going to have to go forward with this compelling evidence yourselves.

Let us know how that turns out.

 

[TerryUK]

What juvenile crap. There's plenty of evidence? Really? Then bring it to your local UK prosecutor, or even your local newspaper, on Monday.

Let us know how that turns out.

Another one of your standard responses. You know perfectly well why that is not going to happen.

 

[Gravy]

Another one of your standard responses. You know perfectly well why that is not going to happen.

Of course I do. I just told you: because you have no evidence. You can't even get your compelling evidence printed on small town fishwrapper.

Buh-bye!

 

[pomeroo]

There's plenty of evidence , as you well know, but I believe you simply disregard what you can't cope with.
I've seen a few of your dishonest arguments already.
You start attacking the poster when you can't answer something, then a few of your sycophantic apologists chime in with insults- you act like a gang of bullies.
I would despise myself if I had a fraction of the desire you lot seem to have to spew out this arrogant, dishonest drivel.

Do you have any idea of how many twoofers show up here spouting the same empty drivel, the same tired, thoroughly debunked factoids? Your imaginary conspiracy cannot possibly exist. It is insanely, absurdly bloated and its members function far more like drunks on a bender than evil super-villains out to conquer the world.

What questions do the fantasists ask that the rationalists can't answer? Be specific.

 

[pomeroo]

What , really none? Not even a teenie-weenie little bit
You're not very generous are you LOL... maybe one day you will realise where you went wrong in life

No, absolutely none--zilch--zippo--nada. In over five years of deranged screaming, conspiracy liars have not produced anything that can stand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Show me where I go wrong.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Ron, I hate to disturb your latest defeat at the hands of conspiracy patriots, but I have sent you 8. h3 twice.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron, I hate to disturb your latest defeat at the hands of conspiracy patriots, but I have sent you 8. h3 twice.

Rev, I have asked you not to refer to America-hating liars as patriots. Patriot is an honorable term. The fools, frauds, and zealots of the fantasy movement are not honorable.

By the way, your imaginary conspiracy is still mathematically impossible.

I haven't been home today (I'm typing this at my girlfriend's apartment). I'll play 8...Bf5.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Rev, I have asked you not to refer to America-hating liars as patriots. Patriot is an honorable term. The fools, frauds, and zealots of the fantasy movement are not honorable.

By the way, your imaginary conspiracy is still mathematically impossible.

I haven't been home today (I'm typing this at my girlfriend's apartment). I'll play 8...Bf5.

Now im scared. How on earth do you do that without the board in front of you?

 

[A W Smith]

What , really none? Not even a teenie-weenie little bit
You're not very generous are you LOL... maybe one day you will realise where you went wrong in life

produce such evidence. now. right here. or stop trolling. troll

 

[pomeroo]

Now im scared. How on earth do you do that without the board in front of you?

Actually, I used to be pretty good at blindfold chess. I thought you might tickle my bishop at g4. But this is a serious derail: let's restrict the chess to e-mail.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Back on topic, sorry for derail:

Terry has a point that the problem with pseudo skeptics is the dismissal of all evidence contrary to the dogma.

 

[wooooody64]

That's fair enough.

But you seem to be totally intransigent when it comes to the other view on this... you want everybody to accept all the evidence that suits your desired conclusion, whilst at the same time rejecting the totality of evidence to the contrary.

Surprise! I'm also totally intransigent regarding the idea that pink unicorns run the IMF.

Since the totality of evidence for demolition is nil, and the evidence that building 7 was in imminent danger of collapse and then did collapse is mountainous, I'm quite comfortable with my position. This is called being a rational adult. Do not ask us to explain this to you again.

You may be under the mistaken impression that 10,000th person to raise this nonsense here gets a prize.

The sandbox is thataway.

Edit: I think a good way for conspiracists to look at this is, "Okay, what evidence do I have that wouldn't be laughed out of any prosecutor's office. Not any U.S. prosecutor's office, but any prosecutor's office in the world?"

Terry seems to be making a fair point there. Although, I too am totally intransigent regarding the idea that pink unicorns run the IMF.

"Evidence for demolition of WTC 7 is nil?" ...........Did it not look similar to a building that has been demolished by CD?

For example, if a witness to a murder, saw the victim stabbed in the chest area, could we not assume in the first instance that the victim had died because he was stabbed in the chest, then an investigation would take place to confirm/rule out.

"The evidence that building 7 was in imminent danger of collapse is mountainous."..............the "mountanous evidence""that building 7 was in imminent danger of collapse" would not automatically rule out CD would it?

 

[David Wong]

Terry seems to be making a fair point there. Although, I too am totally intransigent regarding the idea that pink unicorns run the IMF.

"Evidence for demolition of WTC 7 is nil?" ...........Did it not look similar to a building that has been demolished by CD?

For example, if a witness to a murder, saw the victim stabbed in the chest area, could we not assume in the first instance that the victim had died because he was stabbed in the chest, then an investigation would take place to confirm/rule out.

"The evidence that building 7 was in imminent danger of collapse is mountainous."..............the "mountanous evidence""that building 7 was in imminent danger of collapse" would not automatically rule out CD would it?

That would make sense to say that, if this were September of 2001 and we had JUST watched the building come down and were still in the initial confusion of the day. It's not, it's six years later, and the issue has been studied to death. With a little reading you can put all of those doubts to rest:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

No bombs were found, no bombs were heard, no bombs detected, there was no opportunity to plant bombs beforehand, there was no reason to bomb the building, etc.

 

[A W Smith]

we got your dogma right here

Terry has a point that the problem with pseudo skepticstroofers is the dismissal of all evidence contrary to the dogma.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

No bombs were found, no bombs were heard, no bombs detected, there was no opportunity to plant bombs beforehand, there was no reason to bomb the building, etc.