Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[excaza]

They have provided extensive evidence based on the visual evidence and the knowledge of the professionals who support them.

Evidence so extensive they won't publish it or bring it to the attention of the press. Slam dunk.

 

[ergo]

No, it was an observation.

ahem,

I believe the argument is, if it looks like CD and acts like CD, then that should be the first avenue of investigation.

 

[excaza]

I can repeat things too. Evidence so extensive they won't publish it or bring it to the attention of the press.

 

[ergo]

Evidence so extensive they won't publish it or bring it to the attention of the press. Slam dunk.

Yes, because this isn't publishing...

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles.html

or this...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

 

[tfk]

Jebus it's like arguing with an arrogant, caustic version of Jammonius

... who thinks he can dodge bullets & fly ...

... and woo Carrie Moss ...!


[One of the few things that "woo" is good for. Seriously good for.]


tom

PS.

REALLY seriously good for...!!

 

[T.A.M.]

Their theory is that controlled demolition brought it down.

ok, may be I'll give you that one, although I don't recall them ever coming out and saying it like you did...guess they are too cowardly, or too busy JAQing off.

Still, they should be a little more specific. NIST theory on WTC1/2 was not "They came down cuz of the planes hitting them". No, they had to provide a plausible theory as to HOW the planes hitting the towers RESULTED in the collapses.

Similarly, a REAL theory from AE911 would be something like,

"Using preplanted silent thermite, elements of the USG and wealthy interests, had WTC intentionally demolished."

Still I'll give you half marks.

The observations of the visual evidence and their comparisons to the official story versus that of a controlled demolition is the definition of scientific empiricism.

say what?

1. They have not reviewed all of the video or photographic evidence. NIST has only just released it.

2. How did they compare the "official story" to "controlled demolition" in a scientific fashion? "Gee it looked like CD" doesn't cut it.

They have provided extensive evidence based on the visual evidence and the knowledge of the professionals who support them.

Wrong again.

1. They have provided NO EVIDENCE. Please look up what evidence is. Personal speculation regardless of educational background is not evidence.

2. Despite all the alleged knowledge of its 1300 members, the group has not provided a single published paper countering the NIST report on WTC7. As a matter of fact, I have not seen a single UNPUBLISHED paper that even comes close to a comprehensive rebuttal to the paper.

TAM

 

[excaza]

Yes, because this isn't publishing...

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles.html

or this...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

No, it's not. Any yahoo can put something on the internet. Case in point.

If it's so obvious, you'd win someone a Pulitzer. The press doesn't give a hoot what the government thinks, they never have.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, because this isn't publishing...

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles.html

or this...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

using your standards above for "published articles", we should all soon be getting royalties for our posts here at JREF.

Give me a break.

TAM

 

[W.D.Clinger]

So you have no resorted to OUTRIGHT lying now?

1. AE911 has not produced a theory.
2. AE911 has not produced any science to back up any of their assertions.
3. AE911 has not provided any evidence (sorry, their opinion is not evidence)

True, but ergo has no idea of what technically literate people mean by "theory", "science", or "evidence". For example:

Their theory is that controlled demolition brought it down.



The observations of the visual evidence and their comparisons to the official story versus that of a controlled demolition is the definition of scientific empiricism.



They have provided extensive evidence based on the visual evidence and the knowledge of the professionals who support them.

 

[T.A.M.]

True, but ergo has no idea of what technically literate people mean by "theory", "science", or "evidence". For example:

I know. Even my example I provided, while better, does not meet REAL scientific standards for a THEORY.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Yes, because this isn't publishing...

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles.html
...

A list of papers rejected by real journals. Filled with delusions.

Yes, because this isn't publishing...
... or this...

[URL]http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html[/URL]

That is funny, 1300 people who can't figure out 911.

 

[ergo]

True, but ergo has no idea of what technically literate people mean by "theory", "science", or "evidence". For example:

Please state how my definitions of the above are incorrect.

 

[ergo]

That is funny, 1300 dolts on 911 issues, not patriots.

whereas beachnut knows so much about it....

 

[ergo]

using your standards above for "published articles", we should all soon be getting royalties for our posts here at JREF.

Excaza claimed that nothing had been published or brought to the attention of the press. Putting stuff on the internet is publishing, whether you like the content or not, and a lot of press contact has and is occurring. Not sure where he's been.

 

[T.A.M.]

evidence:

Where is the physical evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the video evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the eye witness testimony that a series of explosions (flashes, booms) went off in the moments right before WTC7 Collapse?
Where are the whistleblowers testifying that explosives were planted?
Where is the det cord, the explosive residue, the left over thermite, the thermite applicators?

Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for Controlled Demolition.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Excaza claimed that nothing had been published or brought to the attention of the press. Putting stuff on the internet is publishing, whether you like the content or not, and a lot of press contact has and is occurring. Not sure where he's been.

yes, in the broadest sense of the word, putting the written word into type, and then up online, is publishing.

By the scientific, nay, by the intellectually ACCEPTED definition of the word, published is to have your paper/article/book taken and placed into print by an accepted and reputable magazine or publishing company...online or hardcopy.

Press??? seriously. Come on, are you even buying that?

TAM

 

[ProBonoShill]

Is this the argument? I believe the argument is, if it looks like CD and acts like CD, then that should be the first avenue of investigation. If it doesn't look like a fire or act like a fire, and fires don't typically bring down steel-framed buildings, then why are we saying it's a fire? Pretty simple. For most of us, anyway.

It looked like a CD?

Kindly point out where I can witness the symmetrical bright flashes and very loud sounds during the fall of WTC 7.

Firefighters knew it was going to collapse due to fire, why don't you believe them? Are they in on it?

 

[excaza]

Excaza claimed that nothing had been published or brought to the attention of the press. Putting stuff on the internet is publishing, whether you like the content or not, and a lot of press contact has and is occurring. Not sure where he's been.

By your lax criteria, Judy Wood's theory is valid.

 

[ergo]

By your lax criteria, Judy Wood's theory is valid.

I don't know if it is, but it is published. On her website.

 

[ergo]

Firefighters knew it was going to collapse due to fire

Evidence?