peer review.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is a lie. NIST estimated the weight as part of its structural model. Did you even bother checking the other thread, that I linked for you?

You are a liar.

And what link would that have been? I usually read whatever you provided. Of course, if I did happen to overlook it you wouldn't even consider that would you you pompous thing? Who the hell could you possibly be? Your profile says you are 32 years old. Most 32 year olds aren't much past the snot nose stage in engineering. You seem to be looking for any excuse to decapitate someone. It really sounds like you are just looking for an excuse to get out of an argument you can't win.

Yeah, him and Gordon Ross. I'll tear him up too if I feel like it.

Well why don't you show me where he is wrong?

As for you, your three strikes are up. Welcome to Ignore.

Thank God! I've had my full of your pomposity!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

ok:
1. Jews

Not Ok:

1.Bush admin/Clinton admin
2.Congresspeople or Lawyers with ties to Bush admin or Clinton admin

So Like I asked before, who should have been on the Commission? Remember what sort of people have been on all other govt appointed commissions in the past (don't forget the USG was asked to form the commission).




I am sighing because (A) you invited it, (B) because your little starlet there, was a CTist long before 9/11.

TAM

That is a massive ad hominem. Did you read the guy's paper? 80% of the people in this country think there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying you believe that whole thing was on the up and up? By the way the Warren Commission had heavy conflicts of interest also. Allen Dulles was appointed by LBJ. JFK had fired Dulles the year before for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs.

 

[William Rea]

That would be the process known as "peer review".

No it wouldn't, that's why I specifically said "independent verification" rather than "peer review".

 

[T.A.M.]

That is a massive ad hominem. Did you read the guy's paper? 80% of the people in this country think there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying you believe that whole thing was on the up and up? By the way the Warren Commission had heavy conflicts of interest also. Allen Dulles was appointed by LBJ. JFK had fired Dulles the year before for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs.

Well given he is not here arguing, I could care less if it an ad-hom. Besides in this case, I wasnt commenting about his 9/11 paper...was I. I am simply wondering if you guys have a single qualified engineer who wan't already a silly CTist before 9/11, who has produced a paper on it?

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well given he is not here arguing, I could care less if it an ad-hom. Besides in this case, I wasnt commenting about his 9/11 paper...was I. I am simply wondering if you guys have a single qualified engineer who wan't already a silly CTist before 9/11, who has produced a paper on it?

TAM

Being that you say you couldn't care less about using ad-hominem I now have to wonder if T.A.M. stands for "The Ad-Hominem Man". I am sorry you feel that way. Luckily it seems most people prefer to judge a work on its merits. What is important is that they get a chance to see all sides of an argument, in which ad-hominem has no place.

 

[Brainache]

Being that you say you couldn't care less about using ad-hominem I now have to wonder if T.A.M. stands for "The Ad-Hominem Man". I am sorry you feel that way. Luckily it seems most people prefer to judge a work on its merits. What is important is that they get a chance to see all sides of an argument, in which ad-hominem has no place.

Well I think TAM was actually pointing out a conflict of interest.

 

[T.A.M.]

Being that you say you couldn't care less about using ad-hominem I now have to wonder if T.A.M. stands for "The Ad-Hominem Man". I am sorry you feel that way. Luckily it seems most people prefer to judge a work on its merits. What is important is that they get a chance to see all sides of an argument, in which ad-hominem has no place.

I am making the point that someone who has shown a propensity to believe unproven Conspiracy Theories in the past, has a POSSIBLE bias to believe such things on other matters.

I am not saying he has, but as I said, find me a single Expert who has written a quality paper showing evidence of a coverup, who WAS NOT a CTist prior to 9/11.

T.A.M. (The Artistic Macrophage)

PS. If he were personally here, defending his logic, I would not use this against him, as then, to me that would be poor debating technique.

So if a former Nazi Commander writes a paper concluding the Holocaust didn't happen, and someone uses the article as evidence in an arguement, is it an ad-hom to mention the authors background as a point of bias?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well I think TAM was actually pointing out a conflict of interest.

What would be the conflict of interest? If you are speaking about Tony Szamboti he apparently believes that both the Kennedy assassination and 911 were crimes which were not properly solved and were covered up. Are you saying it is impossible to have two crimes of such nature?

There are millions of people who believe both crimes were not properly solved and that cover-ups were used in both to hide the reality of what happened.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am making the point that someone who has shown a propensity to believe unproven Conspiracy Theories in the past, has a POSSIBLE bias to believe such things on other matters.

I am not saying he has, but as I said, find me a single Expert who has written a quality paper showing evidence of a coverup, who WAS NOT a CTist prior to 9/11.

T.A.M. (The Artistic Macrophage)

PS. If he were personally here, defending his logic, I would not use this against him, as then, to me that would be poor debating technique.

So if a former Nazi Commander writes a paper concluding the Holocaust didn't happen, and someone uses the article as evidence in an arguement, is it an ad-hom to mention the authors background as a point of bias?

I don't think most people would agree with your analogy. The fact that 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination pours cold water all over your argument. It is not anywhere near being in the same boat as a Nazi commander denying the Holocaust, and the handling of the Kennedy assassination and the Holocaust are actually the anti-thesis of each other. The Holocaust was exposed because the Allies won the war. Most people don't deny the Holocaust and most people believe there was a conspiracy involved in the murder of John Kennedy.

Had the Third Reich won the war I doubt we would have been enlightened about the Holocaust. The Nazis would have done what many Americans believe certain elements within our own government has done concerning the Kennedy assassination and the crimes of 911. Szamboti may be right on both counts. I wouldn't doubt that people like Szamboti would have tried to expose the Holocaust if the Nazis had won the war. He mentions the fact that the Nazis didn't tell the German people how Irwin Rommel really died at the end of his paper and that we only know how he died due to the Allies winning the war.

I would think that you do realize that Nazism and the Holocaust they wrought was a conspiracy.

 

[MarkyX]

The fact that 80% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination pours cold water all over your argument.

Belief does not replace facts.

Here's a dog:

Get 9 of your buddies and vote on the gender of the dog. Let's just hypothetically say that 7 out of 10 said the dog is a girl, with 3 saying he's a guy. However, after examining the dog's genitals, you guys find out that he has a pair of balls. Physical evidence points that this pooch is indeed a guy.

Since 7 out of the 10 people said the dog was a girl, does that mean the dog is a girl despite the physical evidence saying otherwise? No, because beliefs does not substitute scientific evidence and facts.

Or if you want a less extreme example, you can always look at religion. The majority of people believe there is a supernatural being that created the universe but no scientific evidence points to such a scenario. Does that mean religion is 100% true because the majority believe in it?

 

[T.A.M.]

real:

let me spell it out for you...

I do not trust CTists to be honest, EOS. It is my opinion, my perspective, and you can say what you like about it. As a result, I take anything spoken by them with a grain of salt...like it or not, it is the way I feel.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

real:

let me spell it out for you...

I do not trust CTists to be honest, EOS. It is my opinion, my perspective, and you can say what you like about it. As a result, I take anything spoken by them with a grain of salt...like it or not, it is the way I feel.

TAM

I happen to think there are big problems with the investigations of the Twin Tower and Bldg. 7 collapses. So we agree to disagree.

 

[DGM]

What would be the conflict of interest? If you are speaking about Tony Szamboti he apparently believes that both the Kennedy assassination and 911 were crimes which were not properly solved and were covered up. Are you saying it is impossible to have two crimes of such nature?

There are millions of people who believe both crimes were not properly solved and that cover-ups were used in both to hide the reality of what happened.

Didn't Mr Szamboti assume the parameter columns to have a safety factor of 5?

 

[Revolutionary91]

TAM I just saw your quoted post. You do not trust the TM to tell the truth, that's fair enough. Do you trust the government to tell the truth?

 

[uk_dave]

TAM I just saw your quoted post. You do not trust the TM to tell the truth, that's fair enough. Do you trust the government to tell the truth?

Or....

You don't trust the government to tell the truth, that's fair enough, but do YOU trust the 'truth' movement to tell the truth?

Either way, at the end of the day it will come down to you making a subjective decision based upon what you consider to be the more believable. However, how you come to your conclusion is either going to be based upon rational consideration of events based upon your knowledge or expertise, or is going to be based upon a 'belief' however irrational it might be.

So, you can say you don't trust the government therefore you don't believe them when it comes to 911.

But I can say I don't trust the 'truth' movement and I don't agree with them regarding 911 because they have provided no evidence, their perception of events is flawed, they have no technical expertise, their arguments lack logic, their methods are questionable etc etc etc.

Or put another way...

You don't trust the government therefore you believe 911 was an inside job.

Whereas...

I don't think 911 was an inside job, therefore I don't trust the 'truth' movement.

 

[tsig]

You said the independent research or studies were open and then say the information is only available to those who are going to build large buildings. That fits the classic definition of an oxymoron. Keep it up and I'll have to call you Oxy for short.

I would like to see your calculations for the energy needed to collapse the towers to the ground and showing it being possible with gravity alone.

F=M*a

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM I just saw your quoted post. You do not trust the TM to tell the truth, that's fair enough. Do you trust the government to tell the truth?

Not always. I trust, as a whole the media to pick up on such things, as they have done consistently through out the last few decades. Of course, I expect you now to come up with alleged plots etc that you will say the MSM did not pick up on...go ahead.

My point is this. The USG cannot even hide scandals of congressmen, or govenors, etc... Even the slightest misconduct is leaked. Something as large and grand a scale as a 9/11 cover-up would not have gotten by the MSM, not all of them. Of course, I expect you to say that ALL of the MSM is owned by big corps, and Rupie, and so of course they are forced to ignore such things...I do not buy it...sorry.

TAM

 

[Revolutionary91]

Not always. I trust, as a whole the media to pick up on such things, as they have done consistently through out the last few decades. Of course, I expect you now to come up with alleged plots etc that you will say the MSM did not pick up on...go ahead.

My point is this. The USG cannot even hide scandals of congressmen, or govenors, etc... Even the slightest misconduct is leaked. Something as large and grand a scale as a 9/11 cover-up would not have gotten by the MSM, not all of them. Of course, I expect you to say that ALL of the MSM is owned by big corps, and Rupie, and so of course they are forced to ignore such things...I do not buy it...sorry.

TAM

Why do you think the former head of the CIA said that the CIA owns the major media? Do you think he said that for $%^&s and giggles?

 

[T.A.M.]

1. Which former head are you referring to, and where is your source for this?
2. So are you now saying the CIA was part of your alleged 9/11 cover-up? (yes or no please).

TAM

 

[tsig]

I happen to think there are big problems with the investigations of the Twin Tower and Bldg. 7 collapses. So we agree to disagree.

I know you are wrong.

So we will not agree to disagree.

You do not understand gravity.