The Doc vs Pdoherty - Debate Underway

Mobyseven said:
...p'doh doesn't actually know how to structure a debate, does he?

I was expecting at least something SEMIcohesive, but rather than advancing an argument after his opening remarks, he chooses to attack The Doc's opening statement.

Does he know what the opening statements are FOR???
Click to expand...
Yeah...I thought that was a bit odd in a non PC sort of way.
 
Mashuna said:
Does he hear voices?

Does he argue with the voices?

Does he argue with the voices, then register those voices as separate accounts on JREF and transcribe the arguments?

DOES HE????????
Click to expand...

If by 'voices' you mean 'wife's constant nagging', then yes.

He posts here as GazaSuitThing if that counts as transcription :D
 
My response to pdoherty's opening statement has been made. I wanted to add to my argument, but so much needed to be said about his first post and I had to spend quite a while cutting down on words to get under 800. I was at 1,500 at one point.

Due to the short length of his second post, I will further my argument in my third post.
 
How do you find anything that he does "odd"? For PDoh, the more stupid and assanine, the more normal for him.

TAM:)
 
I would suggest looking at this video about half way down on the page.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Another video of WTC7 that I doubt many have seen is from the video "Day of Disaster"
These pics of the hole aren't seen very often

http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/674056_wtc7southa400000.png.html

http://www.imagehosting.com/show.php/674054_wtc7southa200000.png.html

FEMA didn't have the same info as NIST regarding damage. NIST explains this in various interviews. Also see the progress report.

Everything Pdoh says can be delt with VERY easy. Take a stroll of the major debunking sites and you can see they have already delt with his claims.
 
Last edited:
We see this alot. Truthers try to nail FEMA to the wall, for its errors, and there are some, but NIST is the later, more definitive investigation, but they choose to ignore that point.

Perhaps we need to do a comparison of both reports, indicating where both agree, and where NIST has rejected or improved upon the orginal FEMA findings.

TAM:)
 
The Doc: Someone should ask P'Doh why these people would keep the demolition such a state secret if it was done to help the rescue efforts.

I don't think anyone would mind that explanation, were it true. So why the secrecy ?

ETA: Oops... I see you did mention it at the end of the post.
 
Last edited:
Calcas said:
Actually, I think they used the F-5's more than the T-38's.

F-5 as a MIG here...

[qimg]http://www.xplanefreeware.net/barry/X-Plane%208.0/MiG-28_screenshot%20802.jpg[/qimg]

T-38 here...

[qimg]http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/gallery/international/lo_res/t38_talon/9500478.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I'm quite prepared to believe that they did (though T-38s were certainly used - see migman's sim website where there's a pic of one), and it makes sense considering they were supposed to be single-seat fighters (so the T-38s would be "filler" footage. But your first screenshot is of a flight sim F-5(E?) model done up as a "MiG-28" (as you almost certainly know).

Looks like an excuse to rewatch Top Gun and do some plane-spotting!

I really need to get out more.
 
well at least I do not end every sentence with "Eh?" like alot of my more western fellow countrymen...lol

TAM:)
 
nice rebut, Doc. Also, stress logically, destroying another building to add more the pile of debris would not help a rescue operation, who would NOW HAVE TO dig through MORE debris to find survivors and/or evidence.

that doesn't make sense at all

If someone was trapped on the fringe of the debris pile from the collapse of wtc 1 under say 7 feet of rubble in an air pocket; and if the "planners" of the collapse of WTC 7 miscalculated and the WTC 7 rubble actually ended up covering that person under more rubble, how would this have helped rescue operations? Wouldn't this just put MORE time into the rescue efforts ,now that the person could be under 14 feet of rubble? or now, DEAD?


his argument fails on logic from the get go.
 
Pdoh!:
They weren't trained structural engineers. The collapse of 7 was a first in history. It remains unexplained. A collapse zone is standard round all high rise fires. The difference in this case was thousands needed rescuing.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm I wonder why :idea:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom