Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

[yankee451]

Pretty obvious.

You're only interested in asking questions that you think you know the answer to. I've inserted an important word extra word there.

You have no interest in asking questions that will give you an answer you don't agree with. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in proving yourself right. Those two conditions are contradictory.

You are not even interested in proving anyone else wrong, because in order to do that you have to take on board their arguments and ask questions to which you will not know the answer.

You have no interest in addressing questions that prove you wrong.

 

[GlennB]

I couldn't bring myself to nominate this for a Stundie.

You have a warm heart

 

[dafydd]

You have no interest in addressing questions that prove you wrong.

Self knowledge is the best knowledge. You avoid all questions that prove you wrong and that is why you avoid all questions.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are not even interested in proving anyone else wrong, because in order to do that you have to take on board their arguments and ask questions to which you will not know the answer.

. You have no interest in addressing questions that prove you wrong.

Threadworms' statement is the same thing you now post.
Are you saying that both you and threadworm refuse to answer questions that may prove each of you wrong?

 

[beachnut]

451 admits zero resreach before making up Fantasy

I challenge you to fine one eye witness who saw a jet enter a steel skyscraper.

Your fantasy has no planes, but RADAR proves you wrong.
Anyone can get the RAW RADAR, or summaries, or spread sheets if they try; did you try? NO
RADAR beats eye witnesses, but used to verify eye witnesses.
RADAR
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
Eye witness
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160
Plus one eye witness out of hundreds; will you call them liars when they are backed up by RADAR, and Video?

I saw both planes hit.

Bad news for you insane fantasy. Both planes were seen by people on the street, because they looked up, because it was the first time ever some terrorists flew jets over the speed limit of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet, at 700 feet over NYC illegally. Planes would be no lower than 2500 feet over the city, FAA regs - but you don't do reality.

How is your fantasy?

It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. The force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.

That’s when we all realized we were under attack.

My coworker looked at me and said "was that another airliner?" I said yeah, I thought it was a US Airways plane, but another coworker said it was a United plane.

Three eye witnesses. oops
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

 

[yankee451]

Your fantasy has no planes, but RADAR proves you wrong.
Anyone can get the RAW RADAR, or summaries, or spread sheets if they try; did you try? NO
RADAR beats eye witnesses, but does verify eye witnesses.
RADAR
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
Eye witness
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160
Plus one eye witness out of hundreds; will you call them liars when they are backed up by RADAR, and Video?

Bad news for you insane fantasy. Both planes were seen by people on the street, because they looked up, because it was the first time ever some terrorists flew jets over the speed limit of 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet, at 700 feet over NYC illegally. Planes would be no lower than 2500 feet over the city, FAA regs - but you don't do reality.

How is your fantasy?

Three eye witnesses. oops
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

Murmer, murmer, murmer...INSANE...murmer, murmer, murmer...FANTASY...

 

[JohnG]

Then there's the media that broadcast cartoon jets doing the impossible who worked hand in fist with the government squawking heads...

I think you've conflated the phrases "hand in glove" and "hand over fist".

 

[yankee451]

I think you've conflated the phrases "hand in glove" and "hand over fist".

Is that what you think.

 

[beachnut]

Wood stove debunks Claims ; eyewitness debunks 451

Murmer, murmer, murmer...INSANE...murmer, murmer, murmer...FANTASY...

A fact filled post finally. I knew you had evidence, math, physics and more to support your attack on the police of NYC for one display.

I love how your wood stove debunked your claim about fires in the debris pile. Classic 911 truth logic in action.

This thread has no goal, past exposing your knowledge on fire. nil

Were the fires hot in the WTC. Yes, so hot people jumped instead of being burnt alive. That is how hot the fires were. Fire kills the straight of steel.

Analyzing some steel samples from the debris pile; they found steel was subjected to temperatures of 1000C, which is the book learning answer to your, how hot were the fires. It make your claim the fires were not hot, a big lie, fiction, fantasy, nonsense.

You ask for an eye witness, one. I give you an eye witness, and you breakdown.

The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on 911 had the heat energy of over 315 tons of TNT; the jet fuel started fires on multiple floors in seconds, to start the biggest office fires in history in high-rise building. The jet fuel was found to be not a big factor in heating the WTC steel to failure, the 315 tons of TNT heat energy was nothing compared to over 2,500 TONS of heat energy from the office contents you claim were not there. Wow, you ignore, deny, and make up more lies so you can spread a fantasy with the delusion if you success WAR will stop. The old Nixon, the ends justify the means mentality; and you end up being, living up to, what you are against in your mind.

I challenge you to fine one eye witness who saw a jet enter a steel skyscraper. ...

How is your fantasy?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2041454&postcount=160

 

[JohnG]

Is that what you think.

Yes.

"Hand in glove" and "Hand over fist" are actual sayings with derivations and numerous examples of usage. "Hand in fist" not only isn't a saying, it doesn't even make any sense. In the context of your sentence, "hand in glove" seems apt, while "hand in fist" does not.

But maybe I am mistaken. What does "hand in fist" mean, exactly?

 

[yankee451]

Yes.

"Hand in glove" and "Hand over fist" are actual sayings with derivations and numerous examples of usage. "Hand in fist" not only isn't a saying, it doesn't even make any sense. In the context of your sentence, "hand in glove" seems apt, while "hand in fist" does not.

But maybe I am mistaken. What does "hand in fist" mean, exactly?

It was a metaphor, picture a hand in a fist.

 

[NoahFence]

Murmer, murmer, murmer...INSANE...murmer, murmer, murmer...FANTASY...

Attempting to be the single most offensive person on the internet gets you what at the end of the day?

 

[JohnG]

It was a metaphor, picture a hand in a fist.

I tried but all I got was one hand wrapped around another.

Are you absolutely certain you haven't made some innocent Yogi Berra-ism?

 

[dafydd]

Attempting to be the single most offensive person on the internet gets you what at the end of the day?

He hasn't succeeded in his purpose, which is to provoke one of us into saying something that will get us suspended or banned. Ignore it, and he will be suspended or banned, given time.

 

[dafydd]

But maybe I am mistaken. What does "hand in fist" mean, exactly?

And that comes from the person who is going to conduct a complicated scientific experiment.

 

[tsig]

"Simple" errors that sent us to war for 11 years. You are very forgiving.

They lied about the fires, they lied about the concrete and they lied about the steel. The ground was NOT hot, it was impossible for it to be that hot, so what we're looking at is clear evidence of conspiracy. FEMA, the NYPD and the FDNY were behind the "hot fires" bull##%^, which wouldn't have gotten any traction without the bogus maps from the USGS. This conspiracy is obviously not limited to those agencies though, just look at Judy Wood and the rest of the controlled opposition loons who we are led to believe are the "truth movement".
Then there's the media that broadcast cartoon jets doing the impossible who worked hand in fist with the government squawking heads, perpetually reminding us who our enemies are, telling us who to hate. And finally there's the military that launched the missiles and launched invasions without batting an eye.

Or they all collectively made the same mistake about hot fires that didn't happen.

Are you the only one not in on the conspiracy?

 

[yankee451]

I tried but all I got was one hand wrapped around another.

Are you absolutely certain you haven't made some innocent Yogi Berra-ism?

Yeah, I'm certain.

What does any of this have to do with whether you have any proof the fires were hot enough to explain the USGS "hotspot" maps shown earlier?

It has already been established the concrete couldn't melt, and the steel couldn't have run in rivers like a foundry, and because the "truth movement" and the NYPD, FEMA and FDNY were all making the same claims, and because those claims benefitted the perpetrators by sowing confusion in the minds of the public, despite their stated positions in this matter, the actions of the truth movement supported the actions of the official story.

By their deeds ye will know them.

 

[tsig]

In short, the WTC was made completely of steel, marble, ceramic.

Nothing flammable at all, guys. I think yankee got us. I'll be resigning my NWO position in a presser later today....

No office space at all, no wonder lucky Larry couldn't rent it out who wants a 100 floor pisser.

 

[tsig]

Kitchens are full of fire hazards, but I doubt you would know anything about that.

Yes he actually showed the most fire prone place in the building as proof there was no fire.

 

[JohnG]

Then there's the media that broadcast cartoon jets doing the impossible who worked hand in fist with the government squawking heads....

I think you've conflated the phrases "hand in glove" and "hand over fist".

Is that what you think.

Yes.

"Hand in glove" and "Hand over fist" are actual sayings with derivations and numerous examples of usage. "Hand in fist" not only isn't a saying, it doesn't even make any sense. In the context of your sentence, "hand in glove" seems apt, while "hand in fist" does not.

But maybe I am mistaken. What does "hand in fist" mean, exactly?

It was a metaphor, picture a hand in a fist.

I tried but all I got was one hand wrapped around another.

Are you absolutely certain you haven't made some innocent Yogi Berra-ism?

Yeah, I'm certain.

What does any of this have to do with...

Beautiful

And that, my friends, is a Conspiracy Theorist in a nutshell:

1. A general difficulty with idioms, metaphors, similes, analogies, etc.
2. An absolute refusal to admit to being wrong, indeed refusing to admit even to the possibility of being wrong, when confronted with a crtitical analysis of his beliefs. I would've said "his or her beliefs", but lets face it, this sort of macho CT nonsense (all bombs, hi-tech gizmos and secret agents) is almost always spouted by men.
3. A quick change of subject when the CTist realizes, however dimly, that the debate is not going in his favor.

Here's another fun personal anecdote since the last one in the Shanksville thread went over so well. Once, in conversation with another person, I offhandedly mentioned an article I had read about ballet, but I mispronounced it as "bal-ETT". The other person smiled and said "I think you mean bal-lay. It is spelled 'ballet', but it's pronounced bal-lay. The t is silent". Embarrassed, offended and confused, I sputtered "No, no, no. I know what bal-LAY is, but this is another kind of dancing I'm talking about called bal-ETT!". Thankfully the other person just smiled and said "ah", whereupon I quickly changed the subject.

Silly, isn't it? Humiliating, even What a silly, stubborn ass I made of myself!

Then again, I was only six years old at the time...

How old are you, yankee?