• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Time for Docker to answer questions

Docker, why don't you answer my questions?

Are you a ****** coward?

[modp]Keep the discussion civil, and don't circumvent the auto censor program. I edited the word.[/modp]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Docker said:
He isn't wanted for 9/11 though. Please ring them and ask why.

I post here because it's an open forum, just like you guys go and post at LC
Click to expand...

Can you prove that 9/11 doesn't fall under "other terrorist attacks"?

Also, I don't post at LC strawman.

ETA: Oh, and because it's an open forum isn't a purpose.
 
Docker said:
"
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a total of 43 draft reports documenting the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. These reports include the draft summary report on the Investigation of the WTC Towers, 8 project reports, and 34 supporting technical topic reports. Fifteen reports, including three project reports, were released on April 5, 2005.
These reports are being issued in draft form with a six-week period for public comment. Public comments will be accepted during the period commencing June 23rd and ending at 5 p.m. EDT on August 4th.
The public is welcome to comment on any of the 43 draft reports issued by NIST, totaling about 10,000 pages. NIST especially encourages public comment on the approximately 200-page draft summary report, which contains the principal findings and recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. NIST will consider all comments received from the public on the 43 draft reports before they are issued in final form."






Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
Click to expand...


thanks, I have over 200 documents, supporting document from NIST, lots of stuff about 9/11, they did a lot of work

thanks
 
Docker said:
I never claimed no fireproofiing was knocked off. Please show me where I said that strawman

I don't know what the temperatures were.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2033839&postcount=274

You made this statement
Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.
Click to expand...

So I am asking for clarification of your position.
Are you asserting that NO FIREPROOFING was knocked off by the plane impact? If not, what percentage of fireproofing are you claiming was knocked off by the plane impact? Please be clear.

And still remaining:
What parameters precisely did NIST "fiddle with"? How were the values wrong and what should they have been IN YOUR ANALYSIS?
 
Docker, When you are with Alex, do you pitch, catch or is at a mutual thing?
 
Docker said:
He isn't wanted for 9/11 though. Please ring them and ask why.

I post here because it's an open forum, just like you guys go and post at LC
Click to expand...

I wouldn't presume to know the legal complexities of charging him with 9/11. I would presume the complexity involved is comparable with war criminals and the like. Given this complexity it probably makes a great deal of sense to get him on earlier misdemeanour and work on subsequent charges once he is apprehended. They are not going to want to rush it.

If your postings are an attempt to fight the corner in the JREF forums for conspiracy theories I would say your evasive behaviour is actually having the opposite effect. All you're doing is wheeling out the same old clichéd arguments that are either improbable or thoroughly debunked. It is all the more baffling that you appear not to believe in many of the arguments you put forth. If you want to help us put more nails in the coffins of conspiracy theories you're doing a great, if not galling, job.

Are you here to defend conspiracy theories?

Edit: Here, funnily enough, is spelt here, not hear.
 
Augustine said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2033839&postcount=274

You made this statement


So I am asking for clarification of your position.
Are you asserting that NO FIREPROOFING was knocked off by the plane impact? If not, what percentage of fireproofing are you claiming was knocked off by the plane impact? Please be clear.

And still remaining:
What parameters precisely did NIST "fiddle with"? How were the values wrong and what should they have been IN YOUR ANALYSIS?
Click to expand...

Is the question-answering over or merely paused?

Results so far:
1 Evaded (refused to clarify position on fireproofing)
1 Didn't know (internal temperatures - if NIST is wrong, what were they)
1 Didn't answer (parameters NIST "fiddled with" and his values)

Let's see if those numbers improve....
 
Nope, he abandoned this thread. Did I miss his answers to my questions, btw?
 
*weeps*

Now I'll never get those answers...

*weeps more*
 
:( ...and I felt we were this close to actually convincing him to do some rational thought...(well, probably not, just being (irrationally) optimistic :blush: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom