Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Dazed]

Read this post if you missed it, Usual Suspect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051298&postcount=1404

 

[uk_dave]

TOO funny!

What the hell.

Russell, I don't know who you are or why the people here were so keen when it was known you was going to post here.

I assumed that possibly it was felt you was on a par (in CT eyes) with the sainted avery and that maybe you were considering revising your position.

I also assumed that you would be one of the more considered debaters.

None of these assumptions have been proved correct in the time you have posted here.

Yes you have refrained from personal attacks, but that has slipped recently.

Personally I couldn't give a flying **** whether or not you choose to accept the facts presented to you here. If you're not here then it will be someone else, and we will no doubt try just as hard with that person.

 

[beachnut]

I find his harrassment of me quite cute. I know the internet can be a lonely place.

you have calculated wrong by a factor of over 10 then ignore the post asking you to explain

this is only indicative of your harassing all on this thread with over 200 posts, and ignoring the questions you raise

sorry, but you remind me of Docker

Docker would ask the same off topic questions like you and avoid explaining

Docker would ignore people and just keep starting new ideas like you do

Sorry, I just wanted to know why your number is wrong

why is your number wrong?

 

[Moving On]

Tell me what you think happened, right now, no more excuses, no more side stepping lay it all out for me. I defy you.

JESSICA,

Read this rule.

Russell

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/#14

 

[Moving On]

Do you know the name of the Act? If so, I can locate it on Lexus Nexus or similar easily enough. (Even the "short name" will do).

EDIT: I found the name of the Act, so please disregard the question. I'll go look up the statute shortly.

I understand that your observation is based on your layman interpretation of it. I'm offering to provide a legal opinion on it based upon my expertise in statutory interpretation.

As I said in my prior post, given the quote provided, your interpretation could be correct, or it could be wrong; it depends on the precise language and punctuation.

Layman with a GED to boot.

 

[stateofgrace]

If it isn't a matter of sides why has R Mackey started a thread declaring victory in the war against CTs?

Read the study by those 60 scientists (including 20 Nobel Laureates) and then tell me the investigation can be trusted.

Really?

So what happened Jessica? Come on you have all this evidence, have you not got the nerve to at least offer an opinion?

Indulge me, convert me, and show me the alternative theory.

 

[uk_dave]

Layman with a GED to boot.

I rest my case

 

[Gravy]

Can you quote the post you want me to respnd to?

I already did, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051022&postcount=1285

But since you ignored that, and can't be bothered to look for your own post, here is is again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051011&postcount=1276

And the text, in case you didn't feel like clicking the link:

"Gravy,

I consider at the very least 50% of what you say as unsubstantiated.

It goes into the 90 percentile when you factor in that your foundations, the reports you use, can not be directly substantiated by you.

Russell"

Prove it or retract it. Clear enough?

 

[Usual Suspect]

Read this post if you missed it, Usual Suspect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051298&postcount=1404

I was just making sure your links are seen Dazed. "Don't Link Dump" is Gravy's answer all the time. You don't need to post an explanation with a link cause the explanation is in the link. I know even Gravy is smart enough to know that. Don't Link Dump without an explanation..... please his groovy gravy grave paper is linked dumped in his sig without an explanation.

I'll just bounce in from time to time for annoyance factor

Yours truely,

Robert David Steele

 

[beachnut]

You've said this at least 5 times now. Please stop.
Please provide the calculation proving hers is wrong by a factor of 10.

can you get Jessica/Docker to check his or her number

I am tired of following Jessica/Docker on the next tanget,

sorry again for the repeat, but I was interested where the number came from? I believe it is off by a factor of ten

I have shown my numbers, are there other questions.

I think Jessica is just pushing Gravy's buttons, and jessica ignores her trail of past posts

 

[LashL]

Layman with a GED to boot.

For the record, my reference to you as a layman in regard to the law was not a dig. I consider myself a "layman" in fields outside my area of expertise.

 

[delphi_ote]

600mph is in the NIST report.

This is not a reference. You must point to the page. You also have not given a reference for the other velocity term. Or the masses.

Research doesn't work like this. You can't say, "Oh, Jefferson said X." and expect me to go read everything Jefferson ever wrote to find out if you're right or wrong. You tell me what numbers you are using, where you got them, and why you used them if you want me to follow your line of argument. Otherwise, it's worthless.

 

[uk_dave]

I was just making sure your links are seen Dazed. "Don't Link Dump" is Gravy's answer all the time. You don't need to post an explanation with a link cause the explanation is in the link. I know even Gravy is smart enough to know that. Don't Link Dump without an explanation..... please his groovy gravy grave paper is linked dumped in his sig without an explanation.

I'll just bounce in from time to time for annoyance factor

Yours truely,

Robert David Steele

Hey we can all do that!

Regards,

Dick Cheney

(Duck!)

 

[Moving On]

I already did, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051022&postcount=1285

But since you ignored that, and can't be bothered to look for your own post, here is is again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051011&postcount=1276

And the text, in case you didn't feel like clicking the link:

"Gravy,

I consider at the very least 50% of what you say as unsubstantiated.

It goes into the 90 percentile when you factor in that your foundations, the reports you use, can not be directly substantiated by you.

Russell"

Prove it or retract it. Clear enough?

No retraction is forthcoming.

1) "I consider" is a right and a prerogative.

2) Can you or have you personally substantiated the veracity of the reports you use?

EDIT: You misquoted me too.

"Very well. Present your evidence that most of my writings are unfounded or invalid, or withdraw the claim."

 

[jessicarabbit]

JESSICA,

Read this rule.

Russell

Yes russell it is clear disinfo but as I probed earlier, what is the motive? Are they professional disinfo agents or just hobbyists?

 

[stateofgrace]

JESSICA,

Read this rule.

Russell

Oh classic Russell, absolute classic.

Keep asking the question but avoid answering any difficult questions yourself right?

Brilliant, you guys have all angles covered.

Care to offer an opinion Russell? Oh sorry of course not, just keep pumping it out right?

 

[Mince]

He also hopes it will shed light on why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11.

So, then, when will he be flying aircraft into the building?

Jesus! Stop comparing mere building fires to what happened on 9/11!

 

[jessicarabbit]

This is not a reference. You must point to the page. You also have not given a reference for the other velocity term. Or the masses.

Research doesn't work like this. You can't say, "Oh, Jefferson said X." and expect me to go read everything Jefferson ever wrote to find out if you're right or wrong. You tell me what numbers you are using, where you got them, and why you used them if you want me to follow your line of argument. Otherwise, it's worthless.

If you would like to show a true calculation I would be happy to view, then correct, it for you

 

[Dazed]

can you get Jessica/Docker to check his or her number

I am tired of following Jessica/Docker on the next tanget,

sorry again for the repeat, but I was interested where the number came from? I believe it is off by a factor of ten

I have shown my numbers, are there other questions.

I think Jessica is just pushing Gravy's buttons, and jessica ignores her trail of past posts

Sigh.

Jessica's Calculation

707 weight 152727kg
767 weight 156489kg
1 mph = 0.44704 meters per second
expected KE= 0.5 x 152727 x 268.224 squared = 5493904362 Joules
actual KE= 0.5 x 156489 x 214.579 squared = 3602704636 Joules

Beachnut's Calculation

707 weight 119,294.8 kg
speed 80.4672 m/s
that is equal to 386,215,069 Joules

Neither of you have sourced your figures, so these are worthless.

 

[uk_dave]

Oh classic Russell, absolute classic.

Keep asking the question but avoid answering any difficult questions yourself right?

Brilliant, you guys have all angles covered.

Care to offer an opinion Russell? Oh sorry of course not, just keep pumping it out right?

To be fair, Russell did offer a theory that the planes did in fact hit the towers and that the catastrophic failure was initiated by a small amount of explosives in the core.

Not very exciting I know... but you get what you pay for.