Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Usual Suspect]

Once I again, I am only claiming that you have not properly sourced your statement, and I'm inclined to believe you made it up.

NO!!! Not the almighty thundercat.

 

[dirtywick]

Gravy: Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi.

Dirtywick: In no way is he insinuating you're a Nazi.

I see you missed the point as well.

He was pointing out how certain people have been making insulting claims despite having no evidence, and even after being confronted and acknowledging that they have no evidence they continue to hold that belief. By using a ridiculous and shocking analogy the effect of of the point is accentuated.

Of course, if you're not paying attention or being deliberately idiotic, then yes it would appear that Gravy called him a Nazi.

So, what's your excuse?

 

[WildCat]

Floor slabs and framing were severed or heavily damaged in the south office floor area through the east side of the core between Floors 78 to 84.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

 

[Usual Suspect]

Hes busy reporting me for trolling because I started my very first thread.

OH?? Maybe he'll also copy and paste a 146 Groovy Gravy Grave Paper on the whole thing.

 

[Moving On]

Right... I read the link. And I responded in kind. Pages ago. Did you not see this in your link:



No twisting necessary. It's extremely simple. Claims are positive or they are negative just as your link says.

I'll repeat this one more time...

9/11 is a conspiracy = positive claim = factual claim
9/11 is not a conspiracy = negative claim = counter-factual claim

Does that make sense? This is the second time I've pointed this out to you. Will you agree that the statement "9/11 is not a conspiracy" is NOT a positive claim now?

every counter-factual claim implies a factual claim. The claim that “the time is 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is not 4:59 PM”; likewise, the claim that “the time is not 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is something other than 5 PM”.

"9/11 is not a conspiracy" implies the claim that "9/11 is something other than a conspiracy".

Are direct statements more real than implications?

Get in the lotus position and ask yourself what the hell kind of evidence is your philosophical rhetoric providing for any claim no matter how you twist it.

But it is a great diversion for those interested in such things.

Pat yourself on the back since you feel you are the "winner".

 

[Dazed]

Thanks Wildcat! However, I'm loathe to point out that this doesn't seem to indicate any localized pre-collapse floor collapses occuring.

And certainly not "throughout the building."

I see talk of perimeter columns being inward, but no talk of floors collapsing onto the ones below them.

 

[Bell]

OH?? Maybe he'll also copy and paste a 146 Groovy Gravy Grave Paper on the whole thing.

You are anoying, Alex.

 

[Dazed]

I see you missed the point as well.

He was pointing out how certain people have been making insulting claims despite having no evidence, and even after being confronted and acknowledging that they have no evidence they continue to hold that belief. By using a ridiculous and shocking analogy the effect of of the point is accentuated.

Of course, if you're not paying attention or being deliberately idiotic, then yes it would appear that Gravy called him a Nazi.

So, what's your excuse?

I didn't miss the point, I just wanted to quote out of context too.

 

[dirtywick]

I didn't miss the point, I just wanted to quote out of context too.

Yeah, I saw you edited it.

 

[stateofgrace]

Please read the thread. This is what US was referring to. It was Gravy who resorted to this.

Irrespective of who said what I take exception to be labelled a Nazi. I take exception to being labelled a neocon, a spreader of disinformation, I steeple,a troll or whatever else is thrown this way.

You Russell are promoting alternative theories, you are actively spreading them. Your theories go totally against what is commonly believed happened on this day.

This absolute rubbish that is spewed out from the conspirators toward those that have actually taken the time to address them is highly offensive.

I personally have been label an war monger, a child killer, a shill, a Nazi, a neocon, a disgrace to humanity, a pretender, a supporter of genocide, a nobody, or somebody who deserves a good kicking.

Why?

Because I simply disagree with the inside job theory.

These are the tactics of the cters, you stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

What makes you think I respect you any more than I respect the rest of your supporters?

 

[VespaGuy]

CIA hun, got to be.

Yup. You figured it out. Of course, they were completely powerless to stop the proliferation of home-made 9/11 conspiracey videos. So now they have multiple agents assigned to this particular website forum simply to debunk you, Russell and Usual Suspect.

 

[beachnut]

Update - no reply from Fox on the video

did you have a source for your calculation which I found to be wrong by over 10 times?

just ignore me or can you source your stuff you brought up

are you just posting, or are you willing to work with those seeking knowledge?

 

[Mince]

You are anoying, Alex.

Do you think they wonder why their movement has stagnated almost since it began? If they do wonder, I offer it is because that this person is typical of the movement. All taunt, no substance.

 

[Dazed]

CIA hun, got to be.

Come on, that's just stupid. If you want to believe in 911 conspiracies, just post your evidence and discuss it. Attacking the other team is pointless and makes you look childish, and in this particular case, paranoid..

 

[Moving On]

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?

Interesting.

 

[Dazed]

Russel, I haven't seen YOU offer any evidence yet, and seem to be offering these lame cut and paste quotes, often with spelling errors, as a means of deflecting legitimate debate.

 

[WildCat]

Floors 79 to 83 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors on the east side and sagged

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

 

[Moving On]

Russel, I haven't seen YOU offer any evidence yet, and seem to be offering these lame cut and paste quotes, often with spelling errors, as a means of deflecting legitimate debate.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..."

Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?

DISCLAIMER: Quotes may include spelling errors.

 

[WildCat]

Thanks Wildcat! However, I'm loathe to point out that this doesn't seem to indicate any localized pre-collapse floor collapses occuring.

And certainly not "throughout the building."

I see talk of perimeter columns being inward, but no talk of floors collapsing onto the ones below them.

The floors sagging is what pus the columns in. If you require an entire floor to fall into another floor to qualify as a collapse I'm afraid we're using different terminology.

 

[Dazed]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf

Cool.
I seem to find myself differentiating between 'sagging' and 'collapsing,' especially with regard to explosion-like sounds that would be produced.