| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Wait, changing the subject already? What happened to your first piece of evidence? Already moving on? Now I have to go research some new random topic?
Do you just have a list of things you point people and tell them to go do "research"? Have you even read this stuff yourself? You are 0-1 in providing me useful information, and I asked you to clarify, and you've already moved on.
You just make statements and ask other people to prove them for you. I don't have time to read 1000 different things on your list of things (you clearly haven't read yourself) until I get to the one that tells me something I want to know.
Provide me with some evidence, or admit you don't know what you are talking about. |
If you check (because you wouldn't wanna take my word for it) you might find that Sibel Edmonds has everything to do with the FBI as laid out in the movie Press for Truth you claim (obviously falsely) to have watched.
And I don't do legwork for shills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You don't do legwork at all. You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence for a single claim you've made. All you do is claim it's "out there", and then repeat your hypotheses ad nausem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | You don't do legwork at all. You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence for a single claim you've made. All you do is claim it's "out there", and then repeat your hypotheses ad nausem. |
I love these drivel arguments, however time is not to be wasted now I know what you're about.
All the science you can possibly need (although whether it can be understood is another thing - I have my doubts from what I've seen recently) can be found here.
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
And remember kids - what you're doing is covering for mass murder. Sleep well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
Here's the deal.
WTC7; the excessive heat (producing molten iron and the witness of the evaporation eroded steel), together with the NORAD non-response are taking down the house of cards you're working so hard to defend.
Think about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
|
You don't "use" them, though, do you? You simply link to them. Any monkey can do that. How about quoting specific passages or summarizing points that support your argument? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
|
You don't "use" them, though, do you? You simply link to them. Any monkey can do that. How about quoting specific passages or summarizing points that support your argument? |
I 'use' them in the sense that you can read them directly, rather than having to paraphrase them into the bite-size predigested pieces you seem to prefer. In the interests of accuracy I don't do that.
Rather like your links in a reply to Brian showing an impressively acronymed collection of agencies - yet all using basic data supplied by NIST and relying on the same tiny pool of remaining physical evidence?
And yet none of them seeking to investigate beyond collapse initiation.
I don't think they were too interested in William Rodriguez testimony either. Why would that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
|
You don't "use" them, though, do you? You simply link to them. Any monkey can do that. How about quoting specific passages or summarizing points that support your argument? |
I 'use' them in the sense that you can read them directly, rather than having to paraphrase them into the bite-size predigested pieces you seem to prefer. In the interests of accuracy I don't do that.
Rather like your links in a reply to Brian showing an impressively acronymed collection of agencies - yet all using basic data supplied by NIST and relying on the same tiny pool of remaining physical evidence?
And yet none of them seeking to investigate beyond collapse initiation.
I don't think they were too interested in William Rodriguez testimony either. Why would that be? |
Did you happen to contact NIST with your concerns during their period of solicitation for public input? Because, you know, that would have been the time and place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
|
You don't "use" them, though, do you? You simply link to them. Any monkey can do that. How about quoting specific passages or summarizing points that support your argument? |
I 'use' them in the sense that you can read them directly, rather than having to paraphrase them into the bite-size predigested pieces you seem to prefer. In the interests of accuracy I don't do that.
Rather like your links in a reply to Brian showing an impressively acronymed collection of agencies - yet all using basic data supplied by NIST and relying on the same tiny pool of remaining physical evidence?
And yet none of them seeking to investigate beyond collapse initiation.
I don't think they were too interested in William Rodriguez testimony either. Why would that be? |
Did you happen to contact NIST with your concerns during their period of solicitation for public input? Because, you know, that would have been the time and place. |
Being a foreign national, strangely enough I didn't. But in retrospect I would have expected competent professionalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
|
You don't "use" them, though, do you? You simply link to them. Any monkey can do that. How about quoting specific passages or summarizing points that support your argument? |
I 'use' them in the sense that you can read them directly, rather than having to paraphrase them into the bite-size predigested pieces you seem to prefer. In the interests of accuracy I don't do that.
Rather like your links in a reply to Brian showing an impressively acronymed collection of agencies - yet all using basic data supplied by NIST and relying on the same tiny pool of remaining physical evidence?
And yet none of them seeking to investigate beyond collapse initiation.
I don't think they were too interested in William Rodriguez testimony either. Why would that be? |
Did you happen to contact NIST with your concerns during their period of solicitation for public input? Because, you know, that would have been the time and place. |
Being a foreign national, strangely enough I didn't. But in retrospect I would have expected competent professionalism. |
Strangely enough, they had no citizenship requirement for submitting comments, which you would have known had you thought to pursue your concerns in a manner that might have done some good, rather than what we in the states call "Monday morning quarterbacking".
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
On what basis do you judge their competence or professionalism? What more should they have done? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | I notice you are posting some blanket link to cover your own inability to actually cite evidence. You don't need to go to every thread and post a link to well-known website's front page. We all know about them, and most have us read most of these sites. It's unnecessary.
If you have any actual, specific, facts with cited sources you want to discuss, let me know. Since we both know that will never happen, it's been nice talking with you. |
He doesn't understand what he's linking to. He just likes their conclusions and they sound science-y, so he refers to them in place of thinking. |
No I use them to get some information across to those in active denial.
|
You don't "use" them, though, do you? You simply link to them. Any monkey can do that. How about quoting specific passages or summarizing points that support your argument? |
I 'use' them in the sense that you can read them directly, rather than having to paraphrase them into the bite-size predigested pieces you seem to prefer. In the interests of accuracy I don't do that.
Rather like your links in a reply to Brian showing an impressively acronymed collection of agencies - yet all using basic data supplied by NIST and relying on the same tiny pool of remaining physical evidence?
And yet none of them seeking to investigate beyond collapse initiation.
I don't think they were too interested in William Rodriguez testimony either. Why would that be? |
Did you happen to contact NIST with your concerns during their period of solicitation for public input? Because, you know, that would have been the time and place. |
Being a foreign national, strangely enough I didn't. But in retrospect I would have expected competent professionalism. |
Strangely enough, they had no citizenship requirement for submitting comments, which you would have known had you thought to pursue your concerns in a manner that might have done some good, rather than what we in the states call "Monday morning quarterbacking".
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments_submission.htm
On what basis do you judge their competence or professionalism? What more should they have done? |
Well one suggestion would be that when the officially sanctioned explanations didn't pan out (a sthey didn't), they might have considered other possibilities, such as the explosions we can all see happening before our eyes, and the witnesses and TV reports of the day talked endlessly about. And then they mysteriously went quiet.
And NIST never visited that possibility.
Then by the time their non-investigation was semi-concluded, the evidence had taken a slow boat to China and disappeared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They, did, in fact entertain the possibilities you asked them to, and dismissed as the ridiculous theories based on zero evidence that they are. NIST, like me, require evidence above and beyond constant repitition.
| Quote: |
To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (http://wtc.nist.gov/). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11, or that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, the fact sheet describes how photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. |
It's difficult to consider an alternative theory valid when there is no evidence to support it, and the original theory seems to fit the facts fairly precisely. I'm still waiting for you to provide any shred of evidence of the 19 "claims" you've made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | They, did, in fact entertain the possibilities you asked them to, and dismissed as the ridiculous theories based on zero evidence that they are. NIST, like me, require evidence above and beyond constant repitition.
| Quote: |
To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (http://wtc.nist.gov/). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11, or that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, the fact sheet describes how photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. |
It's difficult to consider an alternative theory valid when there is no evidence to support it, and the original theory seems to fit the facts fairly precisely. I'm still waiting for you to provide any shred of evidence of the 19 "claims" you've made. |
If you find no 'evidence' in any of the numerous physical, political, intelligence and military anomalies of September 11 then there's nothing further I can tell you.
The official investigations are seen as a sham by half your population. That's generally accepted to a degree even you cannot dispute with any credibility.
Your further notion that a watertight case is necessary before questioning the official non-investigation is also idiotic, given the information known to be conveniently omitted.
A re-opened forensic investigation of the events and persons behind the demolition of the WTC is required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
