9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Freefall?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

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 2:00 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

You think that people with a higher IQ than mine will consider your insults as evidence? I think you have a deep, fundamental, misunderstanding on how logic, reason, and knowledge are supposed to work. (insults+1, evidence still 0)

Logic, reason and knowledge?
Judging by your comments on Jones presentation and associated paper, I'm not even convinced you can read, let alone have any use for those higher functions.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject:

I've never commented on Jones presentation or paper. +1 to lies, and +1 to insults, again. Chek, you should really try not insulting every single person you reply to, and try to mix in a fact here and there, and see how much farther you get.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject:

Anti-sophist wrote:

I've never commented on Jones presentation or paper. +1 to lies, and +1 to insults, again. Chek, you should really try not insulting every single person you reply to, and try to mix in a fact here and there, and see how much farther you get.

Really? I do apologise. Sockpuppets and their MO's always seem the same to me.

mkpdavies
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject:

Quote:

So in your opinion, all planes that crash into buildings exert roughly equal amounts of force and stress over the lifetime of the 'event', then?

Where did I say that?

All I do know, is a plane never before managed to wack a building with such force, that is collapsed the whole lot into a small pile.

Yet not once, but twice it happened on 9/11 AND one of them even managed to demolish two buildings with one hit.

You might believe in this incredible new method of demolish builings totaly and within a few hours, but I don't.

Why do the Army even bother with missles, when you can just chuck a couple of old jumbo jets into a target, with supreme accuracy and total destruction?

You couldn't make it up!

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject:

mkpdavies wrote:

Where did I say that?

All I do know, is a plane never before managed to wack a building with such force, that is collapsed the whole lot into a small pile.

Human beings have never managed to demolish a building over 500 feet using planted explosives, before, either. Do you claim that is also impossible, by the same logic?

mkpdavies wrote:

Why do the Army even bother with missles, when you can just chuck a couple of old jumbo jets into a target, with supreme accuracy and total destruction?

I'm going to just assume that was meant to be funny.

mkpdavies
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Human beings have never managed to demolish a building over 500 feet using planted explosives, before, either. Do you claim that is also impossible, by the same logic?

No, because it's been done many time before on buildings a reasonable size, therefore there is at least some sort of historical precident, if not exactly. Planes crashing into buildings have once brought down any kind of large building, EVER. Not even after much more than 1 hour of time.

Quote:

I'm going to just assume that was meant to be funny.

Well I found it funny, because it's so ludicrous.

As you think it's quite plausible, I would have thought it would be a serious option for you.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject:

mkpdavies wrote:

Quote:

Human beings have never managed to demolish a building over 500 feet using planted explosives, before, either. Do you claim that is also impossible, by the same logic?

So, by your logic, it is physically impossible for any plane crash, under any conditions, to ever cause a building to collapse?

Quote:

As you think it's quite plausible, I would have thought it would be a serious option for you.

Well missiles are cheaper, faster, have better range, harder to shoot down, more destructive, and don't require a pilot. That's why they are a superior weapon.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

Let me ask my question in a different way... How did the first controlled demolition of a building happen? By your logic, it was impossible, because there was no historical precedent for it. How did human beings create the first plastic? Nothing like it had ever existed anywhere on earth... For every class of events, there is always a "first". Claiming the "first" is impossible because it is first is a fallacy.

mkpdavies
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject:

Quote:

How did the first controlled demolition of a building happen? By your logic, it was impossible, because there was no historical precedent for it. How did human beings create the first plastic? Nothing like it had ever existed anywhere on earth...

No, not at all. Read what I said again.

If it had happened just once, in the incredibly short time it did, for the very first time. I would have thought wow, how did that happen. How did all that steel just shatter into bits like that, that's worth investigating to make sure it doesn't happen again.

The fact it then happened again, with a different plane, flying into a different part of a similar building would make me thing, hang on a minute. What's going on here. I DEFINITELY want an investigation now. Either those building constructors were crooks and it was an extremely poor design, or something suspicous is going on.

The fact a 3rd building, that had no plane hit it, was of a totaly different construction and had minimal, hardly visible fire went down. That just so happened to be owned by the same bloke who had just taken on the lease of the other two buildings. Makes me certain something was going on that day. The fact he admitted he got the building pulled just hammers that home even further.

Combine that with all of the other days amazing incompetence on behalf of the military. Combine that with the ultimate pioting skills shown by a bunch of amateurs, flying near enough blind, armed with boxcutters.Combine that with the extreme attempts to cover up and block investigation and I'm just not happy to accept the governments pathetic story.

SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster

Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject:

What has Ignatz arse got to do with it? Is it because he often speaks out of it? pancake collapse my arse more like, go watch the film '911 mysteries, the bit where they scientifically calculate the timing for a proper pancake collapse.

jsut_peopel
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Well gypsum exists too. And we know for a fact that there was gypsum in the world trade centre buildings as part of their construction. We also know that a delivery system for thermate that would allow it to cut through vertical steel columns is about as likely to exist as those mini-GI Joes.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

Which of my comments here are uninformed?

Gypsum exists?

There was gypsum used as part of the construction of the world trade centre?

A delivery system for thermate that will allow it to be used to cut vertical steel columns is pretty unlikely to exist?

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

mkpdavies wrote:

The fact a 3rd building, that had no plane hit it, was of a totaly different construction and had minimal, hardly visible fire went down...

Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.

Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:21 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

Well I've read the material. The NIST report may have holes, but this schlock about thermite doesn't even have a structure. It's one big hole with a few disconnected spots of substance.

If I'm wrong, explain to me how this thermate method works.

I fear that from previous experience trying to explain anything to you and your fellows is beyond me.
Maybe you should wait till the movie and comic book come out?
It might be more understandable to you.

Oh, come on, humor me. You know how the thermate was applied and ignited, right? Why not just summarize the process for us? I promise I'll be a good little school boy and listen attentively.

...Or is it that you realize that if you actually try to put it into words it will be obvious what a ridiculously stupid theory it is?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

mkpdavies wrote:

The fact a 3rd building, that had no plane hit it, was of a totaly different construction and had minimal, hardly visible fire went down...

Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.

Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea?

Why surely you wouldn't be trying to mislead anybody Ignatz by suggesting all that smoke is from WTC7, would you?

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

When will you realse that we don't have to fall into promoting ridiculous theories the way you people do?
Its presence has been proved. What it was doing there is up to the investigation and the perpetrators (or should that be perpetraitors) to explain.
But as to this red herring about the 'difficulty' of applying to vertical rather than horizontal surfaces, there are of course ways to do it.
But you can finds them out for yourself if you care that much.
It didn't take me long.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

mkpdavies wrote:

The fact a 3rd building, that had no plane hit it, was of a totaly different construction and had minimal, hardly visible fire went down...

Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.

Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea?

Why surely you wouldn't be trying to mislead anybody Ignatz by suggesting all that smoke is from WTC7, would you?

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

Mislead in what way?
Want some more photos?
A nice little film perhaps?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Why surely you wouldn't be trying to mislead anybody Ignatz by suggesting all that smoke is from WTC7, would you?

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

Everyone knows that smoke was imported from Canada!

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

When will you realse that we don't have to fall into promoting ridiculous theories the way you people do?

I'm glad you agree that it's ridiculous. You must have a theory that you think is not ridiculous, though.

Quote:

Its presence has been proved.

Erm, no...repeating it doesn't make it so.

Quote:

What it was doing there is up to the investigation and the perpetrators (or should that be perpetraitors) to explain.
But as to this red herring about the 'difficulty' of applying to vertical rather than horizontal surfaces, there are of course ways to do it.
But you can finds them out for yourself if you care that much.
It didn't take me long.

I'm aware of some of the (untested) methods proposed. But I wouldn't want to be accused of creating a straw man. I'd like to hear it from you.

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

mkpdavies wrote:

The fact a 3rd building, that had no plane hit it, was of a totaly different construction and had minimal, hardly visible fire went down...

Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.

Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea?

Why surely you wouldn't be trying to mislead anybody Ignatz by suggesting all that smoke is from WTC7, would you?

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

Mislead in what way?
Want some more photos?
A nice little film perhaps?

Go on, Ignatz, show it all. He's a little slow.

jsut_peopel
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 pm Post subject:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

Hello? I don't want to have to get all Danish on you.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

mkpdavies wrote:

The fact a 3rd building, that had no plane hit it, was of a totaly different construction and had minimal, hardly visible fire went down...

Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.

Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea?

Why surely you wouldn't be trying to mislead anybody Ignatz by suggesting all that smoke is from WTC7, would you?

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182546/pg3

Mislead in what way?
Want some more photos?
A nice little film perhaps?

Go on, Ignatz, show it all. He's a little slow.

Chipmunk Stew, I strongly suspect he thinks it's dust from the collapse of WTC1, but I think chek has the right to make his point. Whatever it is.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

mkpdavies
Minor Poster

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 44

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Minimal fire ???? That's one hell of a "minimal fire" mkpdavies.

Where did you acquire this "minimal fire" idea?

Show me evidence to the contrary. All I have seen if tiny amounts of fire from ALL of the pictures I have seen.

Happy to see you contrary evidence.

Shoot.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Mislead in what way?
Want some more photos?
A nice little film perhaps?

There were reportedly fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28, (although not all at the same time) yet the photo you post suggests smoke pouring out of the windows on almost every floor.

Almost as if you are trying to give the impression the whole building was ablaze and ready to fall down.
Of course in retrospect we know it was, but not because of the fires.
Your links would be welcome.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

Hello? I don't want to have to get all Danish on you.

I think I'll have to preserve this section of 'dialogue' to illustrate the meaning of 'troll', should I ever need to illustrate it that is.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

Mislead in what way?
Want some more photos?
A nice little film perhaps?

Er, I'm not suggesting smoke was pouring out of almost every floor. Smoke was pouring out of almost every floor.

I'm not trying "to give the impression" of anything. The photo shows the entire building was ablaze.

How do you explain the discrepancy between the clear visible evidence of the photo and the "limited fires on a few floors" idea that CT films and sites so often quote?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

When will you realse that we don't have to fall into promoting ridiculous theories the way you people do?

I'm glad you agree that it's ridiculous. You must have a theory that you think is not ridiculous, though.

Quote:

Its presence has been proved.

Erm, no...repeating it doesn't make it so.

Quote:

I'm aware of some of the (untested) methods proposed. But I wouldn't want to be accused of creating a straw man. I'd like to hear it from you.

Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

Hello? I don't want to have to get all Danish on you.

I think I'll have to preserve this section of 'dialogue' to illustrate the meaning of 'troll', should I ever need to illustrate it that is.

He asked you a series of legitimate questions. Why have you chosen to ignore them?

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

jsut_peopel wrote:

chek wrote:

The rather obvious flaw in your straw man analogy being that thermate is known to exist, whereas your mini-GI Joes are a somewhat desperate figment of your imagination.

Until you read the material already provided, your uninformed comments show you actually know very little.

You may characterise them as 'legitimate'. To me they're irrelevant trolling.

Which of my comments here are uninformed?

Gypsum exists?

There was gypsum used as part of the construction of the world trade centre?

A delivery system for thermate that will allow it to be used to cut vertical steel columns is pretty unlikely to exist?

Hello? I don't want to have to get all Danish on you.

I think I'll have to preserve this section of 'dialogue' to illustrate the meaning of 'troll', should I ever need to illustrate it that is.

He asked you a series of legitimate questions. Why have you chosen to ignore them?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject:

chek wrote:

Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist?

You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.)

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject:

chipmunk stew wrote:

chek wrote:

Go read the paper. Surely only some kind of ego driven idiot would want insist on 'hearing it' from a nonspecialist?

You mean, like the thermite claim? (Find me a specialist who supports it.)

I think you mean 'thermate', there's a difference. The difference is explained in Jones paper.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 3 of 9

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum