| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
| Yes, since he claims it is the only way to win the argument |
|
73% |
[ 11 ] |
| No |
|
20% |
[ 3 ] |
| Not sure |
|
6% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
| Author |
Message |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
 |
|
I'm throwing down the gauntlet to Anti-Sophist.
Quite frankly, I've had enough of his manner. I wouldn't mind him discussing the issues but when things get tough he just repeats the same old mantra that only the science and the mathematics can explain what happened to the WTC. Well, I'd like to see him explain what he means here and show his mathmatical evidence for why his opinion and the opinion of NIST is valid. If he can't or won't then I suggest that either he leaves or he refrains from playing the mathematics card any longer.
Thoughts anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| James C wrote: | I'm throwing down the gauntlet to Anti-Sophist.
Quite frankly, I've had enough of his manner. I wouldn't mind him discussing the issues but when things get tough he just repeats the same old mantra that only the science and the mathematics can explain what happened to the WTC. Well, I'd like to see him explain what he means here and show his mathmatical evidence for why his opinion and the opinion of NIST is valid. If he can't or won't then I suggest that either he leaves or he refrains from playing the mathematics card any longer.
Thoughts anyone? |
AS's tiresome methodology is entirely based on his projected implication he is naturally 'right', what with being 'smarter' than the average bear at least in his own view.
Somehow though, he can never actually show this, let alone 'prove' it when called to do so, when he ignores the issue - in other words, the standard JREF tactic.
Frankly, I no longer have any interest in his (non) opinions.
While I've seen heated discussion on this and other fora, I've never seen any other poster called out as a charlatan or fraud, but AS manages it.
No substance whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:20 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| James C wrote: | I'm throwing down the gauntlet to Anti-Sophist.
Quite frankly, I've had enough of his manner. I wouldn't mind him discussing the issues but when things get tough he just repeats the same old mantra that only the science and the mathematics can explain what happened to the WTC. Well, I'd like to see him explain what he means here and show his mathmatical evidence for why his opinion and the opinion of NIST is valid. If he can't or won't then I suggest that either he leaves or he refrains from playing the mathematics card any longer.
Thoughts anyone? |
If you are going to ask for proof, you should at least quote the claim of mine that you want proven. I've never claimed that I could prove NISTs report was mathematically accurate. I've never even claimed that NISTs report WAS mathematically accurate. My claim has always been that _your_ objections to it were mathemtically inaccurate and unscientific. Making ridiculous claims (like the NIST report is mathematicall inaccurate) and then asking me to prove you wrong is a logical fallacy. It's popular among creationists. The concept that because I cannot prove your (unsubstantiated) claim wrong makes it true is gibberish. The burden of proof lies with you to prove it, not me to disprove it.
You are asking me to prove something I have never claimed. And the burden of proof, as you are well aware, since its my mantra and I've repeated it to you several times, lies with the claimant. My claim that your objections are unscientific is well evidenced.
Feel free to provide proof of the claim of YOURS that started all of this:
| Quote: |
In fact, WTC7 wasn't even hit by an aircraft and yet its columns failed all at the same instance in time and all at the same point (if they hadn't then rotation of the building would have been observed).
|
Here we see you claiming that if WTC7 fell like in the official story, a rotation would have been observered. Your claim. Can I see the proof now that we've gone through this little exercise of you starting a thread to prove how poorly you understand the burden of proof concept in logic?
Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
While I've seen heated discussion on this and other fora, I've never seen any other poster called out as a charlatan or fraud, but AS manages it.
No substance whatsoever. |
Look more claims without proof!
I've provided proof to numerous of your claims only to you resort to the same tired ad hominem attacks and run away as fast as you can, chek. Why are you so afraid of me? Why are you so afraid to deal with the facts? Why is your only recourse to just keep repeating this sophistry, calling me a "liar" and "charlatan" when I've just provided proof that you've ignored? Why are you so afraid of me that you need to resort to this logical gibberish? Why are you so desperate to discredit me? Why can't you do it with the facts?
I don't think I've ever seen a CTist literally give up the way you have chek. That's fairly impressive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
While I've seen heated discussion on this and other fora, I've never seen any other poster called out as a charlatan or fraud, but AS manages it.
No substance whatsoever. |
Look more claims without proof!
I've provided proof to numerous of your claims only to you resort to the same tired ad hominem attacks and run away as fast as you can, chek. Why are you so afraid of me? Why are you so afraid to deal with the facts? Why is your only recourse to just keep repeating this sophistry, calling me a "liar" and "charlatan" when I've just provided proof that you've ignored? Why are you so afraid of me that you need to resort to this logical gibberish? Why are you so desperate to discredit me? Why can't you do it with the facts?
I don't think I've ever seen a CTist literally give up the way you have chek. That's fairly impressive. |
AS, I have no interest in descending to a personal level, or in looking back through previous threads to substantiate claims made against you that we both already know are there.
You may find your sophistry entertaining, but regretfully I do not.
I have no wish to discredit you - you do a perfectly fine job of that on your own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
AS, I have no interest in descending to a personal level, or in looking back through previous threads to substantiate claims made against you that we both already know are there.
You may find your sophistry entertaining, but regretfully I do not.
I have no wish to discredit you - you do a perfectly fine job of that on your own. |
I just did the count. Your last 8 posts to me contained no evidence and only personal attacks. Let the counting comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
AS, I have no interest in descending to a personal level, or in looking back through previous threads to substantiate claims made against you that we both already know are there.
You may find your sophistry entertaining, but regretfully I do not.
I have no wish to discredit you - you do a perfectly fine job of that on your own. |
I just did the count. Your last 8 posts to me contained no evidence and only personal attacks. Let the counting comment. |
Not this counting buisness again  . Listen mate, Sesame Street was old years ago
I am getting a bit concerned about our critics though, we seem to be wearing them out fast and where are we going to get new ones? AS here is going to implode soon, I feel it in my water....
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Not this counting buisness again . Listen mate, Sesame Street was old years ago |
Sesame Street jumped the shark when Elmo came along. I know he's the favorite of many a child, but to me he's like a two-year-old with ADHD. And, to the detriment of the show IMO, he overshadows some of my childhood favorites like Grover and Oscar the Grouch.
Ah well. Times change.
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
AS, I have no interest in descending to a personal level, or in looking back through previous threads to substantiate claims made against you that we both already know are there.
You may find your sophistry entertaining, but regretfully I do not.
I have no wish to discredit you - you do a perfectly fine job of that on your own. |
I just did the count. Your last 8 posts to me contained no evidence and only personal attacks. Let the counting comment. |
Not this counting buisness again . Listen mate, Sesame Street was old years ago
I am getting a bit concerned about our critics though, we seem to be wearing them out fast and where are we going to get new ones? AS here is going to implode soon, I feel it in my water.... |
There is more than a couple on the BBC "International News" forum board. I will invite them over...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Not this counting buisness again |
It's very useful for demonstrating how often you guys make claims without providing evidence. Don't worry though, the chance of chek breaking your record is quite low. Your ability to post for pages and pages making claim after claim without providing proof is, quite frankly, inhuman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Not this counting buisness again |
It's very useful for demonstrating how often you guys make claims without providing evidence. Don't worry though, the chance of chek breaking your record is quite low. Your ability to post for pages and pages making claim after claim without providing proof is, quite frankly, inhuman. |
Ah ha! You've sussed me out mate, I must be a Reppie!
Alternatively, it could just be that you refuse to accept anything put to you, listen to any interviews, watch any videos, or read any documents because "They dont count! (Wahhhhh!)"
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Not this counting buisness again |
It's very useful for demonstrating how often you guys make claims without providing evidence. Don't worry though, the chance of chek breaking your record is quite low. Your ability to post for pages and pages making claim after claim without providing proof is, quite frankly, inhuman. |
Ah ha! You've sussed me out mate, I must be a Reppie!
Alternatively, it could just be that you refuse to accept anything put to you, listen to any interviews, watch any videos, or read any documents because "They dont count! (Wahhhhh!)" |
Same old strawman gibberish. Nothing much changes. You are arguing with the Anti-sophist in your brain who says very different things than I do. You should try comprehending my point of view before arguing with it.
Furthermore, I accept all evidence that supports the claims you make. You've yet to provide any. Your idea of providing evidence is to link-dump. It proves your inability to think critically because you need other people to provide research for you. If you want to discuss an issue, bring it up. Don't link dump.
I thought of you when I saw the policy on "above-top-secret" where they have expressly forbidden "link-dumping" because it doesn't promote any rational discussion. You need to have your opinions beyond "HERE IS LINK. DEBUNK IT" in order to be useful in a rational discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats pure fruit loop that is
Voicing one's own opinion doesnt count becuase "its not evidence"
Linking evidence doesnt count becuase its "Link dumping"
Catch 22: "Logical Fallacy"...and, oh yes, sophistry: classic "accuse others of ones own faults" in fact. We are far too experianced for that sort of nonesense here mate, your not talking to kids on ATS now
Your gonna have to get serious about engaging with debate here AS, your card is clearly marked
(with a rude word, so I wont repeat it )
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Linking to evidence is not the same as link-dumping. You get them confused because you actually believe they are the same thing. You don't back up your claims with linked evidence. You spout someone elses claim and dump their link. You provide no opinion/analysis of your own. You are just posting links and daring people to debunk it. When they do, you post a new link.
This has been explained to you dozens of times so I don't expect you to get it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you mean you've spouted the same line dozens of times and i'm no more taken in now than the first time you tried to flam your way into sounding "credible" with it: then your right
What your not getting is that, in a case such as yours when all you show any capability of doing is jamming your fingers in your ears going "not listening! Not listening!", your not worth the effort
Especially since I see no reason to put myself out for critics who hav'nt even bothered to explore the case they aim to refute
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | If you mean you've spouted the same line dozens of times and i'm no more taken in now than the first time you tried to flam your way into sounding "credible" with it: then your right
What your not getting is that, in a case such as yours when all you show any capability of doing is jamming your fingers in your ears going "not listening! Not listening!", your not worth the effort
Especially since I see no reason to put myself out for critics who hav'nt even bothered to explore the case they aim to refute |
What case?
Explosives? No evidence
Thermite/thermate/Marmite/Marmate? No evidence
Upward facing fusion flashlight beam of destruction? No evidence
No planes? No evidence
Pods? No evidence
Missiles? No evidence
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | John White wrote: | If you mean you've spouted the same line dozens of times and i'm no more taken in now than the first time you tried to flam your way into sounding "credible" with it: then your right
What your not getting is that, in a case such as yours when all you show any capability of doing is jamming your fingers in your ears going "not listening! Not listening!", your not worth the effort
Especially since I see no reason to put myself out for critics who hav'nt even bothered to explore the case they aim to refute |
What case?
Explosives? No evidence
Thermite/thermate/Marmite/Marmate? No evidence
Upward facing fusion flashlight beam of destruction? No evidence
No planes? No evidence
Pods? No evidence
Missiles? No evidence |
For balance you need to add:
No evidence that 19 FBI run Arab patsies did what is alleged.
No evidence that 2 jetplanes and fires caused 3 buildings to collapse.
No evidence that NORAD couldn't intercept the jetliners.
No evidence that the Pentagon FDR indicates a crash at that location.
No evidence the Shankville legend has any true elements.
No evidence of thousands of impounded video and photographs being released either.
Plenty of evidence indicating a cover-up at the highest level though.
So it really depends what type of 'no evidence' you choose to get behind doesn't it?
And why, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | James C wrote: | I'm throwing down the gauntlet to Anti-Sophist.
Quite frankly, I've had enough of his manner. I wouldn't mind him discussing the issues but when things get tough he just repeats the same old mantra that only the science and the mathematics can explain what happened to the WTC. Well, I'd like to see him explain what he means here and show his mathmatical evidence for why his opinion and the opinion of NIST is valid. If he can't or won't then I suggest that either he leaves or he refrains from playing the mathematics card any longer.
Thoughts anyone? |
If you are going to ask for proof, you should at least quote the claim of mine that you want proven. I've never claimed that I could prove NISTs report was mathematically accurate. I've never even claimed that NISTs report WAS mathematically accurate. My claim has always been that _your_ objections to it were mathemtically inaccurate and unscientific. Making ridiculous claims (like the NIST report is mathematicall inaccurate) and then asking me to prove you wrong is a logical fallacy. It's popular among creationists. The concept that because I cannot prove your (unsubstantiated) claim wrong makes it true is gibberish. The burden of proof lies with you to prove it, not me to disprove it.
You are asking me to prove something I have never claimed. And the burden of proof, as you are well aware, since its my mantra and I've repeated it to you several times, lies with the claimant. My claim that your objections are unscientific is well evidenced.
Feel free to provide proof of the claim of YOURS that started all of this:
| Quote: |
In fact, WTC7 wasn't even hit by an aircraft and yet its columns failed all at the same instance in time and all at the same point (if they hadn't then rotation of the building would have been observed).
|
Here we see you claiming that if WTC7 fell like in the official story, a rotation would have been observered. Your claim. Can I see the proof now that we've gone through this little exercise of you starting a thread to prove how poorly you understand the burden of proof concept in logic? |
If you don't know whether NIST's report is mathematically accurate or not then how can you base your whole argument on it. You are relying on assumption.
All of a sudden, your science and mathematics has gone out of the window. I thought it would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yup, AS is defending his belief system and casting about at others to disguise the fact. Meanwhile Pixels is a strawman hunter. Wonder if he'd like to chat about the 9/11 Commission Whitewash?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
While I've seen heated discussion on this and other fora, I've never seen any other poster called out as a charlatan or fraud, but AS manages it.
No substance whatsoever. |
Look more claims without proof!
I've provided proof to numerous of your claims only to you resort to the same tired ad hominem attacks and run away as fast as you can, chek. Why are you so afraid of me? Why are you so afraid to deal with the facts? Why is your only recourse to just keep repeating this sophistry, calling me a "liar" and "charlatan" when I've just provided proof that you've ignored? Why are you so afraid of me that you need to resort to this logical gibberish? Why are you so desperate to discredit me? Why can't you do it with the facts?
I don't think I've ever seen a CTist literally give up the way you have chek. That's fairly impressive. |
For the sake of the thread and to put your garbage sophistry to bed, two things.
Firstly, my gently scathing previous replies were regardng your usual would-be superior sounding non-answers as opposed to remarks against you personally, and your all too common claims of 'gibberish' (which is a noun incidentally, not an adjective) which many posters are already aware of without recourse to links demonstrating it.
Secondly I don't recall seeing you referred to (yet) as a liar. That is an invention of your own. I have seen you called out as a fraud and a charlatan - not be me I might add - in other threads.
My opinion is you're lucky the Trading Standards Act doesn't apply to internet names.
The other 'issues' you object to I dealt with earlier in the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: Should Anti-Sophist prove the math or leave? |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
If you don't know whether NIST's report is mathematically accurate or not then how can you base your whole argument on it. You are relying on assumption. |
Strawman. I'm not basing my argument on NIST's report. My argument is with your objections to NISTs report. You claim that NIST's scenario is physically impossible. I'm pointing out that your claim is gibberish. No part of pointing out your claim is gibberish proves or disproves NISTs scenario.
Let me simplify this for you because apparently the abstract logic concepts are too much for you.
If NIST claimed that Hitler did, in fact, invade Poland... and your claim was that Hitler couldn't have invaded Poland because 9+9 is 18. My response to you would be "That objection is utter giberish, and doesn't prove the point you are trying to make". My response is not predicated on the fact that I can prove Hitler invaded Poland.
Do you get it yet? I'm not defending NIST's accuracy. I'm attacking your objections to NIST because they are unscientific and guesswork. I'm saying your objections hold no water. NIST may still be wrong, but not for the reasons you are stating.
I am saying that your objections to NIST are not valid, not that NISTs theories are valid. Do you understand the difference?
This is identical to your claim that WTC7 should have had "observable" rotation, given the official story. You just made it up. It's unscientific and gibberish. You've provided no analysis whatsoever. Me pointing out to you that your claim is gibberish doesn't necessitate that I prove NIST is right. It only requires I prove your claim is gibberish.
I'm running out of ways to simplify this for you.
| Quote: |
All of a sudden, your science and mathematics has gone out of the window. I thought it would. |
You wish the science and math would go out the window, because you are incapable of understanding it. Unfortunately, it's not going anywhere.
Keep making claims and I'll keep asking for proof and/or analysis. That's how it will go, forever, no matter how much you hope it will go away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I am saying that your objections to NIST are not valid, not that NISTs theories are valid. Do you understand the difference?
|
Fascinating: and yes, I do understand:
The difference is your representing your personal belief system soley on the basis that your ego places dominance on your own interpretation over anything else (such as any objective science), and ultimately, here to play head games to make yourself feel good
Thats fine, and about in line with others impressions of you, but boy, are you also painting yourself into a corner 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | I am saying that your objections to NIST are not valid, not that NISTs theories are valid. Do you understand the difference?
|
Fascinating: and yes, I do understand:
The difference is your representing your personal belief system soley on the basis that your ego places dominance on your own interpretation over anything else (such as any objective science), and ultimately, here to play head games to make yourself feel good
Thats fine, and about in line with others impressions of you, but boy, are you also painting yourself into a corner |
It's makes me much happier when you guys just outright lie, like this. I'd much rather just call you a liar than continuously re-explain things to you because I think are you misunderstanding me.
My entire personal belief system is based entirely on the scientific method. It has nothing to do with my ego. Your attempt to discredit good science and the scientific method by ascribing it's set of rules to my ego is, as always, gibberish.
If it makes you feel better to justify your dodging of good science and solid analysis by proclaiming that you are really dodging my "ego", then more power to you. Just understand it's your own self-inflicted delusions.
You guys keep going on and on about me being arrogant and pretending I'm smarter than you. This is bizarre because all I ever do is ask you to stop making unscientific claims. It seems that you guys consider it arrogant to point out, to you, when you are _guessing_. I guess you take it as an insult when I tell you that your guesses aren't worth anything. I guess it makes sense that when your entire conspiracy theorist mindset is based on the supreme accuracy of your own guesses, that someone telling you that they are garbage would be insulting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
But there's the rub isn't it?
You have to hold to something concrete to back that approach up:
Or all you've got is berating us for "guessing" when you consider your guess's "better" (ergo: not convincing)
And your also ignoring the key point that we cant get all the facts: we can only look at a cover story which is a peice of sh*t and make educated guesses to put together a picture more credible and with a closer potential to be the reality
Its not our fault that we are being Lied to: but we can make it our responsibility to seek justice for the dead: ALL the dead
Do you have a more human alternative to that AS? Or does it just come down to "don't bother, it can't be done according to my concept of what counts so don't try at all"?
If you really don't stand by the NIST info, you really are standing on the wrong side of the fence mate: and its hardly tempting to join you in your personal limbo
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | But there's the rub isn't it?
You have to hold to something concrete to back that approach up:
Or all you've got is berating us for "guessing" when you consider your guess's "better" (ergo: not convincing)
|
I thought you said you understood the critical difference. Why is it clear that you didn't?
I'm not _guessing_. My claims are _easy_ to prove. Again, my claim is that _you_ are _guessing_. That is easy for me to prove. I ask for analysis, you can't provide any, and I have all the proof I need to that you are guessing. My claim is proven.
Not one post after claiming you understand the difference between attacking the objections and defending NIST, you go right back to the same stupid strawman.
| Quote: |
If you really don't stand by the NIST info, you really are standing on the wrong side of the fence mate: |
Wow, another strawman. Who'd have thought it. I've never said I don't "stand-by" by the NIST argument. The purpose of my claims was to attack your objections... nothing in that process makes me "stand-by" or "prove" NISTs claim.
Attacking your objections as unsubstantiated guesses doesn't imply or necessitate that "stand by", "prove", "abandon" or anything else NIST's analysis. It only serves to demonstrate that your objections are incorrect and your criticisms are baseless.
You don't seem to be able to differentiate support/proof of NISTs theories and the validity of your objections to the NIST theories.
Last edited by Anti-sophist on Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm not basing my argument on NIST's report |
So what have you got then?
All I see is pot calling kettle: in the assumption that theres a "kettle" to call out....
And you've not understood what I've understood.
Have another go
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm not basing my argument on NIST's report |
So what have you got then?
All I see is pot calling kettle: in the assumption that theres a "kettle" to call out....
And you've not understood what I've understood.
Have another go |
My argument is that YOU GUYS ARE GUESSING. Your objections are gibberish and unscientific. This claim has been proven repeatedly. It doesn't require NISTs help. Al of this started because James C claimed that WTC7 _would_ undergo observable rotation if the official story was true. I asked to see his evidence. He didn't have any. My claim that his objection is guesswork is proven. I didn't need to invoke any NIST report to prove my claim. Do you get it yet?
I've repeated this to you 6 times now. Six. At some point I'm going to need to come to terms with the fact that you are never going to understand the central issue here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | At some point I'm going to need to come to terms with the fact that you are never going to understand the central issue here. |
How interesting! The mirror of my own position in relation to yourself AS
(Central Issue: I call it ethics btw)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
For balance you need to add:
No evidence that 19 FBI run Arab patsies did what is alleged. |
They weren't FBI run, no. Got evidence that they were?
| Quote: |
No evidence that 2 jetplanes and fires caused 3 buildings to collapse. |
Apart from the pile of evidence from NIST, but you ignore that because you don't like it
| Quote: | | No evidence that NORAD couldn't intercept the jetliners. |
NORAD received warnings that the jets were hostile after a point that they could intercept them
| Quote: | | No evidence that the Pentagon FDR indicates a crash at that location. |
If you understood FDR data AND it's limitations, you'd understand why this isn't evidence
| Quote: | | No evidence the Shankville legend has any true elements. |
You can call it a legend, doesn't make it any less true
| Quote: |
No evidence of thousands of impounded video and photographs being released either. |
You can't release something that doesn't belong to you
| Quote: |
Plenty of evidence indicating a cover-up at the highest level though. |
Well, lets see if the new democrat senate and house investigate this, oh wait, they're in on it too, aren't they?
| Quote: | So it really depends what type of 'no evidence' you choose to get behind doesn't it?
And why, of course. |
By no evidence I mean you have nothing, otherwise you'd be posting it now. But you haven't because it doesn't exist.
And why? Oh, I'm a government shill of course...
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | At some point I'm going to need to come to terms with the fact that you are never going to understand the central issue here. |
How interesting! The mirror of my own position in relation to yourself AS
(Central Issue: I call it ethics btw) |
In a discussion about the burden of proof and the value of mathematics and science, you bring up ethics. I don't think you could make sense less sense if you tried. It takes a special kind of crazy to be that nonsensical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
