| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject: Truth Beam of 9/11 Destruction |
 |
|
In case you haven't noticed, the UK 9/11 Truth movement is imploding into its own footprint over at :
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5428
... or maybe it's vapourising in the ferocious light of day? Hard to tell just yet, especially as the steel-dissolving alien blood plot has yet to be revealed.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Truth Beam of 9/11 Destruction |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | In case you haven't noticed, the UK 9/11 Truth movement is imploding into its own footprint over at :
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5428
... or maybe it's vapourising in the ferocious light of day? Hard to tell just yet, especially as the steel-dissolving alien blood plot has yet to be revealed. |
Well the thing is Ignatz this site is for people to discuss their theories.
The only thing you need to worry your pretty little head about is that airplanes and jetfuel fires don't begin to explain it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: Truth Beam of 9/11 Destruction |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | In case you haven't noticed, the UK 9/11 Truth movement is imploding into its own footprint over at :
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5428
... or maybe it's vapourising in the ferocious light of day? Hard to tell just yet, especially as the steel-dissolving alien blood plot has yet to be revealed. |
Well the thing is Ignatz this site is for people to discuss their theories.
The only thing you need to worry your pretty little head about is that airplanes and jetfuel fires don't begin to explain it. |
We're still waiting for Ignatz to prove the official lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Truth Beam of 9/11 Destruction |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
We're still waiting for Ignatz to prove the official lie. |
You might want to look up how science works before spouting such ignorance. You sound like an intelligent design nutjob. I don't need to "prove" evolution to make the findings scientific. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Truth Beam of 9/11 Destruction |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
We're still waiting for Ignatz to prove the official lie. |
You might want to look up how science works before spouting such ignorance. You sound like an intelligent design nutjob. I don't need to "prove" evolution to make the findings scientific. |
Come on then, YOU enlighten us with the consistent, open and transparent from day one official 9/11 truth story, Inatz doesn't seem to relish the task. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In case you haven't noticed, the UK 9/11 Truth movement is imploding into its own footprint over at : |
I'm not happy. I received a secure communication from my handler at shhh, you know who saying that as the truthiness movement was discrediting themselves, my remuneration is to be cut! Thank goodless I have another 'day job' contract coming up soon!
Sheriton Hotel said
| Quote: | | Come on then, YOU enlighten us with the consistent, open and transparent from day one official 9/11 truth story, Inatz doesn't seem to relish the task. |
Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored.
The truthiness movement has two sacked engineers/physicists and a handful of nocturnal hangers on who know everything (teenagers then?) versus the world's engineering fraternity.
That's why I don't get too deep on the engineering science. I'm an engineer who was rather close to the New York events of 9/11. What do I know compared to the fine minds analysing videos and editing witnesses' statements? The people who seldom leave the house (look at your post counts-or are you wireless at Starbucks) but hold court on the Pentagon's supposed missile defences.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose this is bound to happen really, considering the way the "truth" movement operates. Whereas as logical enquiry goes through a process of:
1. Examine evidence.
2. Formulate the simplest theory that might explain it
3. Test theory against further evidence
4. See what else is predicted by theory and see if there is evidence for it.
5. Modify theory if required, and repeat the process.
a conspiracist's enquiry adopts a different process:
1. Examine generally accepted theory.
2. Formulate a complicated theory that is different
3. Test evidence against theory
4. Modify or reject evidence that conflicts with theory.
5. If step 4 is not possible, make theory more complicated to explain it.
The result of logical enquiry is that eventually a consensus theory must emerge, but there is no such process for conspiracists' enquiries, in fact the interaction of 2. and 5. is liable to make their theories diverge, rather than converge. Pythonesque accusations of "Splitter!" then fill the internet.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sheriton Hotel wrote: |
Come on then, YOU enlighten us with the consistent, open and transparent from day one official 9/11 truth story, Inatz doesn't seem to relish the task. |
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you?
| A Sharp Major wrote: | The truthiness movement has two sacked engineers/physicists and a handful of nocturnal hangers on who know everything (teenagers then?) versus the world's engineering fraternity.
That's why I don't get too deep on the engineering science. |
It's known that Steve Jones was retired after a visit by Bush in person to the owners of BYU, and that Judy Woods assistant was killed in front of witnesses in broad daylight, and that Kevin Ryan was sacked afterraising issues with Frank gayle (through the proper channels, I might add).
What possible reason could ther be for any other professionals not to get involved?
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | I'm an engineer who was rather close to the New York events of 9/11. What do I know compared to the fine minds analysing videos and editing witnesses' statements? The people who seldom leave the house (look at your post counts-or are you wireless at Starbucks) but hold court on the Pentagon's supposed missile defences. |
What does this mean? I'm an ex-engineer (in an unrelated discipline) so what area of expertise are you casually claiming? And NYC is a big place.
Just because I lived in London doesn't give me any insight into the events of 7/7.
Frankly I've had it up to here with the Anti-Sophist brand of so-called know-how, so merely implying some greater insight will not in itself wash either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I suppose this is bound to happen really, considering the way the "truth" movement operates. Whereas as logical enquiry goes through a process of:
1. Examine evidence.
2. Formulate the simplest theory that might explain it
3. Test theory against further evidence
4. See what else is predicted by theory and see if there is evidence for it.
5. Modify theory if required, and repeat the process.
a conspiracist's enquiry adopts a different process:
1. Examine generally accepted theory.
2. Formulate a complicated theory that is different
3. Test evidence against theory
4. Modify or reject evidence that conflicts with theory.
5. If step 4 is not possible, make theory more complicated to explain it.
The result of logical enquiry is that eventually a consensus theory must emerge, but there is no such process for conspiracists' enquiries, in fact the interaction of 2. and 5. is liable to make their theories diverge, rather than converge. Pythonesque accusations of "Splitter!" then fill the internet. |
You forgot to include the OCT methodolgy that is the reason for this whole movement in the first place.
1. Call in the same trusted bunch of specialists that participated in previous a cover-up.
2. Decide on the outcome
3. Bend or omit the facts to fit the pre-determined outcome.
4. Brazen it out with help from academic and professional moles.
5. Hope it all blows over after a tightly directed Commission reports nothing happened that was anybody's fault except the 19 pre-framed patsies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you?
|
Classic anti-science gibberish from chek. Yea, their methodology of hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion.. what a bunch of garbage! All those pages of thorough fact gathering and careful analysis... gibberish!
The report completely lacks the wild-ass-guesses necessary to properly prove something is correct! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you?
|
Classic anti-science gibberish from chek. Yea, their methodology of hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion.. what a bunch of garbage! All those pages of thorough fact gathering and careful analysis... gibberish!
The report completely lacks the wild-ass-guesses necessary to properly prove something is correct! |
From which - as usual - you show you don't know what you're talking about AS.
Not that anybody is at all surprised at that by now.
But defend the OCT at all costs.
Attaboy.
It's just a shame you're so useless and unconvincing at it.
I'd ask for a new assignment, if I were you.
Your credibility on this forum is shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I suppose this is bound to happen really, considering the way the "truth" movement operates. Whereas as logical enquiry goes through a process of:
1. Examine evidence.
2. Formulate the simplest theory that might explain it
3. Test theory against further evidence
4. See what else is predicted by theory and see if there is evidence for it.
5. Modify theory if required, and repeat the process.
a conspiracist's enquiry adopts a different process:
1. Examine generally accepted theory.
2. Formulate a complicated theory that is different
3. Test evidence against theory
4. Modify or reject evidence that conflicts with theory.
5. If step 4 is not possible, make theory more complicated to explain it.
The result of logical enquiry is that eventually a consensus theory must emerge, but there is no such process for conspiracists' enquiries, in fact the interaction of 2. and 5. is liable to make their theories diverge, rather than converge. Pythonesque accusations of "Splitter!" then fill the internet. |
You forgot to include the OCT methodolgy that is the reason for this whole movement in the first place.
1. Call in the same trusted bunch of specialists that participated in previous a cover-up.
2. Decide on the outcome
3. Bend or omit the facts to fit the pre-determined outcome.
4. Brazen it out with help from academic and professional moles.
5. Hope it all blows over after a tightly directed Commission reports nothing happened that was anybody's fault except the 19 pre-framed patsies. |
Thank you for reminding me chek, yes I did forget one step:
6. Assume complete co-operation in the conspiracy to murder thousands of fellow citizens from however many people may be required. Treat all government employees and contractors as mindless zombies who will obey any orders unquestioningly.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
chek said
| Quote: | | You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Well, they didn't mention beam weapons did they? 
| Quote: | | What does this mean? I'm an ex-engineer (in an unrelated discipline) so what area of expertise are you casually claiming? And NYC is a big place |
.
I'm an engineer (not a mechanic). My area of expertise is neither here nor there as I don't get into the engineering science of 9/11 on this forum. There is sufficient overlap in my subject's sub disciplines for me to understand (to a point) what the professional structural engineers and crash investigators are saying and to be able to say that Jones and Wood are in error. I am not a computer engineer or a software developer like so many of the conspiracy 'experts'.
I have called attention to Judy Wood's failure. Andrew Johnson was in communication with Wood after I called her unreliable. I'm not about to get into a point by point debunk of Judy Wood or any other conspiracy theorist. It has been done by all manner of professionals. I did point out that Judy Wood failed to correct a fundamental thermodynamic falsehood (unrelated to building collapse or beam weapons) posed by Fetzer. She's unreliable, that was my point.
Now she has been fired (according to Andrew Johnson).
As for engineering professionals not getting involved because they fear men in dark glasses or politco string pulling, please. Jones was a disgrace to science. If he was a medical doctor spouting hogwash he'd be struck off for being unfit to practise. He got what was coming.
Judy Wood I should have sympathy for given her alleged personal and medical history. (Hundreds of truthers don't know what I'm on about.) Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe everyone should leave Judy Wood alone-including me.
As for her assistant, his murder was unfortunate but not even truthers are immune from the unpleasantness of sharing this planet with scum or eating too many burgers or not enough sleep and exercise. Plenty of professionals had the opportunity to sign up to conspiracy land before Michael Zebuhr was murdered or Jones was 'sacked'. They didn't.
So you're an 'ex engineer' chek. Engineers who stop practising engineering are still engineers. They can even retain their registration. A retired member of the clergy is still a priest. How are you an ex engineer? One doesn't leave a profession, one is kicked out.
Oh chek, as for NYC being a big place, I was a lot closer to the towers and WTC 7 than Rick Seigel.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
From which - as usual - you show you don't know what you're talking about AS.
Not that anybody is at all surprised at that by now.
But defend the OCT at all costs.
Attaboy.
It's just a shame you're so useless and unconvincing at it.
I'd ask for a new assignment, if I were you.
Your credibility on this forum is shot. |
Ha ha. chek reduced to ad hominem gibberish again. Let me know when you have something substantiative for me to demolish. Apparently you've learned that I can't wreck your arguments with facts if you don't make any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
He wants to hear what part of "what is known" about NIST's methodology and how it makes them less credible, in your view? You've stated your claim, so let's see the proof. You do have some, right? Quite frankly I can't wait hear what you have to say on this topic... which is why I am fairly confident you'll continue to dodge and run away like you usually do when the facts get a little heavy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
He wants to hear what part of "what is known" about NIST's methodology and how it makes them less credible, in your view? You've stated your claim, so let's see the proof. You do have some, right? Quite frankly I can't wait hear what you have to say on this topic... which is why I am fairly confident you'll continue to dodge and run away like you usually do when the facts get a little heavy... |
There'd probably way too many big words for you to handle AS.
Would a nice little video do you instead? Could you work that ok?
Maybe an adult could help you out.
Let me know - I'll check back later, though don't hold your breath.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
To establish (for lurkers, if no one else) why the conclusions of the FEMA/NIST reports should not be considered credible.
A wink and a nudge is not enough. You need to establish, by way of example, that their methodologies are inadequate. I submit that their methodologies have been deliberate, thorough, and transparent, and that their results have been scrutinized and accepted by the vast majority of professionals and academics in related fields.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | which is why I am fairly confident you'll continue to dodge and run away like you usually do when the facts get a little heavy... |
There'd probably way too many big words for you to handle AS.
Would a nice little video do you instead? Could you work that ok?
Maybe an adult could help you out.
Let me know - I'll check back later, though don't hold your breath.. |
QED. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
To establish (for lurkers, if no one else) why the conclusions of the FEMA/NIST reports should not be considered credible.
A wink and a nudge is not enough. You need to establish, by way of example, that their methodologies are inadequate. I submit that their methodologies have been deliberate, thorough, and transparent, and that their results have been scrutinized and accepted by the vast majority of professionals and academics in related fields. |
Well purely and solely for the benefit of any lurkers interested, here is an example of NIST's investigative prowess. It's important to understand that ASCE/FEMA-BPAT/Silverstein Weidlinger Investigation/NIST are essentially the same team, producing different conclusions for different reasons - Silversteins insurance cover terms for example being one.
"NIST states that it found no documents about fire resistance testing, yet it also states that the buildings were rated as Class 1B, which requires such testing.
If the assemblies were tested they would have been using the standard ASTM E119. A floor assembly is tested to that standard by by placing a furnace under it and measuring the time it takes a certain temperature to be reached on its top side.
Evidence that the steel was tested include:
A. UL's comments on testing WTC steel
September 2001
Loring Knoblauch, UL's CEO, told staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC
November 2003
Knoblauch was asked in writing about UL's involvement, and he responded in December confirming details.
"We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully."
"As we did not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can given an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated."
"We test the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them."
In August of 2004, UL performed tests of WTC floor models, but the floors were barely affected and didn't collapse.
Loring Knoblauch resigned suddenly.
In October of 2004, a NIST report update showed contradictions.
In November of 2004 Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle went public, causing UL to quickly backtrack, saying there was "no evidence" that any firm tested the steel, and that they played a "limited" role in the investigation."
Nothing suspicious so far, right?
"Analysis of steel:
Most of the steel evidence destroyed
Tomasetti decision (Thornton's partner)
236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
Laboratory tests conducted by NIST included:
Tests to prove loss of fireproofing
Workstation burn tests
Tests by UL to test failure in floor assemblies
The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse.
The tests showed:
Minimal floor sagging
No floor collapse
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
Documents needed just happened to be missing;
Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored;
Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored.
The entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations."
This short sample is from Kevin Ryan's analysis of what Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record called the ASCE/FEMA-BPAT report on the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArtic les&SubSe%
It is the type of pseudo-science worshipped by charlatans and resident trolls such as Anti 'man of science' Sophist.
If you find it of any interest, I'd recommend watching the rest and bear it in mind when you encounter supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory and their love of Bush-science 'pseudo proof'.
A review can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
And the presentation itself found here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
NIST reports can be found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/
although they leave out some of the more embarrassing stuff in their later revised versions.
They really hope you aren't going to read your way through this lot.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quite a reply here to mild mannered Keith Mothersson's invite to the Scottish chapter.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=37644#37644
Further reading and picture of Keith here. Don't judge a book................?
http://www.keith-mothersson.co.uk
| Quote: | About me
| Quote: | | I’m not very high-powered and not very organised |
|
Yet you are the co-ordinator for Scottish Consiracy Theorists.
| Quote: | | I’ve zero ‘political credibility’ |
Yet you are........
| Quote: | | Basically I’m no threat to anyone, I hope! |
You're right there Keith. No help to anyone either. You can't even sort out a bulb for your angle poise lamp. (See photo on his web page).
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is funny because it's become abundantly clear that chek has no idea what the term "methodology" means, and when he used it, it's not what he meant. You need to "translate" from his CT-esque psuedo-scientific gibberish language into english if you want to understand him.
To him, "methodology" was a large word that sounded somewhat intelligent and meant "findings". He wants to argue with NIST's findings.. not their methodology.
Hope this helps cut down on the confusion.
| Quote: |
...what Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record called the ASCE/FEMA-BPAT report on the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”
|
Classic example of quote mining. How long ago did you decide that intellectual honesty was too high a price to pay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just want to point out that when pressed for chek's opinion on the "methodology" (quoted because he has no idea what it means) of NIST, he then proceeded to mass-quote the opinion of Kevin Ryan. This is a man who was fired due to his incompetence, for speaking on matters of which he has no experience nor expertise, lying, and otherwise being a terrible human being.
His "report" has been contradicted by every organization involved and he has virtually no expertise on the matters being discussed.
His opinion is being repeated here entirely because chek likes the conclusions he reaches, not because it is of any value whatsoever. This is just more of the reverse-scientific method where we find a conclusion first, and then proceed to automatically approve of any gibberish that reinforces it, while disregarding the mountain of evidence against. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | This is funny because it's become abundantly clear that chek has no idea what the term "methodology" means, and when he used it, it's not what he meant. You need to "translate" from his CT-esque psuedo-scientific gibberish language into english if you want to understand him.
To him, "methodology" was a large word that sounded somewhat intelligent and meant "findings". He wants to argue with NIST's findings.. not their methodology.
Hope this helps cut down on the confusion.
| Quote: |
...what Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record called the ASCE/FEMA-BPAT report on the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”
|
Classic example of quote mining. How long ago did you decide that intellectual honesty was too high a price to pay? |
I already warned you 'Mr Science' - have someone explain the big words to you.
Last edited by chek on Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anti sophist said
| Quote: | This is funny because it's become abundantly clear that chek has no idea what the term "methodology" means, and when he used it, it's not what he meant. You need to "translate" from his CT-esque psuedo-scientific gibberish language into english if you want to understand him.
To him, "methodology" was a large word that sounded somewhat intelligent and meant "findings". He wants to argue with NIST's findings.. not their methodology. |
Is this the same chek who doesn't know the differences among metaphor, similie and analogy? How about the difference between affect and effect, practise and practice?
However chek says
| Quote: | | I'm an ex-engineer (in an unrelated discipline) |
So chek, lets be hearing it. (You side stepped my last post). How are you an 'ex' engineer?
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dodging the issue with ad hominem again? Shocker!
Feel free to post your objections to NIST's METHODOLOGY.
Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology
The reference to your quote-mined and utterly debunked Kevin Ryan has nothing to do with METHODOLOGY. So please get back to the topic. Methodology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | Anti sophist said
| Quote: | This is funny because it's become abundantly clear that chek has no idea what the term "methodology" means, and when he used it, it's not what he meant. You need to "translate" from his CT-esque psuedo-scientific gibberish language into english if you want to understand him.
To him, "methodology" was a large word that sounded somewhat intelligent and meant "findings". He wants to argue with NIST's findings.. not their methodology. |
| A Sharp Major wrote: | | Is this the same chek who doesn't know the differences among metaphor, similie and analogy? How about the difference between affect and effect, practise and practice? |
However chek says
| Quote: | | I'm an ex-engineer (in an unrelated discipline) |
So chek, lets be hearing it. (You side stepped my last post). How are you an 'ex' engineer? |
Obviously in a way that doesn't seem to have crossed your mind, in your extremely limited, not to metion invented conjectures and imaginings.
But as your intent was to brand anybody in dispute with the Official Conspiracy as rubbish, crazy or otherwise discredited, that's hardly surprising. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Dodging the issue with ad hominem again? Shocker!
Feel free to post your objections to NIST's METHODOLOGY.
Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology
The reference to your quote-mined and utterly debunked Kevin Ryan has nothing to do with METHODOLOGY. So please get back to the topic. Methodology. |
How strange!
It seems to me that choosing a set of methods, practices or set of procedures that bend facts to fit a pre-conceived and determined outcome would be termed a 'methodology'.
LOL at the casual throwaway of the 'utterly debunked Kevin Ryan', and that's it. But then, that is about your level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Citing the definition and then re-claiming that your off-topic gibberish is relevant doesn't change the issues. Do you have nothing useful to say about NIST's methodolgy, then? I didn't think so.
Kevin Ryan has been thoroughly debunked on numerous occasions. You have no reason to be ignorant of it, so I must conclude you are just lying.
There is no evidence from NIST or UL that the steel was tested for temperature. US steel isn't tested or certified for temperature. UL tests the assemblies, not steel. This is well documented in the NIST report, and there is no evidence that it is wrong.
If you want to talk about it in more depth, start a new thread for it. I'd like you stick on-topic about NIST's methodology and why you find it non-credible. (Cue chek repeating his off-topic gibberish and claiming it is relevant, again. More proof he has utterly no idea what "methodology" is and just wants a science-y word to make his gibberish sound more accurate.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
