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

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Attention Anti-Sophist!
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

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

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: Attention Anti-Sophist!

Quote:

Find me an unanswered question, and I'll call for an investigation with you.

That's what you said in this thread:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5088&start=0

But you haven't given me an evidence based, non-speculative answer as to what Norman Mineta was talking about in his testimony. Also Chek raised a very good point about

Quote:

After that I'd want to know why the White House leaned on the EPA to play down the environmental hazard to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of residents and employees in the area, and how they intend to compensate present and future victims of those decisions.

And there's probably others. In fact, there's loads of unanswered questions regarding 911

It's not my fault you failed to differentiate between "unanswered questions" and "unequivocal evidence for an inside job"

C'mon, man - where are the answers?!

You've always struck me as a decent type, so I wouldn't dream you'd go back on your word.
So what about these answers...

...I really just want to know when you're going to hit the streets with your whopping great "Re-Open 911" banner.

Laughing

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject:

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question I asked Anti-Sophist in the "Improbable Collapse" thread reference the Masters degree in Engineering he claims to hold. He/She'll know what I'm on about. So far, this has been as allusive as every other piece of evidence he/she hides behind. It would appear that all shills are alike. All mouth, no substance.

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question I asked Anti-Sophist in the "Improbable Collapse" thread reference the Masters degree in Engineering he claims to hold. He/She'll know what I'm on about.

So far, this has been as allusive as every other piece of evidence he/she hides behind. It would appear that all shills are alike. All mouth, no substance.

Oh the irony!

Trooth Moonbattery at it's finest!
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

James C wrote:

Oh the irony!

Trooth Moonbattery at it's finest!
-z

Nice to see you're back in gainful employment Jay Ref.
Don't go drinkin' it all again now y'hear?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

And how much do you think the US govt. should spend to investigate this?

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

Oh the irony!

I don't understand. This line taken from Wikipedia attempts to define the broad concept behind the word 'irony'.

"All the different senses of irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity, or a gap, between an understanding of reality, or expectation of a reality, and what actually happens."

Since you and the other shills never offer any proof to back up what you say which tallies with my view that what you say is utter * then there is no incongruity here and therefore my words cannot be classed as being ironic.

The fact that you feel it necessary to reply to my post which is directed towards another forum member shows that you really are quite self-obsessed. So shut up and p%ss off. This has nothing to do with you.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

wobbler wrote:

Quote:

Find me an unanswered question, and I'll call for an investigation with you.

Quote:

I don't think there's too much disagreement on the argument that the Bush administration dropped the ball in its handling of the environmental aspects of 9/11. This is not too surprising given the fact that its view on environmental issues seems based more on wishful thinking than on science.

However, this is a long way from saying that the administration planned and executed the terrorist attacks, just that it responded to it badly in this instance.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

And how much do you think the US govt. should spend to investigate this?

The same goes for you fluffy-owl. This has nothing to do with you.

US Govt. - spending money - investigation! What the hell are you on about?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Since you and the other shills never offer any proof that I would accept to back up what you say which tallies with my view that what you say is utter * then there is no incongruity here and therefore my words cannot be classed as being ironic.

I fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:40 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

And how much do you think the US govt. should spend to investigate this?

The same goes for you fluffy-owl. This has nothing to do with you.

US Govt. - spending money - investigation! What the hell are you on about?

Are YOU offering to pay for it?

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

aggle-rithm wrote:

wobbler wrote:

Quote:

Find me an unanswered question, and I'll call for an investigation with you.

Quote:

From another, less charitable perspective, it could also illustrate yet again what a callous bunch of murderous swine they are when it comes to looking after or promoting their perceived interests.
Or do you and the collective make excuses for that too?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

chek wrote:

I could see how someone who believes they are mass murderers would have this perspective. I'm not surprised that it isn't very charitable. I just question the belief.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

wobbler wrote:

But you haven't given me an evidence based, non-speculative answer as to what Norman Mineta was talking about in his testimony. Also Chek raised a very good point about

Is there something specific you'd like to discuss about Mr. Mineta? I'd prefer you to point out specifically what you want me to talk about so you aren't moving the goalposts later. I'm fairly certain you are talking about the common CT gibberish, so feel free to get specific.

Quote:

I'd like to see the source on this, first.

Quote:

I answered your idiotic question, and I'll do it again. I promise you that doubting my credentials is a road you don't want to go down. Why? Because it's very easy for me to prove it. Making falsifiable statements is not what CTers are good at.. stick with the unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

Anti-sophist wrote:

I promise you that doubting my credentials is a road you don't want to go down. Why? Because it's very easy for me to prove it.

So why don't you prove yourself if it is so easy?

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:56 am Post subject:

Quote:

s there something specific you'd like to discuss about Mr. Mineta? I'd prefer you to point out specifically what you want me to talk about so you aren't moving the goalposts later. I'm fairly certain you are talking about the common CT gibberish, so feel free to get specific.

I don't intend to move any goalposts at all.

Quote:

"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And--"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Vs7KNlpXU

I simply want answers to:
What dastardly Dick's orders were, what for and why
Why the commission failed to account for/explain this testimony in the report

I assume the "CT gibberish" you refer to is the idea he was giving a 'stand down' order. He could have been doing this, he could also have been doing several other things - I don't have my own conclusion here. I want an actual proper answer. We can speculate all day - I can think of loads of 'possibilities'.

However, Mineta AFAIK has no reason to give false testimony, is not AFAIK a 'conspiracy theorist', dirty Dick was in a command position, was apparently giving orders about an approaching aircraft, knew that the twin towers had been hit by aircraft and then flight 77 went on to hit the pentagon, killing a number of people in the building (and of course the passengers, but by this point they were doomed whatever)

There remains the possibility that Captain Halliburton seriously screwed up and could have saved lives by ordering a precautionary trot to the 'duck'n'cover' zones the pentagon presumably has (he was cosy in a nice bunker by this point). Were they tracking flight 77 as it headed towards a very obvious target? Yeah it was pretty high up before the 'controversial manoeuvre', but err on the side of caution perhaps? Did he fail to give a shoot down order? Did he leave it too late? Did he fail to live up to his great responsibilities? Could have been anything. As far as my knowledge goes, it could have been anything from a brutal, let's-start-a-war stand down order to a wet your pants I don't know what to do panic to a don't worry boys and girls we're doing all we can in a bad situation bloke doing a decent job in a bad situation gig (which I find least plausible, but then I hate the guy).

See, little Dicky should be held accountable for his orders. Given the equally mysterious (I'd like an answer on this, too) behaviour of George 'goat boy' Bush (I stayed in the classroom so as not to scare the kids/to exude an air of powerful authority - as I read a kds book - pathetic justifications) , it appears that if we assume the CT is false, there is a realistic possibility your leaders were utterly inept in a national crisis. Maybe it's me, but I'd find that significant.

Anyway, I'm speculating. I want a proper answer. So, yeah, I want:

What dastardly Dick's orders were, what for and why.
Why the commission failed to account for/explain this testimony in the report.

If you can't answer that - banner time!

I don't know who you are or what you look like, but the idea of you with a "Re-Open" 911 banner just really tickles me!

Laughing

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

chek
Mega Poster

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

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

scubadiver wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

I promise you that doubting my credentials is a road you don't want to go down. Why? Because it's very easy for me to prove it.

So why don't you prove yourself if it is so easy?

I was wondering that too - how some nobody guy on the internet with nothing but a vaguely (but laughably!) threatening 'big intellectual' schtick proves "anything" of the sort.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

chek wrote:

scubadiver wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

I promise you that doubting my credentials is a road you don't want to go down. Why? Because it's very easy for me to prove it.

So why don't you prove yourself if it is so easy?

I was wondering that too - how some nobody guy on the internet with nothing but a vaguely (but laughably!) threatening 'big intellectual' schtick proves "anything" of the sort.

I don't understand why you guys even care about credentials? Are you threatened by my Master's Degree? Are you actually banking on me lying because it scares you? Are you worried that it's true? Why are you so interested?

I could scan my diploma and show you, but you'd still deny it was true. I could bury you in mathematical equations that only a grad student woudl know, but math scares you people. I could read you the names of the textbooks and authors sitting on the desk next to me, but what would that prove? If I did all that, would you believe me? Would it change anything? Would knowing that I actually have a Master's degree make you people understand simple physics and logic any better? I doubt it.

It's easy for me to start using mathematics that none of you would understand. What does that "prove"? Other than the fact that I know alot more math than you guys. What does it change? You guys think math is "disinfo" to confuse the issue.

Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Anti-Sophist wrote:

You are absolutely right. I must apologize, you did reply to my question but only to tell me what that degree was. You still haven't told me what relevance it has to your assertion that you are an expert in building behaviour subject to fire and structural damage.

Just to remind you.... here was your answer.

Anti-Sophist wrote:

My master's thesis was in digital signal processing. It was about the Wavelet Transform and it's usefulness in Computer Vision.

To which my stern reply is, so what!

Are we talking continuous, discrete or complex wavelets here? And what happens if I start to doubt you on this, will it be like opening the Ark of the Covenant where upon ghouls and spirits will be unleashed to hunt me down and spank me. Oooooh....I'm so scared!

Tell me what falsifiable statement I have made?

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

I'm sorry did I say was an expert in building or structural damage?

Quote:

Are we talking continuous, discrete or complex wavelets here?

Did you look that up? That's a cute question. Complex wavelets are marginally useful in some 2d applications because they have better rotional invariance properities, but they are rarely used. Continious wavelets... well.. I do _digital_ signal processing so there is no such thing as a continious waveform. That leaves the discrete wavelet transform. More specifically, I used overcomplete discrete wavelet transforms for better shift invariance.

Quote:

And what happens if I start to doubt you on this

Who cares? Even if I walk to your house with my diploma, my papers, and a picture of me at graduation, what will it change?

Quote:

Tell me what falsifiable statement I have made?

You haven't made any. That's why you operate in psuedo-science. I don't think you understand what falsifiable means.

Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

Anti-sophist wrote:

chek wrote:

scubadiver wrote:

Anti-sophist wrote:

I promise you that doubting my credentials is a road you don't want to go down. Why? Because it's very easy for me to prove it.

So why don't you prove yourself if it is so easy?

I was wondering that too - how some nobody guy on the internet with nothing but a vaguely (but laughably!) threatening 'big intellectual' schtick proves "anything" of the sort.

I could say the same thing with respect to my architectural qualifications. That hasn't changed the fact that you think I'm just bullshitting though. So what are you trying to say other than to continue your constant bs you seem so good at.

As I've said before. maths can be used to prove anything, but it's the initial concepts and data which are important. If you are not truthful with all the data then how can the maths be useful? Perhaps you should ask NIST about that.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Anti-Sophist wrote:

I'm sorry did I say was an expert in building or structural damage?

Here, I believe, during our discussion about how the twin towers collapsed in which you assumed the role of structural expert based only upon NIST's analysis.... http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4805&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=360

James C wrote:

What credentials do you have to back up your claims?

Anti-Sophist wrote:

Few except my master's degree in Engineering. NISTs, however, are quite impressive.

Can your wavelets help you now?

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

James C wrote:

As I've said before. maths can be used to prove anything, but it's the initial concepts and data which are important. If you are not truthful with all the data then how can the maths be useful? Perhaps you should ask NIST about that.

Refresh my memory: What initial assumptions did NIST make that were faulty? I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself; I just want to be clear on this.

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

What credentials do you have to back up your claims?

Anti-Sophist wrote:

Few except my master's degree in Engineering. NISTs, however, are quite impressive.

Again, as I've stated repeatedly, I am not an expert on structural engineering. The extent of my credientials regarding a building collapse is a master's degree in another engineering discipline. I'm acquainted with many of the simpler aspects of structural and material engineering (finite elemenet analysis, for instance), but I am not an expert.

My "wavelets" don't make me an expert. My education does teach me the necessary mathematics and physics to debunk about 99.99% of conspiracy theorist garbage.

I even said it. I said I had "few" credentials (and then I emphasized that by saying "however" before telling you how formidable NISTs were).

This comes back to _you_ criticizing NIST based on your ignorance, and then claiming I can't debunk _you_ because I'm not an expert. That's gibberish. If that logic was actually valid, then _you_ couldn't criticize NIST because _you_ aren't an expert.

Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

James C wrote:

Feel free to apologize, again, for accusing me of saying things I haven't said. That or find where I question your credentials. In my world, credentials are a nice shortcut, but analysis is what matters. Your analysis speaks to your competence far more than you credentials do.

Quote:

Yes, aggle's question on this seems quite apt. Where did NIST screw up?

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I simply want answers to:
What dastardly Dick's orders were, what for and why
Why the commission failed to account for/explain this testimony in the report

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60315&highlight=mineta

The "testimony" isn't very useful because Mineta is claiming that the military knew about things 50 minutes before impact. The FAA notified the military 13 minutes before impact. Under close scrutiny, the timelines in the quote you gave doesn't match reality.

Once you've finished reading this thread above, we can go into more detail about what questions you have. One that I don't believe is entirely answered is what Cheney's orders were.. mostly because it's unclear when the orders were given (if i recall correctly, bush, through cheney, did authorize a shootdown, after the attacks had already ended -- i'll have to check that).

Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject:

wobbler wrote:

Given the equally mysterious (I'd like an answer on this, too) behaviour of George 'goat boy' Bush (I stayed in the classroom so as not to scare the kids/to exude an air of powerful authority - as I read a kds book - pathetic justifications) , it appears that if we assume the CT is false, there is a realistic possibility your leaders were utterly inept in a national crisis. Maybe it's me, but I'd find that significant.

I would have thought it all too obvious that Bush cannot think on his feet, look at him lost for words when he is asked a question he does not expect during an interview. He has not the faintest idea what to do in a crisis, the "not to scare the kids" justification is total hogwash thought up later in an attempt to justify his paralysis. "Inept" hardly begins to cover it.

But this surely goes to prove he had no foreknowledge. If he had known what was going to happen he could have scripted a heroic role for himself, dramatic pictures of the Secret Service rushing him out of the school, a dash back to the White House, a strong leader risking further attacks to take command of a nation at war. Instead he looked like a man quite out of his depth in a crisis, a total idiot with no idea what to do, and when he finally reacted he rushed from one airbase to another like a frightened rabbit. Even he must have realised what a pathetic figure he appeared. There was no reason for him to do that if he knew in advance what was happening.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

Refresh my memory: What initial assumptions did NIST make that were faulty? I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself; I just want to be clear on this.

This is what NIST states:

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

So what are the flashes seen above the 82nd floor of WTC2 in this clip?

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collap se.mpeg

Look carefully now, especially at the nearside corner at the point level with the base of the smoke on the north tower! Looks to me like the building only starts to collapse when these flashes appear. I hope they didn't just ignore these!

Please explain what these flashes are. Forget your own credentials. Forget what NIST says. Think for yourself and be honest. What are these flashes and subsequent flying debris?

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

James C wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

Refresh my memory: What initial assumptions did NIST make that were faulty? I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself; I just want to be clear on this.

You said "nearside", I assume you mean the bright-spot all the way on the right?

chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Attention Anti-Sophist!

James C wrote:

aggle-rithm wrote:

James C wrote:

Refresh my memory: What initial assumptions did NIST make that were faulty? I apologize if I'm asking you to repeat yourself; I just want to be clear on this.

Do you have the uncompressed version of this video?

Are any of these flashes corroborated by other footage (that is, can you match them flash for flash on more than one video)? Unless you can do this, NIST's statement is accurate.
_________________
"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

Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster

Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:

There are flashes seen all over the place in the collapse debris as it goes toward the bottom of the screen. This is entirely reflections of falling glass/metal/etc. There are also "bright spots" right at the collapse region, which are almost certainly just fires being fed alot of oxygen as air starts to rush out from the collapse. Last edited by Anti-sophist on Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

Display posts from previous:

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

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