Docker's OKC Bombing Conspiracy Thread

Whilest you're waiting, you may want to answer some of the questions in this thread, which you appear to have abandoned.

Why do you keep ignoring this request?
 
Docker said:
well it wouldn't be the first time i'd been lied to today.
Click to expand...

So you realized when she told you "size doesn't matter" and "don't worry it happens to everyone" she was lying?

Sorry couldn't resist the urge. :D
 
Docker said:
We shall see. I notice you didn't dispute he has a technique.
Click to expand...


He has MANY clever techniques. Many of them relate to his critical thinking skills. For more demonstrations of his exceptional techniques, drop by GZ on a Saturday.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
So at least you admitted I have presented evidence worthy of study. Gravy claims I never has.
Click to expand...
Have. You were challenged by Gravy to enter a discussion, you responded by submitting a link to what you claim is evidence, so of course he has to study that evidence. Whether he finds it worthy remains to be seen.

He has a very clever technique that man. But these people always meet their match
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but quite frankly I don't think you are it.

Hans
 
Docker said:
Face it. hes bottled it. He can't produce the goods when real evidence confronts him.
Click to expand...
Docker, the purpose of "debunking" is not to be able to type "pwned," but to educate. Are you here to learn?

If so, great. I'll help you, but I won't do all the work for you. You must be involved in your education. Let's begin:

How large was the OKC ANFO bomb compared to the Eglin Tritonal test bomb?
1) Half as large
2) About the same size
3) One-third larger
4) Twice as large
5) The OKC bomb was a MOAB
6) All bombs on Planet X are the same size.

Correct! A great start!

When we double the size of an explosive charge, what should we expect to happen to its blast effect?
1) It will be twice as strong.
2) It will be 2.5x stronger
3) It will be 4x stronger
4) It will be 8x stronger
5) On Planet X, all explosions are the same size

Compared to the Eglin test blast, the OKC explosive was
1) Twice as far from the Murrah building
2) About the same distance from the Murrah building
3) 50% closer to the Murrah building
4) Twice as close to the Murrah building
5) On Planet X, such measurements aren't possible, for personal reasons

As distance from the center of a blast increases, blast overpressure
1) Increases with the square of the distance
2) Decreases with the square of the distance
3) On Planet X, there are no squares

The visible damage to the Murrah building was because
1) The blast blew the front of the building to kingdom come
2) The blast damaged structural elements, resulting in progressive collapse
3) On Planet X, "Murrah" is unpronounceable

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Fill in the blank: A recording device in the vicinity of the OKC explosion detected a brief, loud noise, followed about 2 seconds later by another loud noise. What was the duration of the second noise? _______________
(On Planet X, fill in this blank: | )
 
qarnos said:
Whilest you're waiting, you may want to answer some of the questions in this thread, which you appear to have abandoned.

Why do you keep ignoring this request?
Click to expand...


Why, because in his mind we are at his beck and call, not the other way around.
 
Docker said:
Names please.

I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research.

So what did these informal (made up) phone calls reveal?
Click to expand...

I was not planning on using it as the basis for a formal paper, it was for "my own curiosity." As I wrote most are friends of mine from college, and do not need or want their names published here. I also called the OKC office of the BATF (which if you read the other thread you can see the results).

You keep refering to it as "My evidence," and I was just asking if you did the research yourself or if you only read a website and are now representing it as research that you yourself conducted.

I notice you claim "I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research."
Yet you expect.

I stick by the christmas thing. But do you think by christmas he can become a leading expert in munitions?
Click to expand...

Why the double-standard?

BTW I expect an apology for assuming and writing that I'm lying.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Have. You were challenged by Gravy to enter a discussion, you responded by submitting a link to what you claim is evidence, so of course he has to study that evidence. Whether he finds it worthy remains to be seen.


Perhaps so, but quite frankly I don't think you are it.

Hans
Click to expand...

Whether he feels its worthy? This evidence has been looked at by experts. Who is gravy to reject their claims?
 
CptColumbo said:
I was not planning on using it as the basis for a formal paper, it was for "my own curiosity." As I wrote most are friends of mine from college, and do not need or want their names published here. I also called the OKC office of the BATF (which if you read the other thread you can see the results).

You keep refering to it as "My evidence," and I was just asking if you did the research yourself or if you only read a website and are now representing it as research that you yourself conducted.

I notice you claim "I am not an explosives expert and the have alreadt got these results so how am I qualified for original research."
Yet you expect.



Why the double-standard?

BTW I expect an apology for assuming and writing that I'm lying.
Click to expand...

No double standard. I have presented the evidence compiled by experts, how is he going to refute this unless he becomes an expert?
 
Gravy said:
Docker, the purpose of "debunking" is not to be able to type "pwned," but to educate. Are you here to learn?

If so, great. I'll help you, but I won't do all the work for you. You must be involved in your education. Let's begin:

How large was the OKC ANFO bomb compared to the Eglin Tritonal test bomb?
1) Half as large
2) About the same size
3) One-third larger
4) Twice as large
5) The OKC bomb was a MOAB
6) All bombs on Planet X are the same size.

Correct! A great start!

When we double the size of an explosive charge, what should we expect to happen to its blast effect?
1) It will be twice as strong.
2) It will be 2.5x stronger
3) It will be 4x stronger
4) It will be 8x stronger
5) On Planet X, all explosions are the same size

Compared to the Eglin test blast, the OKC explosive was
1) Twice as far from the Murrah building
2) About the same distance from the Murrah building
3) 50% closer to the Murrah building
4) Twice as close to the Murrah building
5) On Planet X, such measurements aren't possible, for personal reasons

As distance from the center of a blast increases, blast overpressure
1) Increases with the square of the distance
2) Decreases with the square of the distance
3) On Planet X, there are no squares

The visible damage to the Murrah building was because
1) The blast blew the front of the building to kingdom come
2) The blast damaged structural elements, resulting in progressive collapse
3) On Planet X, "Murrah" is unpronounceable

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities

Fill in the blank: A recording device in the vicinity of the OKC explosion detected a brief, loud noise, followed about 2 seconds later by another loud noise. What was the duration of the second noise? _______________
(On Planet X, fill in this blank: | )
Click to expand...

Just show how this evidence from experts is invalid or admit you cant. You said this thread was opened for me to present evidence, not take quizzes designed to sidestep the issues.

Please tell us your expertise which allows you refute all the experts comments cited in my evidence. Do this or close the thread.
 
Docker said:
Just show how this evidence from experts is invalid or admit you cant. You said this thread was opened for me to present evidence, not take quizzes designed to sidestep the issues.

Please tell us your expertise which allows you refute all the experts comments cited in my evidence. Do this or close the thread.
Click to expand...


Funny how they get in such a huffy if anyone ever dares suggest they behave or respond a certain way, yet they don't hesitate to issue orders like a regular dictator.

-Gumboot
 
This is gravys idea of a serious debate:

"The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities"

I think that says it all.

He started a new thread for this? If he ever feels like refuting the evidence of numerous experts I will be here waiting.
 
Docker said:
This is gravys idea of a serious debate:

"The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities"

I think that says it all.

He started a new thread for this? If he ever feels like refuting the evidence of numerous experts I will be here waiting.
Click to expand...

Why not just answer the damned questions instead on making bull**** excuses and skirting around the issue? :mad:
 
Docker said:
This is gravys idea of a serious debate:

"The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities"

I think that says it all.

He started a new thread for this? If he ever feels like refuting the evidence of numerous experts I will be here waiting.
Click to expand...

Care to answer the question, Docker? It's the easiest one!
 
Docker said:
Just show how this evidence from experts is invalid or admit you cant. You said this thread was opened for me to present evidence, not take quizzes designed to sidestep the issues.

Please tell us your expertise which allows you refute all the experts comments cited in my evidence. Do this or close the thread.
Click to expand...
You see, Docker, I use the facts gathered by those who actually studied the event. Shall we proceed? If you're not actually interested in learning about these things, just say so.
 
Gravy said:
You see, Docker, I use the facts gathered by those who actually studied the event. Shall we proceed? If you're not actually interested in learning about these things, just say so.
Click to expand...

So you don't intend to refute the evidence. At least we know.
 
Docker said:
So you don't intend to refute the evidence. At least we know.
Click to expand...

So you don't intend to demonstrate you have even the slightest clue about what you are talking about. At least we know.
 
Docker said:
So you don't intend to refute the evidence. At least we know.
Click to expand...
Sure I do. But your participation is required. This is about learning, not winning, agreed? Then please answer the questions. Take as much time as you need. Start with the easy one and work up if you want.
 
Gravy said:
Sure I do. But your participation is required. This is about learning, not winning, agreed? Then please answer the questions. Take as much time as you need. Start with the easy one and work up if you want.
Click to expand...

Look either present a summary of why my sources are incorrect and unreliable or close the thread. Its not about winning or learning. You opened a thread to refute my evidence. The stage is yours.
 
Docker said:
Look either present a summary of why my sources are incorrect and unreliable or close the thread. Its not about winning or learning. You opened a thread to refute my evidence. The stage is yours.
Click to expand...
A summary? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities
 
Gravy said:
A summary? Are you kidding? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities
Click to expand...

I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.
 
Docker said:
I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.
Click to expand...

Very poor.

One might almost suspect that you don't understand your evidence and cannot, therefore, defend it.

It really was a case of my expert is bigger than your expert wasn't it?
 
Docker said:
I have a crossword puzzle book for that kind of idle time wasting. I want your facts gravy. If you dont have any I understand. I am not taking quizzes, I regret answering the first question but you will notice I got it right. I know all about this issue and do not need to be tested.

Demonstrate that you can refute the experts in my evidence or close the thread. If you only started the thread for this quiz nonsense then close it immediately.
Click to expand...
Do I really need to remind you that I refuted your claim about the very first fact in the first link I clicked on?

We're working on the next. If you cannot answer the questions, just say so.

Anyone can post links and walk away. I care that you know what's in them, and why they're wrong. Do you?
 
uk_dave said:
Very poor.

One might almost suspect that you don't understand your evidence and cannot, therefore, defend it.

It really was a case of my expert is bigger than your expert wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Would you care to refute it, since gravy cant?
 
Gravy said:
A summary? What are you going to learn by that? You'll just say, "Gravy is wrong. My experts are right."

Nope. Not playing that game. I'm addressing specific claims, one by one, to show you why you and your sources are wrong. Why? Because this is about learning.

My questions directly address specifics in the evidence you've presented. Take all the time you need. Start with the easy one if you want:

The vast majority of the people who died in the Murrah building were killed by
1) Events that happened after the blast
2) The blast, Einstein
3) On Planet X, there are no majorities
Click to expand...

Come on, Gravy, answering that question would require a few minutes of research!

Docker is a very busy guy - that's why he needs everybody else to do the research for him.

Warning: :hb: ahead.
 
Docker said:
Whether he feels its worthy? This evidence has been looked at by experts. Who is gravy to reject their claims?
Click to expand...
He is your opponent in this debate. You know, normally a debate goes like this:

Debater #1 makes a claim, providing evidence. In this case, debater #2 had to challenge you first.

Debater #2 refutes the evidence.

Debater #1 Defends the evidence or provides new evidence.

....etc

I now see that Gravy has taken the educational course and is trying to make you understand your own evidence. In the circumstances I find that commendable, although I must admit that I wouldn't have had such patience meself.

I can only suggest you play along and pay careful attention because you are otherwise in serious risk of looking ridiculous. Just friendly advice ;) .

Hans
 
Gravy said:
Do I really need to remind you that I refuted your claim about the very first fact in the first link I clicked on? We're working on the next. If you cannot answer the questions, just say so.
Click to expand...

You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.

Refute things like this:

"Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering of Arlington, Texas,after examining the EBES, concluded: “The Murrah Building wouldstill be standing and the upper floors would be intact had the truckloaded with explosives been the only culprit.” Moreover, Frias, apracticing engineer for over 40 years and a registered engineer inTexas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, stated: “Explosives had to havebeen placed near, or on, the structural columns inside the building tocause the collapse that occurred to the Murrah Building.”"

or stand down.
 
MRC_Hans said:
He is your opponent in this debate. You know, normally a debate goes like this:

Debater #1 makes a claim, providing evidence. In this case, debater #2 had to challenge you first.

Debater #2 refutes the evidence.

Debater #1 Defends the evidence or provides new evidence.

....etc

I now see that Gravy has taken the educational course and is trying to make you understand your own evidence. In the circumstances I find that commendable, although I must admit that I wouldn't have had such patience meself.

I can only suggest you play along and pay careful attention because you are otherwise in serious risk of looking ridiculous. Just friendly advice ;) .

Hans
Click to expand...

Exactly. All gravy wants is to catch me out. I'm not playing those games. If he can't refute it that's fine.
 
Docker said:
You did not refute it. You mentioned that the bomb was smaller but forgot to mention that in reality it wasn't when taking into account the amateur nature of the truck bomb.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?
 
Gravy said:
Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?
 
Gravy said:
Absolutely false. And that's the next point we're working on, which we'd be done with, had you simply answered the questions to the best of your ability.

This is about learning, agreed? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Just tell me why it's false. Surely thats quicker than me answering questions in between.
 
Docker said:
No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?
Click to expand...

Man, I'd never thought I'd see flop-sweaat typed out on the internet.

Why don't you just answer the questions? They are simple, not misleading, and none of them are false dichotomies. Just answer them.
 
Docker said:
Exactly. All gravy wants is to catch me out. I'm not playing those games. If he can't refute it that's fine.
Click to expand...
Mmm, well to each his own, but by that attitude you ARE exactly being caught out. You see, the rest of us can easily see where Gravy's quiz is leading.

Don't you get it? You are caught out right now, and your choice now is to stay out or try and fight your way in. In that process you may very likely debunk your own evidence. In chess it would be called a gambit. I almost feel sorry for you, except I guess you are reaping what you sowed.

Hans
 
Docker said:
No. Its about you challenging me to present evidence, which I have. If you can't deal with that evidence then fair enough.

Could I ask what your expertise in this field is?
Click to expand...

This is not about learning? Docker, in your 500+ posts in two days you've given NO indication that you understand any of the issues that you so vehemently post about.

You've done nothing but jump from issue to issue, running from any difficult questions, and absolutely refusing to confront the evidence that's presented to you.

I will not play that game. If you want to have a discussion about the Oklahoma City bombing, you're going to have to show that you're willing to participate and learn.

Anyone can post links. I could have simply posted a bunch of links in response to yours. That doesn't make for much of a discussion forum, does it?

Learning is a process. I've been through all this OKC stuff before. You clearly haven't. I'm glad to help you to understand why your claim is wrong. Will you participate in this process? It will require work on your part. Yes or no?
 
Gravy said:
You've done nothing but jump from issue to issue, running from any difficult questions, and absolutely refusing to confront the evidence that's presented to you.
Click to expand...

This describes your stance.

When did I claim to be a bomb expert? You admit your not an engineer, yet you constantly cite a body of experts when you defend the collapse of wtc.

Please present your expertise and/or evidence that refutes this body of experts. If you cannot then I will respectfully leave the evidence here for someone else to have a crack at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom