Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

VespaGuy said:
Sure you did. But now that I'm back and you've acknowledged my post, are you willing to admit that you are mistaken?



Evasion noted. Thanks for the laughs Russell. You're a hoot.
Click to expand...

Nice try.

I responded to you.

Claims can be phrased in either the positive or the negative. Claims that are phrased in the negative are called counter-factual claims. “The time is 5 PM” and “the time is not 5 PM” are both claims, and they can both be proven true or false. Both claims state that things are a certain way; in fact, every factual claim implies a counter-factual claim, and every counter-factual claim implies a factual claim. The claim that “the time is 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is not 4:59 PM”; likewise, the claim that “the time is not 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is something other than 5 PM”.

What, then, of the old saw “you can’t prove a negative”? Clearly, plenty of counter-factual claims can be proven; furthermore, there is no distinction between factual and counter-factual claims that renders one phrasing provable and the other phrasing not. If no counter-factual claim could be proven, then no factual could be proven either — and vice-versa! We’ll be able to settle this issue once we’ve distinguished between two fundamental types of logic.
Click to expand...


Twist it however you wish!
 
Russell Pickering said:
Also, even though it was the Bloomberg administration that was responsible for the suppression, I really do consider all government USG.
Click to expand...
Why don't you ask Bloomberg about it?

Michael R Bloomberg
17 E 79th St
New York, NY 10021-0101
212-772-1081

Yes, that is his home address and phone #. From what I hear, he often will answer his phone if he is home. Might be worth a shot...
 
Mince said:
And I'm still waiting for evidence that the explosions eyewitnesses heard were from explosives. Any idea where this evidence can be found? A link or two will do.
Click to expand...

My contention is not that the explosions were caused by explosives. My contention is that Wildcat simply made this fact up, because it sounded better than explosives, then proceeded to attribute that speculation to the NIST report, which contains no such claim.
 
Dazed said:
My contention is not that the explosions were caused by explosives. My contention is that Wildcat simply made this fact up, because it sounded better than explosives, then proceeded to attribute that speculation to the NIST report, which contains no such claim.
Click to expand...
It doesn't? So when the first penthouse collapsed in WTC 7, it just vanished into thin air? The floors under it remained intact?

Glad to see you admit that no FDNY or police personnell claim to have heard or seen bombs going off.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Oh - I thought you read the follow up. First of all, the original suppression was claimed to have been under the advice of federal authorities.

Then I found this:

"Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, ordered the city to release most, but not all, of the records."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/n...45bfd8ba497f9a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

So there are still records not released.
Click to expand...
Russell, that hole you're digging is getting mighty deep.

I did read the follow-up. I also read your link. And your link says what was omitted:

New York Times said:
The city found more success in another line of argument: that release of certain records would violate the privacy of the dead, or cause emotional distress to the living. The Court of Appeals allowed the oral histories to be edited under a limited set of circumstances. It also refused to order the city to release all of the 911 tapes, saying that the callers' voices should not be made public. The other half of the conversations, involving the operators who spoke with the callers, will eventually be made public.
Click to expand...

Gosh, how suspicious.

Russell Pickering said:
Also, even though it was the Bloomberg administration that was responsible for the suppression, I really do consider all government USG.

Lying is a VERY harsh word for possible inaccurate description by your technical standards. Lying requires intent to deceive. This was not the case.

But keep up the accusations and maybe it will work with somebody. OK?
Click to expand...
So you consider the City of New York to be US Government. That's your excuse for your earlier statement?

Fine, let's try it and see if it works. In that case, the link that you provided says that, using your terminology, the "US Government" (actually NYC) intially (but relented, you forgot that part) thought it wise not to release details, so that it wouldn't screw up terrorism trials. But the "US Government" (actually Court of Appeals) also fought to have them released, not only to the 9-11 Commission (in entirety) but also made public (with minor edits as above). You forgot that part of the evil "US Government"'s suppression.

Buddy, that is deception, and you lied. I can't make it any plainer than that.

What is your true agenda here, Russell? Why spread these lies? You don't have the chops for it, since you refuted yourself with your own link. I didn't even have to hunt to catch you.
 
Agreed, I never made, nor implied, the claim that "FDNY or police personnell claim to have heard or seen bombs going off."

I, however, am not glad to see that you have still neglected to source your claim that there were "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse."
 
stateofgrace said:
Oh dear US so you have you resorted to such insults?

Are you now comparing those that don't subscribe to your nonsense as Nazi's?

What you do you think should happen to the majority of sane people who don't subscribe to your nonsense? eliminated?

Tut, tut.
Click to expand...

Please read the thread. This is what US was referring to. It was Gravy who resorted to this.

Gravy said:
I see. Okay, Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi, with 94.5% certainty. I don't have to back that up, because my beliefs don't need to have a basis in reason or fact, and I shouldn't expect anyone on a skeptic's forum to ask me to back up my outrageous claims.

Russell, you have provided no evidence that you aren't a neo-Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll be posting in other threads.
Click to expand...
 
Dazed said:
Agreed, I never made, nor implied, the claim that "FDNY or police personnell claim to have heard or seen bombs going off."
Click to expand...
But you are claiming that the penthouse vanished into thin air, because the floors under it were intact?

Or did the penthouse collapse because the floors under it collapsed, and this was well before the global collapse?
 
Once I again, I am only claiming that you have not properly sourced your statement, and I'm inclined to believe you made it up.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Please read the thread. This is what US was referring to. It was Gravy who resorted to this.
Click to expand...

Russell, I think you missed the point of Gravy's post. In no way is he insinuating you're a Nazi, although it would be easy to pull that out of his post if you're not paying attention or are being deliberatly obtuse. Usual Suspect, on the other hand, straight out called Gravy a Nazi.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Nice try.

I responded to you.



Twist it however you wish!
Click to expand...

Right... I read the link. And I responded in kind. Pages ago. Did you not see this in your link:

"Claims can be phrased in either the positive or the negative. Claims that are phrased in the negative are called counter-factual claims."
Click to expand...

No twisting necessary. It's extremely simple. Claims are positive or they are negative just as your link says.

I'll repeat this one more time...

9/11 is a conspiracy = positive claim = factual claim
9/11 is not a conspiracy = negative claim = counter-factual claim

Does that make sense? This is the second time I've pointed this out to you. Will you agree that the statement "9/11 is not a conspiracy" is NOT a positive claim now?
 
Stephen Gregory -- [SIZE=-1]Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)[/SIZE] We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
 
dirtywick said:
Russell, I think you missed the point of Gravy's post. In no way is he insinuating you're a Nazi, although it would be easy to pull that out of his post if you're not paying attention or are being deliberatly obtuse. Usual Suspect, on the other hand, straight out called Gravy a Nazi.
Click to expand...

You guys are almost the best manipulators I have seen.
 
Gravy: Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi.

Dirtywick: In no way is he insinuating you're a Nazi.

Yes, yes, he's making the point that anyone can make wild claims if they don't have to back them up. He's still insinuating he's a nazi.
 
Last edited:
Dazed said:
I, however, am not glad to see that you have still neglected to source your claim that there were "floors collapsing throughout the building prior to the catastrophic global collapse."
Click to expand...
The floor system may have been further weakened, either along its span or at column connections. The weakened floor system may have pulled the perimeter columns inward (observed on the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2 minutes prior to building collapse) and then initiated connection failures at perimeter or core columns.
Click to expand...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom