ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , wtc

Reply
Old 28th May 2011, 12:38 PM   #1201
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Grizzly, use your words and answer the question.

Two simple, coherent sentences will suffice.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 12:43 PM   #1202
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,793
I gave you a number, and links to support it. Either rid yourself of the link-phobia or drop it.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 28th May 2011 at 12:45 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 12:47 PM   #1203
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 01:16 PM   #1204
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...acks#Survivors
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/
http://cnettv.cnet.com/wtc-collapse-...-50044830.html

You, of course, are going to claim that since they didn't specifically say they did not hear loud explosions, that there were explosions.

That would ignore the fact that demo charges can cause hearing damage at a half-mile, open air. An enclosed space like a stairwell would leave the survivors struck deaf, temporarily or permanently.

Please present evidence that they were struck deaf.

Someone more knowledgeable than me can do the math on how loud it would be, exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...acks#Survivors
Quote:
Bone fragments were still being found in 2006 as workers prepared the damaged Deutsche Bank Building for demolition.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 01:45 PM   #1205
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,689
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
He did. In post #1191.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...77#post7230077

Wow.......Do you look stupid!


__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 02:14 PM   #1206
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Grizzly, use your words and answer the question.

Two simple, coherent sentences will suffice.
Why? Do you want your opponents to make unsupported statements without links? Trying to drag us all down to your level?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
In other words, you will ignore the links we've presented.

Would you like me to send you the relevant issue number of NY Mag by, I dunno, carrier pigeon? Telegraph? Pony express? Because I don't think they were trans-Atlantic. Because this is the Internet. If you want to send someone to a certain resource, you give them a link. Refusing to open links from your opponents, or even to Google the information, is so intellectually dishonest it borders on insane.

So, why do you not open links from debunkers? I am honestly trying to understand your logic here. Are you worried we'll trick you in some fashion?

Last edited by 000063; 28th May 2011 at 02:19 PM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 02:16 PM   #1207
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Quote:
After the collapse of the towers, only 23 survivors who were in or below the towers escaped from the debris, including 15 rescue workers.
8/10. Excellent point-missing. I mean, I know you're a troll, and I'm still raging.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 03:53 PM   #1208
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
I doubt if being omniscient would get a payout.
You wouldn't need one.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 03:54 PM   #1209
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
I'm omniscient.
God is that you?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 03:59 PM   #1210
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Beachnut, how many survivors were in the cores. during the collapses. and lived to declare that there were no explosions?
All of them.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 04:22 PM   #1211
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
All of them.
Only a truther would think that were dead survivors. Funny.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 08:48 PM   #1212
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Would you like me to send you the relevant issue number of NY Mag by, I dunno, carrier pigeon? Telegraph? Pony express?
No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question. Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance.

In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 08:56 PM   #1213
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 09:08 PM   #1214
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=621
Like this one? You are far ahead on SACs; I would say you win, moon down, mountain high.


Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Beachnut, how many survivors were in the cores. during the collapses. and lived to declare that there were no explosions?
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
All of them.
Yes, all of them is correct. No explosives. Explosives kill people.

Last edited by beachnut; 28th May 2011 at 09:12 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 09:13 PM   #1215
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
It's funny that you keep posting that link.

Have you modeled your moonful of rubble yet, bedunkers?

No? How come?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 09:28 PM   #1216
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It's funny that you keep posting that link.

Have you modeled your moonful of rubble yet, bedunkers?

No? How come?
I did model the moon-full of rubble. Normal collapse takes 12.08 seconds based on a simple momentum model. Your moon-full of rubble takes 8.6 seconds to collapse the WTC from the impact floors. Sorry 911 truth can't do physics to help you. BTW, placing the weight of the moon on the WTC damaged floors would cause instant failure and a collapse very close to "free-fall". Got physics? 911 truth doesn't.

You peaked with that post. It is a great post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=621
You should be proud of your post, you are a winner. A whole moon worth of ruble can't destroy your claims.

Last edited by beachnut; 28th May 2011 at 09:37 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 10:52 PM   #1217
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,102
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question. Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance.

In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
That's why, if you're going to make silly-ass claims, you need to be able to explain them, i.e., back them up, in your own words, so we can hold you to some standard of factuality. Most of you don't.
Damn. Another broken irony meter.
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2011, 11:03 PM   #1218
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
And?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 05:27 AM   #1219
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Silly of me to think that bedunkers might actually back up their silly-ass claims.
My irony meter just exploded.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 07:19 AM   #1220
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,793
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question.
The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.

Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it.

One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 29th May 2011 at 07:29 AM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 09:55 AM   #1221
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,102
Originally Posted by ergo View Post

I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question.
Translation from Truther to English: I don't read links that destroy my fantasy.

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.

Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it.

One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them.
As you can see from my translation, this response wasn't really necessary.
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 10:06 AM   #1222
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
All of them.
Is it spamming if i just reply ""?
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 10:14 AM   #1223
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. You can post your links to support what you state. That's how you present credible arguments in written form.
Grizzly did exactly that.

Why do you need full sentences? You asked for a quantity, not a thesis. you're creating an arbitrary and ridiculous standard. If you asked for a number, why won't you accept a number? If I order a cheeseburger at McDonald's, I don't reject it because it didn't come on a serving salver with a Ming plate and silverware. I get my burger wrapped in wax paper, in a brown paper bag.

Quote:
I don't read multiple bedunker links because most of the time the link does not answer the question.
Which you know because you don't read the link.

Wait a second. Something's wrong with that logic.

Quote:
Bedunkers typically present general information (like a link to info on "center of mass") without any reference to the specific topic, nor any explanation or demonstration that the poster has the first clue of its relevance. Oftentimes the link is not even related to the topic. Or it's simply some link to a JREF discussion in which bedunkers think they've won some argument but you can't actually follow any meaningful discussion, or even find posts of any substance.

In other words, most of the time, bedunkers don't even know what the argument is, or don't want to have to answer specifically, so if they find anything to link to, it's usually irrelevant or incomplete.
What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Faustam and blustam" or something like that? "Sturm und drang" isn't quite correct. I'm thinking of something indicating a storm or a strong wind; a lot of air moving, a lot of noise, but not much actually happening.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 10:20 AM   #1224
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
The first link in post 1191 titled part 1 would have given you the stated figures in less than 30 seconds.

Alternatively 000063 provided a direct link to the figure of 14 on wikipedia that requires absolutely no scrolling to find in the post below mine. It truly makes you look dumb when you ask people to answer your questions with supporting details and you then refuse to even look at it.

One more thing... forget them saying specifically there were no explosives, at that range the explosives would have killed them. An explosion is a shockwave traveling at the speed of sound. Ruptured eardrums are the least of their problems; you're looking at blast lung injuries, bowel perforations, hemorrhage, mesenteric shear injuries, solid organ lacerations, total body disruption, etc. In other words their injuries would have told if explosives detonated mere feet from them.
Wow, thanks for doing the math.

#000063bookmark
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 11:17 AM   #1225
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post

What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Faustam and blustam" or something like that? "Sturm und drang" isn't quite correct. I'm thinking of something indicating a storm or a strong wind; a lot of air moving, a lot of noise, but not much actually happening.
If it's HOT air, you can just call it 'pulling an ergo'
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 11:33 AM   #1226
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Grizzly did exactly that.

Why do you need full sentences? You asked for a quantity, not a thesis. you're creating an arbitrary and ridiculous standard. If you asked for a number, why won't you accept a number? If I order a cheeseburger at McDonald's, I don't reject it because it didn't come on a serving salver with a Ming plate and silverware. I get my burger wrapped in wax paper, in a brown paper bag.

Which you know because you don't read the link.

Wait a second. Something's wrong with that logic.

What's the phrase I'm looking for? "Faustam and blustam" or something like that? "Sturm und drang" isn't quite correct. I'm thinking of something indicating a storm or a strong wind; a lot of air moving, a lot of noise, but not much actually happening.
delete

Last edited by tsig; 29th May 2011 at 11:43 AM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 03:18 PM   #1227
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Why do you need full sentences?


If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 03:37 PM   #1228
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.
No one argues that loud noises not were heard while the towers were collapsing. It would have been extraordinary if NO loud noises were heard.

But, there are loud noises and then there are LOUD NOISES. The sounds of large metal structures failing and of objects hitting the ground at high speeds can only move at the speed of sound. The shock wave made by high explosives moves faster than that. It appears on seismographs. It is heard from miles away.

The real test of high explosives wouldn't have been that people right there on the site heard an explosion, but that people a mile away heard it.

(Oh, and if you're arguing that an unprepared building, containing intact walls, furniture, and people, would absorb the sound of high explosives, then that is an easy claim to test. Try it out on a small scale, measure the decibal levels, and get back to us. Unless, of course, you don't WANT to know the truth.)
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Last edited by aggle-rithm; 29th May 2011 at 03:39 PM.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 04:01 PM   #1229
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis
The argument was already stated and you know it. You asked for a number. One was provided. You made up a nonsense standard before you would accept it. I ain't singing, I ain't dancin' to your tune, nossuh.

Quote:
("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.
Speaking of info, I aksed you to provide the amount of them who DID hear explosives. Nope? Nothing? Being in the core during such an explosion would cause serious hearing damage, possibly even death. Assuming none of the survivors were killed (), how many had hearing damage or were injured by the overpressure wave explosives would inevitably cause?

Quote:
Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...acks#Survivors
Quote:
After the collapse of the towers, only 23 survivors who were in or below the towers escaped from the debris, including 15 rescue workers
Ah, so you, for some reason, skipped the first link. Nice to know that, as usual, you work counter-intuitively.

Quote:
Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.
I'm not an Assyrian, and no one else here is gleaming in purple and gold. This isn't English class, and you don't have red-pen privileges. You are not the arbiter of whether the information was presented according to his Imperial Majesty's Standards. It's a debate. As long as the information is presented in a supported and comprehensible form, everything else is just details. You're like a child insisting his sandwich be cut diagonally before he eats it.

Last edited by 000063; 29th May 2011 at 04:05 PM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2011, 04:26 PM   #1230
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.
Cohort-one of the ten divisions in an ancient Roman legion, numbering from 300 to 600 soldiers. Live by your swords,fellow legionnaires!
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 06:16 AM   #1231
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.
ROFLMAO.

Ergo giving writing advice.
Have you figured out into vs onto yet?
Prepositions yet?
Qualifying language yet?
How about essentially vs actually?

Once we get past those stumbling blocks, then maybe you can focus and finish that discussion about how a buildings footprint includes the roof of the building across the street.... still waiting for that one...

Keep it up Stundie.... I mean Ergo...
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 06:22 AM   #1232
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


If your argument is sound, you need only state the thesis ("There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses. _____ of them reported that there were no explosions. _____ said there were explosions. _____ of them did not mention explosions. ")

Then provide the supporting information ("Here are the links with the information:....") Or words to that effect.

Two of your links did not provide this information. I didn't bother with the third.

Just a little lesson in expository writing for you and your cohorts. You're welcome.
ROFLMAO.

Ergo giving writing advice.
Have you figured out into vs onto yet?
Prepositions yet?
Qualifying language yet?
How about essentially vs actually?

Once we get past those stumbling blocks, then maybe you can focus and finish that discussion about how a buildings footprint includes the roof of the building across the street.... still waiting for that one...

Keep it up Stundie.... I mean Ergo...
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 07:23 AM   #1233
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Oh, and I forgot; you're trying to distract us from the fact that none of the people outside the towers had any sort of trauma you would expect from thousands of explosives detonating a few feet away.

http://www.implosionworld.com/news/romania2.htm

That's just a few kilos of boom-boom and it severely damaged nearby houses. Just one tower would've called for tons of explosives.

Bottom line; no trauma within, no trauma without, no eyewitness or audio evidence, no explosives.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 04:49 PM   #1234
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Just one tower would've called for tons of explosives.
Really? I thought collapse was "inevitable".

I love it when bedunkers trip themselves on their own logic.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 04:54 PM   #1235
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Stating things plainly is evidently quite difficult for our bee dunkers. They have to generalize first, then couch the rest in conditions and exceptions.



There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses.

_____ of them reported that there were no explosions.

_____ said there were explosions.

_____ of them did not mention explosions.


I've typed it out for you. All you have to do is fill in the blanks. Can I make it any easier for you without actually doing your research for you? If you can't make a simple, plain statement and back it up with facts, I guess we'll have to assume you don't really have a point on this matter.

Thanks for your participation, though. Better luck next time.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 05:36 PM   #1236
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,793
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I've typed it out for you.
And you've irrationally wasted five minutes of typing, and two days of pretending when 2 seconds of link clicking would have provided you the same answer...


Originally Posted by ergo View Post
All you have to do is fill in the blanks.
In the time you've spent demanding that people repeat answers, you could have gotten your answer in the first link of post 1191 60 times over, or the first link of post 1192 about another 200 times over.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Can I make it any easier for you without actually doing your research for you?
The research is done. Instead of wasting two days pretending it wasn't done you could have verified the information provided in less then 30 seconds.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you can't make a simple, plain statement
What part of
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
14
is so hard to wrap around your pinky?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
and back it up with facts
What part of
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
or

Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Do you not understand to be "supporting our facts?"

I'm trying to understand your logic... you would rather spend

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I guess we'll have to assume you don't really have a point on this matter.
When presented with an answer and supporting links your response was calling every respondent a "beetard" AKA "retard" and pretending your questions were never answered. The only point you have specifically conveyed is that you're willing to mock anyone who disagrees with your 9/11 truth leanings indiscriminate of whether your peers are willing to answer your questions seriously or stoop to your standards of debate etiquette. It's one thing to ignore snark responses that specifically try to ridicule you... It's a completely different matter when you ask a question, have it answered, and then post away pretending it wasn't answered.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thanks for your participation, though. Better luck next time.
Same to you
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 30th May 2011 at 05:41 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 05:40 PM   #1237
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
There were ____ survivors who were in the cores during the collapses.

_____ of them reported that there were no explosions.

_____ said there were explosions.

_____ of them did not mention explosions.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 05:45 PM   #1238
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,793
You will have to live with what was provided to you already regardless of whether you are satisfied or not. If you pretend the information hasn't already been posted then that's you're problem. That's about all that's left to be said at this point.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 30th May 2011 at 05:46 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 05:56 PM   #1239
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
You will have to live with what was provided to you
Nope, I don't.

__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2011, 06:08 PM   #1240
Woody-
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 147
The survivors from the core did not mention there were no explosives, they also didn't mention that there were no UFOs. They also didn't talk about not seeing unicorns nor did the discuss not seeing bigfoot. There is no end to the list of imaginary things that they didn't talk about not seeing.
Woody- is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.