|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2006 : 08:44:41 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
but of course you know there IS evidence for explosives being used.
No, there isn't. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't change the very substantial fact that not only is there no evidence for any explosives, but there are several very substantial problems that you would have to overcome prior to even looking for evidence of explosives. I have asked you for a plausible explanation of how those thigns could be accounted for, repeatedly, and you have, repeatedly, refused to respond.
quote:
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
Again, you provided no evidence for the use of explosives, in fact, you repeatedly dodged accounting for things that you must be able to account for in any explanation of the building collapse that involves explosives.
And yes, given the simplicity with wich you can verify the veracity of Dave_W's clearly stated reason for locking the other thread.... what other possible description of you can we use that is more accurate than liar?
You are obviously, demonstrably, and easily proven to be mistaken. The fact that you continue to refuse to admit your errors speaks volumes about your character.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 10/08/2006 12:39:47 |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 09:37:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo123 said:
quote:
but of course you know there IS evidence for explosives being used.
quote:
No, there isn't. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't change the very substantial fact that not only is there no evidence for any explosives, but there are several very substantial problems that you would have to overcome prior to even looking for evidence of explosives. I have asked you for a plausible explanation of how those thigns could be accounted for, repeatedly, and you have, repeatedly, refused to respond.
I have listed it on the other thread, Dude. And I have repeatedly told you it is there. And you repeatedly act as if it isn't. I have also mentioned repeatedly on this site that I am taking a step-by-step approach to the process of determining what is true. I do not want to get into speculations of what would be hard to accomplish or not--because for us to do so would be pure speculation and not helpful to the process. If you can prove to me that the buildings could have totally collapsed due to gravity alone, there will be no need to answer the other questions you pose. Or are you admitting that you can't prove the official conspiracy theory of how the buildings collapsed to be true?
quote:
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
quote:
Again, you provided no evidence for the use of explosives, in fact, you repeatedly dodged accounting for things that you [u]must be able to account for in any explanation of the building collapse that involves explosives.
I'm not trying to prove the buildings were brought down by explosives!!!!! I'm looking for convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true!!!!! So far, you have failed to provide any convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true. Or are you suggesting that the only way you can prove the official conspiracy theory to be true is to prove the towers could not have been brought down by explosives...?
quote:
And yes, given the simplicity with wich you can verify the veracity of Dave_W's clearly stated reason for locking the other thread.... what other possible description of you can we use that is more accurate than liar[b]?
Do you realize Dave's decision to lock the thread was driven first by emotion--like all our decisions are? If you are unaware of this, read DiMassio's "Descartes Error." Dave mentions his rational reason for locking the thread. But the thread had been on its 15th page for a while. It wasn't until he was feeling up against the ropes that he locked it. So I guess until you can prove my theory wrong, we'll have to consider it the probable reason for Dave locking the thread when he did.
quote:
You are obviously, demonstrably, and easily proven to be mistaken. The fact that you continue to refuse to admit your errors speaks volumes about your character.
If it's so obvious, then demonstrate I am mistaken!!
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 09:38:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Not even man enough to admit he was wrong as to why the original thread locked.
What a pathetic joke.
See above.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 09:48:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So I guess until you can prove my theory wrong, we'll have to consider it the probable reason for Dave locking the thread when he did.
Just like until it can be proven 100% that explosives weren't used, then your theory is the most probably true, right?
You are so full of shit. Get a clue. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/08/2006 09:49:06 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 11:15:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
So I guess until you can prove my theory wrong, we'll have to consider it the probable reason for Dave locking the thread when he did.
[quote]Just like until it can be proven 100% that explosives weren't used, then your theory is the most probably true, right?
You are so full of shit. Get a clue.
I've never asked anyone to prove my theory right or wrong. Someone asked me what I believed happened on 9-11-01 and I told them. I never said I had absolute proof of my theory. All I asked for in my first post on this site is for convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true . Maybe you are so fixated on my theory because you have no convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 13:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Do you realize Dave's decision to lock the thread was driven first by emotion--like all our decisions are? If you are unaware of this, read DiMassio's "Descartes Error." Dave mentions his rational reason for locking the thread. But the thread had been on its 15th page for a while. It wasn't until he was feeling up against the ropes that he locked it. So I guess until you can prove my theory wrong, we'll have to consider it the probable reason for Dave locking the thread when he did.
No, I locked the thread when it was about to go to a 16th page (a 226th reply would have done so, 226 being equal to 15 times 15 plus 1 - the OP doesn't count). My locking it because I was "up against the ropes" only makes sense if further discussion of those same points was somehow prohibited, but it's not. Go right ahead. Feel free to start "The Physics of the Collapses, Part 2" (I'll even link the two together for you). If you can point out just where you think you proved me wrong, please do.quote:
If it's so obvious, then demonstrate I am mistaken!!
I just did. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 13:14:06 [Permalink]
|
Ok, you are just stupid. Stupid and delusional.
It has been the policy of this forum, for longer than I have been here, to lock threads at 15 pages. You were provided a link to a thread that is composed of 12 seperate threads, all locked at the 15 page mark, and you have been told by more than one admin and moderator that this is the case with threads on this forum.
Conclusion: You are a liar, and intellectually dishonest.
liar123 said:
quote:
All I asked for in my first post on this site is for convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true . Maybe you are so fixated on my theory because you have no convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true..
Once again, your use of "conspiracy theory" to describe the official explanation of events is rejected for the imbecilic straw-man it is. Again, it makes you seem stupid.
The evidence you are looking for is contained within the NIST report. Obviously you do not think it credible, but you also do not know the difference between mass and weight, so your analysis is rendered irrelevent and meaningless by your own ignorance.
You have been given three distinct problems that any "theory" that involves the use of explosives in the WTC collapse must overcome in order to be even remotely plausible. Your continued refusal to address those problems is again noted.
Your obvious ignorance of the scientific method is also, again, noted. Your continued insistance that controlled demolition of the WTC should be seriously considered, despite the obvious reasons that remove it from the realm of the plausible, shows this clearly.
Your obvious ignorance of what skepticism is should also be pointed out here. Clearly you do not have a grasp on what it means to be a skeptic. Click this link, read, and become informed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 13:40:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Do you realize Dave's decision to lock the thread was driven first by emotion--like all our decisions are? If you are unaware of this, read DiMassio's "Descartes Error." Dave mentions his rational reason for locking the thread. But the thread had been on its 15th page for a while. It wasn't until he was feeling up against the ropes that he locked it. So I guess until you can prove my theory wrong, we'll have to consider it the probable reason for Dave locking the thread when he did.
No, I locked the thread when it was about to go to a 16th page (a 226th reply would have done so, 226 being equal to 15 times 15 plus 1 - the OP doesn't count). My locking it because I was "up against the ropes" only makes sense if further discussion of those same points was somehow prohibited, but it's not. Go right ahead. Feel free to start "The Physics of the Collapses, Part 2" (I'll even link the two together for you). If you can point out just where you think you proved me wrong, please do.quote:
If it's so obvious, then demonstrate I am mistaken!!
I just did.
How does the above demonstrate anything? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:08:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Ok, you are just stupid. Stupid and delusional.
Always a claim, never supporting evidence...
quote:
It has been the policy of this forum, for longer than I have been here, to lock threads at 15 pages. You were provided a link to a thread that is composed of 12 seperate threads, all locked at the 15 page mark, and you have been told by more than one admin and moderator that this is the case with threads on this forum.
Conclusion: You are a liar, and intellectually dishonest.
Alternative conclusion: Dave locked the thread when he did because he was frustrated I had him on the ropes. You have yet to prove this alternative conclusion wrong.
quote:
ergo123 said:
All I asked for in my first post on this site is for convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true . Maybe you are so fixated on my theory because you have no convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true.
quote:
Once again, your use of "conspiracy theory" to describe the official explanation of events is rejected for the imbecilic straw-man it is. Again, it makes you seem stupid.
People I've shown these threads think you look stupid for caring what I call the official story. They wonder how it impacts the veracity, or lack thereof, of the theory. I agree with them--why not just consider it imbecillic and then provide me with convincing evidence that it is correct?
quote:
The evidence you are looking for is contained within the NIST report. Obviously you do not think it credible, but you also do not know the difference between mass and weight, so your analysis is rendered irrelevent and meaningless by your own ignorance.
The evidence I am looking for is not in the NIST report. As I've pointed out, the NIST report smells of cover-up. But surely, skeptics like you would not rely on only 1 source of evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true!! Why that would be plain stupid. Ever hear of convergent validity? So come on, what else to you have? What other evidence, besides NIST's report do you have? Nothing? Anythng?
quote:
You have been given three distinct problems that any "theory" that involves the use of explosives in the WTC collapse must overcome in order to be even remotely plausible. Your continued refusal to address those problems is again noted.
Well if I was seeking to prove that theory either true or false, I'm sure that info would come in handy. But I'm not!!!! If you want to start a thread that brings up that theory and then shoots it down, be my guest! I'm interested in convincing evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true.
quote:
Your obvious ignorance of the scientific method is also, again, noted. Your continued insistance that controlled demolition of the WTC should be seriously considered, despite the obvious reasons that remove it from the realm of the plausible, shows this clearly.
I have never insisted that any alternative be seriously considered. Again, you make claims and make up the evidence to support it. Why do you do that?
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:15:11 [Permalink]
|
What do these things have in common?
1. A Hammer
2. ergo123
3. A Screwdriver
4. A pair of pliers
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:24:27 [Permalink]
|
Despite all of the evidence, people believe the words written by broze-age preists about how life came to be on this planet rather than the "official" theories (backed by science). They say that the evidence is not really evidence, and reject it with hand-waving, other logic fallacies, and bald-face lies. They claim a conspiracy of all the scientists to promote an atheist religion, but give no evidence to support their "theory."
Sound familiar?
Congnitive dissonance. Learn it. Know it. Live it. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/08/2006 14:26:52 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:38:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Despite all of the evidence, people believe the words written by broze-age preists about how life came to be on this planet rather than the "official" theories (backed by science). They say that the evidence is not really evidence, and reject it with hand-waving, other logic fallacies, and bald-face lies. They claim a conspiracy of all the scientists to promote an atheist religion, but give no evidence to support their "theory."
Sound familiar?
Congnitive dissonance. Learn it. Know it. Live it.
Yes. It sounds like how you guys reject the evidence that exists for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:51:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes. It sounds like how you guys reject the evidence that exists for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives...
That predictable comeback would be more accurate if we were rejecting evidence for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives in which actual scientific evidence were presented.
quote:
I'm not trying to prove the buildings were brought down by explosives!!!!!
quote:
I have never insisted that any alternative be seriously considered.
As this is not the case here, your post makes no sense. Predictably. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 15:03:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123...
It sounds like how you guys reject the evidence that exists for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives...
Nobody here is rejecting any "evidence that exists for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives" because, even though you've been asked for it many times, you haven't provided any such evidence to reject. You have, on the other hand, provided much evidence to suggest you're probably a pathological liar, possibly mentally ill, almost certainly seriously deficient in your reading comprehension skills, and possibly just here to act like a prick and stir up trouble, in other words, a troll.
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 15:05:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Yes. It sounds like how you guys reject the evidence that exists for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives...
That predictable comeback would be more accurate if we were rejecting evidence for a theory of collapse that involves the use of explosives in which actual scientific evidence were presented.
quote:
I'm not trying to prove the buildings were brought down by explosives!!!!!
quote:
I have never insisted that any alternative be seriously considered.
As this is not the case here, your post makes no sense. Predictably.
Now you've lost me. Why are the facts that I'm not trying to prove the buildings were brought down by explosives and that I have never insisted that any alternative be seriously considered "not the case here?" |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
