|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 08:42:46 [Permalink]
|
| Did any of you read what they had to say? You people aren't physicists yet you consider yourselves qualified to evaluate anything put in front of you. Why the double standard? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 10/15/2006 : 12:52:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ergoman
The notion that explosives were used does not need to include the notion that damage to the building was not inflicted by the planes. The official theory and the cd theory are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, it is possible that the damage from the planes was enough to bring down the buildings. But that doesn't mean that explosives were not used.
It is this kind of thinking that is causing the uproar you are so proud of. Your theory is that even if it is shown conclusively that the planes were enough to bring the building down completely then it still does not prove that explosions were not placed and/or used. So how would one, short of time traveling back and checking, prove to you that explosion were not used (since proving them an unnecessary hyopothesis and removing them with the Razor is not enough for you) Ergoman. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 10/15/2006 12:53:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 13:49:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Did any of you read what they had to say? You people aren't physicists yet you consider yourselves qualified to evaluate anything put in front of you. Why the double standard?
No double standard at all. The claim put before us was:because dozens of experts in physics and material sciences think explosives WERE involved. The evidence put forth to support the claim was http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ The evidence clearly fails to support the claim, and one need not be a physicist in order to evaluate the claim (in other words, to count the number of physicists and materials scientsts who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth).
This is very much like the Discovery Institute's "list of scientists who doubt evolution," which is full of engineers, electricians, philosophers and astronomers, and extraordinarily light on biologists. Why is it that crackpot pseudoscientists engage in the same sorts of deceptive behaviour regardless of the subject matter?
[This thread will soon be locked due to length]
[Edited for paragraph screw-up] |
- 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 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 14:06:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Ergoman
The notion that explosives were used does not need to include the notion that damage to the building was not inflicted by the planes. The official theory and the cd theory are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, it is possible that the damage from the planes was enough to bring down the buildings. But that doesn't mean that explosives were not used.
It is this kind of thinking that is causing the uproar you are so proud of. Your theory is that even if it is shown conclusively that the planes were enough to bring the building down completely then it still does not prove that explosions were not placed and/or used. So how would one, short of time traveling back and checking, prove to you that explosion were not used (since proving them an unnecessary hyopothesis and removing them with the Razor is not enough for you) Ergoman.
Well, NIST could start by modeling the 10 - 15 seconds after the towers eere "poised tp collapse." This could provide evidence that the input to their model of 'pre-collapse' would have resulted in the type of collapse we all saw that day. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 14:14:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Did any of you read what they had to say? You people aren't physicists yet you consider yourselves qualified to evaluate anything put in front of you. Why the double standard?
No double standard at all. The claim put before us was:because dozens of experts in physics and material sciences think explosives WERE involved. The evidence put forth to support the claim was http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ The evidence clearly fails to support the claim, and one need not be a physicist in order to evaluate the claim (in other words, to count the number of physicists and materials scientsts who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth).
Sorry, I forgot how concrete and literal you guys are.  I should have sail "several" where I said dozens. But interesting how again you focus on the minutia rather than the content. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 15:26:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Sorry, I forgot how concrete and literal you guys are. I should have sail "several" where I said dozens. But interesting how again you focus on the minutia rather than the content.
But "because dozens of experts in physics and material sciences think explosives WERE involved" is all the content you offered: just a number and an appeal to authority, and it is wrong on the former piont and the latter is a logical fallacy. You didn't present any other content for any of us to focus on. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 15:29:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Did any of you read what they had to say? You people aren't physicists yet you consider yourselves qualified to evaluate anything put in front of you. Why the double standard?
No double standard at all. The claim put before us was:because dozens of experts in physics and material sciences think explosives WERE involved. The evidence put forth to support the claim was http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ The evidence clearly fails to support the claim, and one need not be a physicist in order to evaluate the claim (in other words, to count the number of physicists and materials scientsts who are members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth).
Sorry, I forgot how concrete and literal you guys are. I should have sail "several" where I said dozens. But interesting how again you focus on the minutia rather than the content.
Since when did accuracy in language become "minutiae"? You want it both ways. Accuracy when you need it. Vagueness when your weak-assed arguments fail to sway. You're nothing more than a diatribe-spouting fool.
So why don't you now post the data from the "several" rather than "dozens" (huge difference, BTW, not minutiae). You've seen the difference. Put your physicists where your mouth is.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2006 : 15:34:14 [Permalink]
|
| Again, when you make an assertion of fact, it will be checked. Next time, you should be more careful with your words. It is interesting how you are bothered by people who check up on assertions of fact. It could explain a lot. The fact that the, as you say, "minutia" is wrong has a lot to do with the content also. This sounds like our current president; everyone was so caught up in the "minutia" that there weren't any WMDs rather than the content... |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
