|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/09/2006 : 10:21:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I didn't say the NIST Report supported itself. I said you support the NIST Report with the NIST Report.
quote:
No one is using the NIST report as support for the NIST report. The NIST report was compiled with sources you know.
If one is to believe DaveW, the official conspiracy theory of what happened to the towers on 9-11-01 IS the NIST Report. As such, when someone supports the official conspiracy theory by citing the NISR Report, they are using the official conspiracy theory to support the official conspiracy theory. And since, at least according to Dave W, the official conspiracy theory and the NIST Report are the same thing, it holds that people use the NIST Report to support the NIST Report--just like people who quote bible verses claiming the bible is the word of god to support the notion that the bible is the word of god. I know it seems like no one could be so dumb as to do that--but we see it all the time.
quote:
Have you actually done any research at all?
Yes, quite a bit.
quote:
Of course not, you have made your mind up.
Always a bad idea to answer your own question when you don't really know the answer...
quote:
We have given plenty of evidence from expert testimony, to forensics, to I witness accounts, to official records, and personal testimony.
And I thank all who contributed to that body of evidence.
quote:
What evidence have you given? A ten minute search online would yield tons of counter arguments to your claim. This thread is useless. Your entire theory rests on the imagination of a few fringe entities that are able to dupe those who refuse to look it up for themselves.
Just to be clear... (where have I heard that phrase before...), this thread is not about my theory. I thought I was clear about that--but I guess someone always slips by who isn't paying attention (i.e., you). You might be absolutely correct about my theory. But this thread is about the official conspiracy theory--not mine.
So, please post any evidence you have that supports the official conspiracy theory (some call this the "official story").
And thanks again in advance for your cooperation.
And BTW: I looked at some of the links you provided--but none of them relate to the part of the official conspiracy theory (the NIST Report) that this thread deals with. Do you have any that support the NIST Report? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/09/2006 12:14:40 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 13:38:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And BTW: I looked at some of the links you provided--but none of them relate to the part of the official conspiracy theory (the NIST Report) that this thread deals with. Do you have any that support the NIST Report?
So you are going to comment on the quality of the things presented here, after all. Why did you say otherwise? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 13:52:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
And BTW: I looked at some of the links you provided--but none of them relate to the part of the official conspiracy theory (the NIST Report) that this thread deals with. Do you have any that support the NIST Report?
So you are going to comment on the quality of the things presented here, after all. Why did you say otherwise?
I thought perhapse Nerosis misunderstood the kind of evidence I was looking for. He posted such a long list. I was hoping he could provide as long a list on the topic I asked about. So I wasn't commenting on the quailty of the links--only about topic alignment of those links. I would tell you what I thought about the links he did provide, but that would be doing what I said I wouldn't do. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 15:41:55 [Permalink]
|
Ergo123/Truthseeker1234
This is another in your ongoing attempt to troll a skeptics forum for "just someone who'll put up the skeptics' version of the official story". For SFN members who do not lurk at JREF occasionally, I think you might be advised to see the collected works of Truthseeker1234.
These threads can go on for weeks, and Ergo will never respond to 85% of the questions. If you post a response, it's opinion. If you post a document (other than his particular deity, Gordon Ross), it's just some gubmint stooge's work.
His last crusade, for which he was suspended, started as an attempt to get a prominent debunker into a one-on-one debate in a TV studio. After that was proved ludicrous, the terms were changed to a closed thread debate, and when he moved the goalposts on that, he offered money for anyone mighty enough to take on his intellect. That fizzled because he insists that someone write up an "official version as seen by the skeptics". That changed to an attempt to get a relatively new member into a debate via book-publishing scheme. When it became clear to the mods that he wouldn't cease with the discussion of money offers and furthering a commercial proposition, he was suspended (not banned, just suspeneded). He's back, so he's alternating between baiting SFN, no doubt hoping to compile that holy grail he's seeking, "The Skeptics Version of 9/11", so he can claim to have 'beaten the best' by countinuously posting Ross's moth-eaten paper on the collapse (and he'll get to the other paper on the seismic evidence as soon as he's been treed often enough on the first one).
Ergo wants scalps for the door flap of his tepee.
His theory is just a mishmash of others. If he states it outright you'll debunk it an he'll proceed to his place in anonymity, an outcome he truly dreads. So he'll continue to bait and taunt and throw out a tidbit from his omnipotent brain now and then, jus to remind you that you are not up to his brilliant debating tactics. He will, if true to form, completely ignore the fact that you hand him his butt repeatedly.
A troll! A relatively calm and moderately lettered troll, but a troll nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 15:48:23 [Permalink]
|
Crap. I've forgotten my JREF username/password, and so can't do searches. I'll have to look it up later.
Thanks, Master Yoda, for the heads-up, and welcome to the SFN. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:08:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Crap. I've forgotten my JREF username/password, and so can't do searches. I'll have to look it up later.
Thanks, Master Yoda, for the heads-up, and welcome to the SFN.
Oh, my pleasure.  I'm a piker compared to the people over there who give their days and nights to head-on clashes at Ground Zero, but I've been locking horns with this lad on and off for a couple of months. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:09:50 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
If one is to believe DaveW, the official conspiracy theory of what happened to the towers on 9-11-01 IS the NIST Report. As such, when someone supports the official conspiracy theory by citing the NISR Report, they are using the official conspiracy theory to support the official conspiracy theory.
Once again, your imbecilic attempt to apply a derogatory connotation to the official description of the 9/11 events by calling it a "conspiracy theory" is rejected for the straw-man it is. Again, it makes you seem stupid
Also, your pathetic attempt to falsely conflate the description of the 9/11 events (the NIST report) with the actual events themselves is rejected for the straw-man it is.
Obviously you are incapable of engaging in rational and honest debate on this topic.
|
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 10/09/2006 16:11:08 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:20:44 [Permalink]
|
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 16:47:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
Why would anyone? There is no evidence for 'other theories'.
Controlled demolition? Look at the collapse of the south tower, the explosions happen after the collapse starts. North tower, the top of the tower tilts to one side during the collapse. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 17:14:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
That doesn't make any sense. You intuit one theory, but seek out evidence for another. Actually, it's worse than that, since you intuit that (for just one example) all the columns snapped into 30' lengths, but then reject evidence that your intuition is not correct.
But now I see what sort of "other approach" to the truth you're advocating: if it feels right, then maybe it is right. Examples abound where intuition leads to false conclusions. Yeah, while sometimes it leads to correct conclusions, intuition alone obviously isn't a reliable indicator of truth.quote:
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any.
The NIST report is full of references to the evidence the researchers used - why not just look some up for yourself?quote:
It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
It's as if you read a couple pages of the NIST report and stopped looking at it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 17:16:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
[quote]Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]Originally posted by ergo123
I thought perhapse Nerosis misunderstood the kind of evidence I was looking for. He posted such a long list. I was hoping he could provide as long a list on the topic I asked about. So I wasn't commenting on the quailty of the links--only about topic alignment of those links. I would tell you what I thought about the links he did provide, but that would be doing what I said I wouldn't do.
Please explain how the evidence I directed you to, as well as, all of the sites readily available to you, do not address the NIST report. How about you become a little clearer since No one but you seems to understand what you want. (and understandably no one really cares about catering to you anyway.) But just for giggles. Why don't you lay out for us what you would like clarified. (i.e. the things you find sketchy) |
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.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 17:22:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The NIST report is full of references to the evidence the researchers used - why not just look some up for yourself?
I told him that twice. He does not seem to care. |
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 10/09/2006 17:58:40 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 17:25:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
Do you read anyone's post but your own? I have directed you to a ton of evidence that supports the official theory (which is not a conspiracy). Checking into the sources for the NIST report will lead you to alot more. You have yet to give a validation for ignoring this evidence except for the fact that it does not support your theory (which is a conspiracy). |
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.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2006 : 19:20:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I told him that twice. He does not seem to care.
If Master Yoda's post is accurate, then ergo really does care, but what he cares about is not what we're giving him. He really, really, really wants someone to champion the government's case, so that after he does his song-and-dance routine he can claim victory over the skeptics, regardless of the evidence presented.
Of course, I'm quite sure that the NIST researchers can speak for themselves, although I doubt they'd give someone with ergo's background the proverbial time of day - they've got families and hobbies, and their work on that particular report is finished and they're spending their workdays on something else. It's not their job to repeat themselves to any hack from the Internet.
(Of course, ergo didn't even know about the NIST report until last week, which is pretty pathetic coming from someone who self-describes as a seeker of truth on this particular subject - the NIST report wasn't hidden anywhere, every word of 43 freakin' volumes is freely available on the Web, and he must have seen references to it in other works, like the Popular Mechanics article or Wikipedia.)
Anyway, ergo must be disappointed that nobody here seems to be willing to play the role of the government in his little bit of theatre. He will, of course, deny that he's after any such thing, but his repetitive whining about nobody providing any evidence when he's got the NIST report and all its footnotes and references in his grubby little tongs is over-the-top melodrama, and ruins the whole production. Had he managed to avoid hamming it up so much, he might have hooked someone. |
- 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 - 10/09/2006 : 19:51:49 [Permalink]
|
ergo(lair)123 said:
quote:
Yoda: I have admitted that what I believe to be true is based on a feeling --on intuition.
That's one reason why I'm seeking evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory.
I'm a little stunned that no one has been able to provide any. It's as if you read the NIST Report and stopped looking at other theories.
Once again, your imbecilic attempt to apply a derogatory connotation to the official description of the 9/11 events by calling it a "conspiracy theory" is rejected for the straw-man it is. Again, it makes you seem stupid.
And lets examine what you are actually asking for here. You want evidence to support the official explanation of events. You have been referred to it, repeatedly. Your response to that has been to ask for evidence that supports the evidence.... which, obviously, is a ridiculous request.
Bottom line is that you have all the evidence there is, but you lack the ability to comprehend it, so you ask for "evidence to support the evidence".
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
