Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 What I don't get 2...
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  07:21:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
but as to evidence of bowing, photographic representations are out--since they are easily doctored, and shots with long lenses are easily misinterpreted; eye witness accounts are out as so many were tossed out by nist, fema and the 9-11 commission. So i guess that leaves physical evidence--i.e., bowed steel.

It is clear ergo that you have made up your mind and NO evidence will change what you "know to be true". If bowed steel from the WTC was delivered to your front yard you would just say that it was not from the WTC and was bowed after the fact, by the goverment to hide the truth.

We've seen this atitude many time before on many different subjects, you are hopeless.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  08:14:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
ergo123:
Wrong again...

Your entire reply was a denial. But that's ok. It was, after all, what I expected…

And by the way, commenting on a post in a thread that in my opinion has no value does not mean that I have suddenly found the thread itself to be worthy. My comment was directed at more of your psychobabble, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread and the debate within.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  08:40:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

dave, it's not worth my time going through the above post item by item--so much of it is the games you like to play for some sort of points you apparently keep track of...
They're all games that you suggested we play. If you don't want to any more, all you have to do is say so.
quote:
but as to evidence of bowing, photographic representations are out--since they are easily doctored, and shots with long lenses are easily misinterpreted; eye witness accounts are out as so many were tossed out by nist, fema and the 9-11 commission.
Yeah, and I didn't even ask for what you would not accept, so you were wasting your own time by typing those sentences.

But you bring up one thing that needs to be addressed: the reason eye witness accounts are often tossed aside is that there is a long history and actual scientific evidence that human memory isn't like a TiVo, with precise fidelity to the original events. Memory quite often fails as scientific evidence. Photographs, on the other hand, only have a history of being doctored by people intent upon committing fraud or pranks. Do you have any evidence of anyone associated with any photos of bowing being intent upon committing fraud with regard to the events of 9/11?
quote:
So i guess that leaves physical evidence--i.e., bowed steel.
You want it dumped on your front lawn, or what? I'll at least need your address. Seriously: what sort of evidence will you accept that bowed steel on your front lawn wasn't faked? Even more seriously: the NIST's theory is that the bowed sections buckled afterwards, so bowed steel on your front lawn would be evidence that the NIST is wrong. Your request for such evidence is therefore itself evidence that you don't understand the conclusions that you claimed to have proven wrong.
quote:
RE: simulations. To simulate the structure's reaction to the fires, fire inputs must have been entered into the simulation. if, as you claim, no data existed regarding mid-floor temps, what did nist use as inputs for mid-floor fire conditions?
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you don't know what NIST modeled in their simulations. Your above question, combined with your claims of walls floating in space, show everyone who's actually read the report that you didn't bother reading it with any care for what it says. Why would you, when you're starting with the premise that the evidence they had could all have been faked? Under those conditions, only a fool would believe anything in the report. Even the idea that some group at NIST was responsible for it is questionable.

Of course, by that same logic - your logic that because evidence might have been faked, we should treat it as if it were fake - we need to release all inmates from all prisons, simply because the evidence used against them could have all been faked. Legal standards for evidence, after all, have never been as high as the scientific standards, so it'd be a joke for us to use a higher standard in law than in science.

Lucky for us, few defense teams get to impeach evidence just by claiming that it is impeachable. The legal standard is that one must provide evidence that some bit of evidence has been tampered with or faked. But you, ergo, prefer your science to have a lower standard of evidence than the one used by the courts. Obviously, it's easier for you to claim that you've "proven" something that way, but is such a hollow victory really satisfying for you? How sad your life must be if engaging in challenges where you can succeed without effort makes you feel good.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  15:08:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Kil


And by the way, commenting on a post in a thread that in my opinion has no value does not mean that I have suddenly found the thread itself to be worthy.


Yes it does--and don't deny it like you usually do...

quote:
My comment was directed at more of your psychobabble, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread and the debate within.



Yes it does. And if you find no value in the thread, how would you even know about my posts in the thread?

The simple explanation here is that participating in my threads satisfies an emotional need you have--because all we choose to do has its root in our emotions (see Descartes' Error, Damasio). It is your inability to connect with your own emotions that keeps you from understanding this process.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  15:19:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

The simple explanation here is that participating in my threads satisfies an emotional need you have--because all we choose to do has its root in our emotions (see Descartes' Error, Damasio). It is your inability to connect with your own emotions that keeps you from understanding this process.
ergo123, this is your second official warning. The reason is in this post: "I will add another warning if you... mention Freud, Jung or Damasio (or any of their works) to me (or, really, anyone) again..."

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1888 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  17:30:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by Kil


And by the way, commenting on a post in a thread that in my opinion has no value does not mean that I have suddenly found the thread itself to be worthy.


Yes it does--and don't deny it like you usually do...

quote:
My comment was directed at more of your psychobabble, which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread and the debate within.



Yes it does. And if you find no value in the thread, how would you even know about my posts in the thread?

The simple explanation here is that participating in my threads satisfies an emotional need you have--because all we choose to do has its root in our emotions (see Descartes' Error, Damasio). It is your inability to connect with your own emotions that keeps you from understanding this process.
ego you are so easily distracted. I am actually begining to believe that this is symptomatic of CD conspiracy devotees. Afterall, it has been 5+ years. You lack focus. It's difficult for me to believe that you have any hope of making any progress in your research for CD evidence.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  20:22:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

The simple explanation here is that participating in my threads satisfies an emotional need you have--because all we choose to do has its root in our emotions (see Descartes' Error, Damasio). It is your inability to connect with your own emotions that keeps you from understanding this process.
ergo123, this is your second official warning. The reason is in this post: "I will add another warning if you... mention Freud, Jung or Damasio (or any of their works) to me (or, really, anyone) again..."



Why does mentioning relevant evidence earn me an "official warning?" I thought you guys were all about citing sources. Or don't you like sources that speak to your true motives?

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  20:59:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Why does mentioning relevant evidence earn me an "official warning?"
I told you exactly why you got an official warning.
quote:
I thought you guys were all about citing sources. Or don't you like sources that speak to your true motives?
You were discussing Kil's motivations for posting in this thread. You weren't talking about his or anyone else's motivations for anything directly related to 9/11. At best, you were having a "metadiscussion" which was nothing more than a distraction from the actual topic at hand.

I'll tell you what, though: I'll relax a bit if you'll keep this discussion on topic. If you want to start a discussion about how we're all subject to our emotions and how that biases us to think certain things about certain other things, you go right ahead and do so, over in the General Skepticism folder. You can chirp away about Damasio or any other psychological babble you want to over there, and I won't hand out any more warnings for it. Here's a link so it'll be easy for you to start.

But the second warning stands. If you didn't like that condition in particular, you should have brought it up over two weeks ago when I mentioned it the first time. Too bad for you that you admittedly weren't paying close attention back then, 'cause now you're on thin ice.

...

So, what sort of "physical evidence" would you accept, again?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/06/2006 :  22:03:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
BTW: making up these supposed violations as you go along makes you look small and spiteful.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2006 :  09:55:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I take it that you won't be replying to the points about the evidence that have been brought forward, ergo?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2006 :  10:42:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

I take it that you won't be replying to the points about the evidence that have been brought forward, ergo?



Take what you want dave. I have a life outside of this forum, though, and was attending to it.

As for your comments above:


quote:
I'll tell you what, though: I'll relax a bit if you'll keep this discussion on topic.


Wow. This sort of thing keeps you from relaxing? What's that all about?

quote:
If you want to start a discussion about how we're all subject to our emotions and how that biases us to think certain things about certain other things, you go right ahead and do so, over in the General Skepticism folder. You can chirp away about Damasio or any other psychological babble you want to over there, and I won't hand out any more warnings for it.


No thanks. I'd rather let others see you melt down on this thread.


quote:
But the second warning stands. If you didn't like that condition in particular, you should have brought it up over two weeks ago when I mentioned it the first time.


What does the timing of my mentioning the arbitrary nature of your edicts have to do with anything?


quote:
So, what sort of "physical evidence" would you accept, again?


I told you this before.



quote:
quote:
dave, it's not worth my time going through the above post item by item--so much of it is the games you like to play for some sort of points you apparently keep track of...

They're all games that you suggested we play. If you don't want to any more, all you have to do is say so.


You seem to be all claims and no evidence on this issue dave. Why?

quote:
quote:

but as to evidence of bowing, photographic representations are out--since they are easily doctored, and shots with long lenses are easily misinterpreted; eye witness accounts are out as so many were tossed out by nist, fema and the 9-11 commission.

Yeah, and I didn't even ask for what you would not accept, so you were wasting your own time by typing those sentences.


Oh my, 20 more seconds wasted...

quote:
quote:

But you bring up one thing that needs to be addressed: the reason eye witness accounts are often tossed aside is that there is a long history and actual scientific evidence that human memory isn't like a TiVo, with precise fidelity to the original events. Memory quite often fails as scientific evidence.


Why does that need to be addressed? You wasted your time addressing that issue.

quote:
quote:
Photographs, on the other hand, only have a history of being doctored by people intent upon committing fraud or pranks.



More baseless claims that just illustrate how little you know. There happens to be entire industries devoted to doctoring photos for reasons other than pranks or fraudulent intent (advertising and portrait photography to name but 2). My earlier point, as I suspect you really did understand, was that to submit photos as evidence they must first be authenticated.


quote:
quote:
Do you have any evidence of anyone associated with any photos of bowing being intent upon committing fraud with regard to the events of 9/11?



Do you have any evidence the photos are authentic?


quote:
quote:
So i guess that leaves physical evidence--i.e., bowed steel.
You want it dumped on your front lawn, or what?



A true, certified forensic analysis of the steel from the wtc twin towers.

quote:
quote:
Even more seriously: the NIST's theory is that the bowed sections buckled afterwards, so bowed steel on your front lawn would be evidence that the NIST is wrong.



Why would that be serious?

quote:
quote:
Your request for such evidence is therefore itself evidence that you don't understand the conclusions that you claimed to have proven wrong.



No it's not. Remember, I think the nist report is a sham.

quote:
quote:
RE: simulations. To simulate the structure's reaction to the fires, fire inputs must have been entered into the simulation. if, as you claim, no data existed regarding mid-floor temps, what did nist use as inputs for mid-floor fire conditions?

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate that you don't know what NIST modeled in their simulations. Your above question, combined with your claims of walls floating in space, show everyone who's actually read the report that you didn't bother reading it with any care for what it says.


Again, all claims and no evidence...


quote:
quote:
Of course, by that same logic - your logic that because evidence might have been faked, we should treat it as if it were fake - we need to release all inmates from all prisons, simply because the evidence used against them could have all been faked.



Please explain yourself here. I never posited that all evidence could be faked.


quote:
quote:
Lucky for us, few defense teams get to impeach evidence just by claiming that it is impeachable. The legal standard is that one must provide evidence that some bit of evidence has been tampered with or faked.



But one must also show that evidence is authentic.





No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1888 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2006 :  11:08:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

But one must also show that evidence is authentic.

In light of statements such as this and this
quote:
But failure to find evidence does not negate a Truth, it merely leaves it undiscovered.

show that you are only capable of denying the evidence supporting the official explanation. That there will be no evidence supporting a CD explanation.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2006 :  11:23:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by moakley

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

But one must also show that evidence is authentic.

In light of statements such as this and this
quote:
But failure to find evidence does not negate a Truth, it merely leaves it undiscovered.

show that you are only capable of denying the evidence supporting the official explanation. That there will be no evidence supporting a CD explanation.



There is no evidence supporting the official story--unless you consider speculation evidence.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Edited by - ergo123 on 11/07/2006 11:25:16
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2006 :  11:37:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Wow. This sort of thing keeps you from relaxing? What's that all about?
It's apparently all about you being unable to keep the context of a sentence in sight.
quote:
No thanks. I'd rather let others see you melt down on this thread.
Why would I melt down?
quote:
What does the timing of my mentioning the arbitrary nature of your edicts have to do with anything?
The timing was everything, since you only complained after you'd stepped over the line. And, of course, there was nothing arbitrary about the condition I placed upon you.
quote:
quote:
So, what sort of "physical evidence" would you accept, again?
I told you this before.
No, you said that you would only accept physical evidence, not what kind of physical evidence.
quote:
You seem to be all claims and no evidence on this issue dave. Why?
The evidence is all over your threads - every time you wanted to start playing a game, I pointed out that that's exactly what you were doing. If you can't be bothered to pay attention or to remember the games you started, it's not my problem, and I need deliver no more evidence than has already been presented.
quote:
Why does that need to be addressed? You wasted your time addressing that issue.
Not at all, since you responded to it.
quote:
More baseless claims that just illustrate how little you know. There happens to be entire industries devoted to doctoring photos for reasons other than pranks or fraudulent intent (advertising and portrait photography to name but 2).
Both are intent on portraying something other than stark reality, and so are fraudulent.
quote:
My earlier point, as I suspect you really did understand, was that to submit photos as evidence they must first be authenticated.
As would quotes, steel, tests, and every other sort of evidence. Your point was understood, why do you continue to reiterate it rather than move on?
quote:
Do you have any evidence the photos are authentic?
By what standards of authentication?
quote:
A true, certified forensic analysis of the steel from the wtc twin towers.
Certified by whom?
quote:
quote:
Even more seriously: the NIST's theory is that the bowed sections buckled afterwards, so bowed steel on your front lawn would be evidence that the NIST is wrong.
Why would that be serious?
I just told you why.
quote:
Remember, I think the nist report is a sham.
Is that why you feel free to lie about what it says?
quote:
Again, all claims and no evidence...
Yes, that's an apt descriptor for you, ergo. You've got no evidence of any particular temperature limits mid-floor. You've got no evidence that photos of bowing are due to lens distortions. You've got no evidence that the U/L testing was done without insulation. All your claims, and all evidence-free. Now, you'll try, again, to shift the burden of proof, but nobody forced you to say those things (and others), so it's not up to anyone else to prove you wrong. Nobody has posted any counterclaims, we're asking you questions about your claims.
quote:
Please explain yourself here. I never posited that all evidence could be faked.
What a bizarre world you live in. What sorts of evidence cannot be faked?
quote:
But one must also show that evidence is authentic.
And for the most part, all that that requires in court is the testimony of the people who collected the evidence, and a documented chain of evidence, a very low bar indeed.
Lawyer: Is this a photograph you took of 1 World Trade Center on 9/11/2001?
Photographer: Yes, it is.
Lawyer: Is this your signature on this evidence envelope?
Photographer: Yes, it is.
Lawyer: No further questions.
Would asking the photographer about a photo of bowing be "authentication" enough for you?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/07/2006 :  14:27:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
quote:
Wow. This sort of thing keeps you from relaxing? What's that all about?


It's apparently all about you being unable to keep the context of a sentence in sight.



It's odd that you aren't sure what it is. Maybe you should see someone about it.

quote:
quote:
No thanks. I'd rather let others see you melt down on this thread.


Why would I melt down?


How should I know, dave. It's your meltdown. You are the one who said you were enraged, not me.

quote:
quote:
What does the timing of my mentioning the arbitrary nature of your edicts have to do with anything?


The timing was everything, since you only complained after you'd stepped over the line. And, of course, there was nothing arbitrary about the condition I placed upon you.



Of course it was arbitrary, dave. Others mention all sorts of off-topic things—especially filthy. Yet you don't warn him, officially or otherwise. Kil also brings up things that are off-topic. In fact, you make them too—and never once have I seen you warn yourself.



quote:
quote:
I told you this before.


No, you said that you would only accept physical evidence, not what kind of physical evidence.


The physical kind.


quote:
quote:
You seem to be all claims and no evidence on this issue dave. Why?


The evidence is all over your threads - every time you wanted to start playing a game, I pointed out that that's exactly what you were doing. If you can't be bothered to pay attention or to remember the games you started, it's not my problem, and I need deliver no more evidence than has already been presented.


You are the one making the claim davey-boy. It's up to you to provide the evidence. At least that's what I've been led to believe…


quote:
quote:
Why does that need to be addressed? You wasted your time addressing that issue.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.78 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000