|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
|
Dude, I've already shown you were wrong about a hypothesis, evidence, and investigation. Stop making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. You seriously need to take a science 101 class before you destroy any shred of credibility you have left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So legal requirements notwithstanding, no FAA incident enquriy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Wangja wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
...
But, what I REALLY want to know is: What happened between Wangja and JeJuJitsu? |
No idea. I can only conclude he was miffed that I implied that Spanish building codes might be stricter than NY's. |
So, did he come to beat the *beep* out of you or not? |
I told him my plans for next Wednesday. He will either come over and hit me off my chair or he won't. |
I was there. He wasn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| So legal requirements notwithstanding, no FAA incident enquriy? |
The NTSB normally investigates airplane accidents. Unless it's criminal, in which case it looks like the FBI takes over jurisdiction.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm
| Quote: |
| The National Transportation Safety Board was established in 1967 to conduct independent investigations of all civil aviation accidents in the United States and major accidents in the other modes of transportation. It is not part of the Department of Transportation, nor organizationally affiliated with any of DOT's modal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. The Safety Board has no regulatory or enforcement powers. |
| Quote: |
| In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
|
Dude, I've already shown you were wrong about a hypothesis, evidence, and investigation. Stop making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. You seriously need to take a science 101 class before you destroy any shred of credibility you have left. |
You've got a high opinion of your low intellect, son. Let me say again: start with evidence. Evidence leads to hypothesis. You keep jumping over that first bit straight to hypothesis LEADING to investigation. Read your own original posts on these topics.
Further, yet again, you have never made a single statement regarding any hypothesis outside of the official one indicating any open-minded thinking whatsoever. Thus: you are not pursing anythin other than evidence to support the official line.
Got it?
Now, shut up. You bore me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the use of thermite torches in clearing ground zero: they were not used. Look around the 51 minute mark of this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9046804812765633069
At about 53 min. there is a discussion of metal droplets found in dust from 911 taken out of an apartment very near the WTC. The tiny droplets have the same structure as both other metal taken from 911 and control metal created with thermite/thermate reactions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You've got a high opinion of your low intellect, son. Let me say again: start with evidence. Evidence leads to hypothesis. You keep jumping over that first bit straight to hypothesis LEADING to investigation. Read your own original posts on these topics. |
Seriously, my academic credentials would blow yours out of the water.
You need a hypothesis before you can begin to investigate. Otherwise, how do you know what to investigate? It's as simple as that. That's day 1 of science class. I just taught it to my new first graders.
5 years after the event and you still don't have a hypothesis. Can't get much dimmer than that.
| Quote: |
| Further, yet again, you have never made a single statement regarding any hypothesis outside of the official one indicating any open-minded thinking whatsoever. Thus: you are not pursing anythin other than evidence to support the official line. |
You're idea of open minded thinking is gathering "facts" from CT websites and posting YouTube links.  I'm considering the evidence in relation to my hypothesis. Does the evidence eliminate the possibility that the planes and fire brought down the towers? So far, no.
| Quote: |
| Now, shut up. You bore me. |
Need a teddy bear? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
At about 53 min. there is a discussion of metal droplets found in dust from 911 taken out of an apartment very near the WTC. The tiny droplets have the same structure as both other metal taken from 911 and control metal created with thermite/thermate reactions. |
I'll wait for the published paper and subsequent professional analysis before making a final decision. In the mean time, someone else showed (sorry, I don't have the link right now, but it's in another post around here) that other burning materials could have left the same signature metals. I've yet to see a refutation of that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You've got a high opinion of your low intellect, son. Let me say again: start with evidence. Evidence leads to hypothesis. You keep jumping over that first bit straight to hypothesis LEADING to investigation. Read your own original posts on these topics. |
Seriously, my academic credentials would blow yours out of the water. |
The statement below proves the statement above to be your own private fantasy.
| Quote: |
| You need a hypothesis before you can begin to investigate. |
If you've nothing to say on the topic, shut up. You're repetetive, wrong, and frankly, not very bright. You STILL are confusing scientific inquiry and criminal inquiry. And, despite your repeated comments to the contrary, scientific inquiry ALSO begins with observations that lead to hypothesis. You know, the apple falls, the light goes on??
Pull your head out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
At about 53 min. there is a discussion of metal droplets found in dust from 911 taken out of an apartment very near the WTC. The tiny droplets have the same structure as both other metal taken from 911 and control metal created with thermite/thermate reactions. |
I'll wait for the published paper and subsequent professional analysis before making a final decision. |
Did you even bother to look at the video? Did you bother to look at the microscopic scans? No? Gee, what a surprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| scientific inquiry ALSO begins with observations that lead to hypothesis. You know, the apple falls, the light goes on?? |
Yes, and the apple in discussion fell over 5 years ago. Why are we still waiting for your light to come on?
Dr. Jones acknowledges that the use of thermite is a hypothesis. What's keeping you back?
| Quote: |
| Did you even bother to look at the video? Did you bother to look at the microscopic scans? No? Gee, what a surprise. |
Yes, I watched the portion of the video you mentioned. I'm not going to watch the rest. It's like watching paint dry, and the audio gave me a headache. I didn't see him mention any tests to disprove an alternative source. If the materials found were in the dust as well, it seems like an alternative source is more likely. Why else would they be found across the street?
Regardless, I'm still waiting for the peer-reviewed article.
Read http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html (which actually comes from 9/11 Scholars/whackos, but they actually do a good job of hitting the mark here).
When you've got your working hypothesis, get back to us. We'll be waiting patiently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| scientific inquiry ALSO begins with observations that lead to hypothesis. You know, the apple falls, the light goes on?? |
Yes, and the apple in discussion fell over 5 years ago. Why are we still waiting for your light to come on?
Dr. Jones acknowledges that the use of thermite is a hypothesis. What's keeping you back?
| Quote: |
| Did you even bother to look at the video? Did you bother to look at the microscopic scans? No? Gee, what a surprise. |
Yes, I watched the portion of the video you mentioned. I'm not going to watch the rest. It's like watching paint dry, and the audio gave me a headache. I didn't see him mention any tests to disprove an alternative source. If the materials found were in the dust as well, it seems like an alternative source is more likely. Why else would they be found across the street?
Regardless, I'm still waiting for the peer-reviewed article.
Read http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/JonesScientificMethod.html (which actually comes from 9/11 Scholars/whackos, but they actually do a good job of hitting the mark here).
When you've got your working hypothesis, get back to us. We'll be waiting patiently. |
You truly area stupid man. Why would I have a hypothesis when I know I've not yet seen all the evidence? This is still in the INVESTIGATIVE realm, as it should be.
You're a fool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
My hypothesis: EFLtrainer's a COINTELPRO plant.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
BBC Has Lost Tapes Of 21st Century's Defining Moment
9/11 coverage gone due to "c-o-c-k up". Why is this not a world news headline?
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
It has come to light this week that the most pre-eminent broadcasting company in the world has lost the original recordings of its output for the entire day on September 11th 2001, just over five years on, yet no major news agency has even bothered to report the fact 
Despite being currently the biggest story on the internet and in the alternative media, the only place in the mainstream the story has appeared is on a small German news website.
This highlights the fact that the mainstream media is not free to report events. The information it disseminates is strictly controlled and regulated.
The BBC was forced into claiming that the recordings covering the 9/11 attacks have mysteriously vanished in response to fierce criticism over the fact that on the day the news agency reported that World Trade Center Building 7 had collapsed almost 30 minutes before it actually came down.
Conspiracy or no conspiracy, surely the fact that the BBC has made this announcement should be reported.
A cogent precedent can be found in the relatively recent furor over the loss of the moon landing tapes by NASA. This was reported in every major newspaper and on every major news website in the world for over a week when it came to light last August. The story then hit world headlines again when the tapes were found.
CONT'D ...
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/280207BBC.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You truly area stupid man. Why would I have a hypothesis when I know I've not yet seen all the evidence? This is still in the INVESTIGATIVE realm, as it should be. |
1. obervation (which we are long past)
2. hypothesis (which we have already formulated)
3. investigation (aka gathering evidence, i.e. what people are doing now)
4. conclusion (what is to come)
From Dr. Jones' paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
| Quote: |
ABSTRACT
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
|
Can you read that? An "investigation of the hypothesis." Just for once, try backing up your claims that a hypothesis follows an investigation. I've provided several cites to support my claim. It's time to put up or shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
