|
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 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
lets approuch this issue at a bottom to top approuch. like science and investigations.
so lets discuss the molten metal. Wasn't that the point of this thread? To discuss direct evidence. Molten can not be explained under the official story, and can only be explained, in this case, by CT. That is a claim, made by me. Lets discuss that instead of whitewashing everything away from a top down approuch.
Remember logic? lets use it. |
Won't happen. The people who want so desperately to believe the official story are not interested in logic. Even though they claim that it is ridiculous to believe there is more to the story than we have been told, they are not interested in answering pointed questions in which they don't have an answer to. They only make arguments that are supported by NIST findings or the mainstream media, but they stay away from elements that they don't have good explanations for. The prime example of this is WTC7. They act as though they are not bothered by a delay of 6+ years in the findings of the NIST on WTC7. They pretend it is not important. They pretend that an absence of pancakes in the footprint is not important, even though the official story stands on the foundation of pancaking. They pretend that the building was a raging enferno, when all evidence is to the contrary, namely from the firefighters in the building on that day. They pretend that dozens of eye-witness accounts are not as important as a government sanctioned report, from the same group that has delayed the WTC7 report. They pretend that Guiliani and Bush's words on that day are not relevent. They pretend that the buildings coming down don't resemble CD, when dozens of professionals say it looks absolutely like a CD, far more than a pancaking/structural failure. They pretend that the Pentagon failing to fire even one defensive strike against the airplane is not laughably assinine, or that the tapes of the Pentagon that day which have not been released is not important.
All they ask for is proof, when they have been given countless proof, but it is never enough to satisfy their wanting this to not be the work of Bin Laden and friends. They will do the dance, they will call names, but they will avoid the tough questions, for they have no answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Either you have direct evidence to cite or you do not. |
Thermite's signature in the remains of the building is direct evidence, C/N-C plant. Do you not understand the meaning of direct evidence? Beams cut at angles in the debris? Cut by what? For what reason would people doing demolition cut beams at a 45 degree angle to the ground? For directional fall? Maybe. However, how would they cut them without any deformation as the cut neared it's end and gravity took it down? Further, what form of blow torch leaves molten slag running down a column of steal?
Direct evidence? 50 - 40 - 30 - .... and no action taken. Explain this, school boy.
Back to school with you. You need more learnin'. A few more dolls, too.
Last edited by keane on Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="Gopher"]
| loose_ends wrote: |
| All three WTCs collapsed as a result of CD. |
I acknowledge this is your claim and argument. If you want to support this, you need to (a) identify precisely who did it; (b) show how they intended to do it, planned it, and then did it, in at least some detail; and (c) produce direct evidence to support (a) and (b). You need to show us something conclusive. |
If you're an idiot, you do. The doing of something and the who of it are connected, but can be, and usually are, proven separately. You find someone with a knife in their belly, you know how it was done, but not who did it.
C'mon, you can't do better than 3rd grade logic? How'd you get all the way up to 9th grade? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OP HAS RUN AWAY WITH TAIL BETWEEN LEGS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Except that there is a big difference between a debate and someone asking another person or side to produce evidence. Gopher made no claims (check the OP yourself). |
If that's the case, then who are they surrendering to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| it is never enough to satisfy their wanting this to not be the work of Bin Laden and friends |
But it's YOUR crowd that wants to pin the deed on Bush, not bin Laden.
This was cute:
| Quote: |
| The people who want so desperately to believe |
Whose posts sound desperate, even hysterical? Hmmm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| it is never enough to satisfy their wanting this to not be the work of Bin Laden and friends |
But it's YOUR crowd that wants to pin the deed on Bush, not bin Laden.
This was cute:
| Quote: |
| The people who want so desperately to believe |
Whose posts sound desperate, even hysterical? Hmmm? |
| Quote: |
| Won't happen. The people who want so desperately to believe the official story are not interested in logic. Even though they claim that it is ridiculous to believe there is more to the story than we have been told, they are not interested in answering pointed questions in which they don't have an answer to. |
Thank you for proving my point. You sure have a lot to say about Ron Paul, but when it comes to answers to the tough questions from 9/11, you don't get out of the starting gate.
Your style of debate is essentially the same as seen on Crossfire; you say nothing of substance, just personal attacks and banal pundantry.
Go back to your thread about Jefferson Davis. You obviously can't bring any good arguments to this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Except that there is a big difference between a debate and someone asking another person or side to produce evidence. Gopher made no claims (check the OP yourself). |
This thread does not stand in isolation, urbyth. He has made claims. He has, for example, tried to claim that evidence is not evidence. He has stated, quite stupidly, that one cannot start an investigation without proof. Bizarre, that. He has been shown to be a bit of a fool on these points, so is now trying to draw the line so fine it has become truly absurd: With no evidence to examine, no investigation of any merit to consult, we should provide him with "direct" evidence. As I have already pointed out, this is intellectually dishonest. Hell, it is dishonest on its face.
Add to this that he simply dismisses direct evidence out of hand: squibs, the signature of Thermite, the cut beams, the non-interception of wayward planes when such occurrences are ROUTINE, the lack of any fire against the plane attacking the Pentagon despite it being widely considered the most secure building in the world, etc.
All of this is evidence, some of it direct evidence. Scoffing at it does not prove one intellectually superior, it proves one a fool.
| Quote: |
| He asked for direct evidence of those who claim the Bush Adminstration was behind the 9/11 attacks. |
He did not. YOU need to re-read the OP.
| Quote: |
| He made no claims that it was or wasn't. |
Again, this thread does not stand in isolation. Stop pretending it does.
| Quote: |
| He simply asked them to substantiate their claims. |
As if that has not already been done... long ago. Let's add the myriad statements by emergency workers and others of explosions. How is this NOT direct evidence vs. the official story? Or the testimony about being moved away from WTC 7 because it was to be brought down?
Reasonable doubt? Were this any other crime in any city in America it would have been exhaustively investigated. The smallest plane crash is investigated by the FAA for YEARS. Why not this one? This administration fought it for a very long time. WHY? That in itself is all the direct evidence you need.
Open a real investigation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| OP HAS RUN AWAY WITH TAIL BETWEEN LEGS |
Actually, I walked away from this desperate "pancakes-in-the-footprint" or "footprint-in-the-pancakes," "is it not convenient that...," "the-Pentagon's-tapes-might-prove-our-case-why-are-they-hiding-them?" and "I-have-no-evidence-and-cannot-speak-in-specifics-so-I-am-going-to-speak-in-the-passive-voice-as-in-'a-huge-fraud-has-been-perpetrated-against-the-American-people'" thread. And for several reasons:
Primarily, you cannot cite any direct evidence -- and I note we are now at page six on this thread, whose sole purpose is to collect and catalog any and all direct evidence you might present to support your conspiracy allegations. You and your correligionists here can do little more than mashal circumstantial evidence, innuendo, etc.
Also, this thread is quickly transitioning into nonsense, hysteria, and name-calling -- useless posts like yours here that I respond to now as an example. Others, Nowhere Man, for example, come here for no other reason but to launch their usual sneering personal attacks. Some waygug-in has called us liars. And now BLT has arrived to shout everyone down with his usual quips about grade-school and with his usual qualifiers like "stupid," "idiot," and "fool." He might start talking baby-talk by page seven or eight. And sooner or later one of you mob-inciters will start shouting "burn him!" This quickly bores me -- especially the part where you all claim engineering expertise. 
When you present direct evidence to support any of your allegations (and we all know what your allegations are, even if you disingenuously protest that you merely question "the official story"  ), I will respond.
It is very simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to produce your evidence. Claims based purely on circumstantial evidence, inference, and an allegation-driven discourse do not pass scrutiny. At best they produce inconclusive results. And, again, this is not Sherlock Holmes. You cannot translate an absence of information, or problematic information, into a positive conclusion in real life.
So, again, please present the direct evidence that bears on this matter, this alleged governmental conspiracy. Until then, good day, Loose ends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You obviously can't bring any good arguments to this discussion. |
You are quite right that I refuse to get involved in a discussion of this issue--because I regard it as a non-issue. To debate nonsense like this means I would have to enter the world of delusional thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Well, we do have direct evidence that the official story is a bunch of hogwash. Does that implicate Bush? That depends on how much of this stuff he actually knows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylNgK8k2kt8
The identities of the hijackers is questionable... at best. So we don't really know who hijacked the planes.
The bin Laden "confession tape" is an obvious fake.
The FBI says that Bin Laden is left handed, yet on the so-called confession tape we see someone posing as Bin Laden writing with their right hand. This on top of the obvious differences between the person on the tape (appearance) and known videos of Bin Laden.
What about the fact that the guy on the tape is wearing a gold ring, yet Bin Ladin's religion forbids such practice?
The guy looks arabic, I suppose and he does have a beard. But it sure doesn't look that much like Bin Laden.
So we have evidence that a huge fraud has been perpetrated against the American public and the world at large, for that matter.
And this is just one aspect. The official story is so riddled with holes, lies and inconsistancies that I don't see how anyone could believe it.
That is if they are half-way honest about it. |
Every single one of your points appears in 'Loose Change' which has been rebutted point by point by Screw Loose Change and 911myths.com. It's just disgraceful that someone should repeat Loose Change's claims because we've all had ample opportunity to see the rebuttals and you obviously haven't, which suggests you simply don't want to. 9/11 buffoonery has indeed taken on the appearance of religion.....
You should try doing some research on your own before you start spouting off.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=hijackers+still+alive
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm
Those 'Loose Change' retards should be strung up by their goolies for misleading the public with their amateurish poison. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You should learn how to use the quote function effectively. Research? Sitting in your undies watching google videos constitutes reseach does it?
I'm not interested in anything whatsoever conspiracy theory canuckleheads have to say about their American gods and masters south of the border. Earlier in the thread, in response to Keane, the paper I posted contains scientific, mathematical proof of the towers' collapse by impact, fire and gravity. Your google searches mean literally nothing and you haven't a leg to stand on. The fact you're still citing Loose Change as evidence tells us everything we need to know about you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice.
You should try viewing some of the sites you posted. The points you say were refuted are completely avoided, or at least I can't find mention of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Nice.
You should try viewing some of the sites you posted. The points you say were refuted are completely avoided, or at least I can't find mention of them. |
Every single point you made was refuted by Screw Loose Change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| OP HAS RUN AWAY WITH TAIL BETWEEN LEGS |
Actually, I walked away from this desperate "pancakes-in-the-footprint" or "footprint-in-the-pancakes," "is it not convenient that...," "the-Pentagon's-tapes-might-prove-our-case-why-are-they-hiding-them?" and "I-have-no-evidence-and-cannot-speak-in-specifics-so-I-am-going-to-speak-in-the-passive-voice-as-in-'a-huge-fraud-has-been-perpetrated-against-the-American-people'" thread. And for several reasons:
Primarily, you cannot cite any direct evidence -- and I note we are now at page six on this thread, whose sole purpose is to collect and catalog any and all direct evidence you might present to support your conspiracy allegations. You and your correligionists here can do little more than mashal circumstantial evidence, innuendo, etc.
Also, this thread is quickly transitioning into nonsense, hysteria, and name-calling -- useless posts like yours here that I respond to now as an example. Others, Nowhere Man, for example, come here for no other reason but to launch their usual sneering personal attacks. Some waygug-in has called us liars. And now BLT has arrived to shout everyone down with his usual quips about grade-school and with his usual qualifiers like "stupid," "idiot," and "fool." He might start talking baby-talk by page seven or eight. And sooner or later one of you mob-inciters will start shouting "burn him!" This quickly bores me -- especially the part where you all claim engineering expertise.
When you present direct evidence to support any of your allegations (and we all know what your allegations are, even if you disingenuously protest that you merely question "the official story" ), I will respond.
It is very simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to produce your evidence. Claims based purely on circumstantial evidence, inference, and an allegation-driven discourse do not pass scrutiny. At best they produce inconclusive results. And, again, this is not Sherlock Holmes. You cannot translate an absence of information, or problematic information, into a positive conclusion in real life.
So, again, please present the direct evidence that bears on this matter, this alleged governmental conspiracy. Until then, good day, Loose ends. |
ok.
lets try this again. what kind of direct evidence are you looking for?
i mean, evidence for what hypothesis?
and to be sure.
direct evidence should be something that supports only one hypothesis, exculding any other possible hypthesis. right?
are you sure you haven't confused direct evidence with proof?
clear these things up ok. |
|
| 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
