News Flash: There was no Controlled Demolition of any building on 9/11/2001

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

This simple fact has given me cause to rethink arguing with truthers. What's the point when they clearly lack the perception to realise that the very idea of a CD is one of the most implausible and improbable ideas that ever surfaced from the depths of human stupidity?

At this stage of the game there are no individuals left that we could classify as "9/11 Truthers" who are capable of reasoned discussion. A good chunk of the reason my participation has slacked off heavily in the last few weeks. Little here worthy of discussion and no reasoned discussion likely if it were.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

At this stage of the game there are no individuals left that we could classify as "9/11 Truthers" who are capable of reasoned discussion. A good chunk of the reason my participation has slacked off heavily in the last few weeks. Little here worthy of discussion and no reasoned discussion likely if it were.

Agreed, what do we have to deal with? A couple whose hatred of the government influences their belief system, or those willing to believe the silliest of stories. Not really much in there worthy of addressing in any detail.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Agreed, what do we have to deal with? A couple whose hatred of the government influences their belief system, or those willing to believe the silliest of stories. Not really much in there worthy of addressing in any detail.

Don't overlook those who seem to have a few genuine concerns but seem to be incapable of specifying what the concerns are other than in vague false global claims - and cannot progress reasoned thinking or analysis. Then project abuse dishonestly onto those who try to engage in rational discourse.

A simple example - anyone who can make a global claim such as "The NIST Report is all Lies" has a serious deficiency of reasoning process OR is dishonest. (Or both.) And false generalisations in various forms are the "flavour of the month" in debate trickery.

The bottom line I suppose is "Why come to a discussion forum if you are not interested in discussion?" Then I do not comprehend the underlying motivation for trolling or "chain jerking".

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Don't overlook those who seem to have a few genuine concerns but seem to be incapable of specifying what the concerns are other than in vague false global claims - and cannot progress reasoned thinking or analysis. Then project abuse dishonestly onto those who try to engage in rational discourse.

A simple example - anyone who can make a global claim such as "The NIST Report is all Lies" has a serious deficiency of reasoning process OR is dishonest. (Or both.) And false generalisations in various forms are the "flavour of the month" in debate trickery.

The bottom line I suppose is "Why come to a discussion forum if you are not interested in discussion?" Then I do not comprehend the underlying motivation for trolling or "chain jerking".

Cute... Coming from the person who ducks and runs from discussion while accusing others of this.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Cute... Coming from the person who ducks and runs from discussion while accusing others of this.

Pathetic

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Pathetic

Kokoesque? Projection with zero base in fact.

And I'm the one who still offers to join in serious discussion of the WTC collapse mechanisms.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Pathetic

What's pathetic is that you (both) cannot recognize the simple points that absolutely prove your explanation wrong.

Kokoesque? Projection with zero base in fact.

And I'm the one who still offers to join in serious discussion of the WTC collapse mechanisms.

Lmao... I can't wait till you develop an interest in honest discussion.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

What's pathetic is that you (both) cannot recognize the simple points that absolutely prove your explanation wrong.



Lmao... I can't wait till you develop an interest in honest discussion.

What's pathetic is not that you don't realize you are fundamentally wrong. It is that you can't.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Lmao... I can't wait till you develop an interest in honest discussion.

You are seven years too late.

My interest started mid 2007 - moved onto internet forums 13 Nov 2007 - these were the opening paragraphs of my first post on the internet:

The supporters of 9/11 conspiracies build on the same foundation as the creationists - poor logic, worse science together with distortions, lies and deliberate deceptions.

The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.

That was on the Richard Dawkins forum - hence the dig at creationists. Tho' the analogy of creationist logic with 9/11 truther logic still stands.

That was long before I met Tony Szamboti. I have since discussed with him on numerous occasions. His practice of making false starting assumptions still continues and is effectively his trademark. "Missing Jolt" was the paper which brought him to some prominence and it is based on false premises as discussed in some contemporary threads here and elsewhere.

He also resorts to personal attack when confronted by rigorous counter argument - and he is a qualified engineer. He also manages to fool quite a few engineers with his false foundations.

So:
1) My record of honest discussions is on the web;
2) It started - on the web - back in Nov 2007;
3) So you are too late to pretend to wait for what is already on record; AND
4) you are not the first to run away OR to project on to me your own failings.

Now "put up or shut up time". See if you can find ANY statements by me which are untrue. There may be some accidental errors.

THEN put your money where your mouth is and show ONE of them that is dishonest. i.e. intentionally untruthful. And by "show" I mean rigorous argument NOT unsupported assertions of the type which are so popular around here.

AND I'm still available for serious and honest discussion if you want it. Limit the topics to WTC collapses - they are the best starting point.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

What's pathetic is not that you don't realize you are fundamentally wrong. It is that you can't.

Highly likely.

Most of these derailing excursions would need too much dissection to find the original claim and carve off the irrelevant evasions and personal attacks/insults.

The best way forward would be for Bman to restate his starting claim plus the supporting argument and we take it from there - either you or I.

And let's not lose sight of the simple fact that we - you and I - are essentially supporting the key elements of the official "version" OR supporting our own exposition of the same themes. It matters not which.

BUT those are the default hypotheses. We do not need to reassert them. The only legitimate openings of discussion are:
A) When someone who disagrees with the default hypotheses posts a counter claim and supports it AND they bear the burden of proof; OR
B) Someone who does not understand some issue asks for explanation and those of us who are qualified to provide explanation do so. Such process may "morph" into discussion/debate - at the stage when a "claim" emerges which carries burden of proof.

Ahhh...if only people would remember and practice those basic protocols. :roll:

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

You are seven years too late.

My interest started mid 2007 - moved onto internet forums 13 Nov 2007 - these were the opening paragraphs of my first post on the internet:

You gave up on honest discussion 7 years ago... Wish I had known that before I gave you credit as an alleged professional.

That was on the Richard Dawkins forum - hence the dig at creationists. Tho' the analogy of creationist logic with 9/11 truther logic still stands.

That was long before I met Tony Szamboti. I have since discussed with him on numerous occasions. His practice of making false starting assumptions still continues and is effectively his trademark. "Missing Jolt" was the paper which brought him to some prominence and it is based on false premises as discussed in some contemporary threads here and elsewhere.

He also resorts to personal attack when confronted by rigorous counter argument - and he is a qualified engineer. He also manages to fool quite a few engineers with his false foundations.

So:
1) My record of honest discussions is on the web;
2) It started - on the web - back in Nov 2007;
3) So you are too late to pretend to wait for what is already on record; AND
4) you are not the first to run away OR to project on to me your own failings.

Now "put up or shut up time". See if you can find ANY statements by me which are untrue. There may be some accidental errors.

THEN put your money where your mouth is and show ONE of them that is dishonest. i.e. intentionally untruthful. And by "show" I mean rigorous argument NOT unsupported assertions of the type which are so popular around here.

AND I'm still available for serious and honest discussion if you want it. Limit the topics to WTC collapses - they are the best starting point.

The funny thing about that; when peoples logic is so poor as you are suggesting, it should be a simple matter to disprove, but as soon as someone starts to show how your analysis departs from reality, you get aggressive while simultaneously accusing others of the tactic you are using in that moment. Gas lighting only works on simple minds... Probably why your fellow debunkers swallow it up with so much ease.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

What's pathetic is not that you don't realize you are fundamentally wrong. It is that you can't.

Right... That's why you can't even explain WHY it's wrong, just the baseless claim that it's wrong.

I think you mean to say that you disagree but are unable to substantiate why you disagree.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Highly likely.

Most of these derailing excursions would need too much dissection to find the original claim and carve off the irrelevant evasions and personal attacks/insults.

The best way forward would be for Bman to restate his starting claim plus the supporting argument and we take it from there - either you or I.

And let's not lose sight of the simple fact that we - you and I - are essentially supporting the key elements of the official "version" OR supporting our own exposition of the same themes. It matters not which.

BUT those are the default hypotheses. We do not need to reassert them. The only legitimate openings of discussion are:
A) When someone who disagrees with the default hypotheses posts a counter claim and supports it AND they bear the burden of proof; OR
B) Someone who does not understand some issue asks for explanation and those of us who are qualified to provide explanation do so. Such process may "morph" into discussion/debate - at the stage when a "claim" emerges which carries burden of proof.

Ahhh...if only people would remember and practice those basic protocols. :roll:

Which brings us back to what I just asked on the "Unanswered Questions" thread.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Right... That's why you can't even explain WHY it's wrong, just the baseless claim that it's wrong.

I think you mean to say that you disagree but are unable to substantiate why you disagree.

the burden of proof is on them

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

If you have EVIDENCE of explosives there is a thread for that. Ignorant claims however and merely ignorant claims.

its been posted for you countless times

 

[KokomoJojo]

Highly likely.

Most of these derailing excursions would need too much dissection to find the original claim and carve off the irrelevant evasions and personal attacks/insults.

The best way forward would be for Bman to restate his starting claim plus the supporting argument and we take it from there - either you or I.

And let's not lose sight of the simple fact that we - you and I - are essentially supporting the key elements of the official "version" OR supporting our own exposition of the same themes. It matters not which.

BUT those are the default hypotheses. We do not need to reassert them. The only legitimate openings of discussion are:
A) When someone who disagrees with the default hypotheses posts a counter claim and supports it AND they bear the burden of proof; OR
B) Someone who does not understand some issue asks for explanation and those of us who are qualified to provide explanation do so. Such process may "morph" into discussion/debate - at the stage when a "claim" emerges which carries burden of proof.

Ahhh...if only people would remember and practice those basic protocols. :roll:

Have you considered taking a course in logic and reasoning?

What you have is the official hypothesis or original government hypothesis which is neither a default hypothesis nor a null hypothesis and remains YET TO BE PROVEN! Hence the burden of proof is on anyone who agrees with the governments hypothesis as the originator of the hypothesis. Debunkers use twisted logic to shift the burden of proof off of themselves because they know thye do not have any onto others who were not directly involved in the investigation.

Nice bait n switch though. sort of.

What we need is for those who support the government positions to man up and prove the default hypothesis exists in the first place.

Not that correcting your logical errors will stop you from posting them ad obnoxiously in the future.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Highly likely.

Most of these derailing excursions would need too much dissection to find the original claim and carve off the irrelevant evasions and personal attacks/insults.

The best way forward would be for Bman to restate his starting claim plus the supporting argument and we take it from there - either you or I.

And let's not lose sight of the simple fact that we - you and I - are essentially supporting the key elements of the official "version" OR supporting our own exposition of the same themes. It matters not which.

BUT those are the default hypotheses. We do not need to reassert them. The only legitimate openings of discussion are:
A) When someone who disagrees with the default hypotheses posts a counter claim and supports it AND they bear the burden of proof; OR
B) Someone who does not understand some issue asks for explanation and those of us who are qualified to provide explanation do so. Such process may "morph" into discussion/debate - at the stage when a "claim" emerges which carries burden of proof.

Ahhh...if only people would remember and practice those basic protocols. :roll:

And then you play ignorant...

I had asked you earlier for explanations, then I showed you where your analysis began to depart from reality, then you started on the gas lighting tactic, that you perform regularly.

That last thread I started, I showed how the ROOSD collapse theory is not viable as the video evidence disproves it, I showed pictures with highlights to show precisely what it was that disproves it... You didn't even read that far, which is proved when you said I was relying on "sounds like".

Then you start engaging in this childish method of attacking indirectly claiming that it is others who are doing this, then you claim projection (which is part of your gas lighting technique).

So, it's time to show that you actually want to engage in honest discussion, part of that will be to employ a small amount of humility to accept that the documented evidence shows your analysis is wrong. And I know that can be hard when you've dedicated years of ego trying to prove the plane + fire induced collapse is all that was going on.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

You are seven years too late.

My interest started mid 2007 - moved onto internet forums 13 Nov 2007 - these were the opening paragraphs of my first post on the internet:
That was on the Richard Dawkins forum - hence the dig at creationists. Tho' the analogy of creationist logic with 9/11 truther logic still stands.

That was long before I met Tony Szamboti. I have since discussed with him on numerous occasions. His practice of making false starting assumptions still continues and is effectively his trademark. "Missing Jolt" was the paper which brought him to some prominence and it is based on false premises as discussed in some contemporary threads here and elsewhere.

He also resorts to personal attack when confronted by rigorous counter argument - and he is a qualified engineer. He also manages to fool quite a few engineers with his false foundations.

So:
1) My record of honest discussions is on the web;
2) It started - on the web - back in Nov 2007;
3) So you are too late to pretend to wait for what is already on record; AND
4) you are not the first to run away OR to project on to me your own failings.

Now "put up or shut up time". See if you can find ANY statements by me which are untrue. There may be some accidental errors.

THEN put your money where your mouth is and show ONE of them that is dishonest. i.e. intentionally untruthful. And by "show" I mean rigorous argument NOT unsupported assertions of the type which are so popular around here.

AND I'm still available for serious and honest discussion if you want it. Limit the topics to WTC collapses - they are the best starting point.

leaving us to conclude either that other engineers are are just plain stoopid or unqualified or that you failed to prove him incorrect, from what I have seen so far in your posting record I would accept the latter until I see evidence otherwise.

honest has no bearing on correct.

what you fail to understand is that you can lay out 100 honest statements that add up to ZERO bonafide facts.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Kokoesque? Projection with zero base in fact.

And I'm the one who still offers to join in serious discussion of the WTC collapse mechanisms.

serious?

translation: debunker best guessing + handwaving everything in conflict away

weve all gotten a taste of your serious discussions.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Cute... Coming from the person who ducks and runs from discussion while accusing others of this.

Wow.... This coming from YOU is pure comic gold!

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

And then you play ignorant...

I had asked you earlier for explanations, then I showed you where your analysis began to depart from reality, then you started on the gas lighting tactic, that you perform regularly.

That last thread I started, I showed how the ROOSD collapse theory is not viable as the video evidence disproves it, I showed pictures with highlights to show precisely what it was that disproves it... You didn't even read that far, which is proved when you said I was relying on "sounds like".

Then you start engaging in this childish method of attacking indirectly claiming that it is others who are doing this, then you claim projection (which is part of your gas lighting technique).

So, it's time to show that you actually want to engage in honest discussion, part of that will be to employ a small amount of humility to accept that the documented evidence shows your analysis is wrong. And I know that can be hard when you've dedicated years of ego trying to prove the plane + fire induced collapse is all that was going on.

What "documented evidence" are you talking about?

All the "explosions" that are NOT consistent with controlled demolition?

The "molten metal" that is NOT consistent with controlled demolition?

The CLAIMS of explosives all over the building including places only an idiot would place them?

Please.

Be clear and concise if you choose to answer.

Mr. Ambiguous can wait outside.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

leaving us to conclude either that other engineers are are just plain stoopid or unqualified or that you failed to prove him incorrect, from what I have seen so far in your posting record I would accept the latter until I see evidence otherwise.

honest has no bearing on correct.

what you fail to understand is that you can lay out 100 honest statements that add up to ZERO bonafide facts.

No, engineers, in general, are not stupid... For example, our local engineer friend, ive seen where he stated that he initially considered demolition, but could not conceive of anyone bypassing security to the degree that would be required for a standard demolition. So, the issue is not one of stupidity, but rather one of naivety and innocence.

Aside from that, I agree with you.

 

[Mark F]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

No, engineers, in general, are not stupid... For example, our local engineer friend, ive seen where he stated that he initially considered demolition, but could not conceive of anyone bypassing security to the degree that would be required for a standard demolition. So, the issue is not one of stupidity, but rather one of naivety and innocence.

Aside from that, I agree with you.

Rubbish. What Oz said is that he couldn't do it without getting caught. You have offered no viable alternative that avoids getting caught other than chucking sticks of dynamite into the ceiling - which is just mind-mindbogglingly stupid.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

No, engineers, in general, are not stupid... For example, our local engineer friend, ive seen where he stated that he initially considered demolition, but could not conceive of anyone bypassing security to the degree that would be required for a standard demolition. So, the issue is not one of stupidity, but rather one of naivety and innocence.

Aside from that, I agree with you.

You are agreeing with a blatant POE.

Nice work.

And the naivety and innocence fits for the new TRUTHERS.... And that is usually cured by facts, evidence and an intelligent understanding of what TRUTHERS disparagingly call the "official narrative" (AKA reality).

The TRUTHERS who have been TRUTHERS a while demonstrate stupidity and/or intentional ignorance.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Genuine Demolitions Expert Discusses CD Claims

Rubbish. What Oz said is that he couldn't do it without getting caught. You have offered no viable alternative that avoids getting caught other than chucking sticks of dynamite into the ceiling - which is just mind-mindbogglingly stupid.

Exactly... Naivety.

And then a strawman, reading comprehension must not be a strong suit.