• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

There are few different ways to look at it. My take from the visual representation of the "thought process" shows how 2 dimensional the analyticals are for the "CD" argument and it shows the most fundamental lack of comprehension in building dynamics that leads to the "CD" conclusion. And your response (the way you explain your position on how the building failed shows you're familiar with what issues to pay attention to) highlights the fundamental disconnect that rears up when these discussions come up; In essence my observation deals with the why conspiracy believers are unable to connect with the realistic collapse dynamics. Not that this difference was necessarily a mystery before, but a visual representation provides a very easy interpretation of how CT's look at those details.

My take is that CT's strip down the details and simplify them to such the extent that it removes all of the most essential understanding along with it.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Please direct me to the post where you proved intent.
Click to expand...

Is there something you don't understand about "self evident"? Oh right, it's not in your case so don't worry about it.
 
Kanzaki said:
There are few different ways to look at it. My take from the visual representation of the "thought process" shows how 2 dimensional the analyticals are for the "CD" argument and it shows the most fundamental lack of comprehension in building dynamics that leads to the "CD" conclusion. And your response (the way you explain your position on how the building failed shows you're familiar with what issues to pay attention to) highlights the fundamental disconnect that rears up when these discussions come up; In essence my observation deals with the why conspiracy believers are unable to connect with the realistic collapse dynamics. Not that this difference was necessarily a mystery before, but a visual representation provides a very easy interpretation of how CT's look at those details.

My take is that CT's strip down the details and simplify them to such the extent that it removes all of the most essential understanding along with it.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you are heading with this. My perspective is different on the three key points I've identified.

I find it very rare for any truthers - esp. these late days 2010>>2014 - to display ANY thought process. I have hypothesised that "most truthers CANNOT think" - I suggest "most truthers DO NOT think" is transparently obvious - read any of their posts which contain on topic material. My second hypothesis is the causal one "that is why most of them became truthers". Since they cannot think through anything the slightest bit complicated their lifelong defence mechanism becomes "blame the man" - how many truthers don't "blame the man" or any representative of knowledgeable understanding of the things the truther doesn't comprehend? I can see where the shallow thinking argument may apply to a minority of truthers - those minority remaining active who can do a bit of thinking. Hard to tell because most have so thoroughly adopted "truther memes" that any apparent thinking is likely "inherited" from others - not their own original processing.

Agreed on the second emphasised point - fundamental lack of comprehension - similar comments apply.

On the third point - I'll take a rain check on "strip down".....they never have all the points in the frame anyway so "strip down" is not the process but I think that we may be just using different labels for the same process - filter out what doesn't suit your false claim.

To me the most obvious feature of most "truther reasoning" is that their logic is arse about.

Rather than start from the context of known facts - they start EITHER from a pre-decided position such as "there was CD" OR from a single anomalous point that they don't understand - say some issue like noise of explosions >> quantum leap to "explosive" cutting >> therefore CD. Ignoring all the evidence that says otherwise.
 
Fledermaus said:
BTW - Have you proven INTENT yet?

Yes or No?

If you have PROVEN INTENT perhaps you can point out which post.
Click to expand...
He cannot prove intent because he EITHER doesn't know what it means OR he is pretending ignorance.

Most likely the former. I think that what you see is what you get with Bob. Nothing there of substance.
 
ozeco41 said:
Nothing there of substance.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, that's exactly what I think of all your posts. You make no sense with your "most truthers CANNOT think" mantra (that you call a hypothesis). In the first place, there is no such thing as the group-think class you derogatorily label as "truthers". No one thinks alike. In the second place, anyone who does not think would just accept what he/she is fed without question. I could just as easily make the same claim, "most debunkers CANNOT think" and it would be even more appropriate because people like you rely on official propaganda to spew your nonsense. That takes zero thought, it's just parroting.

Same as Mark: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc."

In any case, this thread is still about NIST's FRAUDULENT report, not about "truthers" or "debunkers". NIST's fraud was detailed in the first 3 posts in this thread and that only scratches the surface. And it is still self evident to anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence. Deny it all you want (or pretend to), it changes nothing nor does it add substance or credibility to your posts.
 
Bob0627 said:
Funny thing, that's exactly what I think of all your posts.
Click to expand...
Setting aside your claim of "think" what you actually think or pretend to think about my posts is not relevant. Your error #1 - evasion.
Bob0627 said:
You make no sense...
Click to expand...
All that you can legitimately claim is "I, Bob, do not understand...." which actually proves my point. Your error #2 - illegitimate and false assertion.
Bob0627 said:
with your "most truthers CANNOT think" mantra (that you call a hypothesis).
Click to expand...
Your position of not understanding word definitions (Real or pretended - Error #3 - evasion by misrepresentation.) --- prove that it is wrong. (Error #4 - more evasion.)
Bob0627 said:
In the first place, there is no such thing as the group-think class you derogatorily label as "truthers".
Click to expand...
Error #5 -Strawman. AND misrepresentation
Bob0627 said:
No one thinks alike.
Click to expand...
That Error #6 is a strawman by false allocation of set/subset. So a form of false generalisation.
Bob0627 said:
In the second place, anyone who does not think would just accept what he/she is fed without question.
Click to expand...
Yes - as you and your truther/pretend truther colleagues do many times. Error #7 - Projection in form of lie by innuendo.
Bob0627 said:
I could just as easily make the same claim, "most debunkers CANNOT think"
Click to expand...
Actually that could well be true. The reasons too complicated in this context. Show me that you comprehend (say) half of the truths I've put before you and you so far have evaded - and I'll explain why you accidentally got that one partly correct.
Bob0627 said:
...and it would be even more appropriate because people like you rely on official propaganda...
Click to expand...
Outright untruth deliberately repeated. Error #8 A lie
Bob0627 said:
to spew your nonsense.
Click to expand...
Whether it is nonsense or not you cannot rebut it. If it was nonsense rebuttal should be easy - for anyone who can string together the necessary steps of reasoning. Error #9 Unsupported assertions. And attempted back up by snide emotive commentary.
Bob0627 said:
That takes zero thought, it's just parroting.
Click to expand...
True that parroting takes zero thought. The false implication that I am parroting makes your innuendo moot.

Bob0627 said:
In any case, this thread is still about NIST's FRAUDULENT report,..
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the OP which you have failed to support. I question your wisdom in posting an OP that you have no intention of supporting AND which is wrong in its foundation claims. I and others have given you the "Interoduction to Fraud 000.25" lessons.
Bob0627 said:
not about "truthers" or "debunkers".
Click to expand...
Never said it was. It is about the false claims and other dishonest behaviour demonstrated in this thread which are commonly observed by trutehrs oin other threads and other forums. Debunkers get a free ride - they are not the ones making the claims.
Bob0627 said:
NIST's fraud was detailed in the first 3 posts in this thread and that only scratches the surface.
Click to expand...
False claim that fraud was detailed as has been explained to you multiple times. All you have listed is a range of examples which you assert are fraud. I've read the examples - I and a few others are waiting for you to prove fraud as Step #1 THEN we can address the specific allegations. Waste of time till you prove fraud.
Bob0627 said:
And it is still self evident to anyone with any reasonable amount of intelligence.
Click to expand...
True - tho' what and who are not the way round that you keep pretending.
Bob0627 said:
Deny it all you want (or pretend to), it changes nothing nor does it add substance or credibility to your posts.
Click to expand...
Get of the Kokoade - It is your OP, your false claims that we are attempting to discuss. Projection will not get you out of the winnable corner you put yourself in.


@Other Members. Yes I know. But occasionally I like to carve up this sort of nonsense into mincemeat. :3oops:
 
ozeco41 said:
Not sure where you are heading with this.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I was being a bit confusing... When I review the claims on the 9/11 CT's I usually try to understand how people reach those conclusions... and I often assume a thinking process to do so. A lot of that may be based on a comparison between how I analyze the "CD" claims for example, and what I would have to leave out of my usual thinking to draw the conspiracy theory based conclusion. There is also the "no thought process" route.... though I try really hard to give people benefit of the doubt first before I go there.

That may answer to your disagreement with me on the 1st and 3rd points :lol:
Not that I'm arguing with you on them or anything.

Bob0627 said:
Funny thing, that's exactly what I think of all your posts.
Click to expand...
And when people take the time to actually try and hold a reasonable degree of discussion you lashed out with false accusations of the "plagiarized NIST claims", called people arrogant, and believing everything they're told, among other things... There wasn't a single post in our exchange or any of the other ones I've observed where you didn't levy some level of ad hominem. You waive your right to complain about conduct when you engage in that activity yourself... and then you still wonder why you don't get the kind of "reasoned" discussion you call for?
 
Last edited:
There's no point in getting into any discussion with defenders of the OCT and the criminals who created the OCT. So from this point on, I will no longer respond to their posts except under rare circumstances where I feel it makes sense. Their tactics are obvious and as I already said, it's a waste of time and I'm guilty of getting into confrontations with these fakes. That's not my purpose here. Part of their tactics are to push one's buttons to distract from a discussion and I must admit, it works at times.

So back to the OP, NIST's FRAUD.

In this interview, William Jacoby addresses a new initiative by attorneys to use the courts to get FEMA and NIST to release some 490,000 documents, photos, videos, etc. via a lawsuit. It seems these agencies have been stonewalling all FOIA attempts using various excuses or none at all. During the same interview, the question was raised about legal issues with regard to NIST's responsibility in providing their report based on accurate information as opposed to their deliberate falsification of data to arrive at a preconceived conclusion supporting the OCT and in the process, covering up the reality of 9/11. The discussion begins at about 45:40.

 
If the FEMA fraud ever goes public, it will be the equivalent of the media acknowledging that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.

Ain't gonna happen in this corrupt time.
 
Henry David said:
If the FEMA fraud ever goes public, it will be the equivalent of the media acknowledging that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.

Ain't gonna happen in this corrupt time.
Click to expand...

Says the truther who refuses to back up any of his totally ridiculous claims.
Figured out what ground effect is yet?
 
So Bob, just suppose hypothetically for a moment that you are wrong. Terrorists with a long history of attacking the U.S. and its interests who despise the American government and its foreign policy more than you do took action and attacked symbols of American economic, military and political power in order to achieve their objectives. Lets say that the overwhelming majority of the worlds structural engineers, and physicists are correct in that aircraft impact damage and fire took down the Twin Towers and damaged or destroyed dozens of other buildings in the process and partially collapsed the Pentagon - even if they disagree on the details or got some of them wrong. What if people like Richard Gage and Tony Szamboti are allowing ideology to blind their objectivity and are reaching faulty conclusions due to false starting assumptions.

What then?

I mean, just because the U.S. government sometimes does objectionable things and has an often questionable foreign policy does not mean foreign terrorists will not strike back at us because we have a government that sometimes does objectionable things and has an often questionable foreign policy. They act where you complain and call people names on the internet.
 
As he already views the discussion as a moot subject with anyone and bundles some in with what he considers the criminal element I doubt such questions are ever likely to be considered...he's stated it categorically. You can't argue with someone who has a closed mind and states as much as his position... period...
 
Kanzaki said:
As he already views the discussion as a moot subject with anyone and bundles some in with what he considers the criminal element I doubt such questions are ever likely to be considered...he's stated it categorically. You can't argue with someone who has a closed mind and states as much as his position... period...
Click to expand...

I have little anticipation of any reply that contains anything beyond the usual verbal abuse, projections and evasions.
 
Kanzaki said:
You can't argue with someone who has a closed mind and states as much as his position... period...
Click to expand...
Correct. He has been shown repeatedly where his arguments - such as they are - are wrong. He refuses to engage in reasoned discussion - has never shown that he is capable of it.

Mark got it right in a recent post - Bob's posts are the lowest quality on the totem pole. He is probably the only one here who steadfastly refuses to even attempt reasoned discussion. Others sometimes try - and get it wrong - but they show some limited skill in the activity of "thinking".
Mark F said:
So Bob, just suppose hypothetically for a moment that you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Very generous Mark. There is no doubt that he is wrong. And both "suppose" and "hypothetical" require the activity of "thinking" directed towards presenting reasoned argument. Bob has zero intention of going there. Whether or not he has the ability - he has no intention of attempting reasoned discussion.
 
Last edited:
Mark F said:
I have little anticipation of any reply that contains anything beyond the usual verbal abuse, projections and evasions.
Click to expand...
You won't be disappointed. ;)

The projections a sure sign of "out of depth" - a great big "blind spot" in cognition. Zero self awareness.
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Very generous Mark. There is no doubt that he is wrong. And both "suppose" and "hypothetical" require the activity of "thinking" directed towards presenting reasoned argument. Bob has zero intention of going there. Whether or not he has the ability - he has no intention of attempting reasoned discussion.
Click to expand...

I am trying to give Bob one last chance to be somewhat reasonable. What can I say, I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.

Please don't mistake that for optimism :mrgreen:
 
Mark F said:
I am trying to give Bob one last chance to be somewhat reasonable.
Click to expand...
I spoon fed him a list of his errors - should have made it easy for him to come back on at least one of them. Short of writing up for him an argument to support one of his claims - show him how it is done - what more help can we give? Problem of course is that none of his claims are supportable.

Mark F said:
What can I say, I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.

Please don't mistake that for optimism :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
About 15 years back my #2 daughter bought me a tee shirt with most of the "glass half full" definitions. EXCEPT the one that mattered - the engineers version "The glass is over designed"
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
About 15 years back my #2 daughter bought me a tee shirt with most of the "glass half full" definitions. EXCEPT the one that mattered - the engineers version "The glass is over designed"
Click to expand...

I'm a "how much is left in the bottle" guy.
 
Mark F said:
So Bob, just suppose hypothetically for a moment that you are wrong. Terrorists with a long history of attacking the U.S. and its interests who despise the American government and its foreign policy more than you do took action and attacked symbols of American economic, military and political power in order to achieve their objectives. Lets say that the overwhelming majority of the worlds structural engineers, and physicists are correct in that aircraft impact damage and fire took down the Twin Towers and damaged or destroyed dozens of other buildings in the process and partially collapsed the Pentagon - even if they disagree on the details or got some of them wrong. What if people like Richard Gage and Tony Szamboti are allowing ideology to blind their objectivity and are reaching faulty conclusions due to false starting assumptions.

What then?

I mean, just because the U.S. government sometimes does objectionable things and has an often questionable foreign policy does not mean foreign terrorists will not strike back at us because we have a government that sometimes does objectionable things and has an often questionable foreign policy. They act where you complain and call people names on the internet.
Click to expand...

and what if they are not?
 
wow, I guess this thread has degenerated into a debunker circle jerk. I thought I was in the conspiracy section, dont mind me, I certainly wouldnt want to interrupt your gossip session.
 
KokomoJojo said:
and what if they are not?
Click to expand...

Then someone would have come up with a hypothesis for what happened that better explains the available evidence while using fewer unsupported assumptions.

So far, nobody has.

I suspect that means something.
 
Mark F said:
Then someone would have come up with a hypothesis for what happened that better explains the available evidence while using fewer unsupported assumptions.

So far, nobody has.

I suspect that means something.
Click to expand...

As I suspected, it wasnt a hypothetical.

Available? Joking right?

You cant be serious.

Someone?

You mean cherry picked like the official story, and based on innuendo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom