• 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!

Applying natural collapse engineering theory to demolitions [W:1022,1161]

KokomoJojo said:
whats going on here is when words are used improperly
Click to expand...

I've pointed that out countless times, I call it Orwellian logic (or to stay true doublespeak). It's one of the reasons I quit discussing most 9/11 issues with them, they use a different dictionary than the rest of us English speaking folks.
 
Bob0627 said:
I've pointed that out countless times, I call it Orwellian logic (or to stay true doublespeak). It's one of the reasons I quit discussing most 9/11 issues with them, they use a different dictionary than the rest of us English speaking folks.
Click to expand...

You are doing comedy now?

I even had a TRUTHER dictionary going for a while. TRUTHER definition vs. Real world definition.

ETA - Not mine, but a good one.

Fun:The JREF 9/11 Truther Dictionary - RationalWiki
 
Last edited:
Bob0627 said:
I've pointed that out countless times, I call it Orwellian logic (or to stay true doublespeak). It's one of the reasons I quit discussing most 9/11 issues with them, they use a different dictionary than the rest of us English speaking folks.
Click to expand...

You'll do anything except discuss the topic of the thread.
 
Fledermaus said:
You are doing comedy now?

I even had a TRUTHER dictionary going for a while. TRUTHER definition vs. Real world definition.

ETA - Not mine, but a good one.

Fun:The JREF 9/11 Truther Dictionary - RationalWiki
Click to expand...

when we consider the source, a well known propaganda website no one should be surprized, more made up and OFF TOPIC trash from the usual posters and quag loves your offtopic post despite whining and mischaracterizing a discussion I was trying to have that was 100% on topic.

a document that came from the 9/11 conspiracy forums on the James Randi Educational Foundation website
Click to expand...

Some things never change. When you cant back your loony theories dodge duck call names insult make up strawmen and scream real loud with volumes of gish gallop.

the topic is: What's wrong with applying natural collapse engineering theory to demolitions?

The parts of my discussion with Oz that Oz didnt take into left field forcing me to correct his wall of gish were absolutely on topic.

The **** you have posted not with standing.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Good to know that you read maybe the first sentence before coming up with the response.
Click to expand...
I read everything you wrote, but... the observation I make is you believe the ideas you post are correct and don't try to learn the true aspects of the topics you're dealing with. Take your argument for "finding it hard to believe that plane wings could cut through columns." If I explain to you that no they did not "cut" the columns; that is, the outer impacting region was mostly damage to the aluminum cladding, intermediate being the columns at the point where the wings were denser failed mostly at joints, and only a few closer to the fuselage show mechanical tearing... then what would be your response?
 
Last edited:
Kanzaki said:
I read everything you wrote, but... the observation I make is you believe the ideas you post are correct and don't try to learn the true aspects of the topics you're dealing with. Take your argument for "finding it hard to believe that plane wings could cut through columns." If I explain to you that no they did not "cut" the columns; that is, the outer impacting region was mostly damage to the aluminum cladding, intermediate being the columns at the point where the wings were denser failed mostly at joints, and only a few closer to the fuselage show mechanical tearing... then what would be your response?
Click to expand...

I am betting a furious hand-wave followed by a spate of tap-dancing....
 
Kanzaki said:
I read everything you wrote, but... the observation I make is you believe the ideas you post are correct and don't try to learn the true aspects of the topics you're dealing with. Take your argument for "finding it hard to believe that plane wings could cut through columns." If I explain to you that no they did not "cut" the columns; that is, the outer impacting region was mostly damage to the aluminum cladding, intermediate being the columns at the point where the wings were denser failed mostly at joints, and only a few closer to the fuselage show mechanical tearing... then what would be your response?
Click to expand...

Ok, but it was Mark that I was pointing out could not have read past the first sentence. This is also not even what was being referred to at the time.... but I have raised that issue so, I'll address anyway.

first, you are wrong in your assessment.

Second, that's a lot more detailed way to say the same thing I was getting at... the only thing I would ask is you to show this to be correct... so far as I can tell it's only the tips of the tips that did not cut (rip, tear, shred, whatever not interested in semantic games) the steel.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ok, but it was Mark that I was pointing out could not have read past the first sentence. This is also not even what was being referred to at the time.... but I have raised that issue so, I'll address anyway.

first, you are wrong in your assessment.

Second, that's a lot more detailed way to say the same thing I was getting at... the only thing I would ask is you to show this to be correct... so far as I can tell it's only the tips of the tips that did not cut (rip, tear, shred, whatever not interested in semantic games) the steel.
Click to expand...

I brought it up as an example, didnt bring it back up In that thread since it would have been off topic. I think this is best explained visually and ill slap something together between tonight and tomorrow
 
Kanzaki said:
I read everything you wrote, but... the observation I make is you believe the ideas you post are correct and don't try to learn the true aspects of the topics you're dealing with. Take your argument for "finding it hard to believe that plane wings could cut through columns." If I explain to you that no they did not "cut" the columns; that is, the outer impacting region was mostly damage to the aluminum cladding, intermediate being the columns at the point where the wings were denser failed mostly at joints, and only a few closer to the fuselage show mechanical tearing... then what would be your response?
Click to expand...

I'd call bull**** for the most part.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread now has fewer participants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom