The Debunking Director gets schooled...

[wildbilln864]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

7 minute video
enjoy!

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Well, if you consider Gage making up his own facts which have no actual connection with the events

of 9/11 "getting schooled," well, yeah, I guess in Gage's fantasy world, the guy got schooled.

[KDLarsen]

2. The other side of the story

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150677

[wildbilln864]

3. You guys are sure proud of Blondie the Director....

That is so funny. :rofl: But the video speaks for itself. At no time did blondie dispute any of Gages points. Instead he tried to laugh it off and change the subject. Now he's bragging about it. :rofl: :rofl:

Hint: check the youtube comments. :eyes:

[wildbilln864]

4. and his earlier embarassment....

video link. Schooled again!

[LARED]

5. It was an excellent lesson if the subject was

"Sophistry, and it's use in making a buck off the easily fooled and ignorant"

[szatmar666]

6. this is why humanities types with funny sunglasses should stay away from discussing science

I cannot understand why would anyone with no elementary understanding of a field would engage in debating it with someone who has proven experience. That level of arrogance always baffles my mind.

[William Seger]

9. Where is this "proven experience" please?

I do believe that anyone who knows anything at all about physics and structural engineering should be able to look at the details of the WTC7 design and conclude that it was simply not designed to withstand prolonged fires or to resist progressive collapse. Why can't Gage do that? Why can't any of his "855 architectural and engineering professionals" explain it to him? But apparently not a single one of them can present an argument against NIST's "probable cause" that will withstand peer scrutiny by scientists and engineers. And not a one of them has produced any engineering-based theory of what should have STOPPED the building from collapsing. Instead, we get arguments like it can't happen because it never happened before, NIST is in on it, and theories that WTC7 was brought down with magical silent explosive paint. That level of stupidity always baffles my mind.

[szatmar666]

10. is that right?!

I do believe that anyone who knows anything at all about physics and structural engineering should be able to look at the details of the WTC7 design and conclude that it was simply not designed to withstand prolonged fires or to resist progressive collapse.

and what physical evidence would that conclusion stand on?! what page in the NIST report?! You presumably know what you are talking about so it should be easy for you to engage in specifics. no one has to produce any theory: that's the job of the NIST investigtors since they are the ones who picked the evidence out of the rubble and discarded the rest.

[William Seger]

14. Read the whole thing

If you don't actually know anything about the design details and the NIST hypothesis, then reading it might change your mind, huh.

Oh, you want me to copy-n-paste some of it here so you don't have to go to all that trouble? Oh well, NIST NCSTAR 1A Final Report, p.58:

The structural design did not explicitly evaluate fire effects, which was typical for engineering practice at that time and continues to remain so today. Many of the shear connections in WTC7 were not capable of resisting lateral loads resulting from thermal expansion effect in the steel floor framing when the floor beams were heated.

To understand why they say that, you'd have to read far more than I intend to copy-n-paste for you. But please do come back when you're ready to proceed.

[szatmar666]

19. you missunderstood what I said

I was asking for the physical evidence not the statement of their hypothesis. I am aware of what they claim I just can't find the evidence for it. Something like NCSTAR 1-3C "Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components" Figure 4-1 Core column C-80 located in the impact zone and Table 4-1. Recovered core columns with known as-built locations, grouped by pre-collapse conditions and Table 4-2 Statistical data of damage and failure modes. That's where the evidence is scant at best to support the official hypothesis. 6 core columns from WTC1 from outside of the impact zone will not prove anything about how thousands of them failed. These 6 tell us nothing about why the towers fell symmetrically or why they came down as fast as they did. The NIST report doesn't even attempt to provide proof for their claim and they know it, they even say this themselves.

[William Seger]

23. The NIST hypothesis is primarily based on documentary evidence

Or are you just interested in word games?

NIST NCSTAR 1A Final Report, p.25:

3.2 THE LEADING HYPOTHESIS

Based on observations and analyses and photographic and video records, critical study of steel framing, and simplified and detailed analyses to investigate possible failure modes that could lead to an initiating event, NIST developed the following collapse hypothesis:

As soon as these "855 architectural and engineering professionals" show me an hypothesis that's based on something more substantial, we can talk about it. Magical silent explosive paint? No, thanks.

[szatmar666]

26. they don't have to show anything of the sort

As soon as these "855 architectural and engineering professionals" show me an hypothesis that's based on something more substantial, we can talk about it. Magical silent explosive paint? No, thanks.

it's ridiculous to ask outsiders to show evidence that's more rigorous than anything official investigators can come up with. That would be like asking the NYT to solve murder cases by finding better forensic evidence than the police who had full access to the crime scene, and until they do the police is simply not required to prove their case in the court of law. Whatever alternative hypothesis is out there, and I personally believe that it was a controlled demolition btw, doesn't have to be proven to simply point out that the official theory is not supported by forensic evidence.

[William Seger]

37. The "outsiders" have the same evidence as everyone else

... plus whatever they can dig up on their own. You seem to have some very peculiar notions about how such issues are decided.

>... doesn't have to be proven to simply point out that the official theory is not supported by forensic evidence.

Except that the "official story" is supported by all the credible evidence we have, whereas controlled demolition theories are not. I wonder why Gage feels compelled to offer a distorted version of reality when he serves up his "perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis?"

[szatmar666]

41. as I said before stop the BS and name the page number

You tried twice thus far and failed. It's evident from your posts that you can't even tell a statement from physical evidence. I explained to you already what consists of physical evidence and where you can find it in the NIST report. However you don't seem to be interested engaging in specifics:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269617

[William Seger]

55. And as I said before, read the whole thing

They do a pretty good job of tying their hypothesis to the documentary evidence, especially in Chapter 3.

You're not convinced? Well, that's, um, facinating, but you seem to have forgotten to give me some good reason to care about what you don't believe. What part of their conclusion doesn't fit the evidence, please? You know, as if you actually had an argument or something?

[szatmar666]

32. I don't know if you noticed but your quote from NIST actually proves my point

The NIST report doesn't even attempt to provide proof for their claim and they know it, they even say this themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269617

Based on observations and analyses and photographic and video records, critical study of steel framing, and simplified and detailed analyses to investigate possible failure modes that could lead to an initiating event, NIST developed the following collapse hypothesis:

The NIST report very clearly states in many places that they only deal with the collapse initiation and not the collapse itself. Why is that?!

BTW that's like saying "we are not going to try and reconstruct the murder itself or collect forensic data for the murder itself because it's enough to show that our suspect was angry enough to possibly kill the victim" How absurd is that?!

[William Seger]

36. Why is that?

> The NIST report very clearly states in many places that they only deal with the collapse initiation and not the collapse itself. Why is that?!

Because the "collapse itself" only seems to be a mystery to people who -- what a coincidence -- are desperately trying to rationalize having already promoted their paranoid speculations into paranoid delusions. Simply stated, the "collapse itself" is the result of the fact that falling objects can create impulse forces far greater than their own weight -- a principle that I do believe will withstand any attack you and "855 architectural and engineering professionals" can mount.

[szatmar666]

38. I noticed how some people like you who posted thousands on this forum

are completely and systematically avoiding substance or answering specifics and repeat the same exact fallacies. I have no intention engaging you in this type of nonsense, I already educated one of your fellow pro NIST cheerleaders on the mysteries of the scientific method: you can find my answers to all your precanned talking points right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#269211

I doubt it will do you any good, as I said before you need to be able to at least understand what you don't understand.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. you really shouldn't gloat when you lose

Just saying.

[szatmar666]

40. are you projecting again, Mark?!

you are one funny clown I'll give you that ;)

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. if you could win on the merits, you would n/t

[szatmar666]

43. I actually did and you know that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#269228

If you really believed in winning on the merits of an argument you would have an answer to my posts explaining you that science does require physical evidence. All I am asking from you guys is to name the page number in the NIST report describing such physical evidence, not to give me precanned propaganda and talking points. Just a simple page number! No personal remarks, ad hominems and bs, just a number, ok?! But the fact is that there is no such page number in the NIST report therefore you lost the argument and you know it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. jeepers

No one is debating whether "science does require physical evidence." No one can dispute that the NIST report is full of physical evidence. It should be possible to discuss sensibly how to interpret this evidence, but with you it hasn't been. Whether you want to be serious about this serious subject is entirely up to you.

[szatmar666]

45. so where is the page number?!

I am asking for specific physical evidence proving a specific hypothesis but of course you just keep avoiding specifics and you do it with the admirable dedication of a spin master.

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. but the content of your post is willfully naive

What does it mean to "prove" a specific hypothesis? Your request facially makes no sense, so why would any sensible person engage it?

You may sincerely believe that your position has nothing in common with creationist demands for "missing links." Perhaps eventually you can convince me, but you will have to do some serious work first.

[szatmar666]

47. again: calling me naive or a creationist does not prove you know what you are talking about

I would especially refrain from coming up with ad hoc analogies from science since you've established yourself as a person completely ignorant of basic concepts. Besides, it's you who's guilty of "petitio principii" so it's you who argues like a creationist. I would happily engage in specifics with you as to what are the different hidden metaphysical premises in creationism that establish a Creator before they conclude its existence but I know it would blow right over your head because that's exactly how you argue too. Nevertheless, here it is anyways:

According to you the collapse mechanism obviously follows from the pre-collapse initiation, so there is no need for physical evidence of the collapse itself since its initiation was already proven. Kinda like saying there is no need to measure the wreckage & the dummy in a crash test: we already know what initiated the crash, the rest is just physics... I don't even know why people bother with those tests anyway.

Similarly the existence of a Creator doesn't have to be proven via physical evidence like the big bang theory by cosmological background radiation, red shift and other boring physical evidence, because it's clear from the obvious handiwork of a craftsman shown in all of His creations. Why do we even bother building telescopes?! If only the word "obvious" was a scientific argument ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#269211

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. once again, you misrepresent my posts

I was careful not to call you anything. You are less careful.

(hand-waving deleted)

According to you the collapse mechanism obviously follows from the pre-collapse initiation....

Can you document that assertion? Otherwise, I don't see how any of your post is on point -- unless, of course, personal insults are the point.

ETA: By the way, you actually didn't engage the substance of my previous post.

[szatmar666]

49. apparently direct quotes and links also "misrepresent" your posts

I think it has been pretty well established that once global collapse began, nothing would stop it. I don't know of a relevant expert who thinks that more physical evidence is needed to support that conclusion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#268744

Unless you provide a page number from NIST as I asked you numerous times "pretty well established" is just a poor replacement for the word "obvious".

[wildbilln864]

50. "pretty well established"!?

Is that you Dick Cheney? :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. words have meanings

I don't think you seriously believe that "the collapse mechanism obviously follows from the pre-collapse initiation" means the same thing as "I think it has been pretty well established that once global collapse began, nothing would stop it."

I find it far-fetched that your conception of "collapse mechanism" is that constricted. I can hardly credit that the distinction between establishing a conclusion and positing it as "obviously" true is lost on you.

But I don't know, and I find it increasingly hard to care.

[szatmar666]

52. not unless they are backed by meaning ie. facts

"well established" should mean "proven" not "obvious" or given by authority. I pointed to exact pages in the NIST report where this is illustrated. The latest one here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269617

You thus far failed to prove any of your points with similar rigor.

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. make up your mind

First you assert that I think something is "obvious." Next you offer, as evidence, that I called it "pretty well established." (Actually not the same "it," but let's set that aside for the moment!) Now you avow (or perhaps I should say admit) that "well established" shouldn't mean "obvious."

So, are you conceding that you did misrepresent my words, and I never characterized the statement as obvious? Or are you avowing that you telepathically determined that when I used those words, they meant something other than what they should mean? Or am I missing some "third way"?

I don't think that my statement can be proven in principle, and I don't think that conclusively ruling out the presence of explosives would help much. That's why I used weaker language. I would change my opinion about whether my statement has been "pretty well established" if, for instance, you offered a cogent rebuttal. What puzzles me is that you don't even seem interested in thinking about the question. I've seen some interesting threads here and elsewhere on how WTC 1, 2, and 7 might or might not have collapsed, but you seem satisfied to say over and over that some poorly specified alternative hasn't been refuted.

[William Seger]

57. It IS "well established" -- "obvious" has nothing to do with it

http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Scholarly%20Papers">Many qualified experts have analyzed the collapses.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. no, no, that is intended as satire

If you miss the resemblance between NIST's argument and postulating a creator, well, so do I. But that's the attempted argument here.

ETA: I was tempted to reply that szat's own view is more akin to demanding that we should test crash test dummies for nanothermite. But s/he is so easily distracted, I didn't want to create any confusion.

[szatmar666]

11. btw Gage is an engineer with proven experinece

[KDLarsen]

12. No. He's a former architect.

Who lives off speaking tours and DVD sales.



He's also thinks that cardboard boxes are valid substitutes for the WTC towers.

And the largest building work he's been involved with, was the remodelling of a gymnasium.

[szatmar666]

13. and as a former architect

he presumably has a degree and worked in the field. I have a very easy job when I have to convince fellow engineers, regardless of their education level, that if they look at the NIST report they will not find any physical evidence for the progressive collapse hypothesis even though initially most of them thought that this was a key piece of the official theory and it was well proven by NIST.

Most of them mistakenly believes at first glance that all evidence presented throughout the report is of the same quality as the ones presented for the aircraft impact and the fires and the scientific method is followed through in the entire report including when it comes to the collapse itself so most engineers will rarely follow through to make sure that's in fact the case.

The fact that most professionals don't have time to read a 10000 page gov report and many of them are not motivated to scrutinize gov reports because of ideological reasons is not in itself a proof that they necessarily agree with the report especially not after someone points out the wholes in it.

I however have a very difficult time to even explain to highly motivated and highly educated humanities types what's needed to prove a scientific hypothesis. and that was my point: you need to speak science even to understand at least what you don't understand so that you can engage in a meaningful discussion. this video is a vivid illustration of that.

[KDLarsen]

16. I DON'T need to speak science to know Gage is lying

Nor do I need to speak science to point out flaws in his arguments.

[szatmar666]

20. yes you do

and the fact that you are not aware of this proves my point ;)

[KDLarsen]

21. Unbelievable

At least Richard Gage also admits that he's speaking outside areas of his expertise:


Other gems: http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes

[szatmar666]

27. believe it or not that just means he is an honest guy

the point being that no matter how much these people are attacked personal attacks against skeptics does not substitute for proof of the official theory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269656

[William Seger]

22. Really?

In that video, Gage talks about "office fires that they say were fulling engulfed in the building {sic}, and yet we have no examples of large, uh, fires -- 8 to 10 small fairly small fires is what we have."

He's making a claim about evidence, not about the science. Is that a true statement?

He also says the building fell "like a brick from the top of the building" -- another claim about the evidence, not about the science; is it true or false?

And that's just in the first 40 seconds...

[szatmar666]

28. fact is no one has conclusive evidence

Gage is not required to provide the same level of proof as investigators who had access to the site. What he is doing is presenting a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis which even if not proven to scientific standard poses the question of how can the official theory rule it out?! If it is scientifically proven it should be easy to outrule the possibility of controlled demolition. Where is the piece of physical evidence that both proves the official progressive collapse theory and at the same time outrules controlled demolition?! If we had a relevant statistical sample size of core or perimeter columns we could easily show not only the exact failure mode of key structural elements but also the fact that there is no sign of demolition charges on them.

[William Seger]

35. Oh, is that how it works in Trutherville?

Maybe nobody in Trutherville can rule out magical silent explosive paint as a "perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis" but I don't have any problem doing that. Maybe you and Gage don't understand why the NIST hypothesis makes sense and fits the evidence, whereas absolutely nothing coming out of AE911truth meets either criteria, but I do. Maybe you think it's okay for Gage to accuse hundreds of people of being accessories to mass murder and then isn't required to provide anything but a pile of horseshit as evidence, but I don't. Maybe you believe that if he ever gets that new investigation he's asking for, the nonsense he keeps spewing will magically turn into Truth, but I don't.

No, Gage isn't required to prove anything -- unless he wants to be taken seriously outside of Trutherville. There's a perfectly obvious reason why he has been manifestly unable to do that, but I'm sure you can manage to ignore it indefinitely.

[lovepg]

95. Do YOU KNOW how loud nano thermite is as it goes off???

If you say you do you are full of Poop.

[William Seger]

96. I don't know...

... how idiotic "silent explosives" are, because when I try to measure it, my Idiotometer pegs and catches fire.

[lovepg]

101. Silent no not as loud yes. I hear they can do lots of "impossible" things these days

with science. You should check it out. Your not one of those no moon landing nuts are you?

[William Seger]

107. LMAO! "Not as loud" explosives? That's easy - I made some when I was a kid

... trying to make gunpowder, but mine was "not as loud" as the real stuff.

You have absolutely no clue how or why explosives rip through steel, do you?

[William Seger]

18. Worked in WHAT field?

Gage did not do any structural engineering on any of the projects he worked on. Fortunately, most municipalities don't allow non-engineers to do that.

[Subdivisions]

29. You're an engineer? Ok, well, while you're in here, you don't know shit

about engineering. Here in the dungeon, nobodies who believe the official government myth of 9/11 know more about structural engineering, and all manner of things, than everybody else does. If you heard explosions on 9/11, you're full of shit. If you are an architect, you don't know what you're talking about. Etc. So, don't be bringing your expertise in here. This is no place for it.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Finished that hit job you were doing on the engineers that wrote the NIST reports yet? n/t

[Subdivisions]

31. What the heck are you talking about? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

33. How soon we forget. n/t

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

58. Well fuck... n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. I will PM you with a copy of your post

I guess it needs some cleaning up around the edges, but I thought it was a thoughtful post, and I don't want you to have to go through all that again either. Sometimes things get chippier than necessary around here.

[Subdivisions]

60. That's the third time I've tried to address this only to get deleted. I give up. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. heck, I'll arrange to post it, if you don't object

I would just take out parts that might have struck a nerve. I don't think the mods have it in for you, or whatever. But it's your call.

[whatchamacallit]

25. The NIST is full of shit and so are

:hi:

[William Seger]

7. Schooled? Gage got his BS degree from the School for Scoundrels

Pathological Liars for 9/11 Truth. Yeahhh! That's the ticket!

Gage knows he's saying things that aren't true. You know he's saying things that aren't true. Neither of you care. Look! There's a couple of bobbleheads who don't know!

What a pathetic "truth movement."

[szatmar666]

8. calling people "bubbleheads" and making a big fat ad hominem remark

says more about your lack of intellectual credentials than anything. If you actually had a point you would have made it. In this particular video it's evident that "Kevin" is way over his head, let's just stick to the topic of the thread here.

[William Seger]

15. That's "bObblehead"

... and "Kevin" is not relevant in any way to whether or not Gage is willfully telling lies.

[whatchamacallit]

62. I didn't hear any "lies" in that video

Only opinions (that I agree with). You can play kill the messenger all you want, but I have yet to hear anything from Gage that should inspire the kind of hate and loathing he engenders in you. I think you fear him.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. 10 Boneheaded Mistakes of AE911Truth

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes

And that's the old video, isn't it, where Richard claims squibs in 7 and myriad other bullshit that they've since removed?

[whatchamacallit]

65. What a pantload

I just wasted time reading your amazingly authoritative (lol) debunker blog. See Bolo, the problem with all the stuff you pawn off as fact, is that it's nothing more than opinion and conjecture. But because your bias has you buying it, you confuse it for fact. This is the same kind of weak crap that caused your boy-wonder-debunk-director to get his ass handed to him. Pathetic...

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Riiiight. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

70. Right is right n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Feel free to deal with specifics in how my page is simple conjecture.

Until then, all you're doing is a desperate reframing job.

[whatchamacallit]

72. That site is lame

The very first thing they hammer Gage about is a disclaimer. Even if it was late coming, it was the right kind of qualifier to add to the page, and likely inspired by all the bellyaching by OCTers. But to your garden variety debunk-o-bot it's evidence of duplicity. I could go point by point, but I don't wanna go back there.

[SDuderstadt]

75. "I don't wanna go back there"...

"trutherspeak" for "I really can't refute your points, so I'll just pretend it's too demanding to try".

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. "evidence of duplicity"?

I wouldn't venture to speak for "your garden variety debunk-o-bot," but I don't think Gage is being duplicitous when he says that he is speaking outside his expertise.

That doesn't prove that he is wrong. But I do think that Gage consistently understates the possibility that he simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

[whatchamacallit]

81. To bad Armchair Debunkers like yourself

don't have the humility or common sense to admit the same.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. I have a thought

If you have a specific criticism of something, anything, that I've written, by all means post it. If you catch me running around the country giving a slide show on why the twin towers collapsed, feel free to ridicule me. As for the unsupported personal attacks, well, suit yourself.

[szatmar666]

92. LOL!

If you have a specific criticism of something, anything, that I've written, by all means post it.

:rofl:

Good luck with that wild goose chase! I especially like the clever deck stacking achieved by the backhanded use of the word "specific" in this context: which sure captures the essence of what you usually post ... NOT!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#269221

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. .

Nu?

[szatmar666]

94. ok I have plenty of posts here that are specific and to the point

based on verifiable quotes from the NIST report and other research. Can you provide a link to 1 of your posts from the last few weeks that's just as specific and provides exact sourcing?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x262795#266533
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x262795#266961
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269617
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=250069&mesg_id=250386
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#268938
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#268956
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#269012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x268197#269228

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. can you provide a response to my previous post?

If you can't deal with other people's arguments -- if, in fact, you mangle other people's arguments -- who cares how many sources you cite?

[szatmar666]

98. my response was: you never had an argument

you just string words together to give the impression you engage in one, hence trying to address your "arguments" is an exercise in futility.

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. you might as well jam your fingers in your ears

I address your points, and you don't address mine. There's nothing else I can be expected to do. If you've convinced yourself, so be it.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[szatmar666]

102. in fact I very patiently and to the point answered your arguments which you ignored repeatedly

First you assert that I think something is "obvious." Next you offer, as evidence, that I called it "pretty well established." (Actually not the same "it," but let's set that aside for the moment!) Now you avow (or perhaps I should say admit) that "well established" shouldn't mean "obvious."

"pretty well established" is meaningless unless you provide the direct quote and the source so we know exactly who established it and where. and no, listing a bunch of papers ad hoc as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269803">Seger did doesn't do it! Need to be more specific and to the point.

I made my point clear as day http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269778">here. then you answered with this and you linked to it in post 93. That's not an argument. that's just more out of context nonsense. Until you provide a direct quote like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=269540&mesg_id=269626">him so I can answer it http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x269540#269689">specifically, "pretty well established" just means "obvious" and it's just another one of your logical fallacies that I pointed out many times before, going way over and beyond any reasonable measure of courtesy one would normally grant to accommodate someone's whims.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. no, it doesn't

"pretty well established" simply does not mean "obvious." If you can't bring yourself to admit even this, there is little prospect of sensibly discussing any subject whatsoever.

Do I need to spoon-feed you the literature? No, I do not. You can engage it, or not. Your priorities seem clear enough.

[szatmar666]

105. of course it does

it also means "it's common knowledge" or "it's in the Bible" or "my mom told me". All the same logical fallacy: argument from authority, something you elevated to an art.

[OnTheOtherHand]

106. in other words, it means whatever you want it to mean

OK. But not a good use of my time.

If you have something to contribute to the research literature, by all means gird up your loins.

[William Seger]

108. "Need to be more specific and to the point."

Maybe so, if this were really a debatable point, but it isn't. When OTOH said is was "well established" that collapse would continue, he is merely indicating that he is at least somewhat familiar with "who established it and where." I gave you links that would allow you to get up to speed before continuing. But now, you want to change the debate to be a debate about your own ignorance and who is responsible for correcting it. Ridiculous.

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. I think it's more about denialism than ignorance

This move 'works,' in a sense, no matter how well or poorly the denialist knows the relevant literature. Since szatmar's standard of evidence is to require a "statistically significant relevant sample" of the core columns, s/he 'knows' from first principles that what I said must be wrong. We've seen, in various issue domains, the maneuvers available to someone in that position.

(Obviously I have a real problem with such cavalier talk about statistics, never mind... well, never mind.)

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

64. If you believe what Gage is claiming as fact

... then you're not in any position to form an intelligent opinion about what happened. That's the purpose of propaganda. Gage is a snakeoil salesman, but suit yourself -- buy the whole product line. Only downside is that you will need to keep inventing excuses why so few people take you seriously.

[whatchamacallit]

66. The only snake oil salesmen I know

peddle their wares in here, William.

[William Seger]

67. Your confusion is not surprising...

... since you seem to be a little fuzzy on what the word "fact" means, and think that Gage's "facts" are just as good as anyone's.

[whatchamacallit]

68. Hate to break it to you William

but nothing you believe has been proved. Nothing.

[William Seger]

73. Breaking wind

... seems to be the best you can manage.

[whatchamacallit]

74. History will ultimately bury you

Lame On.

[SDuderstadt]

78. When can we expect this?

You've had eight years so far. What are you waiting for?

[whatchamacallit]

82. Enough with your simpleminded timetables

We know some truths take decades to reveal themselves. Your argument is weak and pointless.

[SDuderstadt]

84. You mean like your claims?

Dude...it's been 8 years. If your claims are correct, why isn't any prominent investigative journalist taking up your banner? How do you account for your lack of compelling, direct evidence?

[whatchamacallit]

90. We've been down this road before

How long did it take for the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, the earth is round... Your "point" blows, give it up.

[Bolo Boffin]

80. A 9/11 Truth advocate paraphrasing long-dead leaders of failed states: priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwJHg9UBNPE

If you really want me to get my laugh on, tell me how you're going to push me into the sea.

[SDuderstadt]

77. What bullshit...

just because you can't or don't want to see something doesn't mean that credentialed science/engineering professionals don't believe it's not been proven.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Credentials or no

Please show us how and where the "progressive collapse" theory has been proved. Tick tock...

[SDuderstadt]

86. Dude...

if your claims to the contrary are so compelling, where are the peer-revfiewed papers? Just because something can't be proven to your satisfaction because of your confirmation bias, doesn't mean it isn't widely accepted by the scientific and engineering communities. You need one of these:



Instead, you keep grasping for one of these:

[whatchamacallit]

89. Nice graphics, where's the beef?

I stated the theories you cling to are currently just theories
You challenged my statement
I asked how I was wrong
You lamed

Thanks for playing.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Serious question....

have you ever actually read the NIST report or any number of peer-reviewed papers such as those bY Eagar, Bazant, Greening, etc.?

[SDuderstadt]

76. That would be you and your...

fellow "truthers", no?

[whatchamacallit]

85. No.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Ummm, yeah...

dude.

[lovepg]

17. You know its really funny how whiny you official story people get when you..

got no answers. So now I guess the story is that building seven was designed so poorly and was so dangerous that its collapse was inevitable
with the first fires that hit it. I guess this is the characteristic that attracted the mayor to make it the cities command center in case of an emergency.
This would explain why the building was stocked with fuel tanks so in case of fire the buildings emminant collapse could be hastened.
BUT WAIT wasn't there just a court case that decided the designers of building seven were not at fault????

[whatchamacallit]

24. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

That fool was all over the map with the typical disjointed OCT talking points. Just like in here. :rofl: