It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

You are not even trying.


Well duh....

I've been consistent about that, yes?

I tried for years to educate the fools that fall for the TM garbage.

I see no reason to keep trying anymore. You're nothing to me. You can wallow in your ignorance for the rest of your ife.

SE= structural engineer
FE=fire science engineer
ME = medical examiner

None of them even bother to give the TM the dignity of a response to their questions, accusations, etc. There is no reason to validate the insane ramblings prevalent in the TM.

Until you can figure out WHY that is, you will remain forever ignorant.




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

There`s not many causes for a complete building collapse,



Then I'll ask you:

Why do structural engineers - WORLDWIDE - ignore this "evidence" that investigooglers in the TM have "proven" - according to the TM - to be correct?

They don't feel the need - WORLDWIDE - to validate anything the idiot TM says.

Think about that one........



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


I need to meet these professionals that agreed with the NIST report. What exactly did they agree with? The made up new term for the explanation they could not explain? This guy is a joke. Hmm does this mean the the NIST report is an official report or would thomas like to address that one.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
SE= structural engineer
FE=fire science engineer
ME = medical examiner

None of them even bother to give the TM the dignity of a response to their questions, accusations, etc. There is no reason to validate the insane ramblings prevalent in the TM.


You know that's an outright lie, right?

To say that no SEs alone disbelieve the OS is a lie.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I have to wonder where Ravioli gets his info. Not only is it easy to find structural engineers that do not believe the official story but the medical examiners testified to what exactly? No bodies? No blood? Nothing to recover. God, I wish I could ignore his quotes in other people's posts too.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You know that's an outright lie, right?

To say that no SEs alone disbelieve the OS is a lie.


Ok, I'll qualify it then.

There are virtually zero working SE's that would argue against the engineering theories that NIST put forth as the cause of the collapse.

I remember there being one in gage's group of morons that was retired, so there's no repurcussions to them making stuff up.

I think another thought a nuke was used, so...... whatever.


Others, I don't remember a thing about.

But I'm sure that there are SE's that will challenge other areas, like intel failures, planes not being able to fly fast enough, etc. But I'd hazard a guess here and say that nearly zero working SE's - WORLDWIDE - would challenge the NIST report on the engineering issues. At least not put their name to it.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, jprohphet420. I know you hate be called out on your claims but we in the rational world are going to hold you to them.

jthomas, you don't post as though you live in the rational world.

You fully believe the official government story. You defend it constantly in this forum.

Yet, in this thread, you have refused to endorse the Pentagon Security Camera evidence.

Why do you refuse to believe the official government story evidence, jthomas?

That's irrational behaviour and it further qualifies all of the points in my OP.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There are virtually zero working SE's that would argue against the engineering theories that NIST put forth as the cause of the collapse.

Please quantify this completely unsourced opinion with real data and then get back to us with the truth.

Your opinion alone is not satisfactory.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by Joey Canoli

They don't feel the need - WORLDWIDE - to validate anything the idiot TM says.

Think about that one........

Idiots and thinking, an analogy using facts, common sense, science, protocols, evidence.....

A). 757`s and 767`s can hold around 200 passengers, on average 60 - 100 will be male`s from the ages of 16 - 70.

B). You are a terrorist and plan to hijack these planes with 3-4 mates, you have no idea how many passengers there will be - if planes are full that means 12 - 20 males per terrorist or 15-25 for 4 man teams to deal and contend with, what type of firearms are best suited to cope with the situation?.

C). Crafting knifes.

D). All the 4 pilots have little to no flying experience with commercial jet liners.

E). 3 from 4 regardless of this hit their targets.

F). You are part of a serious crime squad team, you arrive at the scene of the crime, your crew interview 503 first responders, police, news reporters, building occupants. In 19000 pages of evidence depicting of explosions involving injuries and deaths, you don`t even undertake forensic tests nor pyrotechnic testing on steels, soil, anything, regardless of all the evidence supporting explosions, you neglect it - therefore completely breaking all the protocols for terrorist activities.

G). Never before in the whole history of buildings and fires has a steel framed building collapsed, then three collapse in the same day, 503 people tell of explosions, agencies responsible for discovering the truth and causes of collapses cannot accomplish the task in hand, 503 people tell of explosions.

H). 503 people tell of explosions.

I). NIST and FEMA cannot work out how 3 towers collapse.

J). 503 eye witnesses tell of explosions.

K). Commission day, ignore WTC7 completely, still no reason for the collapses has been found.

L). 503 eye witnesses not asked to attend the omission oops commission.

M). 503 tell of explosions.

N). We do not know how they collapsed.

O). No tests done for explosions.

P). Only one way possible for three buildings to collapse in their own foot prints, at free fall or close to it speeds.

Q). Serious crime squad, no forensic tests done on a day terrorists were killing people.

R). Terrorists use bombs, they blow buildings up.

S). No tests for explosive residues nor pyrotechnics.

T). 503 tell of explosions.

U). How did the buildings collapse?, terrorists you say?, ah that will be bombs then, where`s the forensic evidence?, no evidence you say?, no tests done?, but there were terrorists, they use bombs, they blow buildings up, they done it before, here in 93, explosions you say?.

V). 503, EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS.

W). IGNORED.

X). WHY?.

Y). EXPLOSIONS.

Z). 503.

Idiots you say?.

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by Joey Canoli


WORLDWIDE - would challenge the NIST report on the engineering issues. At least not put their name to it.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You`re serious aint you?, omg you are lmfao.

1). Scientist questions 9/11 probe's professionalism..

911science1.blogspot.com...

2). Nist rewrites the laws of physics!!! …. I’ll be taking some of your questions now …. cut the mic damn it!!!!

www.zimbio.com...

3). Professors Make Legal Challenges to NIST 9/11 World Trade Centre Report

www.prleap.com...

4). NIST WTC 7 "Fire" Conclusion Blatantly Contradicts FEMA Report

www.nowpublic.com...

5). 9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity

www.911blogger.com...

If you need any more proof of just how poor NIST are, give me a shout.

Professionals you say?, idiots you say? NIST you say? ah I see.

Change the laws of physics you say?, rather than test for the real reason three buildings collapsed, just break science so it fits the perps OS like a glove, professionals you say?.

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I'm tired of your weaseling. I have demonstrated that you claim of not making claims is FALSE. I have demonstrated that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too by relying on the claims of sources whose claims require a flyover taking place. But, oh no, you just want to leave out the flyover claim and keep the rest that sounds good.


So since I used evidence presented by one or more persons that claim there was a flyover, I am claiming there was a flyover?

Theres your fallacy.


Nope, no fallacy at all. Learn to read.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, jprohphet420. I know you hate be called out on your claims but we in the rational world are going to hold you to them.

jthomas, you don't post as though you live in the rational world.

You fully believe the official government story. You defend it constantly in this forum.

Yet, in this thread, you have refused to endorse the Pentagon Security Camera evidence.

Why do you refuse to believe the official government story evidence, jthomas?

That's irrational behaviour and it further qualifies all of the points in my OP.


I've already educated you. You choose not to listen.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


LMAO.

You edited out "working structural engineers."

Now, which one of those fools are working SE's again?

None?

Why do you think that is?

Why do you think that none contradict Bazant's papers?

When will troofers ever make the connection that these are the guys that matter, and until someone writes a paper that catches their attention, they dead in the water....



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I have no reason to believe in a flyover but I certainly have a hard time believing a plane was flown into the pentagon. So you and I agree that something hit the pentagon so does that mean you have to deal with all the other implications of what I think or say????


When the claim is that a 757 "flew over and away from the Pentagon" instead of hitting it, what do you think you have to deal with?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


There was another structural engineer that used to post on these forums and was listed on one of the organizational websites. And I remember there being a lot of others I have come across over time as well. The question I want to ask you is, what makes you think every single SE or other professional that would find an issue with the official investigations would post their name and degree, etc. online, in a single convenient list, or any list at all?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The more important question is: Why aren't they?

Doesn't that tell you something?

I truly haven't seen anything from this group that tries to contradict NIST, or Bazant, etc.

THESE are the guys that matter. Not politicans, judges, lawyers, etc. The CTBUH, THEY matter. Theirs is the opinion that matters as to whether or not the theories from Gage, or whoever, has any merit whatsoever.

It is a fact that there is virtually NONE, worldwide, have even bothered to reply to the claims that "they fell too fast", or "they fell through the path of greatest resistance", or any of that.

THAT is the most telling factor. My opinion means nothing. Neither does yours, or the TM's in general.

I simply do not understand how the TM fails to see this, cuz it is so obvious.....




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The more important question is: Why aren't they?

Doesn't that tell you something?


No, it doesn't, besides the fact that not all of them do automatically go to the internet to waste energy arguing with people like you, who can do nothing about any of it anyway. And not all of them do.


I truly haven't seen anything from this group that tries to contradict NIST, or Bazant, etc.


The problems with that work is in broad daylight for anyone to see for themselves, you just either refuse to see the issue or refuse to acknowledge that the issues warrant deeper investigation, or at least a more full investigation of all parts of 9/11.


But anyway, no, you can't say all SEs who would find a problem with the NIST investigation would go to the internet to post their name and degree and exact problems with it so you could have a convenient and complete list. And neither can you lie and say no SEs think the NIST investigation was bogus.

It's not a popularity contest anyway, but even if it were, you're assuming your own estimates about this and lying about that. You are obviously extremely polarized about any of this and basically stick to a narrow agenda when you post: everything we say is 100% wrong and we are all retarded. Again, as you misrepresent facts and lie about things yourself.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
When the claim is that a 757 "flew over and away from the Pentagon" instead of hitting it, what do you think you have to deal with?


Broken record much? Not only have I never once stated that there was a flyover, you even quote me saying I do not believe it and yet you still want to hang it around my neck? Apparently someone on a 9/11 thread really rattled you. I would have to guess it was something about a flyover.

Quit arguing about a flyover with people who are not stating there was one.

Now, can you prove that 757 flew into the pentagon or do you just want to yell flyover some more?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's not a popularity contest anyway, but even if it were, you're assuming your own estimates about this and lying about that. You are obviously extremely polarized about any of this and basically stick to a narrow agenda when you post: everything we say is 100% wrong and we are all retarded. Again, as you misrepresent facts and lie about things yourself.


The epitomy of the OP. Canoli has not said one thing that was supportive of any claim he made. From the beginning of the thread, all he has done is try to tell other people that they are stupid and have to prove something to him. I know I did not invite him so I have no clue why he feels I owe him anything. Then he derails and makes things up and says them as if they were a verified truth. "NO SE's, I mean virtually none, I mean I do not think there are any." He does not know if he is coming or going. He and thomas have contradicted themselves and each other and yet they both believe that they have the correct facts.

Canoli even admitted he had no clue what really happened that day when, after 5 attempts, I finally got him to answer what he thinks happend that day. He could not even get that right. I am still looking for this manifest that depicts who are terrorists and who are not. It seems to me that if the manifest is that blatant, they could just not let terrorists on the plane. Or maybe the manifest did not tell him anything other than a list of names and he just cannot admit it. He has made it clear that he will lie and twist to try to make a point. He has made it clear that he never even took high school physics.

The best part of all.....He doesnt care. He has not cared for many pages so far. I am going to guess he is going to keep reminding us how little he cares. He is obviously checking back here regularly - but he doesn't care.

I could care less if some moron wants to try to lie to me to convince me they know the truth. The part that kills me is that they know the truth and still lie in order to bring you the greater truth that they think they know. The ends justify the means - even in dishonesty - I guess.

He is not responding to the OP and just picking petty arguments over things he does not care about; over and over and over and over again.

I truly hope he comes back soon to remind us all how little he cares.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread486697


LMAO.

You edited out "working structural engineers."

Now, which one of those fools are working SE's again?

None?




Oh me bad, my apologies, here`s some SE`s for you - want names of the other 600 plus?.

Murl S. Jones, MS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Washington
Added July 14, 2009


Melanie Brethauer, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of North Carolina
Added July 14, 2009


Matthew Grush, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of New Mexico
Added July 14, 2009


Mark R. Dodds, MS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
States of Washington and New York
Added July 14, 2009


Lester Jay Germanio, B.Arch, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Texas
Added July 14, 2009


Leslie A. Tyson, MS Eng, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Colorado
Added July 14, 2009


Kirk L. Pape, BS Eng, PE, PLS
Licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Land Surveyor
States of California, Iowa, and Minnesota
Added July 12, 2009


Jonathan Smolens, BS, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Colorado
Added July 12, 2009


John S. Lovrovich, MS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
States of California, Idaho, Montana and Washington
Added July 12, 2009


Harvey A. Hansen, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Alaska
Added July 11, 2009


Harry B. Brown, MS ME, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Pennsylvania
Added July 11, 2009


Gregory C. Yust, BS Aero Eng, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Connecticut
Added July 11, 2009


Donald Steward MacMillan, BS CE, PE
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Connecticut
Added July 11, 2009



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join