My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 7-9-2009 @ 03:15 PM by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael


mmiichael you are still here cheerleading FEMA and NIST but offering no data yourself? I guess you are still uninterested in debating NIST or FEMA's reports yourself?

You say you don't like wasting time talking about objective data and facts but you apparently have no problem wasting even more time saying nothing, and continuing to engage people with personal attacks. For what reason do you post here again?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by bsbray11]


reply posted on 7-9-2009 @ 03:22 PM by mmiichael
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael


mmiichael you are still here cheerleading FEMA and NIST but offering no data yourself?

You say you don't like wasting time talking about objective data and facts but you apparently have no problem wasting even more time saying nothing, and continuing to engage people with personal attacks.


Like grow up. Nobody goes around attacking people more than you do.

Endless diatribes about wanting science. You put people on Ignore who offer hard scirntific evidence - then moan you are getting none.

Transparent attempts to argue you college course science and insert the word "eutectic" into any conversation.

Discuss your brand of science with the crowd who actually believe a pile of blowtorched paint chips are some super dooper Israeli explosive.


Mike





[edit on 7-9-2009 by mmiichael]


reply posted on 7-9-2009 @ 03:28 PM by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael


I asked you simply why you post here, since you say you are no longer interested in debating facts and science. And instead of telling me why you post here despite that, you spend your entire post attacking me instead. So in a way, you did show me exactly why you post here.

Nowhere within this post is a personal attack. But the way you post, and what you have to say, speaks well enough for itself. I think you take yourself much more seriously than anyone else here does, my friend.


I also take it that you are still unwilling to discuss what is actually within the FEMA or NIST reports, or what they actually prove and how? You are only able to mention the names of the reports now? Are you afraid you would be forced to admit once again that there is a lot that even you don't understand about them? Maybe even that you therefore can't be completely sure that your opinion is correct?

[edit on 7-9-2009 by bsbray11]



reply posted on 7-9-2009 @ 04:16 PM by mmiichael
Originally posted by bsbray11
are you still unwilling to debate what is actually in the FEMA or NIST reports? Since you apparently think (erroneously) that everyone is already in agreement that the reports were completely legitimate, there is no longer any need to discuss them in that way? The door is closed?



I have gone over the FEMA and NIST reports to the best of my ability. Neither I nor probably any single contributor to them can claim expertise on every single aspect given the number of disciplines involved.

As they were the collaborative efforts of many experts they stand as the definitive resources. They are admittedly imperfect, as any study of this magnitude would be. There will continue to be refinements and corrections.

I don’t respond to the confrontation of someone isolating points of these studies, and being told they are wrong – and that I have to justify what the reports say.

Just as I don’t take every opportunity to gain points in areas I know well and tell people who believe a published work that they have to prove I’m wrong when I find conflict. If it’s put forward in a non-adversarial way I often do give it a shot.

As far as purported evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings goes, I’m familiar with arguments for and against. My summary analysis is the NIST and FEMA reports address the vast majority of questions on the causes of the building collapses. Outstanding questions on some anomalies remain. I’ve seen some explained by on this forum and elsewhere.

I suggest you go to one of the online scientific forums to debate your issues with those possessing or claiming greater expertise on the relevant sciences involved.

Report back what you encounter.

Mike
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags