#911truthwinning: A call to all infowarriors aka how i learned to stop worrying and love Charlie Sh

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Thanks for your answers in this thread, you have been very polite in the face of a hypocrite.

I assume you mean me.

Perhaps you can point out instances of my hypocrisy?

I might can help with that.

You see above, you claim you weren't trying to insult anyone on this thread. But just a few more posts up, and you are using all sorts of foul and colorful language on a subject of your apparent expertise, "grubby bedroom masturbators" and etc. etc. (I'm sure you are consciously aware of your attempts to be inflammatory here, and get some enjoyment from it). Emotionally and socially mature individuals will realize this is not generally considered flattering speech, and yet it was aimed at, not just one individual, but a whole group of them. Again, this comes right after you claim that you are above making ad hominem, and right before you claimed you never insulted anyone.

So then is this finally an admission that you have really been talking about yourself this whole time, with all of your foul emotional language? If you really don't think what you say is insulting, then you would have no problem admitting to it.

reply to post by bsbray11


I said that Sheen is superficially impressive to grubby bedroom masturbators. "Dude, he does like loads of blow and has sex with porn stars! Awesome!"

I stand by this, and I also don't think it's insulting to anyone personally, apart from people with whom it obviously touches a nerve. You're determined to be disgusted by it because you have no decent argument here. And your stuffy manufactured disgust makes you sound like a priggish old woman rather than the groovy free-thinker you clearly have such a burning desire to picture yourself as.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And your stuffy manufactured disgust makes you sound like a priggish old woman

When you perpetually make comments like this, I really can't comprehend where you think you are not insulting anyone. I can tell that you don't live in the same universe that I do.

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm not sure it really qualifies as an insult when it's so obviously true.

What's amusing is that between behaving like an offended old prude you're the only person on this thread who has actually insulted anyone personally. It takes quite some chutzpah to accuse people of being about to mount an ad hominem attack on you, while simultaneously doing exactly that yourself.

Never mind, this is all a sideshow. 9/11 Truth remains, to coin an expression, unwinning.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm not sure it really qualifies as an insult when it's so obviously true.

What's amusing is that between behaving like an offended old prude you're the only person on this thread who has actually insulted anyone personally.

For the record I don't take you seriously in the first place so I have never actually been offended. If you want to know the truth, I think of you more like a mouthy child, what my mother would call "half raised."

My only point here is that, your entire "argument" has been nothing but personal attacks from the start. It's no coincidence you've picked this thread in particular to use as an opportunity to go on a vitriolic insult spree, because it has the least to do with anything actually scientific or logical. You are not going to see this yourself, but you thrive on these kinds of vitriolic exchanges, and are nowhere to be found in the threads where technical details are actually being discussed, because that is not compatible with your real objective here, which is just to try to inflame people.

Yes, even though you just told me I was behaving like a "piggish old woman," and even though on the last page you started saying all Charlie Sheen fans were "grubby bedroom masturbators" (language that, grotesquely, comes very naturally to you), I am the only one on this thread that's being insulting. Of course, boy. Now I'm going to leave you with your emotional outbursts and you can have a lollypop while I go try and find your mommy.

Originally posted by bsbray11


My only point here is that, your entire "argument" has been nothing but personal attacks from the start.

It's not though, is it? I've delineated my argument carefully several times. And you've chosen to ignore it and instead marshall a defence which revolves around you not having to answer because you feel insulted.

This is a simple dodge, and an obvious one. You're not going to see this ( ) but it's one you employ repeatedly when stumped. You locate something in a post that you consider to have crossed some sort of imagined line, and then refuse to engage further in order to persuade yourself that you haven't lost the argument.

You do this so often that I think we should start calling it a "bsbray" when others employ it.

It's no coincidence you've picked this thread in particular to use as an opportunity to go on a vitriolic insult spree, because it has the least to do with anything actually scientific or logical. You are not going to see this yourself, but you thrive on these kinds of vitriolic exchanges, and are nowhere to be found in the threads where technical details are actually being discussed, because that is not compatible with your real objective here, which is just to try to inflame people.

On the evidence of this thread I think the opposite is true. You waded in pages ago and have refused to engage at all with the subject matter.

If it's any comfort I read the science threads and notice that you're the same there. You get your arse (oops, rude word, sorry :@@ handed to you again and again, but construct a defence that consists of feigning offence or picking minute holes in people's obviously more informed and reasonable interactions.

That actually relates to the subject of this thread, actually. Your efforts at persuading people on those threads amount to "You have to prove it, I don't believe you, you're a liar, you called me a name, boo hoo". And you wonder why 9/11 "Truth" is so demonstrably not "winning". You need to change your strategy. But since you can't see anything wrong with it I imagine you - along with the rest of the increasingly vacuous and pointless "TM" - will be unable to. And you'll continue to sink into the irrelevance that I think, secretly, you relish.

Yes, even though you just told me I was behaving like a "piggish old woman,"

Priggish, look it up. You'll find I'm correct.

and even though on the last page you started saying all Charlie Sheen fans were "grubby bedroom masturbators"

Wrong again. I said that Charlie Sheen was superficially impressive to grubby bedroom masturbators. That's different. No wonder you struggle with category errors so consistently.

(language that, grotesquely, comes very naturally to you),

Sorry. I'll moderate the naughty words in front of the more delicate souls in future.

A question. Do you actually find the word "masturbator" revolting? Or grotesque? Does it make you feel dirty and upset in some way?

I am the only one on this thread that's being insulting. Of course, boy. Now I'm going to leave you with your emotional outbursts and you can have a lollypop while I go try and find your mommy.

...which isn't insulting at all. And yet I'm the hypocrite. Only in trutherland...

911 Troof just lost.

Why do I say this?

Declaring victory is the universal sign of failure in a hopeless cause. It allows the delusional to maintain a sense of pride and self esteem in the face of an unfriendly reality.

After 10 years all the Troof movement amounts to is a large collection of selective quotations, Ill informed interpretations of newton's laws, and approximately 1/4 of 1% of architects and engineers, whom Richard Gauge bought lunch.

How does it feel to have accomplished nothing after 10 years, truthers?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Ill informed interpretations of newton's laws, and approximately 1/4 of 1% of architects and engineers, whom Richard Gauge bought lunch.

Seeing as this is my favorite point of discussion, please explain to me Newtons laws and how they relate to the collapses?

I would like to know from you, as a self proclaimed Newton expert, why the equal opposite reaction laws and moment conservation were ignored during the collapses? Why did the collapse not slow down due to loss of Ke to other energy, heat, noise, deformation, etc? How did 15 stories drop through the path of most resistance of 95 floors when equal opposite reaction laws dictate that is not possible? Where did all the floors go that should be in the footprint of the building if it was a progressive/pancake collapse you argue for?

I have yet to see an OS supporter even explain Newtons laws, most of you simply dismiss it with nonsense like, 'that's only part of the physics', or I'm wrong because I call it 'moment conservation' instead of 'conservation of momentum', when they mean the same thing. You ignore equal opposite and moment conservation laws in favour of arguing it was Ke and gravity and nothing else matters.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Declaring victory is the universal sign of failure in a hopeless cause.

You mean like this?:




Yeah, I wonder how it does feel to have accomplished nothing... except tens of thousands of murders... in 10 years.

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK:

I'm not going to go around in circles with you. It's quite apparent that you haven't taken even a single college level physics class. If you really want to know more, go to a community college, or buy a textbook.

None of the laws you cite mean what you think they do.

You can start denying ignorance here:
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by bsbray11


Go ahead BS, try to make this about George Bush instead of your own delusional movement. See how far that gets you.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


So, do you have anything to actually add to the discussion?

Giving me a link to wiki on classical mechanics is not adding to the discussion, or any kind of evidence I am wrong.

All I did was ask you some questions, no other OS supporter has managed to answer, including you it seems. Hmmmm?

Are you going to give me a link to Bazant next?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


I think what ANOK means is, did you care to actually debate anything about 9/11 in particular, or are you just doing a drive-by blanket insulting?

reply to post by ANOK


Dude, get a GED.

Like I said in the first reply, I'm not going in circles with you. If you wanted to learn about physics or structural engineering you could have a PhD in either subject since 9/11 and have written a dissertation on the collapses.

It's very apparent that you have little or no knowledge of physics or structural design, although you make mistaken attempts to use the language without hitting the books to learn the meaning of the words.

1.

...why the equal opposite reaction laws and moment conservation were ignored during the collapses?

These are laws of physics; they apply equally to the collapse whether it was a controlled demolition or not. The very question itself is incoherent.

2.

Why did the collapse not slow down due to loss of Ke to other energy, heat, noise, deformation, etc?

Kinetic energy was converted to other forms of energy. This is why the towers did not fall at quite free-fall acceleration. To simplify; it did.

3.

How did 15 stories drop through the path of most resistance of 95 floors when equal opposite reaction laws dictate that is not possible?

You are confused about something here. I can't tell what, though, because you make no sense. Whatever it is you think Newton's laws mean here, you're wrong, check out that Wikipedia link for a start, really.

4.

...I call it 'moment conservation' instead of 'conservation of momentum', when they mean the same thing.

Moment and momentum are not the same. again, hit up Wikipedia, or your local community college.

At this point, it should be clear enough, that given a correct and complete explanation of the collapses, in clearly written terms of physics and engineering, you would be incapable of understanding them.

When they say "deny ignorance" -they don't mean to pretend to know what you don't!