Must I best a sheeple? . :(, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 10:43 AM by waypastvne

Originally posted by cartenz

Im no physicist but that logic is totally flawed Dave..

How is it flawed ? Please be specific.

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 11:24 AM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by cartenz

Im no physicist but that logic is totally flawed Dave..

How is it flawed ? Please be specific.

Yes, I'd like to know too. Every floor in the towers was exactly the same in construction and load bearing capacity as every other floor, so if the collapse of the top 15 floors were able to overcome the structural integrity of that first floor it came into contact with, physics as well as logic dictate that it would be able to overcome ever subsequent floor as well. More so, even, as the mass of the floors that were collapsing would increase as each subsequent floor was added to it.

I'm sorry, but as the OP pointed out, you're going to need more than accusations of "we're all sheeple" to overcome the huge amount of evidence that shows these conspiracy claims have no credibility.

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 12:05 PM by dillweed

reply to post by cartenz

That's just it cart, the OS is horribly flawed, and those that continually tout it are, by association, identical. This poster has been saying the same thing, day after day, for years now, and I have yet to see anyone corroborate his findings. I can see that this has devolved into a great big pissing contest, but we have no other option but to continue to show our disrespect for their point of view, because there has yet to be one example where they have shown the ability to acknowledge new facts. In ten years, nothing new has been learned. How believable is that?

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 12:54 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed
In ten years, nothing new has been learned. How believable is that?

If you're going to make statements like this then I would appreciate it if you would clarify that you were referring to information that supports these conspiracy claims. There has been plenty of information that has come to light otherwise.

In 2007 Purdue University released a study that suggested the NIST and FEMA reports were flawed and that the incompressible fluids aboard the planes acted like a wrecking ball and created more damage to the integrity of the structure than was originally understood. The effects of Katrina on New Orleans gives testament right there to how much power fluids in motion possess, and that and the fact that this wasn't a government sponsored study, but an academic one, are among the reasons why I myself support the theory.

By your own admission, the people who support these conspiracies are obediently clinging to ten year old information while people who recognize the fact this was an actual terrorist attack are willing to keep their minds open to new research that comes out. I'd say the truthers has a different definition of the word "sheeple" than the rest of us do.

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 01:14 PM by dillweed

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You just hit the nail on the head, Dave. Of course there was a terrorist attack. I'm not saying there wasn't, and I never have. What I am saying is that the buildings were brought down by explosives. You say otherwise, hence , the disagreements we've had. It's no more complicated than that. I don't hate you personally, but I do hate what you say here, over and over and over. And, If you believe the sh*t you write, then you've got some very serious intellectual shortcomings..

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 01:37 PM by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Congratulations. You have mathematically proven that a single 1/10 ounce domino can never knock down 500 pounds of dominos laid out in a row. Unfortunately, the real world says you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.

Connect all those dominoes together, and then see if you can knock them down.

Yes Dave your analogy is flawed as usual. The WTC floors were not independent dominoes, they were solidly connected to the core and outer mesh columns, if you can't see the difference it explains a lot mate.

That's as bad as the stupid Jenga blocks you all keep bringing up. It just shows a complete lack of understanding of how objects solidly joined together act.

edit on 9/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 02:00 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ANOK

Connect all those dominoes together, and then see if you can knock them down.

Yes Dave your analogy is flawed as usual. The WTC floors were not independent dominoes, they were solidly connected to the core and outer mesh columns, if you can't see the difference it explains a lot mate.

You're twisting your story as it suits your purpose. If the floors were "solidly connected to the exterior columns and the internal core" then they weren't "dominoes that were connected to each other". They were in fact independent from each other and the floors didn't contribute any structural support to any other floor in any way, exactly as I said. This means every floor had exactly the same load bearing capacity, exactly as I said. The fact remains that if a falling force is powerful enough to cause the first floor it came into contact with to collapse, physics dictate that it will be a strong enough force to cause every other subsequent floor to collapse specifially becuase they are identical. There is no way you can contradict this and the more you attempt to invent your own facts to justify your conspiracy claims, the more you only wind up painting yourself into a corner, mate.

This is neither here nor there. The OP was discussing the conspiracy theorists eagarness to slander everyone who disagree with them by calling them "sheeple", and YOU came along and justified it by complaining that noone else had the advanced understanding of physics that you have. Please answer the question- what IS your background in physics, exactly, that justifies your arrogance in passing judgement on people outside the physics profession?

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 02:12 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

So, you're assuming that physics only works some of the time? That's exactly what you and those that continue to back your absurd conclusions are doing. Anok has explained in detail to you how the laws of motion have been suspended in this case, proven it in fact, and yet you act as though he's speculating? Child, please.

No. That is a misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that the laws apply differently depending on the factors. ANOK super-simplifies things, and as such, he is looking at a very misconstrued view of physics. The equal-opposite reaction for two masses only works when they are two solid masses which are in a near ideal setting for reaction. When you have two non-solid masses, as on 9/11, things play out a little differently. Instead, it is a thousand different equal-opposite reactions happening.

Simply put, the top floors and the lower floors cannot be treated as solid masses. They were not blocks, or giant cement floors. They were steel trusses connecting wall panels to a core, which was the strongest part of the tower, and all that endured the collapse in part. Unfortunately, without more support, the remaining core also collapsed within a moment after the collapse.

It's not rocket science. It's physics. I don't see why one person's interpretation is instantly truth, while my interpretation is bunk. It seems to boil down to whether I agree with your view or not. If I disagree, then I'm an idiot, and if I agree, then I have "seen the light" lol.

I refuse to lie, though, so I won't say I'm a Truther until I actually believe based on evidence.

reply posted on 21-9-2011 @ 02:12 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

You just hit the nail on the head, Dave. Of course there was a terrorist attack. I'm not saying there wasn't, and I never have. What I am saying is that the buildings were brought down by explosives. You say otherwise, hence , the disagreements we've had. It's no more complicated than that. I don't hate you personally, but I do hate what you say here, over and over and over. And, If you believe the sh*t you write, then you've got some very serious intellectual shortcomings..

If you hate what I say here over and over and over then what say you try to point out how the things I'm saying here over and over and over are wrong? The way the game is played is that you present something that attempts to show why I'm wrong and then I present something you haven't taken into account that shows why I'm actually right. Simply calling me a poopy head and running away giggling only serves to detract from your credibility, not mine or anyone elses.

Besides, the entire plea of the OP was for a call to end such childish insult fests, or have you forgotten?

reply posted on 22-9-2011 @ 09:48 AM by dillweed

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Dave, I believe you are a paid dis-info operative. Everything you've posted bolsters that belief. Because of that, I dont feel as though you deserve to be treated with respect. Until an un-biased independent investigation is held about the events of that day, nothing you have said, and probably nothing you can say will convince me that those three buildings fell down the way you say. So good luck with your mission, you'll need it because your position is absurd, and you know it. How you guys sleep at night is the bigger mystery.

reply posted on 22-9-2011 @ 11:58 AM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed

Dave, I believe you are a paid dis-info operative. Everything you've posted bolsters that belief. Because of that, I dont feel as though you deserve to be treated with respect. Until an un-biased independent investigation is held about the events of that day, nothing you have said, and probably nothing you can say will convince me that those three buildings fell down the way you say. So good luck with your mission, you'll need it because your position is absurd, and you know it. How you guys sleep at night is the bigger mystery.

Well, that explains something right there- you've built up such a complex conspiracy world for yourself, complete with armies of secret agents planted throughout all walks of life, that whenever information is presented to you that contradicts what you want to believe you simply invent yet another secret plot, conspiracy, or cover up on top of the gigantic pile of other secret plots, conspiracies, and coverups you've already invented. You're not proving anything- this is circular logic in that you're repeating the original statement in different terms in order to explain itself, and once you've boarded that runaway train of circular logic, it's nigh impossible to get off.

For most people truly inquisitive about the events of 9/11, they take a "okay, convince me" apprroach and invite others to present their cases. I myself invited the conspiracy theorists to present their cases and I find their reasons speculative and based more upon what they imagine is happening rather than what really is happening. Your admission that "nothing anyone can say will ever convince you that there really isn't a conspiracy" is an acknowledgement that your mind is not only closed to all outside information, but boarded shut, out of sheet abject paranoia. I doubt I'm the first person you've accused of being a "secret agent sent to spy on you" and I doubt I'll be the last.

If this is the way you genuinely want to live your life, more power to you, guy, but you have to know you're the only one whose credibility is suffering from it, not me or anyone else.

reply posted on 22-9-2011 @ 12:35 PM by dillweed

reply to post by GoodOlDave

My credibility is holding up just fine. Yours, well that's a horse of a different color. If you read my post, then you'll see that I said my opinion is not likely to change, I didn't say it couldn't. But, if you think that what you've presented here has changed it, then you are laboring under a huge misconception.

reply posted on 22-9-2011 @ 04:19 PM by Varemia

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

My credibility is holding up just fine. Yours, well that's a horse of a different color. If you read my post, then you'll see that I said my opinion is not likely to change, I didn't say it couldn't. But, if you think that what you've presented here has changed it, then you are laboring under a huge misconception.

You know, it is a possibility that he is just a guy with a computer and time on his hands. Just because he disagrees and does so in a blunt manner does not mean it is making him money.

Hell, couldn't we suddenly start throwing the same type of accusation your way? We could potentially say that you are a paid disinfo agent, sent here to bolster the conspiracy theorists and prevent the actual truth from getting out. See, that was easy to do. The wonderful thing about this accusation is that it requires zero proof, so I can get people to believe it simply because I appear to be on their side.

It's all paranoia. Seriously, just deal with people as the people they really are, and argue the points they make. A disagreement does not equal intentional dissidence on behalf of a higher organization.

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 01:13 PM by Monger

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

Dave, I believe you are a paid dis-info operative. Everything you've posted bolsters that belief.

That's always the trick of it, isn't it? Dehumanize the enemy. In this case, simply dismiss a skeptic when they start making sense as a 'paid disinfo agent.'

As a skeptic who is a bit short on cash at the moment, I'd really appreciate that sort of job. And, yet, nobody has yet offered me a position. Yet. I need to check my U2Us, lol.

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 01:38 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave

My credibility is holding up just fine. Yours, well that's a horse of a different color. If you read my post, then you'll see that I said my opinion is not likely to change, I didn't say it couldn't. But, if you think that what you've presented here has changed it, then you are laboring under a huge misconception.

Ah HA! Now, we're getting somewhere.

All right then, if I may ask, just what evidence would you accept that would finally convince you to abandon these conspiracy claims as rubbish...that is, that you *wouldn't* simply dismiss as being faked, manufactured, photoshopped, misrepreented, altered, orchestrated, made up, planted by disinformation agents, or videotaped in some secret government sound stage?

Eyewitness accounts aren't enough, physicasl evidence isn't enough, photographs aren't enough, scientific studies aren't enough, human remains recovered aren't enough, and heck, even Saudi Arabia acknowledging the terrorist hijackers were Saudi nationals aren't enough. What the heck is left?

Up until now, every time I ask you truthers that question you people always run away from the question the same way vampires run away from sunlight becuase they don't want to admit they have no intention of ever changing their minds. Maybe you can be the first.

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 01:44 PM by Varemia

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I think one of the worst is when they say, "I won't believe the government until they say what I believe already."

Kind of pointless to investigate if you already have your answers, isn't it?

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 01:54 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

I think one of the worst is when they say, "I won't believe the government until they say what I believe already."

Kind of pointless to investigate if you already have your answers, isn't it?

Not to mention, it's pointless they don't even try to pretend they have a double standard in pushing out these conspiracy claims while at the same time hiding from anything that shows they're false. They'll insist secret agents snuck into the building and planted controlled demolitions based really upon nothing, but when witnesses say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon they're turn around and insist on "pics or it didn't happen".

If these truthers would only hold their own conspiracy theories to the exact same high stringent standard of critical analysis that they do the 9/11 commission report, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists for very long.

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 01:56 PM by ANOK

reply to post by Monger

You didn't reply to my post about equal opposite reaction?

Are you another OSer who needs to ignore physics in order to accept the OS, or are you simply who I was talking about?

And DAVE no reply to my debunking of your domino theory? How many times are we going to hear you make that bogus claim?

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 02:20 PM by NightGypsy

I hate the word "sheeple." Firstly, haven't we ALL been sheeple at some point? I mean, no one is born seeing everything the way it really is without being given a little direction, right?

I think when someone refers to others as "sheeple" he is indirectly feeding his own ego by implying that he is "smarter" or more "open minded" because he "got it" and someone else didn't.

If we are ever going to battle these obstacles in front of us, we are going to have to abandon our egos and work as a unified body....name-calling and things of this nature do not move us forward.

reply posted on 23-9-2011 @ 02:35 PM by GoodOlDave