Posted: Nov 19, 2010 9:37 am
by econ41
@Patriots.

"PART TWO"
I will limit myself to brief responses to your points. (EDIT PS Well the road to good intentions is paved or whatever the quotation is..... :nono: I did get carried away :whistle: )
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Also, having read much of the forums I realize Sander0 comes off more "debunker friendly" than an independent...
I have not formed any viewpoint. I prefer to judge what is said rather than who says it.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... I never said free-fall necessarily means demolition in my book, although it would be nice if Nist showed us all their data backing up their claim that one column failure caused all the other columns to give out leading to the 2.25 seconds of freefall.
From my position I only look to NIST for a plausible explanation. Reasons in recent posts.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Plus I will still argue that Nist played dumb during the process of adding "free fall" to their conclusions -as seen by actual footage of key members of Nist acting dumb. (the part 1 2 3 in a recent post of mine)..
It is your choice. The point I would make is "why do you bother?" because I am not committed to the truther myth that "freefall" == "demolition". Check your own reasons for seeing it as somehow important. I don't see how it can be important if you don't hold with freefall == demolition.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...The black and white nature of your writing designed for simpletons is actually a turnoff. Stuff like either/or lists, "if not this then it must be this", "it is not this"...
Two points.
  1. first I cannot win if writing for persons you call simpletons is still beyond their understanding. If you check thread history the two recent targets for my simple writing have both chosen to ignore what I said. You in your "truther mode" which you are now moving away from. And Miragememories who clearly will employ any diversion he can to avoid addressing the crux of any legitimate post; AND
  2. second we are after all supposed to be discussing things towards reaching conclusions or agreements. And the essence of that is a process of convergent logic which leads to EITHER a binary decision point "yes/no" or 'black/white" decisions e.g. "I agree" or "I do not agree because..." OR an analog decision point e.g. "a bar of x size loaded by yyy will fail if the stress exceeds zzz"
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I think it's a turnoff because it makes you appear one-sided when you present things in black and white and when you don't cite any sources. It just leaves people having to assume your assumptions - get me? ...
Sure I understand the position you hold BUT there are many different viewpoints and I cannot cater for all of them in every post.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Maybe some of your assumptions are easier for you to assume than it is for other people to assume....
Sure BUT all of my claims are framed in a context which says "if you want proof or more details or more explanation ask". And I usually put that disclaimer explicitly. Then and conversely, it becomes tedious putting all the disclaimers in for the average truther who has no intention of reading OR understanding OR accepting anything which disturbs his (her) mindset. And don't discount or deny the massive upwards step in credibility your recent posts have given you.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...The same goes to you admitting that Sander0 is the "coach/correct" guy. Your words. :dance: ...
That is an attempt at a cheap shot based on a false analogy. Can you see why?
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Your certainty is a bit alarming; even if you have some people on your side...
It is now 2010 and just over nine years since 9/11. There is no reasonable doubt about the big technical questions viz no demolition at WTC; it was that plane at the Pentagon and the plane was not shot down at Shanksville. Those claiming otherwise have had nine years to make a case and have spectacularly failed to do so. Fact. Undeniable fact. So what we see now is the rare genuine sceptic saying "I don't quite see how" or similar. And a massive number of locked in place truthers still parroting the same untruths long after the point where any reasonable person must know that they are untruths. So you see the polarised hate fests that dominate JREF. Game playing. Nothing new on the table for years and what is on the table rebutted every way towards Christmas. And the "debate" only about trivialities because the material brought to debate is by truthers who only have trivialities. The "debunker" side only responding to what the "truthers" post and they only post crap.

Now what I have just posted is the global view - most sane people who think about 9/11 conspiracies. Whether you like it or not the reality is that anyone disputing those three big technical facts as a lot of hard work to do.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... I agree that there is more logic to suggest tons of minjolts being the best explanation for a natural collapse...
Agreed but why follow with this:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... but theoretically there could be a big jolt and mini-jolts...
...an unnecessary truism when you know that the evidence from both sides of the fence says "no big jolt". So either prove that there was a big jolt OR stop hanging in there in the vain hope that somebody will prove it. It is a lost cause - don't waste energy on it.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I am leaning towards minijolts but I can't entirely say that there wouldn't be a big jolt. MacQueen and Tsamboti's theory is viable - just more unlikely when I consider femr2 list. I admit that I do not trust you as much as femr2
you are still looking for authority figures. I don't give a shit that you don't trust me and do trust femr2. Trust yourself. I have already given you a far clearer explanation of why "mini jolts" than you are likely to get from femr2. does what I say make sense to you? If not why not. And (clue) it is nothing to do with whether you trust me or not.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...(your little jab at femr2 is showing of your debunker "bias and indoctrination" - this is more clear in other posts you have made though)
another cheap shot by false analogy - see the previous one.

Patriots4Truth wrote:...I do not dwell on how people would get explosives in the buildings. If they can get it on a plane they can get it in a building....
I see that as an evasion. The two big "impossibilities" which in proper perspective are stronger than all the technical detail stuff. (1) It could not be done without getting caught; AND (2) No truther has ever shown how demolition could be accomplished to assist the natural processes and cause the collapse mechanisms that actually happened.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...[ What's more important to me is characteristics of collapse due to explosion and explosion testimony/evidence....
This may be more important to you. BUT the question at WTC is "demolition or not?" And the logic doesn't care about what is important to you - it works on what is important in the facts off the real world issue of collapse.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...It should be of your best interest (or anyone's) to not ever claim victory and act all snobby and whatnot. Randi/JREF is like a warzone with victory points as evidence by gloating and stundies etc... Many, many debates about 9/11 conspiracy on the internet are often seen as warlike - the way people go at each other. I've seen "war" and "victories" in the way people treat each other and I agree that it's a pity that people treat each other this way...
Agreed - but it hasn't always been like that. On the forums I have frequented the "war zone" has only developed since all the real "truth" questions in the technical domain have been answered and "truthers" have resorted to repeated parroting of long rebutted bits of technical stuff.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...well you and uke2se both wrote something like "there may have been free fall acceleration". This is a subject that both of you refused to research for yourselves....
It is of no interest to me - part of your attempt to shift the burden of proof. Free fall is essentially irrelevant to my perspective. If it is relevant to your claim then you put forward why...
Patriots4Truth wrote:... A refusal not unlike how you say I refuse to engage in discussion with you...
...there goes that same false analogy. :naughty2:
Patriots4Truth wrote:... and I've repeatedly told you why I wouldn't be able to discuss a bunch of physics stuff very well. But now you have a link at the 9/11 freeforums for you to discuss your theory with more experienced people - assuming that you actually want a good discussion - I am not sure you do because I've asked before if you have any desire to have that discussion with more experienced people and I believe you didn't answer me.
This last bit is quite confused. We are (or at least I am) addressing how to improve your understanding. I have no interest in discussing the detailed technical stuff with the mixed bunch of characters at the911forum. My interest is explaining not theoretical physics OR proving NIST wrong OR (all the other side tracks.) So I'm not after a "good discussion" - far too late for that. Maybe if we have another 911 style topic but I wouldn't wish that on anyone. And whatever disasters there may be in future none would be as glove fit to my qualifications and experience as 9/11 WTC Collapse has been.