Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

Originally posted by impressme
The OP has brought a very important topic to this thread. We all understand why it is impossible to have a civil discussion about 911 because we have to tolerate such childish behaviors, I try and overlook as much as possible but there are some impossible cases you can not ignore.

Primary amongst the inability for 9/11 "Truthers" to have an intelligent conversation is your agreement with this statement:

You either accept all of it, as a government story believer, or you question some of it and become a truther.

I agree with you on this statement, I used to believe in the government stories I bought it hook line and sinker it was told to me though television all the net-work sold the OS to me and I never question it. Back then I had a lot of faith in my government sure I knew they were corrupt but I only assumed only handfuls were poisoned.

Isn't it sad that 9/11 Truthers are so taken in with their own illogical claims that none of you can understood that none of us have to rely on what the government says or doesn't say about the events of 9/11 for us to know what happened on that day?

But you don't want to know that and refuse to listen. And you wonder why you get the derision you earned?




[edit on 3-9-2009 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas


911 was an inside job.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

911 was an inside job.

9/11 "Truth" is a Lie

reply to post by jthomas


I see you still like watching your disinfo videos that you just posted. No wonder your logic is so distorted.

The OS is a lie, and that is a fact.
There is no such thing as the truth being a lie. Stop spreading disinformation!

[edit on 4-9-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by jthomas


That clip fails to differentiate between bending steel in a solid state and iron in a liquid state. Thats pretty sad.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

I see you still like watching your disinfo videos that you just posted.

That was an audio file. That means you didn't listen. Now, demonstrate your claim that it was "disinfo" and by whom.

There is no such thing as the truth being a lie.

9/11 "Truth" is not truth.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

That clip fails to differentiate between bending steel in a solid state and iron in a liquid state. Thats pretty sad.

Don't hide, jprophet420. Show us.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

911 was an inside job.

9/11 "Truth" is a Lie

Rather silly that you ask me to "show you" when you are the one that posted it.
Thats the link. The guy directly says in his opening rant that coal melts steel at around 500 some degrees.

Coke is used as a fuel and as a reducing agent in smelting iron ore in a blast furnace. Volatile constituents of the coal—including water, coal-gas, and coal-tar—are driven off by baking in an airless furnace or oven at temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees Celsius.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

911 was an inside job.

9/11 "Truth" is a Lie

Rather silly that you ask me to "show you" when you are the one that posted it.
Thats the link. The guy directly says in his opening rant that coal melts steel at around 500 some degrees.

Coke is used as a fuel and as a reducing agent in smelting iron ore in a blast furnace. Volatile constituents of the coal—including water, coal-gas, and coal-tar—are driven off by baking in an airless furnace or oven at temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees Celsius.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by jprophet420]

I see, you don't get the point. That's a poor excuse for your inability to deal with the facts:

"Fortunately we know better. We don't buy into their lies. We know that steel melts at 2750°F, so we know that these blacksmith shops at local living history museums are all part of the government's master plan of deception. The whole smithing profession and false history was probably invented by the government to prepare us to believe in their biggest lie: That the fires inside the World Trade Center could have brought the towers crashing down.

"Conspiracy theorists love to quote retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, who said "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire." But they conveniently omit the second half of his sentence: "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

...

"Let's review the numbers one more time, if you're not already sick of hearing this over the past six years. Steel melts, or liquefies, at 2750°F."

Your failure to reason just keeps mounting, jprophet420.

reply to post by jthomas


you posted that out of context omitting what I cited. Typical of a tin foil conspiracy theorist.

"they use coal to melt steel for casting.. which burns at 560 degrees farenheit."

From your own source.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

you posted that out of context omitting what I cited.

"they use coal to melt steel for casting.. which burns at 560 degrees farenheit."

From your own source.

No, you posted it out of context as is your habit. You blew it again.

reply to post by jthomas


Well anyone can listen and decide for themselves. Well, anyone that can think for themself anyway. His sarcasm (the conspiracy theorist in the audio clip) is clearly angry and clearly either misinformed or ignorant.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Well anyone can listen and decide for themselves. Well, anyone that can think for themself anyway. His sarcasm (the conspiracy theorist in the audio clip) is clearly angry and clearly either misinformed or ignorant.

Anyone can read and see how foolish you are as a 9/11 "Truther", jprophet420:

skeptoid.com...#

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Well anyone can listen and decide for themselves. Well, anyone that can think for themself anyway. His sarcasm (the conspiracy theorist in the audio clip) is clearly angry and clearly either misinformed or ignorant.

Anyone can read and see how foolish you are as a 9/11 "Truther", jprophet420:

skeptoid.com...#

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
bullet Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]
bullet William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche,

Evidence from the 911 commission report that directly refutes your source, quoted below.

Let's review the numbers one more time, if you're not already sick of hearing this over the past six years. Steel melts, or liquefies, at 2750°F. Let's take that off the table, because nobody claims that it got that hot, and it wasn't what happened.

And for the record;

Support Skeptoid for just 99¢ per download

Yet you attack "truthers" for the same reason.

So please illustrate how I am "foolish as a truther". And if you manage to do so, then explain how you continually fail to best me at debating your tin foil cause.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jthomas

I see you still like watching your disinfo videos that you just posted.

That was an audio file. That means you didn't listen. Now, demonstrate your claim that it was "disinfo" and by whom.

I do not listen to disinformation audio files period.
Everything you have been posting as your evidences is disinformation and that is the truth. If I am wrong then I would like to see you demonstrate that I am, with credible sources and internet links, that your audio is true.

There is no such thing as the truth being a lie.

9/11 "Truth" is not truth.

PROVE IT? With scientific facts and sources.



[edit on 5-9-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Evidence from the 911 commission report that directly refutes your source, quoted below.

On the contrary.

Let's review the numbers one more time, if you're not already sick of hearing this over the past six years. Steel melts, or liquefies, at 2750°F. Let's take that off the table, because nobody claims that it got that hot, and it wasn't what happened.

Not at all. If you can't address the subject matter of the podcast, the fact that its didn't require that fire melt steel for the towers to collapse, don't bother.

And for the record;

Support Skeptoid for just 99¢ per download

Yet you attack "truthers" for the same reason.

The Skeptoid Podcast is free to download and listen to on the site as well as on iTunes.

So please illustrate how I am "foolish as a truther".

LOL!

It was easy. You did it yourself.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

I see you still like watching your disinfo videos that you just posted.

That was an audio file. That means you didn't listen. Now, demonstrate your claim that it was "disinfo" and by whom.

I do not listen to disinformation audio files period.

That's a classic evasion of your 9/11 Denial Movement. Declare it "disinformation" or the "Official Story" and relieve yourself of having to deal with facts, evidence, science, and logic.

You stuck your foot in your mouth. It's your admission of the utter failure of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

Continue to wallow proudly in ignorance, impressme.

Actually my source (the 911 commission report) directly says there was molten steel and your report claims there is not. Its plain as day in text in front of you. You can try to spin it any way you like but the facts are laid on the table for everyone to see.

Skeptiod is free but asks for donations. You and other would be debunkers have made complaints about "truther sites" doing the same thing.

You have lost this debate hands down good sir, it was a pleasure pwning you. See you in another thread, where you'll create more truthers out of people who were previously on the fence.

reply to post by jthomas

The OP has brought a very important topic to this thread. We all understand why it is impossible to have a civil discussion about 911 because we have to tolerate such childish behaviors, I try and overlook as much as possible but there are some impossible cases you can not ignore.

Primary amongst the inability for 9/11 "Truthers" to have an intelligent conversation is your agreement with this statement:

No, it is not! Stop spreading LIES!

Isn't it sad that 9/11 Truthers are so taken in with their own illogical claims that none of you can understood that none of us have to rely on what the government says or doesn't say about the events of 9/11 for us to know what happened on that day?

Isn't it sad that 9/11 disinformationist are so taken in with their own illogical claims that none of you can understood that none of us have to rely on what the government says or doesn't say about the events of 9/11 for us to know what happened on that day?

But you don't want to know that and refuse to listen. And you wonder why you get the derision you earned?

But you don't want to know that and YOU refuse to listen. And you wonder why people think you are a disinformationist?






[edit on 5-9-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by jprophet420
Actually my source (the 911 commission report) directly says there was molten steel and your report claims there is not.

NIST was in charge of the investigation of the collapses of the WTC towers not the 9/11 Commission. Neither stated there was "molten steel" prior to the collapses as you claim

Its plain as day in text in front of you. You can try to spin it any way you like but the facts are laid on the table for everyone to see.

You have painted yourself in a corner again. Your claim is laughable and you know full well that NO ONE claims that the steel melted before the collapses. And as you well know. Brian Dunning is speaking about the conditions BEFORE the collapse. It is in fact, quite the opposite, so why do you fib about it, jprohet?

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

...

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

wtc.nist.gov...

So much for your misrepresentations, jphrophet420

You have lost this debate hands down good sir, it was a pleasure pwning you.

Once again, I showed your intellectual dishonesty and easily refuted your claims. Not ONCE have you been able to support a claim about which I've called you on the carpet.

See you in another thread, where you'll create more truthers out of people who were previously on the fence.

Fortunately we have your example of intellectual dishonesty and attempted deception right in this post and in this thread. You've completely lost.