View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 21:12

From ProfWag
he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column.


Thanks for the post WhiteTiger, but ProfWag did not miss the 'hollow' issue.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08






Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby WhiteTiger » 26 Oct 2009, 21:37

Nostradamus wrote:From ProfWag
he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column.


Thanks for the post WhiteTiger, but ProfWag did not miss the 'hollow' issue.


I didn't say he had, I said that it wasn't allowed for in what was asserted in the argument about "a working device", which simply isn't necessary. Only logical application of long understood thermite technology and methodology is required, so my objection to the "must show a working device" assertion stands on the grounds that the assertion is both illogical and ill informed.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby WhiteTiger » 26 Oct 2009, 21:45

Oops, hit post too soon. I intended to also note specifically that the hollow column issue was totally dismissed in the equally illogical assertion that any destructive thermite rigging would have to be external and plainly visible to any and all passersby.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 26 Oct 2009, 21:55

I'm starting a new thread on thermite if you'd like to discuss there since this is becoming off-topic.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 21:57

I didn't say he had, I said that it wasn't allowed for in what was asserted in the argument about "a working device", which simply isn't necessary. Only logical application of long understood thermite technology and methodology is required, so my objection to the "must show a working device" assertion stands on the grounds that the assertion is both illogical and ill informed.


Thanks for the clarification. I would argue that showing a working device is required, because these issues do not scale. When these demonstrations go from one scale to another other issues come into play. What might have been the primary considerations at one scale are not at another scale. This is why experiments or testing is done.

I intended to also note specifically that the hollow column issue was totally dismissed in the equally illogical assertion that any destructive thermite rigging would have to be external and plainly visible to any and all passersby.


The wording here is a bit strong. Totally dismissed? Hardly. Illogical? Not at all.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby WhiteTiger » 26 Oct 2009, 22:19

ProfWag wrote:he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column. It MUST also be small enough to do the job yet hide from the average World Trade Center worker. Anything less is an attempt to deceive the public


"Must", in each assertion, in all caps is a bit strong also, especially since the "must" is contrafactual and illogical in both cases. Making such flat assertions without the informational background to justify them qualifies as supremely illogical in my book. Imo the attempt, inadvertent or not, to deceive is on the Prof's part.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 26 Oct 2009, 22:25

WhiteTiger it is not illogical and 'must' is the only way I see possible for the claim to be defended.

Of course we do not take this assertion as fact until proved. Until there is evidence it is not factual.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby WhiteTiger » 26 Oct 2009, 23:37

I'm confused. How is it logical to present an uninformed assertion as a "must", when it ignores logical consequences of an acknowledged element of the circumstances? The failure to even acknowledge the possibility of charge placement within the admittedly hollow columns strikes me as either deliberately misleading through omission or flat out illogical.

There seems to be some strange stuff running around under the "logic" banner here.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 26 Oct 2009, 23:39

WhiteTiger wrote:
ProfWag wrote:he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column. It MUST also be small enough to do the job yet hide from the average World Trade Center worker. Anything less is an attempt to deceive the public


"Must", in each assertion, in all caps is a bit strong also, especially since the "must" is contrafactual and illogical in both cases. Making such flat assertions without the informational background to justify them qualifies as supremely illogical in my book. Imo the attempt, inadvertent or not, to deceive is on the Prof's part.

Tiger

I can assure you that I am not out to deceive anyone of anything. The post that I made was from someone a hell of a lot smarter on thermite than I am. I believe the source of my information and trust its accuracy, but that doesn't mean it's not open for debate amongst those who know.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 27 Oct 2009, 22:32

Here are two quotes from Scepcop. The first is his response to a logical post from Nostradamus. If you feel he gets emotional, then read his second quote from the Introduction thread:

Scepcop wrote:Wrong on all counts. There were explosions. Tons of witnesses heard them and mentioned them. I posted many videos of them. It's ridiculous that you just ignore them and rationalize them away. There are squibs. They are on film, remember? Geez. The building did not fall in the path of least resistance, it fell in the path of greatest resistance. You call millions of tons of steel and concrete "the path of least resistance"? My God, you are blank wasting my time. Jesus Christ. Why do you do that? You are like a kid arguing about whether the sky is blue or not. That is not an intelligent conversation, it's a butthead one. It's like you're playing a total game here and not even serious.

Scepcop wrote:When logic and facts are you on your side, you don't need to get emotional or subjective...


Just sayin' it's an observation I made... :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 27 Oct 2009, 23:24

How is it logical to present an uninformed assertion as a "must", when it ignores logical consequences of an acknowledged element of the circumstances? The failure to even acknowledge the possibility of charge placement within the admittedly hollow columns strikes me as either deliberately misleading through omission or flat out illogical.


An uninformed assertion? Hardly. it is not an assertion, but a need to demonstrate.

Here you state:
it ignores logical consequences of an acknowledged element of the circumstances?

Is hollow the fact that you are trying to exploit. You deem it unnecessary to replace a non-hollow demonstration with a hollow demonstration using materials similar in dimension to the failed part?

You use term illogical rather loosely in both the sense it is repetitive, and it seems by definition. Do you find it illogical to consider that the hollow columns may have housed lasers, or tactical nuclear weapons? Do you find it illogical to consider that the hollow columns were used to house transmutation devices? Do you find it illogical to consider that the hollow columns contained a nano black hole?

Do you want me to claim that "The failure to even acknowledge the possibility of (fill in blank) within the admittedly hollow columns strikes me as either deliberately misleading through omission or flat out illogical."

The problem with assumptions based on no evidence is the temptation to use the logical fallacy of begging the question. That appears often in this forum and is illogical.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 27 Oct 2009, 23:27

Nostradamus wrote:
How is it logical to present an uninformed assertion as a "must", when it ignores logical consequences of an acknowledged element of the circumstances? The failure to even acknowledge the possibility of charge placement within the admittedly hollow columns strikes me as either deliberately misleading through omission or flat out illogical.


An uninformed assertion? Hardly. it is not an assertion, but a need to demonstrate.

Here you state:
it ignores logical consequences of an acknowledged element of the circumstances?

Is hollow the fact that you are trying to exploit. You deem it unnecessary to replace a non-hollow demonstration with a hollow demonstration using materials similar in dimension to the failed part?

You use term illogical rather loosely in both the sense it is repetitive, and it seems by definition. Do you find it illogical to consider that the hollow columns may have housed lasers, or tactical nuclear weapons? Do you find it illogical to consider that the hollow columns were used to house transmutation devices? Do you find it illogical to consider that the hollow columns contained a nano black hole?

Do you want me to claim that "The failure to even acknowledge the possibility of (fill in blank) within the admittedly hollow columns strikes me as either deliberately misleading through omission or flat out illogical."

The problem with assumptions based on no evidence is the temptation to use the logical fallacy of begging the question. That appears often in this forum and is illogical.

Good post, Mr. Spock. ;-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests