1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ZEITGEIST - AWESOME VIEWING !

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by fishwad, Aug 3, 2009.

  1. p4radox

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 1, 2004

    Posts: 10,748

    Location: Prague

    I don't agree with that particular AJUK post. I also have it on authority from a number of structural engineers that the WTC collapse was perfectly "normal" given the circumstances. I've even linked to a peer-reviewed report in the past that explains this all very clearly. Deuse, you must have spotted it, the amount of times I've linked to it.

    http://winterpatriot.pbworks.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf

    Conclusion:

     
  2. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,211

    Location: Plymouth

    Because they are entirely disreputable sources with no value. Random conspiracy theory websites are no more a source worth giving credence to than an episode of Rainbow.

    You're the one who claims the official explanation is wrong or false. The onus is on you to back it up and present a viable alternative.

    I don't have to prove you wrong, you've presented no theory to prove wrong. You need to present a theory before any evidence can be evaluated and compared with evidence taken from reputable sources.

    Do I believe AJUK, who has had no direct access to all the evidence and data over the structural engineers that have actually analysed the data and evidence in full? No, I don't. It makes no sense to do so unless you have decided a priori that the experts who published the official reports are lying. I've approached the official reports with an open mind, evaluated the evidence, compared it to the impacts and falls I watched on TV at the time, and it seems well explained to me.

    I'm always open to alternative ideas (hell, I present enough of them myself in many threads), but none of the threads on 9/11 have presented anything in the way of a credible alternative theory as to what happened that is more credible than the official explanation.

    This is why we are asking for you to detail, exactly, what you believe happened. Until we get that, we cannot evaluate it. You're being offered the chance to convince us, why won't you detail your theory in full?
     
  3. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida

  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,211

    Location: Plymouth

    I'm not interested in the videos, I want your theory and beliefs on the matter. If the official explanation is wrong, what is your alternative and why?
     
  5. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida



    So you disagree with me but you don't have to prove anything why? hmmm sounds one sided to me.
    See what I mean " rattle out of the pram"

    As I said a copy and paste man.
     
  6. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    There are 4 threads on this go and read them ,then you will know.
     
  7. Glaucus

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 76,645

    reading those threads don't help. Just like this thread. You fill your posts with lies and then when we prove they are lies you carry on.
     
  8. Chimerical

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 21, 2007

    Posts: 5,487

    No-one cares about the Trade Center anymore. Why do people on the internet think they can disprove the official accounts of what happened? Same as those that thought the moon landings were faked.

    Why on earth is it SO HARD to work out that planes took the buildings down?
     
  9. Stag

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2003

    Posts: 4,212

    Location: The road to erudition

    Some people need to read the Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Bob Shea. ;)
     
  10. Tummy

    Caporegime

    Joined: Sep 4, 2008

    Posts: 28,705

    Location: Yorkshire.

    Deuse still not answering any questions :p
     
  11. PanchoVilla

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 11, 2004

    Posts: 602

    Dolph, so you are saying that you are not interested in deuse's videos, but want to know 'his' theory and beliefs? Wouldn't the videos of more qualified personnel be of more value to support a theory than a summation from a third party?

    Or do you want to make this personal with deuse so you can get into a mud fight?
     
  12. Inquisitor

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 12, 2004

    Posts: 11,788

    Location: Birmingham

    Qualified? :confused:

    If Deuse can't even produce his own argument but must rely on videos to do it for him, he's not really worth arguing with. Furthermore, if he takes all of his ideas from the videos he watches, he's just as guilty of "believing what he's told" as most conspiracists would claim normal people are in believing the official story…
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2009
  13. Evangelion

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 29, 2007

    Posts: 22,850

    Location: Adelaide, South Australia

    LOL @ deuse saying we only copy paste, then... "watch these three videos."

    :p
     
  14. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    As I have said I have put forward what I think happens in 3 threads on this forum
    If you want to go and read please do, if not stop posting... simples really.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2009
  15. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    Dolph will not watch any video from people David Chandler who asked NIST on TV which they could not answer
    the upshot being they changed the report because D Chandler got it right.

    And as for making it personnel, some people on this forum are just trying to be a bully or trolls.
    Well welcome to OCUK :)
     
  16. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    Prove it with your own facts that you have tested and know to be 100% correct.
    You won't will you? you will just come back with blah blah blah like a school child who has not even read the report.

    I bet you do...

    Just to help you out use the Physics ToolKit Version 6.0
    here http://www.physicstoolkit.com/ then come back with your results.
    and please dont ask for mine as(as I have said) its posted in 3 threads.

    So either put up(now you got the tools) or shut up.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2009
  17. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,211

    Location: Plymouth

    I don't have to prove anything because I've accepted the primary explanation and can therefore simply refer you to the official reports.

    You wish to claim something else happened (although you refuse to specify what it could have been) and as such the onus of proof lies firmly on you. We are not starting with no explanation. We are starting with a clearly defined and generally accepted explanation. You are challenging that explanation with an as yet undisclosed alternative theory.

    Asking you to (a) clarify exactly what your alternative theory is, and (b) why you believe it to be a stronger case than the mainstream theory is not 'throwing rattles out of the pram (no matter how much you try and bold it for evidence), nor it is a justification for your ad hom attacks on those who ask you for more information.

    This is without mentioning the list of fallacies in your position, starting with style over substance, adding in argumentum ad nauseam, a dash of petitio principii and a smidge of inverse appeal to authority, all grouped together as an alternative to providing an actual theory of your own...
     
  18. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 17, 2007

    Posts: 19,106

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    Or can't


    Once again READ THE 3 threads on this forum or read what MIT Engineer Jeff King says.
    you know what and who they are don't you?

    Read above or get the tool kit.
     
  19. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,211

    Location: Plymouth

    There's that argumentum ad nauseum again. Your repeated assertions that we can't prove the official account correct is baseless, and repeating it over and over doesn't change that, nor does it change the fact that you have yet again failed to produce an alternative theory and present it (a continuation of the style over substance fallacy, which isn't very convincing), snipping out the question again doesn't really hide it ;)

    Have done, failed to be convinced, again, argumentum ad nauseum. You can't just keep repeating the same arguments that have already failed to convince us and expect them to somehow be convincing this time...

    The above doesn't help, at no point have you given what your actual position or theory is for open evaluation, and shown how it fits in better with evidence (official or otherwise) that is credible. You are basically attacking everyone else without giving any real alternative, it's no wonder you aren't getting very far.
     
  20. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,178

    Why is it that neither you nor duese will give your explanation for what happened?