[asedra] Ed Asner on 9/11 - Building 7

[Broomstick]

That is the reporters of 20 20 (one of the most professional media groups around) and their scientific contacts you are dissing.

Er... by "professional media group" you mean "make stories to generate high viewer counts, to enable the network to charge more for advertising during the show", right?

Yes, I have and will "diss" 20/20 and their paid scientific lapdogs. "I saw it on 20/20" does not constitute scientific proof. They cherry-pick to make a good story as they define it. Outfits like Frontline and the BBC are much more reliable, and even there I won't take their word on anything technical without solid confirmation from actual scientific sources.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

You don't seem to understand how this works, you are the one making the extraordinary claims, so you are the one who has to present extraordinary evidence.

If 9/11 was an inside job, it would have been a massive conspiracy, involving thousands, if not tens of thousands of people, all of which would have to keep quiet about it. Or do you think four guys can rig a 110 (or even a 50) story skyscraper to implode over the course of a weekend? A job like that would take months and be amazingly fucking obvious, with work crews tearing out walls, shutting the power off, moving tons of explosive around, and generally disrupting bussiness and getting in the way of the thousands of people working there.

And the Bush Administration is going to cover it up? The same Bush Administration that managed to fuck up everything else it touched is somehow going to keep a lid on the biggest scam since religion?

Right, and you think we have too much faith in the government?

[Lord Zentei]

Then do it, Edi. Censor me, throw my ass out. You people don't debate fairly in any sense of the word, and you can't stand to loose. You've got a status quo to uphold (you cut off arguments just at the point the 911 truthers are about to win, and I suspect this is not the first time this has happened), while I only have truth, justice, and the american way. Its obvious the moderators aren't holding the two sides to the same standard. Kicking me off this sorry excuse of a website would be a favour. I sure don't intend to stick around and chalk up my post count to 10,700, which is more than some people can say. Laugh and get fat.

Looks to me like someone is gunning to become a martyr for the cause so he can go to his buddies and be all like "lo that we have been oppressed yet again by the gullible lapdogs of the evil government! See how they refuse to debate and throw me out when I was just winning, so that they can cover up the Truth!"

After all, he can't very well admit to having been shown to be full of shit, now can he?

[Broomstick]

Your cognitive dissonance is poignant. Government coverups for massive false flag attacks do not rely on the procedures that you have outlined. A project this big cannot be covered up in any sense of the word, you said that yourself, and I proved it with that video. References to all these things are few and far between, imbedded in thousands of pages of reports, memos, correspondence; each one is a dot of color in a pointillist painting, but they are there. The task at finding them is not a trivial one. It took the maker of that video years to do. The relevant memos make only oblique references, and they float in a sea of innocuous documents; if an investigating committee were to read all of the records, the evidence would be drowned out by the noise.

You know, when there is so much "noise" in the signal that only a few Very Special People can perceive it you have to ask if the signal actually exists, or if it's a product of the human brain's drive to find order in chaos and pattern in randomness. Sort of like how people see pictures of things in clouds or Rorschach inkblots aren't there at all.

You know, there WAS a 9/11 conspiracy. It was funded by Al Qaeda, and consisted of 19 (that we know of) young men who took sufficient flight lessons to be able to hijack and then fly commercial airliners into buildings. I don't know why that's not juicy enough for the conspiracy theorists.

[Alkaloid]

you cut off arguments just at the point the 911 truthers are about to win, and I suspect this is not the first time this has happened

You do realise that you win an argument by convincing people to agree with your point of view? Because having a quick read through the thread, no one is coming even close to doing that. The closest anyone has yet come is maddoc saying "I don't consider I've eviscerated his arguments yet," and that was conditional on him finishing the report so he could. You are, in fact, demonstrably loosing this argument, and quite convincingly too. Unless you're using the Charlie Sheen definition of winning, and in that case as far as I can tell you could be in the process of being physically raped by an angry polar bear that has just snorted a shittonne of cocaine and still classify yourself as winning, so I'm not sure that definition means much in this context.

[Broomstick]

I've already given you AT LEAST two such papers. That would be the NIST final report on WTC 7, and jim hoffmans on the energy requirements for driving the expansion of the WTCs pyroclastic flow of pulverised material (which would kill two birds with one stone at this point). Go ahead, look it up. Whats stopping you?

Asedra, a "pyroclastic flow" is an emanation from a volcano consisting of rock and gas at approximately 1,000 C, traveling at speeds of up 700 kph. Even a "cold" pyroclastic flow is around 250 C. People caught in such flows - which are generally impossible to outrun even in a ground vehicle - are killed more or less immediately, if not outright incinerated.

While the rolling dust clouds from the WTC collapse do, on video, share a certain visual resemblance to pyroclastic flows, they are NOT pyroclastic flows. Some people were able to outrun them on foot. People caught in the dust clouds were uncomfortable and frightened, but were not burned or killed.

In other words, this is yet another error of hyperbole on the part of your shit sources.

I've already proven that the pancake collapse is an impossibility

No you haven't. You've quoted hack nutjobs who claim it is impossible, but you have provided no actual information on the strength of the various materials involved, or calculations of forces involved. You have proved nothing.

that the WTCs were designed to resist the impact of those planes (and that those impacts should have had no effect on their structural integrity, thus leaving the job of destroying them to THE FIRES ALONE),

Uh... you mean those GAPING HOLES in the sides of the buildings were a collective hallucination that somehow made it on to video tape?

Please explain to me how the GAPING HOLE in the side of this building is NOT structural damage:

that the fireproofing was not damaged by the impacts

I can put my fist through drywall, which is counted as part of a building's fireproofing as it can, indeed, resist fire when undamaged. If little old me can damage drywall through impact with my dainty fist please explain to me how it would survive an impact with an airliner.

But oh no, its me whos on thin ice, and its me who has to do something drastic to prevent this hopeless farce of a thread (more like a kangaroo court) from being closed.

Banning you will not close this thread. The thread will remain open for our mocking of your stupidity after your delusional ass is kicked out the door.

[Broomstick]

Asedra, a mod has requested something from you. When you refer to a specific claim in a specific document, you are supposed to cite it and if necessary explain how it supports your argument. Linking to a report hundreds of pages in length in its entirety is not acceptable.

I'm not sure how to link directly to the paragraph in question. The document isn't hundreds of pages long, only 12, and it has a quote finder, after all. Theres not much more assistance I can give, PeZook. (Shrug)

Here's an idea:

If it's just one paragraph then quote the one paragraph then state in plain (and hopefully corrected spelled) English on which page it is located. This enables readers to go directly to the relevant part of the original document should they desire, without having to wade through its entirety.

[Broomstick]

You will either back your claims up with the calculations, formulas and numbers and show them here (NOT just link to external bullshit videos!) and you will NOT ignore points made against you.

Thats a two way street. I'm not going to sit here and have demands made of me to back up my claims with peer reviewed papers while you excuse yourselves from doing this same.

Your opponents have provided hard numbers and calculations. You have not. You quote alleged authorities who are actually working outside their areas of expertise. You have made statements easily disproven by 10 minutes of research on the internet.

Thats not a request, thats a demand. I'll not go any further with this discussion until there is some adult supervision and actual accountability.

Please read the rules of the forum again. In a debate situation the board will demand you back up your assertions. And the moderators ARE the "adult supervision" - you remind me of a spoiled 18 year old asserting his elders aren't "mature" because they don't like to play the same video games.

You will comply with this order, or you will face the consequences. The most likely consequence for failure to comply is, in the spirit of giving the board a Christmas gift, giving you a bootprint on your backside

Then do it, Edi. Censor me, throw my ass out.

He won't censor you. He'll leave your stupidity on display for all to see. But if you dare him to ban you he most certainly will.

while I only have truth, justice, and the american way.

You have no idea how embarrassing it is to see Americans say shit like that on an international message board. Folks, I apologize on behalf of my nation, apparently another one of the toddlers got their hands on a keyboard.

Its obvious the moderators aren't holding the two sides to the same standard. Kicking me off this sorry excuse of a website would be a favour. I sure don't intend to stick around and chalk up my post count to 10,700, which is more than some people can say.

If you dare them to ban you.... they will.

Getting your hands dirty clearly isn't your style, you leave that to everyone else why you work the wheel of executive control. The only one whos done any sort of fair moderating is pezook: Your a disgrace to the term.

Uh.... staying out of the argument actually IS the role of a moderator. Do you even know the definition of that term?

[ChaserGrey]

Ooh, cans we have a public execution? Cans we cans we? C'mon, I've been good this year!

Well, pretty good. Relatively speaking. That thing with the organ smuggling notwithstanding.

[Edi]

You will either back your claims up with the calculations, formulas and numbers and show them here (NOT just link to external bullshit videos!) and you will NOT ignore points made against you.

Thats a two way street. I'm not going to sit here and have demands made of me to back up my claims with peer reviewed papers while you excuse yourselves from doing this same. Quit being a cheap little prick with me. Thats not a request, thats a demand. I'll not go any further with this discussion until there is some adult supervision and actual accountability.

The adult supervision here started to kick in when it was clear that you absolutely refused to provide any sort of factual evidence for your extraordinary claims and simply ignored all arguments that demolished your points. When people spend as much time going over your claims and refuting them with actual sources, your behavior invites mockery and derision.

You will comply with this order, or you will face the consequences. The most likely consequence for failure to comply is, in the spirit of giving the board a Christmas gift, giving you a bootprint on your backside

Then do it, Edi. Censor me, throw my ass out. You people don't debate fairly in any sense of the word, and you can't stand to loose. You've got a status quo to uphold (you cut off arguments just at the point the 911 truthers are about to win, and I suspect this is not the first time this has happened), while I only have truth, justice, and the american way. Its obvious the moderators aren't holding the two sides to the same standard. Kicking me off this sorry excuse of a website would be a favour. I sure don't intend to stick around and chalk up my post count to 10,700, which is more than some people can say. Laugh and get fat.

Translation:

[black knight]"Come back and fight you yellow-livered ninny! I'll bite your leg off![/black knight]

You really need to cut back on the amount of grandeur you're adding to your delusions. The current levels are hazardous to your mental health, as evidenced by the death spiral of the discussion since the warning was given.

You will either back your claims up with the calculations, formulas and numbers and show them here (NOT just link to external bullshit videos!) and you will NOT ignore points made against you.

Has this request been made of my opponents? They've been allowed to run rampant with the same behaviour you accuse me of, and this was something that was happening on this page before I even got here. Why did you not step in then? Because, your a biased asshole. Getting your hands dirty clearly isn't your style, you leave that to everyone else why you work the wheel of executive control. The only one whos done any sort of fair moderating is pezook: Your a disgrace to the term.

Your opponents actually displayed exemplary conduct. They linked sources, provided the explanations for why the relevant points in their sources supported their arguments and laid it all out in the discussion. They, unlike you, did not just link to sources of several hundred pages or long videos and go "Watch/Read this, it proves X" without any actual argumentation.

They did accuse of being an idiot and a moron and the discussion bears that out quite well. If you ever took a look at the board rules, they don't prohibit flaming, but they have several rules about the kind of dishonest behavior you have been showing throughout.

So, to recap, asedra has been found guilty of:

• ignoring evidence against his arguments
• refusal to provide evidence and arguments of his own
• claiming unfair persecution in an attempt to prevent enforcement of rules against him
• daring a moderator to ban him

Therefore, with the approval of Dalton, the verdict is clear:



Good riddance and Merry Christmas!