Me: "All I see is that you and Trippy want to be right without having watched the video."
Anyone can see that your sole agenda is to be correct, and yet you deny it. You dare to say it's 'totally untrue'!? That very statement shows that it is true - you have either not read or understood the discussion so far, and you just say things without thinking or looking at what's transpired. You can't just make pronouncements like that. And you call me a liar!
Yes. The assertion that I have any kind of an agenda beyond a reasonable discussion is completely untrue, a falsehood, a lie. I have neither the time nor the energy for hidden agendas and the like.
It's stupid to start in with the 'you hit me first - no, you hit me' argument. Are we four-year olds?
You made an accusation, I was providing you with evidence that the accusation is false.
Yes, I said that, in response to you habitual know-it-all attitude and misunderstanding of the terms 'theory' and 'conspiracy theory'. Well, no need to go over all that again. The salient point is your whole dismissive attitude. One could even accuse you of derailing the thread. Kittamaru started it off and said the video was interesting. He drew no conclusion. Then you decide that it's nonsense while amazingly admitting you hadn't watched it. That set me off because so many on this forum make pronouncements without knowing of what they speak. And worse yet, call themselves 'scientific' - and then I see a moderator doing it!
The only person that's derailing this thread is you. My first couple of posts, the posts you're kvetching about (responses to you to one side) were on topic. I expressed an opinion on the video, made my criticism of the part of the video I commented on clearer, and addressed Kittamaru's comments regarding the lack of debris. All on topic, nothing repressing further discussion.
This was your response to my saying that you hadn't watched the video. If you were not merely grasping at straws here, you would see that I am equating having watched five minutes and misconstruing, with a full 1:1200 of not watching. So this goes to my point that you have no interest in anything save appearing to be correct about absolutely everything.
No straw grasping here, just a plain english interpretation.
I have not watched the video.
I have watched some of the video.
I have watched all of the video.
Three different statements, three different meanings
Really? One photo and the problem is all gone? I would ask if you are serious, but you have just said that you are. :shrug:
Not quite what I said - what I said was that,
technicaly the hypothesis "There are
no photos showing plane debris" only requires one photo of plane debris to disprove it.
I cannot say precisely just now what my standard of evidence is, but I know it's more than some pasted internet photos that could be anything. And recall that I started out and have maintained no opinion either way about what the video purports. I only ask about it. And I get no help from you because you feel free to draw conclusions based on having scoffed at five minutes of over 70 minutes of material.
Your logical fallacy is the texas sharpshooter
You have picked one photo out of the six that I posted in thread.
(And you misunderstood the five minutes you did see - I can safely say that because I have the context of the entire video)
There is nothing that can make the first five minutes contextually correct and I am quietly confident that my opinion would remain unchanged had I watched the video in its entirety.
Again with the gratuitous insults. When I criticize you, it is because I feel you are not doing your job, and I tell you why I think so. You're response has largely consisted of denial and name-calling. Nice work![/quote]
It's an observation. You demanded that I not talk down to you or patronize you, and yet your first reply to me was you doing precisely that. You're demanding that those around you adhere to a standard you yourself can not or will not adhere to, which is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
Your physics may very well be sound, but physics and watching and understanding a 70-minute video are two different things. As usual you were showing attitude, it was not a straightforward question...
There was no attitude in the question, I simply asked you if you understood the physics of collisions and how it might apply to the distribution of debris.
...if you were any good at communication you would not even have posed such a snide question, but just explained the physics. Instead you came out with the snarky, "I Posted a selection of the photos I found. You understand the law of the conservation of momentum don't you?"
There's nothing snide about the question. It's a valid question which you have yet to answer - do you understand the law of the conservation of momentum or not? Can you understand how it might apply to this situation, and what it might mean for where one might expect to find debris and bodies and such?
Again, I never offered any opinion of the video, that is to say, I have never made any conclusion. I have always merely wanted to follow the discussion, but you burst early onto the scene in post #2 or thereabout to quash any discussion. Moderate much?
If my aim was to quash discussion I have obviously failed, and if I wanted to moderate this thread I would simply do so. It wouldn't be the first time I have moderatred my fellow moderators by deleting posts or closing or deleting threads. I'm quite sure i'll do so again at some point in the future.
The only problem here is you and your inability to get past the colour of my name.
I'm sure it must seem that way to you, but mostly you come off as Captain Snarky with a condescending attitude, posing as 'the learned scientist, but mostly just blowing warm, moist air
More argumentum ad hominem and evasion. So far, you've done a lot of name calling without addressing anything I have actually said.
Mere obfuscation and a side issue - if you take a minute to think about it, of course anyone would know what I mean about not wanting to see dead bodies or why it wouldn't be very nice to see them posted here. I see you obtuse need to misunderstand what I meant as more proof of your just wanting to be right when you know you're wrong to comment on a video you haven't watched.
Neither obfuscation nor a side issue, also not an attempt to misunderstand what you meant born of a desire to be right. Perhaps if you spent less time reacting to the colour of my name, and more time responding to what I have
actually said...
You say this meaning that too should be objective and scientific. Well, yes, I should be, and I think my one real claim here : watch a video all the way through and understand it before making willfully ignorant pronouncements about it - is objective enough.
That's one way of interpreting what I said, I suppose.
Having said that. I have never presented myself as anything but a layman. I am not a scientist. And I am not a science forum moderator. So I have a lot more leeway, and there is no need to 'heal myself'. There's nothing wrong with me.
When you demand that someone do something that you yourself can-not do then you lack credibility... I mean... Take a minute to think about what you
just said...
I want to look at all this you've mentioned, but I have been busy responding to the person who ostensibly is moderating this thread, but is in fact merely standing in the way of any serious discussion as he scoffs at the video we are supposed to be discussing, but he hasn't watched more than a few minutes of, and then defending myself from his belligerent accusations - his reaction to my wondering what such a person is doing moderating a science forum.
Perhaps if you spent less time engaging in such ad-hominem behaviour you'd have more time to review the material I have posted.
I'll read and and get back to you when I can.
Going by what you just said, the only person stopping you is you. I also note that it's been six hours since you replied to that post. Have you reviewed the material your referring to yet?
P.S. I don't appreciate your attitude. it's accusatory. I am already biased against your arguments and you have only yourself to blame - because of the way you speak to me. Browbeating is no way to explain, convince and teach.
Attitude? The only thing that's remotely personal in that post is the reference to your insipid whining.
And what discussion? You said it was interesting, Trippy said it was crap, and then I told Trippy to get a clue.
No, I didn't, I said that
what I had watched up to that point was crap. Get it?
Anything anyone else has said is moot because.... I get tired of saying it... they haven't watched more than a few minutes of it. The Pentagon part, the WTC part are major parts, but still just parts. Please hear the man out before jumping to conclusions. I can't believe I am getting attacked for saying that ...on a science forum!
Neither myself nor Russ have jumped to any conclusions, we have commented on what we have seen of the video.
He hasn't watched that part. Russ Waters did. This is your thread. My only part in it is to wonder why an ill informed moderator would jump right in at post #2 to squelch any discussion and give us his bias (i.e. giving negative comments on the whole after only misunderstanding the first five minutes).
I misunderstood nothing, and I have not squelched any discussion. I did express a negative opinion on what I had seen so you got that much right at least..
Your comments here are exactly what I am having a problem with: moderators making accusations and false judgements without having understood what is going on.
So far the only false judgements have been yours.
You and Trippy have countered that you don't need to...
This is an outright lie. At no point have I made this claim. The only claim I have made is that I have only commented on that portion of the video that I have seen.
I agree that there is nothing to discuss. It is you and Trippy who are doing all the dodging.
I'm dodging nothing.
You still do not admit your errors.
I have, in this thread even. Or were you referring to my commentary on the first few minutes of the video? Even though I explaine dmy initial comment in detail, you have yet to address anything I actually said in that post. All you've done is
assert that I am wrong, without
substantianting that claim by responding to my post and illustrating where (you think) I erred.
Me, I am busy elsewhere with my real life, and threads that interest me. Here my only interest has been outrage that people will comment and decide without knowing, and then make wild accusations rather than admit they were wrong to be so lazy and hasty. I told you that I WILL read it, and here you are again blaming me for not having read it. I pity this need of yours to be always in the right.
So let me get this straight...
You have spent the last couple of pages blaming me because I haven't watched the video because of real life issues and that I will likely watch it in the future, and in the 'next breath' your complaining about people blaming you for not having read those links?
Oh, and I've made this point before, when I do read it it's going to be with great reluctance to agree with anything you or Trippy have said because you've been such insufferable bigots about all this. See what a fine moderator Trippy is? He makes up his mind on a topic, condemns it, and then berates people who point out that his style is not conducive to discussion and learning. Ho hum.
The only thing I've commented on so far is what I have seen of the video. Aside from that all I have done is asked you questions based on what you have stated or implied.