rigorousintuition.ca

orz wrote:barracuda, really good post! Infinitely more intelligent and worthwhile than my bickerings with isachar.

I'd just like to echo that.

Jeff wrote:

isachar wrote: Thin skinned little bastard, aren't you. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Project much? Seems like, for about 10 pages now, a few of us have been standing here patiently taking your bucket loads of dead fish and fresh effluent.

Jeff, not projection - I respond in kind, in case you haven't noticed.

You've played host to a board (and blog) that regularly bashes those who seek to address the outstanding questions related to the phony NIST investigation, as well as to those raised (or covered up) by the equally phony 911 commission report.

Seems you can't stand to have your hypocriscy and sense of self-superiority on this issue given exposure without heaping more and more shit onto the pile.

Well, this thread has turned into equal opportunity time now, hasnt' it?

And you and the other Amy's don't like it one bit I see.

Amy's

Wow you really don't appreciate how dumb this looks do you?

isachar wrote:
You've played host to a board (and blog) that regularly bashes those who seek to have the outstanding questions related to the phony NIST investigation, as well as to those raised (or covered up) by the equally phony 911 commission report.

No. Your claim re the collapse is not to having outstanding questions; it's to having outstanding answers. Of course I don't object to reopening the investigation. I object to those for whom an investigation is moot.

On the subject of moot investigations, I've posted the latest from NIST on the long-awaited WTC7 report here.

The comments submitted by Jerry Leaphart are salutary:

Accordingly, all of the discussion had today concerning temperature assumptions, concerning working hypotheses that have still, some six years later, have not yet resulted in yet even a leading hypothesis, and small wonder, all serve to demonstrate the investigation as to what caused the destruction of World Trade Center 7 is seriously off target and amiss and should probably be halted pending a determination of why the status of that investigation can get no further than that of a working hypothesis and this some six years later.

Barracuda wrote:Much of the devastation of these issues is plain to see in this thread, whereupon a group of fundamentally like-minded persons exhibit utter contempt for each others points of view as bitterly as if they were sworn enemies, and needlessly so.

Sigh. You said a mouthful with that post.

Jeff wrote: Of course I don't object to reopening the investigation. I object to those for whom an investigation is moot.

Well, that's a mischaracterization, as I don't know of anyone - even among some at the fringes - who think an investigation is moot. In fact, all the ones I am familiar with are crying out for just that.

Nevertheless, it would appear we're making some real progress on this issue as frankly even that mischaracteerization has embedded within it a position that you have not emphasized or enunciated previously, or has been subsumed to your need to relentlessly bash and belittle those who have raised cogent and fact-based questions concerning the legitimacy of the NIST report as a means for re-opening the investigation and subjecting it to rigorous peer-review.

And, one that will re-establish the lab tests that NIST halted that were to continue to expose structural steel to actual fire replicating the internal environment. And, one that puts the "meteorite", surviving structural members and dust samples under spectroscopic and molecular examination.

And one that explains the micro cellular attack/decomposition on pieces of structural steel recovered from beneath WTC' 1, 2, and 7.

And, one that addresses the utter complete failure of the remaining undamaged structural columns rather than one that just sez - and then there was global collapse.

That's a good list for starters.

Thanks for supporting what is the over-arching goal of the 911-reality/justice movement which is to re-open that part of the investigation related to the issues covered by the phony NIST report, as well as to those related to the equally phony 911 Whitewash Commission.

Would it be too much to expect a blog post that clarifies this matter?

isachar wrote:
Would it be too much to expecgt a blog post that clarifies this matter?

It's like talking to an automatic dialer.

isachar wrote: nomo, you are the master of the ad-hominems

You're giving me way too much credit. Go re-read your own drivel. You're the only one here who seems to take pleasure in this thread degenerating into a shoutfest. Your bullying only illustrates the weakness of your arguments, and the longer you keep at it, the more you can rest assured you're eventually going to end up on my ignore-list.

nomo wrote:

isachar wrote: nomo, you are the master of the ad-hominems

You're giving me way too much credit. Go re-read your own drivel. You're the only one here who seems to take pleasure in this thread degenerating into a shoutfest. Your bullying only illustrates the weakness of your arguments, and the longer you keep at it, the more you can rest assured you're eventually going to end up on my ignore-list.

Like I said before, I respond in kind. Read, and then read it again. Perhaps then you'll get an inkling.

Jeff wrote:

isachar wrote:
Would it be too much to expecgt a blog post that clarifies this matter?

It's like talking to an automatic dialer.

Gee, Jeff, you had a breakthrough (and probably unguarded moment) there. You actually supported a re-opening of an investigation into the issues addressed by NIST.

But then you took it away. Can't go there, can you, Amy.

I hope the post doesn't disappear. I want to frame it. Fire red for the mat? What do you think?

Here it is again, from the great and powerful Jeff Wells:

"Of course I don't object to a re-opening of the investigation".

Squirm baby, squirm.

isachar wrote: Gee, Jeff, you had a breakthrough (and probably unguarded moment) there. You actually supported a re-opening of an investigation into the issues addressed by NIST.

No; here's a breakthrough for me on the board: fuck you.

I've said many times I'd welcome a new investigation. But you people who have investigated to your own satisfaction and hang all of 9/11 on your collapse hypotheses sure have a hard time hearing me.

I would like to share my current feeling, disgust.

There are intelligent people on this thread who are acting like whining brats and engaged in the worst type of online wankery.

Please, go and fuck yourselves. Your exchanges are truly beyond embarrassing

Jeff wrote:

isachar wrote: Gee, Jeff, you had a breakthrough (and probably unguarded moment) there. You actually supported a re-opening of an investigation into the issues addressed by NIST.

No; here's a breakthrough for me on the board: fuck you.

I've said many times I'd welcome a new investigation. But you people who have investigated to your own satisfaction and hang all of 9/11 on your collapse hypotheses sure have a hard time hearing me.

Well, I certainly don't think you should go fuck yourself (unless of course you think it's absolutely necessary). Just that you might consider providing a better representation of your views on this subject which are dominated by almost endless vitriol towards those who advocate the very same thing you say you propound.

For example, just within this thread you've gone from avoidance, to saying it doesn't matter, to the investigation into the collapse of the WTC's should be re-opened. I won't get into the snarky stuff.

So, what's it to be my friend, Amy, or Jeff? The choice is yours.

Amy?

Seriously what is wrong with you? Are you trying to provide a textbook example of the kind of wrong thinking the original post is complaining about?