''Actually the way I see it is Ed has been found to be a debunker, a professional arguer.''
Did I present myself differently? How is this a discovery? Also, you got the definition of a debunker wrong.
''Debunkers write the most belittling posts about the movement, and do everything they can to stop it.''
You're flattering me. [edit of typo here]
''They constantly make fun of people trying to find the truth, ''
Well, I do take a bathroom break once in a while.
''and when they are challenged by researchers, they say "OH YEAH REMEMBER WHEN BALSALMO WROTE DEATH THREATS" or "WEVE COVERED THIS ALREADY" or some stupid joke, but they hardly ever address the evidence. ''
When did I do this?
''They dont see 'truthers' as real people. ''
Biologically you're human.
''. They also create degrading terms such as, 'tr00fer', and 'twoofer'. ''
I prefer the latter, but it's much harder to annunciate.
'' These disgusting trolls use the JREF forums as a hangout. ''
Is this more of your detective work? I'm out of my league here.
''Other such trolls can be found at Starmen.net and the SLC forums. ''
What are those about?
''The End.''
No living happily ever after? I guess the 9/11 conspiracy is another sort of fairy tale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have to prove a negative (logically). I don't have to prove his innocence (legally). Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You earlier attempted to prove his guilt, I debunked it. I showed your misinterpretation of his statement, and then I showed you Nigro's letter which indicated that the decision wasn't made by Silverstein and the decision itself wasn't to demolish anything, but to pull the firefighters. Why isn't this enough? Is Nigro a liar?
''How did he know that the building was going to collapse when no other building has collapsed due to fire ever except on 911?''
He outlines the reasons in the letter. The premise in your statement is also false.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In short, nothing has evolved.''
This goes for the truth movement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''wtf 12 pages of posts??? can someone please summarize where we're at because I left off at about page 2 Rolling Eyes''
I debunk. They question my character. I flame a bit. They flame a bit. They post links containing holocaust denial. I demand apology. They ignore it. Ad Infinitum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''Here ED, some demo experts who do think wtc1-2 and 7 are demos:
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/''
Not some, but pretty much all. Not all of them are ''experts'', some have been contracted to do demolision jobs once in a while. And not all of them think that all 3 buildings were demolished. Jowenko doesn't say this about WTC1,2. He was merely shown the video of WTC7 and not told that it was previously hit by debris and was massively on fire. And he technically is the biggest ''expert'' on your list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ed/Mark, just because you like to sift through peoples links they give you to try and find something negative or off topic, and then attack them. I did this for you, only cause I care though! "
Is this the best you can do address yourself providing links with holocaust denial? Imagine that, I go to the links you post for me. Also, as I used to be a truther , I knew those websites and I knew what they contained. Guess what was another motivator in me leaving. Instead, just apologize for spreading those websites. You like to edit your posts, so edit them out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
''Ed/Mark provided this link "Pearl Harbor: debunked by Mark Roberts and others on JREF -
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... stcount=36"
I did. I also mentioned how I'm not going to return to the subject of other conspiracies, such as Pearl Harbor.
''After reviewing alot of the disinformation in the 911 debunking resources thread -
http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=91 ... +resources ''
Did I link you to this one though?
"
I found this : Making an argument - Although often we make arguments to try to learn about and understand the world around us, sometimes we hope to persuade others of our ideas and convince them to try or believe them, just as they might want to do likewise with us. ''
Give me the context.
''Persuade others, Convince them, How to argue. Ed/Mark, You a Pathetic!!!!! ''
So the links inform you on logical fallacies etc. How is this pathetic? I tried to address some of those very fallacies in this forum before. I like to call this charity and I didn't post it or link you to it.
Suppose I did link you to them, is this suppose to balance the holocaust denial in your links?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again, crap!
Show me proof that it was "not" a demo. "
I can't prove that it was ''not'' a demolition, just like I can't prove that God does ''not'' exist. Asking me to prove a negative is illogical.
"I can prove that it looks like a demo, acts like a demo and more than likely is a demo."
Please do.
"Again proof, that letter proves nothing!"
Why? Is Nigro a liar? If you think so, take it up with the New York fire department and not me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Here's a demolitions expert!
Right after the first World Trade Center tower collapsed, at 9:59 a.m. on September 11, 2001, Father John Delendick--one of New York Fire Department's chaplains--ran down a ramp to below the nearby World Financial Center, so as to escape the dust cloud. There he met with Deputy Chief Ray Downey, the head of the FDNY's Special Operations Command. Delendick asked Downey if the jet fuel from the plane had blown up, thus causing the South Tower to collapse. According to Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even." <1>
Coming from a senior firefighter, this claim is significant enough. But it is even more so because Downey was no ordinary firefighter. Prior to 9/11, he had "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide." <2> As the chief of the FDNY Special Operations Command, he'd pioneered techniques for urban rescue and responding to terrorist attacks. "He was so respected, so beloved," according to CBS News, that "his men nicknamed him 'god.'" <3>
Of most importance is that one of Downey's areas of expertise was building collapses. 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to Downey as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse." <4> Robert Ingram, a battalion chief in the New York Fire Department, has called him "the premiere collapse expert in the country." <5> And Fire Chief Mike Antonucci, who was a best friend of Downey's, said he "was probably the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was. That was his , to study building collapses--what affected the engineering of buildings, how they weaken and how he could respond and stay safe." <6>
And this 39-year veteran of the New York Fire Department, who was the most highly decorated firefighter in its history, initially believed the South Tower had come down due to explosives, because the collapse had been "too even." Unfortunately, Ray Downey is not with us today, as he was killed when the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m."
First of all - how dare you? When asked if the cause was the explosion of jet fuel, he pointed out that bombs would instead be the cause "because it was too even.". The whole conversation went due to an assumed premise that it was an explosion which caused the building to collapse. Downey was right to point it out that bombs would have been a better contender than jet fuel, when it comes to such an explosion. This quick exchange went on in the heat of the catastrophe, and today the firefighters mentioned no longer think that it was any sort of explosion which caused the collapse. Read full transcripts about this with them here:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... FrJohn.txt
Unfortunately the man is dead and cannot be asked if he still agrees with his preliminary observation. Which makes you an asshole for using him. And you wonder why I hate the truth movement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ed/Mark you actually get off on this, your sick bud! I should hope you can debunk it as it came from your debunking resources site!"
Again, you looney toon, I'm not Mark Roberts. But entertain me, and show me where you plagiarized it from.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again I asked for proof.
What you gave me is not proof, this is Marks interpretation repeated by you. "
How so? Mark also thinks that the event happened on 9/11, so next time I claim this, accuse me of doing the same thing as you just did now. Moron.
''Why wouldn't he admit it on TV? He has the "best" government on his side to protect him. Proves nothing. ''
So you are insane. Suppose that the government is protecting him, wouldn't they ask him to not say this? In such a scenario, is it not better to play on the a safe side? Suppose the government doesn't care, what about the insurance companies or the FDNY? You're saying he said it just for kicks? Why don't others do it too? Why doesn't Bush also admit to it? Why does Larry get to have all the fun? See, your conspiracy is based on a larger conspiracy that the US government can and will protect Silverstein from anything. So now you made your job harder and you have to first justify that.
''He does not complain because he does not want to be interviewed again for that statement. Keep it out of the public eye. Proves nothing. ''
He actually has spoken about 9/11 a few times. He could of also just asked them to reshoot the statement as they were filming him. And this is not consistent with the US government protecting him as you earlier claimed. So they can protect one guilt admission, but not two? Are all co-conspirators informed of this club rule?
''Yes he could have asked to reshoot. Proves nothing. ''
Well it either makes Silverstein or you mentally retarded.
"His Lawyers???? He wants nothing to do with the courts, that's right, let's get him under oath. Please contact him to do so ED. "
Hes been in and out of court because of the insurance. Stop living in the conspiracy world.
"The media ED, come on....you should know better than that. Is Fox your news station? "
How is this a rebuttal to my point?
"911blogger dropped it? Show me please. "
"And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7." - Mikey Metz
"I agree that the Silverstein comment was taken out of context and is a bogus claim. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved. It means he wasn't admitting anything on PBS, and the fire commander angle makes no sense.
I've also been making this critique for years.
Shouldn't our task be to strengthen the movement by challenging bad information? Rather than going over to rabid reactionaries who have no concept that the US government does these sorts of things?
You're throwing in the towel for pushing the truth? So, you're settling for their propaganda?"
-http://911blogger.com/node/12106
"So-debunked don't think so.
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein"
We've dealt with this.
"He called for the demmo first and they did it! "
Dealt with it.
"Besides, how do you set up a demmo in only 1/2 a day in a burnning building no less(Prove this please) is beyond me."
You don't. And nobody did. Nothing to prove here. Stop making assumptions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I say that I'm done for a certain period of time, don't bukake me with the "truth".
