• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Experts" Won't Even Answer Questions

conspiracybeliever

Scholar
C
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
109
Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at the paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC. Challenged with the evidence, he hung up the phone.

Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University submitted his fire-induced collapse theory to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) two days after 9-11, without examining any evidence. Asked if he would review Jones’s paper, Bazant also refused, “I have seen Jones’s fiction before. If you want my private opinion, it is nothing but sensationalism,” he said. “His purported refutation of my analysis is baseless.”

Asked to simply look at five photos in an e-mail showing the cascading molten metal and core columns, which appear to have been cut with thermite, Bazant responded, “I do not have time.”

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, an Iranian-born professor at Berkeley, who was a member of the ASCE team studying the WTC collapse, also refused to look at Jones’s paper.

“I will not be able to find time to review the material that you have sent me,” said Astaneh-Asl.
Click to expand...

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3383

:D
 
You're merely pointing out specific times that specific people have refused to answer a question, which is quite the opposite of the consistant and cowardly refusals of the conspiracy theorist to answer a wide range of questions.
 
Reminds me of someone who refused to even taste my lye soup. The nerve! Just because he had heard the "official story" about how lye would have dissolved his throat on the way down... Typical of these close-minded types, to not even take the time for one bowl of lye.

Or was that "lies"? Anyway, I just can't understand why an expert would find it offensive to be asked to swallow a few lies in a new recipe. Especially when the lies are about them and their work.

Closed-minded skeptic types....
 
Maybe because the questioners are full of ◊◊◊◊◊?
 
Because scientists do not spent their time listening to every crank who writes them idiotic letters in green ink about their plans for perpetual motion machines and their real proper scientific proofs of creationism and their magical methods of making steel melt below the melting point of steel.
 
I remember seeing a website created by a paranoid schizophrenic who rambled endlessly about how the CIA and Catholic Church were transmitting messages into his brain. He told of his attempts to get the church to cease and desist its nefarious activities by talking to the church secretaries at several parishes. He noted that these people were always friendly at first, but as soon as he said why he was there, they seemed to become very uncomfortable, and didn't want to talk to him anymore. That's how he KNEW he was onto something!

Do you think the fact that they didn't want to talk to a raving lunatic could be explained by something other than a conspiracy to beam messages into his brain?

Do you think the experts not wanting to discuss long-discredited conspiracy theories can be explained similarly?
 
Remember when the "moon hoax" CT Bart Sibrel kept pestering Buzz Aldrin about answering questions? Someone who is actually involved has better things to do than answer questions from insane people. With Buzz, Sibrel finally approached him and started pestering him to swear on a Bible that he was really on the Moon, and Buzz punched him out.

Maybe that's what these Loose Changers really need - a good ol' DeBunk kick in the nuts.
 
Considering Dr. Aldrin knew people who had died in pursuit of reaching the moon, I think he showed incredible restraint.
 
Maybe they are just fed up with you cranks and nutcases constantly tossing things in front of them like they were proof, and getting into snits when the answer that you want isn't what they give.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index4.html

After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”

The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”

“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.

“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.
Click to expand...

Given how arrogant and insane you CT'ers typically are, I'm surprised he was that reserved.
 
kookbreaker said:
Maybe they are just fed up with you cranks and nutcases constantly tossing things in front of them like they were proof, and getting into snits when the answer that you want isn't what they give.

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index4.html



Given how arrogant and insane you CT'ers typically are, I'm surprised he was that reserved.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of how all these creationists come to the feedback section of talkorigins.org and ask if the folks there have ever heard of Dr. Kent Hovind, and how do they respond to his claims

(despite the fact they have pages and pages of Hovind response on their website)
 
CptColumbo said:
Considering Dr. Aldrin knew people who had died in pursuit of reaching the moon, I think he showed incredible restraint.
Click to expand...
I want to go on record that I did not slug Dylan or any his co-conspirators at the Flight 93 opening, even the Code Pink lady1. I also want to go on record as wondering if maybe that wasn't a moral failure.



1: In fairness, I did call her a terrorist supporter. But those pukes protest wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.
 
yeah, this almost certainly falls under one or more categories in sagan's fallacy detection toolkit. just because people refuse to examine to someone's "evidence" certainly doesnt make that evidence any valuable.

besides, i think the first quote was actually a pretty strong argument for why the expert wouldnt consider the "evidence"- he clearly states he has seen the persons "fiction" before and has made the educated decision that he is not a credible author. what the hell is wrong with that? sorry CT'ists, there is such a thing as track record, a person would be stupid to consider every single claim without considering its source.
 
I also suspect we are merely seeing the filtered version of the CT's stalking campaign.
 
I think conspiracybeliever may have a point. Shouldn't people answer all questions put to them, however ludicrous? In fact, we can look at the Loose Changers for inspiration. Can you even imagine these truth seekers doing something like, oh I don't know, banning someone without warning simply because they asked a skeptical question or voiced a dissenting opinion? Or can you imagine them stating that their theories are so obviously correct that any further critical discussion about them shouldn't even be allowed? Of course you can't imagine such things -- because you don't have to; they've already happened.

It's a good thing these CT'ers are so damned funny (albeit unintentionally). Otherwise they'd be nothing more than frontrunners for the title of world's most despicable hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
manny said:
I want to go on record that I did not slug Dylan or any his co-conspirators at the Flight 93 opening, even the Code Pink lady1. I also want to go on record as wondering if maybe that wasn't a moral failure.



1: In fairness, I did call her a terrorist supporter. But those pukes protest wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.
Click to expand...
While I don't condone punching people, I do believe some need a swift kick in the a$$.
 
People do answer the conspriracy theorist's questions. All of their questions have been answered many times. They're just complaining because they can't get all of the people all of the time. Indeed I suspect the three gentlemen named have already answered quite a few questions already.
 
ChristineR said:
People do answer the conspriracy theorist's questions. All of their questions have been answered many times. They're just complaining because they can't get all of the people all of the time. Indeed I suspect the three gentlemen named have already answered quite a few questions already.
Click to expand...

Additionally, there is a time and forum for asking such questions and, rightfully, expecting answers.
 
Nice to see you're still running away from the argument Rox. Ever notice how the "CTers" won't even answer questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom