Why Incompetent People Think They're Amazing

Submitted by: holygod 8 months ago in Science


The Dunning-Kruger Effect: How badly do we over estimate our own abilities?
There are 282 comments:
Female 5,070
you see a lot of this on completion americas got talent videos on youtube. A LOT of this.
1
Reply
Male 590
Interesting vid.  Had some good points to it.  Quite happy to see other correlations mentioned also with those who have skills thinking others are the same.

It's pretty noticeable online and in various post-secondary institutions now.  It would be interesting to find reasoning for this imo.  Online I could see it being easier to manipulate the message.  In rl one needs to think and respond on the spot, while online it's easier to leave and come back at a later time to continue, thus inflating one's self-perception of debate.  In post-secondary it seems that people take what was once a set standard and have manipulated it into something they feel is reasonable to their own ego rather than accepting the reality of the situation.
0
Reply
Male 6,088
Didn't you just know that monk and megrendel were gonna go at it over this post lol..
1
Reply
Male 2,212
The ironing of this being a TedTalk is delicious. 
-3
Reply
Male 12,053
chicagojay The ironing of you trying to sound smart while sounding like an idiot is extra delicious. Good example of dunning- Kruger. Thank you.
3
Reply
Male 6,430
holygod I was going to stick up for him, that it's probably spellcheck on a phone, but anyone who has a problem with TedTalks is not a thinker.
1
Reply
Male 12,053
markust123 Ya I know. I give people a ton of leeway on spelling and grammar, but that just ended up being too perfect to pass up.
0
Reply
Male 6,430
chicagojay, "The ironing of this being a TedTalk is delicious."

I don't find ironing delicious. Tedious, but not delicious - burns the tongue.
3
Reply
Male 1,383
Good video.

I am definitely an above average driver - when I'm concentrating on driving.  Sadly, my concentration often gets redirected and I become a below average driver.

I can honestly say that for most of my skills, when I am focused, I'm up there.  When not focused, even in my core skills, I'm average at best.  I've worked with the best in their respective fields and was always in awe at the level of concentration and focus they brought to their work.

I had a sign on the front of my desk that read "Being a professional means doing your best work when you don't want to".  It was a reminder to myself (when I walked into my office) to get my shit together and solve my clients problems regardless of what I think of the client, what I think of the project, what I think about the tasks I have in front of me, or what time of day or day of the week it is.

I wish I could say that I lived up to that sign, but I know how often I failed.
1
Reply
Male 12,053
punko Here is what it takes to be a good driver in my opinion:

1. Don't look at your phone while you're driving.
2. Don't tail gate.
3. Use blinkers and use them a couple seconds BEFORE you change lanes.
4. If you aren't traveling faster than vehicles to your right move to the right.
5. If you can avoid it it, don't do anything that affects the inertia of another vehicle
3
Reply
Female 5,070
holygod don't forget these....
-calm the fuck down
-dont be an asshole.
1
Reply
Male 11,103
holygod 
Yet you missed three key rules of a good driver: 
  1. follow the road signs, posted limits, warnings, solid/dashed lines.
  2. be alert for pedestrians or non-motorized vehicles (understand you are in control of a machine that can kill).
  3. wear a seatbelt.
-1
Reply
Male 12,053
monkwarrior I don't necessarily disagree with any of these. However, I don't think many people follow the speed limit literally and I couldn't care less if you wear a seatbelt. 
-1
Reply
Male 1,383
holygod I don't have a cell phone, so that's not an issue.  The rest are classic driving instructions.  I think the most important thing to be a good driver, is:

When you're the driver, you drive. You do nothing else.

you pay attention; you signal; you check; you anticipate; you leave yourself escape options; you maintain situational awareness.  

In other words, you drive the car the way you were instructed.
1
Reply
3,301
I think the fundamental attribution error plays a big part in this as well...but I'm no expert. 
0
Reply
Male 6,430
I liked that they ended it with this thought provoking proverb: "When arguing with a fool first make sure the other person isn't doing the same thing." 

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is why I do well at golf sometime. I know if I take a lesson I will immediately realize how much I really suck at golf.
3
Reply
Male 12,053
markust123 Hahahaha.

Golf is a funny sport.

You start out whiffing the ball. 
Then you are happy to just hit it a reasonable distance in the general direction.
Then you get good enough where you are pissed when you miss the fairway or don't get on the green in regulation.

I remember being elated to break 100. Now if I don't break 80 it ruins my day.
It is way more fun to just know you are going to suck and your score doesn't matter.

-1
Reply
Male 6,430
holygod, "It is way more fun to just know you are going to suck and your score doesn't matter."

Exactly. My parents have a winter place on a chip and put 3 par golf course. Longest hole is 180 yards. It's a blast to play.
0
Reply
Male 12,053
markust123 I used to caddy at a resort in northern Michigan. There was a charity event on their par 3 course and I was supposed to caddy for Jack Nicklaus's group. My appendix burst the friday beforehand.
-1
Reply
Male 6,430
holygod I guess you could call that a hole in one. Sucks you missed that.
0
Reply
Female 5,633
Some crazy people dont know they're crazy, they just affect those around them... same goes for stupid.   *afterthought... I might be crazy AND stupid... hmm...
-1
Reply
Male 9,132
Looks like another Western Media Delusion to me!  
3
Reply
Male 11,103
normalfreak2 It does expose western delusions.  I've noticed since school that some people who weren't all that said they were, and those who were highly intelligent often minimized their ability.  Media likely plays a role in that, so quite possibly western media delusions.
-2
Reply
Male 848
Good post HG. Heard of this before and stand by my thoughts this explains a lot in society in 'Western' nations. As we've had the level of intelligence increase a bit and degree inflation people really overstate their own intellect. Then believe they know better, to name a few rising issues at larte affected by this: Anti Vaccines movement, pretty much every conspiracy theory, climate change(both sides), basic economics...
4
Reply
Male 12,053
Yes. You can see it on here constantly. People who have achieved nothing particularly impressive in life get online and are able to assume they are smarter than everyone else. It's pretty amazing actually.
4
Reply
Male 11,103
holygod yes, like yourself, who has regularly claimed to have such a high IQ, yet a lot of things you say seem to negate that.  Too bad you couldn't see it in yourself.
-6
Reply
Male 12,053
monkwarrior I scored a 1520 on my SAT, a 30 on my ACT, and I'm a member of MENSA. Those are why I think I'm smarter than most people, because statistically I am. The fact that I disagree with you about your imaginary friend does not negate my intelligence.

You think the Earth might be flat for fuck's sake.
4
Reply
Male 11,103
holygod Yet you continue to display poor intelligence, like you just did.  Your bias seems to stand in your way, hence Dunning-Kruger.  Remember just because you're part of a group doesn't mean you are intelligent, especially when you expose you aren't.
-6
Reply
Male 9,643
monkwarrior You REALLY can't be that fucking clueless, can you?

This post might as well  have been titled, the Monkwarrior Effect.
7
Reply
Male 1,930
megrendel I as well am ROFLMAO
1
Reply
Male 7,254
megrendel I'm with NF2 here, rolling around on the floor. LOL!
3
Reply
Male 9,132
5
Reply
Male 12,053
megrendel Yes. Him and one other regular on here exemplify this whole heartedly in my opinion.
3
Reply
Male 11,103
holygod Yet again, you expose your own Dunning-Kruger effect, as even the own video you posted said most people do have it.  Clearly you do, as you rate your intelligence higher than it actually is displayed here.
-5
Reply
Male 573
megrendel   Monkwarrior Effect:  also known as the "I Know What You Are But What Am I ? " response.
7
Reply
Male 11,103
abetterworld people with a weak position often have nothing else but fallacies.  Thanks for letting us know.
-5
Reply
Male 218
monkwarrior I know you are but what am I?
1
Reply
Male 11,103
stevopusser the phrase many flee to when they can't stand i reflect themselves back at them.. i call it the Medusa-effect
0
Reply
Male 6,430
monkwarrior That wasn't a fallacy. You use the "I know you are but what am I?" response all the time. That is the most infuriating thing about interacting with you. It is literally a child's technique.
7
Reply
Male 573
markust123 Teach a child how to unleash the power of IKWYABWAI, and that child will be able to conquer arguments for a lifetime....
0
Reply
Male 11,103
abetterworld teach a child fallacies and they'll never succeed, no matter how hard they try and repeat.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
markust123 Ad-hominems are fallacies, sorry there, bub.  Side note: if you don't like your judgments coming back at you don't judge - it's simple!
-6
Reply
Male 6,430
monkwarrior You, the biggest judger on IAB is telling people not to judge. You're unintentionally hilarious.

And yes I realize I just used the I know you are but what am I technique but your comment was so insanely hypocritical it demanded it.
6
Reply
Male 11,103
markust123 Grasping at straws after being called out?  I was simply saying if you don't like your judgments coming back at you then don't judge.  I don't judge emotionally or rashly, as many (including yourself) do to me.  That's why i can handle anything anyone wants to reflect of what i say - I always expect to meet someone myself or stronger online, so that's why i don't judge emotionally or rashly.
-3
Reply
Male 6,430
monkwarrior You are completely delusional about your behavior on IAB. 
0
Reply
Male 11,103
markust123 The reality is you might be delusional about my behaviour, as one of your recent comments targeted me and you said something like "i take my frustration of my flat earth family member out on monkwarrior because he believes in flat earth" or along those lines.  Even though the fact remains i don't believe that and have never claimed it.

0
Reply
Male 11,103
megrendel hg is clearly a sufferer of it

obviously you're suffering from it too

-5
Reply
Male 9,643
monkwarrior I rarely agree with either you or holygod.

But, after seeing enough posts by both to make a good determination, I'd put holygod's IQ an order of magnitude higher than yours. 

I disagree with much of what holygod says, but I've never doubted his intelligence.

I disagree with much of what you say, and I've always been amazed at your constant lack of intelligence.

6
Reply
Male 12,053
megrendel I would ditto that. I think you're wrong all the time, but you are intelligently wrong. ;)
4
Reply
Male 11,103
megrendel Up to you.  As you freely admitted you clearly disagree with what i have to say, which tilts your bias towards him.  I couldn't care less what you gauge though.  I know precisely where i stand.
-6
Reply
Male 9,643
monkwarrior As you freely admitted you clearly disagree with what i have to say, which tilts your bias towards him. 

Damn but you have a reading comprehension problem (along with an intelligence problem, and a reasoning problem, and a logic problem...)

I also freely admitted I clearly disagree with what holygod has to say, too. So how does that factor into that statement?

When I argue with holygod, I feel I've been in an intelligent argument.

When I argue with you I feel like I've been clubbing baby seals.
7
Reply
Male 4,990
megrendel

"When I argue with you I feel like I've been clubbing baby seals"

Ouch...that made me squirt beer out my nose...
2
Reply
Male 11,103
megrendel
No wonder, it appears you're suffering too:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
-5
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Seems to sum you up PERFECTLY.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat No doubt you would think that, especially believing in lies about what happened on 9/11.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior What do the lies you believe about 9/11 have to do with me?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat it's about the lies you believe about 9/11 that you think are the truth.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior There, there, go sit in your corner, and repeat your idiotic lies to yourself over and over until you believe them again, and it will all be ok.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Might want to take your own advice, since you continue to ignore the evidence that points to the official report being a fabrication out of the fragility of your world view on the topic (afraid of the truth).
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Lets examine these "lies", one at a time, shall we? 

Lie #1:  Burning jet fuel does not get hot enough to MELT steel. This one is a bit "twisted", shall we say. This is actually true, in that jet fuel, at approximately 1500 degrees, does not get hot enough to melt steel, which requires approximately 2800 degrees. However, there is a bit more to it than this. First, what official report states that steel was "melted" in the fires? I never saw anything about "melted" steel until the conspiracy theories started surfacing. So, they are trying to argue against a statement that was never made. Second, while 1500 degrees isn't hot enough to MELT steel, at only 1200 degrees, less than the 1500 that jet fuel can attain, steel loses around 50% of its strength. These numbers are from an engineering professor at MIT. Where do yours come from? Third, there is the expansion coefficient of steel to take into account. At only a 5 degree increase in temperature, a section of steel only 100 inches long (around 8 feet) will "grow" by around 0.0036 inches. Not much, right? Now, consider that the increase will be MUCH more than this when you take a steel beam that is, for the sake of argument, around 100 degrees, then take it up to around 1500 degrees. Thats an increase of 1400 degrees. Also consider in the example above, that expansion was based on a 100 inch section; some of the beams in the WTC towers could have reached lengths of HUNDREDS of FEET. Now how much will that paltry little 0.0036 inches grow to? Figuring for a 1400 degree increase, and a 100 foot long steel beam, the beam will "grow" by around a foot. The longer the beam, the more pronounced the effect. Do you really believe that a structure like that can hold together with its structural members increasing in length by a foot, or more? Fourth, there is more to take into account than the jet fuel for a heat source. There is the existing fire load in the building. Carpet, furnishings, possible TONS of paper and cardboard, and, as sad as it is to say, human bodies, all contributed to the fire, and its heat. Also consider that a common, modern, single story, single family residential dwelling involved in a fire can potentially reach temperatures of over 2000 degrees with nothing but "normal" contents in it. Jet fuel is not a "normal" content, so there is a potential for even more heat than that being trapped inside the towers while they were burning. Remember that heat builds when trapped, trapped by things like a building's thermal insulation.

In conclusion, the "lie" isn't that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to "melt" steel, since it doesn't. The "lie" is that the 9/11 commission never claimed that it does in the first place. That, and the FACT that the conspiracy theorists choose to IGNORE how much steel expands and weakens when heated. Your turn to ATTEMPT to prove me wrong, then we move on to the next lie.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
whosaidwhat 
Well said. I think you could have left it at that.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
jaysingrimm Yeah, if only our resident Idiot Monk would simply ANSWER A QUESTION, instead of continuously dodging it and trying to confuse me. How does that tactic seem to be working for him so far?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat your questions were answered, you simply wanted to ignore the facts, and pretend the question wasn't answered.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, they are not! Where have you told me which of the facts I posted earlier is incorrect? Give me a direct quote of you answering me!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat you know exactly what facts you're ignoring from many of our previous interactions.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, I only know the total bullshit you keep expecting me to believe, without a single shred of proof. Why do you keep ignoring my question? Which of the facts I posted before is wrong? Why is it so hard for you to either tell me, or admit that YOU are wrong?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat You can't prove the evidence wrong, and it warrants a re-investigation, you can't even prove the 'official report'
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Really? Lets try this a slightly different way. The melting point of steel is 2800 degrees, true or false?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Why are you even bothering if you ignore the evidence put forth by scientists?  I can tell you're going to go off on some ridiculous assumption of yours to avoid the facts pointing to explosives.  Ask yourself: how could steel beams several floors below impact, that were already in place holding up the building be exposed to any heat to collapse?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Why do you still refuse to answer me? The melting point of steel is 2800 degrees, true or false? Once you start answering some questions, I'll start addressing yours. By the way, I've already addressed the one you just asked. I even gave you mathematical proof. Shall I go and find the answer for you, since you seem to have the memory span of a brain damaged parakeet?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat sure.  false, between 2500-2700F.

Now your go:   how could steel beams several floors below impact, that were already in place holding up the building be exposed to any heat enough to collapse, especially when most of the supposed jet fuel would have burnt off in the initial explosion?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Really, you are so desperate to be correct that you are going to nitpick over a hundred degrees? I'm sure if I went and looked for about 5 seconds, I could find a source that says that the numbers that you just posted are wrong, but what would be the point? Grow up already. 

As to the steel beams failing several floors below, I have already, long since, in fact, explained that to you. Why don't you go find it?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat So go find a source that shows i'm wrong, i'll find a source that shows you're wrong.  Then after that why don't you try explain and answer the question of how steel several floors below the impact can become weak and collapse when it's already holding up everything above it.  
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Like I said, I can find sources that agree with both of us on the melting point of steel. We won't get anywhere nitpicking over 100 degrees. As to the steel several floors below the impact becoming weak and collapsing, again, I've already covered this. Here, I'll give you a very short recap, then you can go find where I've already addressed this issue to you in a previous thread: Lets place a 10 pound weight on the top of your head. I'll bet that you can easily hold it, without even experiencing any real discomfort. This is called static loading. Are you with me so far? Now, lets drop that same 10 pound weight onto your head from 10 feet up (the average height of floors in a building). This would be dynamic loading. Do you think you would survive the weight from 10 feet? If you did, you would still be seriously injured, most likely to the point of being a vegetable for the rest of your life. Now, consider that all the floors above the impact site weigh a LOT more than 10 pounds. Get the picture yet?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat if you think a building is meant to collapse completely if a few floors at the top collapse, you have bought into the opinions of the 'official report'. and chosen to ignore the facts scientific experts have found in labs.  your ignorance is desperate to make stupidity work.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Um, if you think that a building is designed to collapse, then you are even stupider than I thought. No, the lower floors are not designed to support the collapse of the upper floors, since the upper floors are not designed to collapse in the first place. Also, a "few" floors? Really? What, exactly, is your definition of a "few" floors? 2? 20? How many were actually above the initial impact area? At least 20, I would have to say, but probably more. How many thousands of pounds would you think the upper section weighed? Keep in mind that we are talking about the STATIC weight here. Then, just imagine the DYNAMIC force exerted by the upper section when it collapsed. Most likely on the order of MILLIONS of pounds of force. And you really don't understand how this could lead to a collapse of the whole building? You, as usual, are operating under the totally WRONG assumption that I am going by what the official reports say. I have actually never even read them. So how, pray tell, am I going on what the reports say, when I haven't even read them? As usual, you are totally incapable of grasping the concept that I am going on personal education, personal experience, and a very large dose of common sense to come to my conclusions. The fact that the reports happens to agree with my personal opinion is totally irrelevant to me. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem with it. Again, I am telling you where my opinion comes from. Where does yours come from?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat sorry, your personal education is biased.  Scientists have found there is reason for a  re-investigation.  The problem you have is you prefer opinion over fact.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior I have come to a decision. I choose to believe that you can't possibly be as stupid as you act, therefore, are simply a troll. A skilled troll, but a troll none the less. Go troll someone else now. I continue to ask you very simple questions, which you continue to ignore. Questions such as where does your opinion on the matter of 9/11 come from? I've told you where mine comes from. Now, you basically seem to be trying to say that the public education system is part of a vast conspiracy, started over 17 years before the events of 9/11 (I graduated in '94). Thats nutty, even for you. Bye, troll.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat You have indeed come to a decision:  You have decided to defend injustice, by blinding yourself to the facts about the truth regarding 9/11.  It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior I have nothing? Yet, I keep giving you something to defend my arguments, while you continue to give NOTHING. Who is ignoring what? Again, where do your opinions on what happened come from? I've told you, again and again, where mine come from; NOT the official reports like you feel the need to keep insisting on. It much SUCK to be totally WRONG so much.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Yes you keep supplying nothing in your continued trolling out of fear of the evidence that points to a reinvestigation is needed and warranted.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior So where does your opinion come from?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat The facts that point to the official report being a fabrication or dishonestly incomplete.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Once again, your circular logic is circular. What "facts"?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat the facts you continue to ignore which point to the need for a reinvestigation.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Oh, those "facts". The ones you keep harping on, but keep failing to produce.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat that were produced but which you chose to ignore.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, you have produced none. All you have produced is a bunch of opinions, with absolutely noting to back them up.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Sorry as previously mentioned you've ignored what was presented.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Yes, I absolutely did ignore the OPINIONS you presented as if they were fact. You seem to completely miss that my whole problem with you is you continuously attempting to present OPINIONS as fact, then refuse to provide any basis for them.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat correction, you ignored the facts (claiming they are simply opinion), which point to the need for a re-investigation.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Correction, your circular logic is circular.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat correction, your ignorance of facts is ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Your opinions, especially the ones that you are incapable of offering anything at all to back them up, which is ALL OF THEM, do NOT count as "facts". How hard is that for you to understand? Here, let me show you how this works. We (the United States) have a colony established on the planet Mars. You are unable to prove me, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong, so this is a fact. Right? This is EXACTLY how your logic works, and if its correct for you, then it is for me, too. So, it is a FACT that we have a colony on the planet Mars.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat circling back into your ignorance of facts.  might it be you who is using the circular reasoning?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, I'm just using YOUR methods. Now how about that colony on Mars?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat unfortunately i'm not the one ignoring facts and making up stories to satisfy the opinions i've heard.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior But what about the Mars colony?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat there is none.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior But I published a paper asserting that there was one, and its been peer-reviewed! They all agreed that there is one, so who are you to say that there isn't? Besides, prove that there isn't one...
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat lets see your paper then
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior What? I don't have to give you any proof. It's been peer reviewed; isn't that enough for you?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat do you have a link like what was previously provided to you regarding the facts of 9/11?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, I'm sorry, but I don't have any links to lies that I'd like to provide to you. I'm not like you. I am, however, currently using your own methods against you. Hopefully, with them being turned back against you, you will finally realize just how ignorant you really sound, but I seriously doubt it.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat so you're ignorant here too then, convenient.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior But I'm just using the same methods that you do. What is the problem? Is it ok when you use these kinds of bullshit methods, but "ignorant" when I use them? How does that work?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat difference is i did provide you links to many sources
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, you provide links to other people's opinions. You have yet to link me to a single provable fact. You keep screaming to the rooftops that you have, but it has yet to happen. You seem to have a real problem with understanding the difference between facts and opinions.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat the facts show the official report is in question and that a new re-investigation is needed.  You want to ignore the facts adn demand that a re-investigation isn't needed simply because you're afraid of the implications of what would happen if it was proven that your own government lied. Keep letting your national pride ruin your nation with your circular reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior But there are absolutely NO "facts" to back up the need for a re-investigation, just OPINIONS. You really need to learn the difference between the two. FACT: commercial airliners hit the two main towers of the WTC. OPINION: the impact of these jets could not have caused them to collapse. FACT: jet fuel burns hot enough to severely weaken steel, and very well can lead to a failure of critical structural components. OPINION: "jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel". Yes, that one is actually a fact; I have it in parentheses because the official reports NEVER CLAIMED that steel melted from the fires resulting from the crashes, but it has been a favorite angle from nutjobs like yourself. FACT: the upper floors of a building collapsing can put enough dynamic load on the lower support structure to cause it to fail. OPINION: there were no fires on the lower floors, therefore, they could not have collapsed due to the crashes. Your inability to understand these very simply concepts is laughable.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Sorry, we already cleared this up.  You prefer to call opinions touted by the media, and the society that has been deluded by that media, to be facts.  But want to call experiments in labs, which point to the high likelihood of explosives being used, as opinions and conspiracies.

You're the one who is laughable here.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Why do I have to keep explaining to you that I am NOT going by what the media says? I'm sorry, but does that not fit into your narrow little world view?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Sorry, you've made your position very clear, you prefer to call science found in labs, done by scientists, to be "conspiracy theories".  There's not much more to add or discuss at this point.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Yes, those labs that use snow towers, and burning cardboard airplanes. Excellent sources!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat you continue to make your position very clear, choosing to mock labs who have found explosive evidence, because they expose your fragile world view. Your desire to mock them solidifies the fragility of your world view.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, I am not at all mocking the labs that use snow towers and cardboard airplanes. Why would I do that? Also, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me what kind of explosives were used. How can there be any actual, concrete evidence of explosives, without knowing what kind? The only way there could be any ACTUAL evidence, is for explosive residue to have been found, which would make it very easy to tell what kind of explosive the residue came from. Once again, you keep harping on about "evidence" but still refuse to produce any.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat keep ignoring the facts and evidence that point to the need for a re-investigation.  as ridiculous as it is, it is ultimately your choice and freedom to be ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Ok, let me try to explain to you what "evidence" actually is, since you don't seem to grasp the concept very well. If I meet you on the street, and beat the shit out of you, and some guy steps forward and says, "my buddy saw the whole thing, here's what happened." That is NOT evidence. That is "here-say". Same scenario, and someone steps forward with a video of the whole thing, clearly showing what happened. THAT is evidence. You seem to be under the impression that when someone says something, that makes it evidence. It does not. Evidence is clear, incontrovertible PROOF of something. As I have already told you before, when you show me some real evidence, I will seriously consider it. You have yet to do so. All you have shown me is here-say, and crackpot theories.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Keep trying, unfortunately if you understood evidence you would be asking for a re-investigation as well.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Right, because of cardboard planes being flown into snow towers, in VERY high-tech laboratories. SCIENCE!!!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Keep mocking what you don't understand, all to ignore the evidence, such as seismic evidence. lol, you have nothing but desperation, son.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Desperation? Yes, you do seem to be getting pretty desperate now. My question at this point is, are you trying to convince me, or yourself? Now, lets start using your circular logic again. What labs are you referring to?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Sorry, it's you who has ignored the evidence that points to the need for a re-investigation.  Again, you prefer opinion as fact, and consider evidence to be conspiracy theories, which is why you continue with your own circular logic and desperate attempts.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior So what labs are you referring to? Name them.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat The ones i've already pointed out to you but you have chosen to ignore.  Go find them again, and stop wasting my time with your ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Exactly, there aren't any that you can name.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat correction, there's plenty which you can see through our correspondence, it's when you ignored the facts because you didn't like it (didn't jive with the opinions you've been told to obey).
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior So name them then!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Already did, go back through our correspondence and find them.  in fact some are here in this very thread.  Don't be ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Translation from Idiot Monk into common English: I can't, because I don't know of any that did what I claimed they did.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat correction, you were just being ignorant again.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Then tell me! How difficult would it really be? 
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat you tell me, how difficult as it is for you to to hit ctrl+f and search for replies about 'labs'?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Right. Since you are so unwilling to back up your position, yet AGAIN, just fuck off already. You are wrong, and you at least SHOULD know that you are wrong, so you refuse to admit that all this so-called "proof" simply doesn't exist. Since it is so very difficult for you to simply tell me what "labs" this so-called "proof" comes from, it is now very obvious that this "proof" doesn't exist. So long, and enjoy you delusions. Don't bother replying, I won't even read it. Dumbass.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat I'm replying to note how lazy you were.  Instead of pressing ctrl+f, searching for labs on this page and viewing one of my replies to one of those posts which has a link, you instead chose to continue your ignorant trolling all so you could continue calling facts 'a conspiracy' and opinion 'facts'.  Thanks for demonstrating your ridiculousness for any to see, but i already knew it, as you have been ignoring facts for months.
0
Reply
Male 659
monkwarrior The only fact about you is how stupid your face is.

More, give me more of your inane comments. I love this shit.

I know more about Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Confucianism, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, The Church of Fonz, The Greek Gods, Scientology, and Mormonism than you.

In fact, I bet there isn't a damn thing in existence that I don't know more about than you. I am just better than you in every conceivable way. I am your superior. Especially with cock-size. My cock is SOOOOO much bigger than your microdickey. 
0
Reply
Male 11,103
BuckeyeJoe sorry, if you knew more about them than i do you wouldn't have come out as you did.  By doing so, you demonstrated that you know very little of the things you claim to know more about.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
whosaidwhat
It's not working for him at all.

He can be a barrel of laughs tho.

I once caught him plagiarizing from the Flat Earth Society :)
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm you're simply linking to evidence of your ignorance
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior As usual, you are too dumb to understand the facts. Jay is linking to evidence of your plaigarization. Since you obviously don't have the slightest clue what that means, he caught you copying, verbatim (that means "word for word", since I'm sure you don't understand that, either), from them. This means that you don't have an original thought on that subject, but instead, have to copy the work of others. Now, kindly explain how Jay calling you out on being an unoriginal, copying hack equals evidence of HIS ignorance? I'm sorry, but you seem to have that a bit mixed up.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat As usual, you're ignoring again, and applying selective reasoning.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior What am I ignoring? Your plagiarism? Obviously not, since I mentioned it. Or perhaps you are referring to the "evidence" you keep screaming about? When you produce some that doesn't come from a bunch of crayon eating, window licking imbeciles, I'll actually consider it.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat ignoring whatever doesn't agree with your trolling
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior I only ignore the TOTAL LIES that you keep shouting from the rooftops. By the way, I have some prime ocean-front property in Arizona that I'd like to sell you, cheap! I also have the London Bridge available for a steal!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Yet you can't even prove them total lies.  You can't even prove the official report. You can't even continue rationally in your ignorance and trolling.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior But I have proven them total lies! You just refuse to admit it, because you don't have enough common sense to understand me. By the way, the comments about ocean-front property, and the London Bridge, were due to how laughably gullible you are.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat No you haven't proven anything lies, you made up stories to make yourself feel good.  The evidence still points to the need for a re-investigation.  You're the gullible one if you think opinions overrule facts.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm Most trolls would agree with trolls that ignore what they do.  You are one, and you even make up your own 'facts' that there were no 'explosions heard', so it's no surprise (proof)
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
In your link, I shared a video comparison/analysis of actual controlled demos to video of WTC coming down, and pointed out I don't hear explosions bringing the building down.

Also, you repeatedly admitted you are a troll. It's laughable you think your link supports your claims.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You repeatedly demonstrate your selective reasoning, as anyone can see by viewing the topic.  Clearly you're not only a troll, but suffering from dunning-kruger yourself.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
Your attempts to insult me still amuse. Thank you :)
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm im sure they do troll, i'm sure they do.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat So in short, you agree with the official report of 9/11 that was found (by scientists in labs) to be a fabrication, meaning you prefer the opinions (touted by the media) that the fabrication is actually factual.  

Thanks for clearing that up.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Why do you continue to ignore the facts? Why won't you try to disprove my statements? Kindly address the facts I've pointed out already. What that I said above can you disprove? Come on, it can't be that hard. Disprove what I said. Is the melting point of steel incorrect? Is the expansion coefficient of steel that I used to figure how much steel expands due to temperature change incorrect? Is the burning temperature of jet fuel incorrect? Is the possible temperature of a common structure fire incorrect? Is the possible fire load present in the towers incorrect? Does the official report say that the steel in the towers DID melt? Is the temperature that steel weakens at incorrect? Exactly which statement is wrong?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat I'm sorry, but it's you who continues to ignore the facts.  Even to the point of ignoring what scientists have found (in labs), in favor of what the media tells you (opinion).
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior So which part of what I said is incorrect?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat the part where you try justifying the official report (a fabrication that the opinion of the media is true, yet which scientists in labs have found to be a fabrication).
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior In other words, you can't actually disprove any of the statements I made earlier, and are grasping at straws to try to redirect me. Its very simple; all you have to do is tell me which part of what I said is incorrect. Why won't you do so? Is it really so hard to say, "the melting point of steel is actually 3200 degrees, instead of 2800 like you claim", or, "jet fuel actually only burns at 950 degrees, instead of 1500 degrees like you claim". Would something like that really be so hard to do, instead of trying to confuse and redirect me?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Correction, it's you who tried to redirect with your assumption of what the "lies" were.

 So, it's safe to say that you agree with the official report of 9/11 that was found (by scientists in labs) to be a fabrication, meaning you prefer the opinions (touted by the media) that the fabrication is actually factual?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, I "assume" nothing. I am directly addressing the lies told by you, and other conspiracy theorists. One of the first lies told is "jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, so the fires could not have POSSIBLY caused the buildings to collapse", as if anyone ever said that the fires melted the steel in the buildings, and this is a MAJOR foundation piece of most conspiracy theories. I have simply provided evidence that jet fuel doesn't NEED to burn hot enough to melt steel to cause the structural collapse of buildings like the Twin Towers. Now, since you are so sure of yourself, why won't you tell me WHICH PART OF WHAT I SAID IS INCORRECT? Also, kindly explain to me how education, training and actual, hands on, real life experience that I am basing my opinions on, all of which were received BEFORE 9/11/01, is being "influenced by the media"? I could have made every one of the arguments I have made against your brand of stupidity BEFORE 9/11/01. Are you going to tell me that my education (graduated high school in 1994, graduated technical school in 1997, and received my firefighting certification in 2000, as well as having worked with various building materials, including steel, since before any of that) was influenced by the government as part of a vast conspiracy? The fact that my education and training happens to agree with the "official story" simply reinforces how likely it is that the report is correct. Do you have any similar education or training that supports your opinions, or are you just blindly believing what others are telling you? All I have asked, very politely and very simply, is for you to tell me which part of what I posted earlier is incorrect. Once you do so, or admit that you cannot, we can move on to the next lie. Oh, by the way, what "laboratory experiments" are you referring to? Perhaps that highly scientific model made with a cardboard airplane and a pile of snow? Exactly what "laboratory" performed the studies you refer to? SCIENCE!!!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat So you make another long post based on fallacies of what you percieve instead of answering the simple question:

Do you agree with the official report of 9/11 that was found (by scientists in labs) to be a fabrication, meaning you prefer the opinions (touted by the media) that the fabrication is actually factual?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior As I've been trying to tell you this whole time, while you refused to listen, as usual, the report agrees with ME. Now, I am still waiting for you to tell me what that I said is incorrect. Is that simple enough for you?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat As i have been trying to tell you, while you refused to accept as usual, the official report is a fabrication, as scientists working in labs have found.  You have simply shown that the official report agrees with your opinion (not based on facts).
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior And you have, as yet, failed to tell me which bit of information I posted before is wrong. What part is wrong? Melting point of steel? Burning temperature of jet fuel? Expansion coefficient of steel? WHICH ONE??!! Also, what labs? Is it, say, the ones who use the highly scientific method of crashing a cardboard plane into a tower of snow? Do tell, please.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat The labs you want to ignore, which has been posted to you many times now, and that will be posted many times in the future that you will also ignore because you prefer opinion over facts.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior And you prefer to give deliberately vague answers. Like how you continue to insist that what I posted earlier is incorrect, but then refuse to tell me EXACTLY what about it is incorrect. Why is that? Simply tell me what is incorrect, so that we can move on.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Why, you ask?  Well because you continue to ignore the facts you find to be displeasing.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior So which fact I posted before is incorrect?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat  the opinions you think help you ignore the facts that show the official report of 9/11 is a fabrication.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Why do you refuse, as usual, to answer a very simple question? Because you are scared to have your ignorance brought to light? Don't worry about that; your ignorance is very well known. Or is it because you don't know the answer? Scared to admit to ANYTHING that may expose these stupid conspiracy theories for what they are? Please, PLEASE!, either answer the question, or at least tell me which of the above problems prevents you answering it, or spell it out to me if I didn't list it. Also, kindly tell me, again, what that I posted before, that I am asking about now, that is in any way an opinion? I posted FACTS, that I am still waiting for you to tell me which is actually wrong, which you still refuse to do, or at least tell me which is an "opinion", and not a fact.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Because you have shown many times that you prefer to ignore the facts that you don't like, and instead prefer to write lengthy opinions or other ploys to misdirect and help you feel better about ignoring them.  
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior I do that? I guess you don't realize that thats exactly what you're doing here. I have shown you several facts, which you continue to ignore, and won't even acknowledge their presence, all the while calling them "opinions". I don't think that word means what you think it does. An "opinion" is something that is only "valid" for the person who has it. In my opinion, jazz sucks ass. Your opinion may be that jazz is the greatest musical genre since the invention of music. Neither is incorrect, as they are opinions. "Facts" are provable. I have provided facts, not opinions, debunking part of the 9/11 conspiracy theories; facts which you choose to ignore because they don't fit your opinion. See how this works? Now, simply stop the bullshit, and tell me which of the facts I posted before is wrong, or an opinion. The melting point of steel? The weakening point of steel? The burning temperature of jet fuel? The expansion coefficient of steel? WHICH PART IS WRONG, OR AN OPINION? YOU are the only one who keeps trying to change the subject, and refuses to even ATTEMPT to defend your claims. I have been on the same page this whole time. Now who, exactly, is "ignoring facts they don't like", "writing lengthy opinion pieces", and "trying to misdirect to help them feel better about ignoring things"? Again, I've been on topic this whole time, while YOU keep trying to confuse the issue, and refuse to answer simple questions. I've simply been trying to get you to answer a simple question.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat the issue is clear: you think the official report of 9/11 is correct, and that the facts which expose that report as fabricated is a 'conspiracy theory'.  I understand it may be difficult for you to comprehend, but you are probably actually under the effect of Group Dynamics.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, it is clear that you are incapable of answering my question, so continue to try to confuse the issue. I will continue to believe the "official report", not because of "group dynamics", but because common sense agrees with it, until you can tell me which part of what I posted earlier is incorrect.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat and again you're ignoring: the questions will be answered with a re investigation.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Since you're so sure the "official report" is wrong, why are YOU so afraid to answer my questions?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat im not, i just recognize you are wasting time ignoring the evidence that warrants an investigation. especially when experts already agree.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Then answer my question! Which statement that I posted earlier is incorrect?!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat as i said, it's a waste of time when you have already sided yourself against the facts.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Then tell me specifically where I am wrong!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat the point where you decided to ignore the facts that warrant a re-investigation into 9/11.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior In other words, you can't. How can you be so ignorant as to so devoutly defend a position that you aren't able to make even a token defense for? Yet, you think that I am "incompetent while thinking I am amazing"? I'm not the one who INSISTS that my point of view is correct, without having the ability to defend it! Grow up already. You are basically using the old schoolyard defense of "because I said so; thats why I'm right". Proof, or it didn't happen. Dumbass.

0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat In other words, you're too ignorant of the facts to waste much time discussing them with.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Again, WHAT FACTS?!! All you ever do is keep referring me to a bunch of stupid garbage, which I then prove false. Earlier, in this very thread, I gave several FACTS proving one of those lies to be the lies that they are. You are so SURE that your lies are correct, but you are unable to even tell me which of the FACTS I posted is supposedly wrong. Do you honestly expect people to believe that kind of stupidity, or is it really just an act? Seriously, whats your deal? You make ridiculous claims, then REFUSE to even ATTEMPT to back them up! I keep asking you, over, and over, and over, and over again to tell me which of the FACTS I posted are wrong, but you continue to refuse to do so. You just keep on and on trying to claim that "laboratories" have proven some of your lies as "true", but then refuse to even tell me which "laboratories" supposedly "proved" these things. If I hand you a blue ball, and tell you the ball is red, but provide absolutely NO proof that the ball is red, and you can very clearly see that the ball is definitely BLUE, are you going to believe me? Thats EXACTLY what you are doing; telling me that the blue ball is red, then refusing to even ATTEMPT to explain why you think the ball is red. Then you just can't understand why NO ONE believes you! Again, are you serious, or is it just an act?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat the facts you ignore.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Your circular logic (or lack thereof) is circular. Again, very specifically, which of the facts I posted before is incorrect. Either tell me, or shut the fuck up about the "facts that I ignore". YOU are the one ignoring facts. I can, and have, backed up my arguments. You won't even attempt to; you just keep spouting off the same bullshit, over, and over, and over.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Its your own circular logic.  Again, the facts that you ignore, which you can easily see in many other of the responses i've made to you, which you ignored then and continue to ignore now.  

You're doing the spouting, as anyone can see.  But it's no surprise since you agree with the official report of 9/11 that was found (by scientists in labs) to be a fabrication, meaning you prefer the opinions (touted by the media) that the fabrication is actually factual.   
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior What "scientists", and what "labs"? Again, you keep spouting off about these "scientists", and "labs", but, again, REFUSE to name them. Why? I know, I know, "you keep telling me, but I keep ignoring the "facts". Actually, you keep flapping your gums, without ever saying a single thing. Grow up already. Your childishness is really tiring. I asked you a VERY simple question, which you, as usual, refuse to even attempt to answer. You are too childish to admit that you are unable to defend your position, not that I expected anything different. This isn't how you win a debate; this is how you PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how much of a loser you are. Of course, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, here already knows how much of a loser you are; you are the only one who doesn't realize it. Again, your incompetence making you think you are amazing.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat The scientists and labs you have continued to ignore over the last 3 months here on I-A-B.  im not refusing to name them, im simply refusing to play into your ignorance by repeating them to you, of which you can go back and find out for yourself. Do some work for yourself for once at undoing your own ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, I'm not going to watch any more of your videos. I can feel my IQ dropping every second I continue to watch them. If you are unwilling, or unable, to answer my very simple questions, then you, once again, lose. By the way, my very simple questions remain the same as they were from the beginning: which of the facts I posted before is wrong? I've answered many of your questions already, although you don't think so, since my answers prove you wrong, again and again. If you cannot, or will not, answer, you only hurt your own case, and prove your own incompetence. Its already abundantly clear that you think you are awesome. Thanks for proving the entire subject of the original topic to be true!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Your IQ is already low if you think the official report of 9/11 touted by the media (opinion) is a fact, and that what scientists have found in labs (facts), is conspiracy theories.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Once again (please pay attention, and actually understand what I am saying this time), you completely fail to understand that my opinion is based on my personal education, observations, and experience, NOT what the media says. It just so happens that my education, observations, and experience, partly gained BEFORE the events of 9/11, agrees with the report. I could give a tin whistle about what the official reports say. You, however, continue to spout off ridiculous nonsense that you got off of highly questionable websites, with nothing to back it up. Once again, EITHER TELL ME WHAT THAT I POSTED BEFORE IS WRONG, SPECIFICALLY, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. Stop trying to redirect me, or confuse the issue. Either prove me wrong, or admit that you can't. Why is that so hard for you to do?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Once again, pay attention: If you want to ignore the evidence that exposes the official report of 9/11 as a fabrication, you really have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior When you show me some actual evidence, I'll consider it. All you have shown me so far is the raving of a bunch of crayon eating, window licking imbeciles, which I have already proved to be wrong. Once again, TELL ME WHAT THAT I POSTED BEFORE IS WRONG, SPECIFICALLY, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat But you've ignored considering evidence already, anything that goes against your world view.  That's the point. you just choose to ignore what you don't like and demand different evidence that points to a re-investigation.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior When you show me some ACTUAL evidence, and not a bunch of bullshit that your crayon eating, window licking buddies have made up, with nothing to back it up, I WILL consider it. I have looked at your so-called "evidence", and proven so much of it totally FALSE already. Why don't you try proving something I have said false? Like, for instance, the FACTS that I posted before, that you STILL refuse to tell me which one is incorrect. As I keep telling you, once you do, I will post information to prove another talking point of ignorant conspiracy theorists like yourself wrong. Are you really that afraid to have your fragile world view threatened?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat You were shown evidences, you chose not to consider it.  You instead choce to fallaciously dismiss it.  Yet you can't even prove the official report.  sad.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior "Fallaciously dismiss it"? I didn't "fallaciously dismiss it". I considered it, and almost laughed myself into a coma it was so ridiculous! "The official reports are wrong! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!" Where, exactly, does the official report claim that jet fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel? Again, since you seem to have a very hard time understanding this, this is but ONE of the totally ridiculous lies told on your crayon eating, window licking buddies websites. Once we address that lie, I'll move on to another.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Of course you'd laugh, you've been told what the national opinion is, while rejecting the facts you don't like. Your continued fallacies to belittle others shows you have nothing.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
The burden of proof is yours, not his. If you can't or won't share info on your claims of "scientists" and "labs", then you shouldn't mention them.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm you're ignoring the facts too, troll (proof of both).  In fact, you even go as far as inventing, what you call, 'facts'.  Saying "no explosions were heard", like a petty and ignorant troll.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
Above, I've better addressed your argument by repetition.

You still refuse to support your case by sharing credentials of those supposed labs and scientists.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm Above you've simply repeated your ignorance.  Here you're continuing to repeat it.  Clear sign of Dunning-Kruger.  Get well soon.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
Your attempts to insult me are very amusing, but they are no excuse for your refusal to meet your burden of proof.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You ignore evidence, even make up evidence, declaring 'no explosions were heard'.  No evidence presented will resolve that problem you have.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
I've already responded to your argument by repetition above, so I'll paste it here:

In your link, I shared a video comparison/analysis of actual controlled demos to video of WTC coming down, and pointed out I don't hear explosions bringing the building down.

*You still have no excuse for your refusal to meet your burden of proof regarding those supposed 'labs and scientists'.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm so you admit there were explosions heard?
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Kindly provide a direct quote of him admitting to explosions being heard.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
whosaidwhat
He's claimed to have reports of things sounding like explosions being heard (Planes hitting buildings, falling elevator/debris?) - He's been desperate to talk about it for days.

Doesn't change the fact that I don't hear explosions bringing the tower down.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm So your final stance is: explosions were not heard in the fall of the towers?
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
I can repeat my stance over and over again if you like, but I'll remind you the last time I did that, you wound up admitting you are a troll.

Not that it was news to me, monkwarrior / 747Pilot / etc.

K9L (former IAB admin): "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm So without trying to ignore the question again, or grasping at petty straws, like you did just there, can you clarify your answer to the question:

Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11 or not?

It's a simple yes/no question, that you're free to expand on.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
Your answer should be easy to deduce from my comment to whosaidwhat, but if you would like me to expound on it, I'd be happy to.

Quid Pro Quo.

You've already left a number of queries unsatisfactorily addressed, yourself.

Are you able to offer details of those 'labs and scientists'?

What specifically do you think whosaidwhat erred on, with his remarks regarding weakened steel?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm So lets try again, troll (proof), simply respond with the answer "yes" or "no" to this question:

Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
Your link is where you admit you are a troll. I'm not just calling you one.

We've been waiting for direct answers to our queries for much longer, yet you continue to ignore them.

I still don't hear explosions bringing down the tower. - I trust my own hearing, thanks.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm The link is where you prove you're a troll.  Continuing to ignore the context the quote was used in only further proves your nature as a troll.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
Here's what a third party (boredhuman) had to say to you when you shared the link:

"Thanks for troll(proof) link, where you clearly identify a troll - yourself.
"Yes, I admit i was trolling your trolls, and i am not ashamed to admit it either. " - monkwarrior"

You just try to justify it by calling other people trolls.

That excerpt from BoredHuman is from the link where you plagiarized from the Flat Earth Society 
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You're doing nothing but proving you're a troll with Dunning-Kruger issues the more you pettily ignore the simple question:
Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm  I believe explosions were heard, as evidenced by many first responded reports (people who know what explosives sound like). 

So since you feel "you still don't hear explosions bringing down the tower", is it safe to say that "Jaysingrimm thinks no explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11"?
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
Well, thankfully there's comparisons to actual controlled demos in the video - I still don't hear explosions bringing down that tower.

Feel free to share links to those 'reports' tho.

Also, are you able to offer details of those 'labs and scientists'?

What specifically do you think whosaidwhat erred on, with his remarks regarding weakened steel?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm That isn't the question.  You're being a troll, as expected.  So now that your question was answered, and since you feel "you still don't hear explosions bringing down the tower", is it safe to say that "Jaysingrimm thinks no explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11"?
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
You haven't answered any of my questions:

Are you able to offer details of those 'labs and scientists'?

Can you provide a link to those 'reports'?

What specifically do you think whosaidwhat erred on, with his remarks regarding weakened steel?

Quid Pro Quo.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You want answers?  As a troll you'll first have to answer the question: is it safe to say that "Jaysingrimm thinks no explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11"?

Or you can simply reply "I don't think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11" or "i think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11".  You can even use "i don't know if explosions were heard or not during the collapse of the towers on 9/11".  Feel free to copy/paste which fits you best

If you want answers im sure you'll be able to overcome your Dunning-Kruger on this issue.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
whosaidwhat has been waiting for weeks - What specifically do you think whosaidwhat erred on, with his remarks regarding weakened steel?

I asked you to meet your burden of proof, days ago - Are you able to offer details of those 'labs and scientists'?

Answer those, then I'll answer you, then you can answer my recent query - Can you provide a link to those 'reports'?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm let whosadwhat fight his own battle unless it's one of your own accounts? Regardless, at issue now is you trolling again.  Try to overcome your Dunning-Kruger and answer the question: Do you think explosives were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?

If you can't answer such a simple question with yes, no, or i don't know, you're only showing how Dunning-Kruger afflicts you if you're not showing that you're a troll.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
Not at all - I'm only trying to be fair.

whosaidwhat has apparently been inquiring for weeks, so I expect he'll be back. He deserves an answer the most. Also, my query preceded yours.

This is my only account with IAB - Created in 2007, but I've been lurking since 2002
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You're being a troll as usual, and you're afraid to answer the simple question because you risk making yourself look like a fool, or you make yourself a fool.  Your poor attempt to act like you are standing up for a better cause (to get answers for someone who already has them but ignored them), shows you're an ignorant troll at the least, and possibly afflicted with Dunning-Kruger.  
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
Not at all - I'll tell you what, I'll answer:

"Do you think explosives were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?"

Explosives? No. I don't hear anything I would even generally describe as an explosion. And understand, I will always trust my own senses over claims of reports of other people's.

Will you answer the queries posed to you, or are the things you accused me of, actually true of you?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You still haven't answered the question.  You've weaseled out of it by talking of 'explosives' (which was a typo on my part) when i've mainly been asking about your take on 'explosions'.  So what about explosions that 23% of first responders testifed to?  Aren't you able to use your ears while listening to this video which captures there was was an explosion before the collapse (btw if you have bass, turn it up)?  Or do you prefer to be ignorant and pretend there were no explosions heard?


0
Reply
Male 3,002
I did answer your question.

I see you have a number more.

If you want answers, I expect you to answer the queries already posed to you.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You didn't answer the question: 
"Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?"

You answered my typo question:

"Do you think
explosives were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?"

Care to answer the question about explosions?

0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
"Typo", "let whosadwhat fight his own battle.."

Enough of your excuses.

If you want more answers, you'll need to give some. Communication is a two way street.

Otherwise, you're just wasting my time.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You're already wasting my time, troll (proof), with your continued petty trolling and your own ignorance.  If you don't want to answer the question: 
"Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?"
You really aren't going to get any answers weasling out like a petty troll.  Run along now if you can't answer, or better yet drop your ignorance, and go hunt down the links posted that you're so concerned with, that your fellow troll (whosaidwhat) is demanding answers for but has already been answered (you're both being ignorant).

0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
No, it's clearly your turn to answer questions, but you can't. You lied about 'labs and scientists' and errors on whosaidwhat's part. Its not surprising you are incredibly dishonest - You plagiarized from the Flat Earth Society

Once again, you are just linking to a forum where you admit you are a troll, and try to justify it by calling me the same. You've even been banned from IAB:

K9L: "Monk you are this close to another banning and I will make sure you never come back under any name if you don`t learn to respect other people and to follow the rules."

monkwarrior: "..and go hunt down the links.."

No, the burden of proof is still yours.

Asking about explosives was the right question, btw.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm Quit wasting my time, troll  (proof) .  You can't even answer the question, when you can answer the question you'll get an answer:
"Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?" 
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
I answered your question about explosives. If you want more answers, you should first meet your burden of proof from long before we were distracted by your questions.

"Do you think explosions were heard during the collapse of the towers on 9/11?"

People might have claimed so, but I don't hear explosions triggering collapse. I trust my own senses over supposed reports from a 9/11 "journal".

Once again, every insult you've thrown at me is actually true of you.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm So you prefer to ignore 23% of first responders oral testimonies as well as ignoring your own ears while listening to this video which captures there was was an explosion before the collapse, as i had expected, thanks.

It took you long enough.
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior
I'll address your remarks further, after your reply.

You said "..when you can answer the question you'll get an answer.."

Your turn.

*edit
"So you prefer to ignore 23% of first responders.."
I've already made clear I prefer my own senses.

I've watched your video in my recording studio.

Listening to it on monitors and with headphones - It doesn't sound like a controlled demolition. Nonetheless, thanks for your suggestion I turn up the bass.

The sound is way more localized than several charges detonating throughout a building. The timing leading into the tumbling down isn't the same.

While the narrator says its not important the building is obstructed from view, I disagree. A better view might have indicated if the upper floors were coming down on to those below, when we hear that initial crash.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm so whats your question?
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
Can you please share the details of the 'labs and scientists' you mentioned?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
0
Reply
Male 3,002
monkwarrior 
Thank you!

While their study does not conclude the NIST report was a "fabrication" as you suggested, it does seem to take issue with their findings regarding WT7. Their investigation is ongoing, but I see no findings specifying a controlled demolition as an alternate cause of collapse.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
jaysingrimm You wouldn't, but they have already found that fires didn't cause the collapse of WTC7, which the 'fabrication' of the official report tried to claim.  More will be released.  This is just one research, and there is more out there..
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Jaysingrimm knows what he did.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior And once again, you can't even attempt to follow through. Again, directly quote him saying that he admits that explosions were heard. Here, I'll show you how. You earlier said, "so you admit there were explosions heard?", supposedly directly referencing something that Jay said. Now, show me where he admitted to this?
0
Reply
Male 9,643
monkwarrior Except, in this case, the superiority of basically everyone on this site over you is not illusory. It's quite real.

You are the fool of the king's court, who doesn't realize just how much of a fool he is.
6
Reply
Male 11,103
megrendel Like i said, you're clearly suffering from the dunning-kruger effect.  But look on the bright side the researchers only won an IG-Nobel Prize, not a Nobel Prize, so don't let it get you upset.
-5
Reply
Male 12,053
monkwarrior "ask for feedback from other people, and consider it even if it is hard to hear"

Do you even remotely understand what that means? If everyone you interact with says you are a fucking moron and you think you are smarter than all of them, MAYBE you are a fucking moron....
4
Reply
Male 11,103
holygod Yes, you should consider it even if it's hard to hear.  Have you considered this?  Apparently it seems to have gone in one ear and out the other, or you put your hands in your ears and went "la la la i can't hear you!".  Clearly a sign of Dunning-Kruger in yourself, as it's probably as far from intelligence as you can get.
-5
Reply
Male 12,053
monkwarrior I absolutely have considered it. I evaluate on a regular basis. You see above where someone who I disagree with constantly says they think I'm reasonably intelligent? That factors in.

There are a lot of people on this site I disagree with. I think a handful of them are smart. I even think a couple of them are brilliant. I think a handful of them are dumb. I even think a couple of them are fucking morons. The majority in the middle just strike me as average.

You, on the other hand, call everyone who disagrees with you stupid. That is the sign of an incredibly weak mind, a complete inability to recognize any value in the viewpoint of the opposition.
4
Reply
Male 9,132
holygod megrendel  Something you two see eye to eye on.  Could the end be nigh? 
5
Reply
Male 11,103
holygod 
Yeah, you're clearly suffering from Dunning-Kruger and just don't know it yet.  Remember: listening to people who stroke your ego won't get you valid feedback.  You may think you're intelligent, but you still come across as someone with a teenage-tanturm-throwing attitude, not as i've seen intelligent people.

As for me, i know exactly where i stand: i'm not making claims of myself that are untrue, i know i have weaknesses and strengths, and i know how to gauge them properly (i've been doing this since i was a teenager).  Like jayme21 said it's more of a 'western' thing, which i happened to notice at a young age, despise, and work hard at avoiding.  As far as Dunning-Kruger goes, i know how to walk the line, and i admit that sometimes do under report for various reasons, as needed (and sometimes caught for being too modest).  Better to be caught as being too modest then to be caught as you are, being too prideful.
-5
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior No, you DO NOT know how to "gauge them properly". You think that your weaknesses are strengths, and you haven't displayed any actual strengths yet. Also, let me know when you are "caught being too modest". You haven't displayed a single shred of modesty on here; only a clear sense of your own superiority. 
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Suit yourself.  My strength is what trolls hate, because i can expose them while the dung they hurl slides right off me, and they get red in the face with anger while i'm still smiling and happy.  
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Its so very sad how well this whole concept fits you. You constantly tell lies, that you won't even attempt to back up, and think its a "strength". I don't think that word means what you think it does....

Oh, also, please, let me know when you make me "red in the face with anger". You've never even gotten close. You have, however, made me red in the face with laughter a few times. Seriously, some of the things you believe in are truly LAUGHABLE!
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat You've been there many times.  In fact i recall logging in several days straight, each day with 18-20 replies from you saying the same cursing.  It's hard to say you aren't angry when you aren't swearing like you were.
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior Sorry, I guess I come from a different culture than you. I don't have to be angry to "curse", damnit. That wasn't anger; that was trying to get through your thick skull with a little basic information. Basic information that you, sadly, still don't comprehend. So again, I challenge you to let me know when you have made me angry. Amused, yes; angry, no. 

Wait, will you imagine that? You are WRONG AGAIN!!! Clear PROOF that this whole concept fits you TO A TEE! You are constantly WRONG, and EVERYONE sees it BUT YOU! I understand how badly this affects your fragile ego, but there is no reason to take it out on everyone else.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat Yep, you're full of western media delusion.  If you want to be effective you wouldn't try cursing, unless you want to be effective to the western media delusions and those who live by it (which isn't really effective at  all).
0
Reply
Male 2,127
monkwarrior And, cue your first catchphrase....

WRONG AGAIN!!! I don't read newspapers, or magazines, nor do I frequently watch the "news" on network television. How am I deluded by something which has little to no impact on my views? Also, why are you so opposed to admitting when you are so clearly wrong? Oh, thats right, you are convinced of your own superiority....
0
Reply
Male 11,103
whosaidwhat The telltale is this:  Do you believe what researchers have found in labs (science), that have lead scientists to state "the official report of 9/11 is a fabrication", or do you believe what the people in the media simply say (opinion), that a flawed report is the fact and truth?
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Go Monk Go -- I think you have them backed into a corner.
2
Reply
Male 7,254
lockner01 Lockner--assuming this is Lockner--may I request that you not copy someone else's avatar? This place has gotten confusing enough with the sockpuppetry that's going on. If I have to do a double-check on every comment to make sure it's who I think it is, it's going to drive me crazy.
2
Reply
Male 4,990
squrlz4ever I agree, I'm getting confused...but it's also fun to just look at the avatar and read the comments...it becomes this strange internal-self conversation that is making my brain hurt ;)
0
Reply
Male 1,930
squrlz4ever Since you're the one that asked, Squrlz, of course.  Monk has been troll bombing me -- thinking he's called me out as a 'socker' -- which I'm not and a troll.  I thought for a few hours it migth drive him a little nuts if I used his avatar.
2
Reply
Male 7,254
lockner01 Thanks, Lockner. I appreciate it. I think I'm more easily confused than Monk when it comes to avatars.
1
Reply
Male 11,103
squrlz4ever Actually i'm not confused, i've seen trolls like lockner do this before.  Since lockner admitted he has multiple accounts, and i called them out on it, they've been really upping their troll game.  It's like they know they have been laid bare.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
squrlz4ever Lockner is a bit upset from being found out as a socker + troll, this is their way of dealing with it.
-2
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Not upset at all -- you've just gone to the lowest form of trolling.
1
Reply
Male 11,103
-1
Reply
Male 12,053
lockner01 We're all crashing and burning...
-1
Reply
Male 1,930
holygod Sometimes it's better to admit when you've lost before the final hammer drops.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
lockner01 like you couldn't, being found out as a socker + troll
-1
Reply
Male 11,103
-2
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior What happened to the big font? Why is it that your comments are all in the negatives and mine are not?
0
Reply
Male 11,103
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior It's interesting how you don't seem to ever have any original thoughts.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
0
Reply
Male 1,930
0
Reply
Male 11,103
0
Reply
Male 1,930
monkwarrior Prove me wrong and not try to get the last word.
0
Reply
Male 11,103
0
Reply