Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:19 pm
RE Virus wrote:And your point? You're blaming Bush.
Clarification: I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about the wider scope of things of late.
Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:06 pm
Sorry, I'm just too lazy to sort out the appropriate quotes. 
RE:
I perceived your 'family-related' argument as some sort of insult, because of its irrelevance to the debate surrounding 9/11. I reasoned that you wouldn't compare my knowledge of my wife to my non-existent knowledge of physics, and expect me not to recognize the difference between the two. No offense; just clarifying.
Edit: Did you check out that AWESOME double-negative?
Let's see it again in slow-motion.
You said something about possibility. Anything is statistically possible. Does it make sense to cling to a fraction of a percent of likelihood?
To further clarify, I believe that some scientists actually do know the truth about what caused the buildings to fall, and so on. However, that truth is known only to those who caused them to fall, to the scientist, and to those the scientist has told. However, please keep in mind that the information we receive could easily have been skewed to benefit the source(s) in any number of ways.
Regarding using logic and reasoning to separate fact from fiction: Please refer to the previous block of text.
100 physics experts may have come forward with their calculations, and yes, that's interesting (sources? examples?). Maybe they were hired or forced to do so. No, really; what if they were? How do you know, either way? Again, please read two blocks of text back.
RE, you know what would REALLY do it for me? You could learn enough about physics to perform the building-collapse calculations yourself, and give us your results. I'm not talking about BARELY enough; I mean learn it ALL thoroughly. No, I'm not joking. Why not? Isn't that the TRUE path to the TRUTH? .... But what if the 'facts' of the building's structure which are available to the public have been altered?
Ohh SCHNAP!
Really, though, it would be as close as you could possibly come to the truth. I don't know why you 9/11 freak-outs don't just do that and get it over with. I'd do it, but I don't have the time, and I don't think that my findings would matter at all to the world. They wouldn't even affect MY life. I'm self-centered like that.
That is how, though I question everything, I don't understand 9/11.
Edit 2: Alternatively, you could send it to Mythbusters, and ask them to explore the myth of controversial shows being yanked. Darn.
RE:
I perceived your 'family-related' argument as some sort of insult, because of its irrelevance to the debate surrounding 9/11. I reasoned that you wouldn't compare my knowledge of my wife to my non-existent knowledge of physics, and expect me not to recognize the difference between the two. No offense; just clarifying.
Edit: Did you check out that AWESOME double-negative?
Let's see it again in slow-motion.
You said something about possibility. Anything is statistically possible. Does it make sense to cling to a fraction of a percent of likelihood?
To further clarify, I believe that some scientists actually do know the truth about what caused the buildings to fall, and so on. However, that truth is known only to those who caused them to fall, to the scientist, and to those the scientist has told. However, please keep in mind that the information we receive could easily have been skewed to benefit the source(s) in any number of ways.
Regarding using logic and reasoning to separate fact from fiction: Please refer to the previous block of text.
100 physics experts may have come forward with their calculations, and yes, that's interesting (sources? examples?). Maybe they were hired or forced to do so.
No, really; what if they were? How do you know, either way? Again, please read two blocks of text back.
RE, you know what would REALLY do it for me? You could learn enough about physics to perform the building-collapse calculations yourself, and give us your results. I'm not talking about BARELY enough; I mean learn it ALL thoroughly. No, I'm not joking. Why not? Isn't that the TRUE path to the TRUTH? .... But what if the 'facts' of the building's structure which are available to the public have been altered?
Ohh SCHNAP!
Really, though, it would be as close as you could possibly come to the truth. I don't know why you 9/11 freak-outs don't just do that and get it over with. I'd do it, but I don't have the time, and I don't think that my findings would matter at all to the world. They wouldn't even affect MY life. I'm self-centered like that.
That is how, though I question everything, I don't understand 9/11.
Edit 2: Alternatively, you could send it to Mythbusters, and ask them to explore the myth of controversial shows being yanked. Darn.
Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:46 pm
What if the real conspiracy is people are told that metal is strong enough to withstand jet fuel flames?? hmm? hmm?
Maybe there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy, and the valiant men of Israel are trying to feign blame by sending in Israeli scape goats? huh? huh?
Maybe there is a conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy, and the valiant men of Israel are trying to feign blame by sending in Israeli scape goats? huh? huh?
Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:12 pm
According to Jack Thompson, Rockstar Games and Take Two caused September 11th to happen. In return, we should kill all the Haitians and have hot coffee sex all night long.
Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:42 am
^ Jack Thompson's theory holds more water than the official theory.
I don't think you are.
DJD, you make very little sense... It's like you question your own questioning of questioning. And you make as much sense as the previous phrase.
No, it does not make sense to "cling to a fraction of a percent of likelihood". So why do you do exactly that, not on one instance, but on countless?
You don't need to do those calculations you speak of. Besides, other people with nice degrees have already done so, so why should I? That's a ridiculous statement you make.
Quit the nonsense about biased sources and get to the basic science of it. Fires and gravity cannot, by any stretch of the imagination or the laws of physics, account for molten steel, and much less for the pulverization of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete. If you don't understand this, you should go back to kindergarten or elementary school. Yes, it really is that simple!
The amount of energy required to pulverize (into the orders of less than 100 micrometers) the towers' contents is far greater (probably 3 or 4 orders of magnitude) than the total potential energy of the towers in a gravitational free-fall. Furthermore, the available kinetic energy to pulverize each floor is far lower than the potential energy of any number of floors, as each floor exploded outwards.
You can even SEE the explosions if you look closely!
Dani_California wrote:I feel the same way, it feels like we're slipping into this totalitarian regime, and only a few people are realizing what's going on. Who's ready for a second American Revolution?
I don't think you are.
DJD, you make very little sense... It's like you question your own questioning of questioning. And you make as much sense as the previous phrase.
No, it does not make sense to "cling to a fraction of a percent of likelihood". So why do you do exactly that, not on one instance, but on countless?
You don't need to do those calculations you speak of. Besides, other people with nice degrees have already done so, so why should I? That's a ridiculous statement you make.
Quit the nonsense about biased sources and get to the basic science of it. Fires and gravity cannot, by any stretch of the imagination or the laws of physics, account for molten steel, and much less for the pulverization of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete. If you don't understand this, you should go back to kindergarten or elementary school. Yes, it really is that simple!
The amount of energy required to pulverize (into the orders of less than 100 micrometers) the towers' contents is far greater (probably 3 or 4 orders of magnitude) than the total potential energy of the towers in a gravitational free-fall. Furthermore, the available kinetic energy to pulverize each floor is far lower than the potential energy of any number of floors, as each floor exploded outwards.
You can even SEE the explosions if you look closely!
Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:28 am
^ Jack Thompson's theory holds more water than the official theory.
I don't have an opinion either way on this topic. I just though it classic that GTA and Bully caused 9/11.
Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:41 am
RE Virus wrote:...It's like you question your own questioning of questioning...
Yes, that's exactly correct; and I question everything else in an identical fashion. I don't require absolute certainties in order to be content. In fact, absolute certainties tend to be boring, as they do not invite further exploration and learning.
I never did say that I absolutely disagreed with alternative theories regarding the building collapses, did I?
My only point is that I question the integrity of those who have spawned those theories. Therefore I am forced to question the theories as well. After all, we're only human. And don't even think about mentioning A.I. calculations. I don't see the computer knocking on your door to personally deliver the result.
Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:29 pm
What the fuck are you talking about?
Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:12 pm
Even though I lean to the conspiracy side a lot in this topic, I could easily say the .gif showed just looks like the floors collapsing on the others and the fires being pushed out by force and wind make the appearance of explosions.
Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:06 am
vix wrote:I don't have an opinion either way on this topic. I just though it classic that GTA and Bully caused 9/11.
Don't forget Manhunt!
DJDean wrote:Yes, that's exactly correct; and I question everything else in an identical fashion. I don't require absolute certainties in order to be content. In fact, absolute certainties tend to be boring, as they do not invite further exploration and learning.
So what's your problem then? You say you can't go either way because sources can be biased and skewed a certain way to serve an agenda, yet now you say you don't need absolute certainties? You make no sense.
I never did say that I absolutely disagreed with alternative theories regarding the building collapses, did I? My only point is that I question the integrity of those who have spawned those theories. Therefore I am forced to question the theories as well. After all, we're only human. And don't even think about mentioning A.I. calculations. I don't see the computer knocking on your door to personally deliver the result.
When elevation asks WTF you are talking about, you know you're spewing nonsense. Seriously, what ARE you talking about? Forget about "those who have spawned those theories". Forget about "A.I. calculations" and computers knocking on doors, whatever you mean by that. Quit playing dumb and look at the science.
alpmaster wrote:Even though I lean to the conspiracy side a lot in this topic, I could easily say the .gif showed just looks like the floors collapsing on the others and the fires being pushed out by force and wind make the appearance of explosions.
If you look really closely you can actually see the explosive puffs blowing out in a symmetrical fashion. You can see this 2 or 3 times, before the raining debris obscures the view. It's very difficult to see in this GIF if you don't know exactly what to look for. I'll see if I can find a better camera view and try to make a higher quality GIF. Also look closely at the lower right part - there you can see explosive puffs far below the collapsing area (someone pressed the wrong button).
Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:19 pm
RE, do you know what percent of the World Trade towers' volume was air?
Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:26 am
MESS wrote:RE, do you know what percent of the World Trade towers' volume was air?
Surely over 90%. I see your point, but to produce those squibs you need more pressure than could reasonably be produced in such an uncontrolled environment. Besides, assuming the 'pancake theory', why would the floors far below the collapsing area fall earlier?
Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:52 am
Somebody pushed a wrong button? I'm pretty sure controlled demolitions are completed by one button push. Not by a series of unreliable human pushes, that would be rediculous.
Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:02 am
This was far from a conventional demolition. There were many variables that would need human intervention. They needed to start the sequence from the impact zone, for example. They seemed to have fun snuffing out certain people in certain floors. There's a video of a person waving for help and then recieving a blast. There's also a recording of a firefighter talking over the radio until he's cut off by what sounds like a blast. Though you're probably right, it's more likely the 'squibs' were just badly placed charges.
Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:37 am
I'm not searching for an absolute answer to this mess, because it's impossible for me to get one. Which part of that opinion doesn't make sense? Oh, I forgot; you already know the answers.
Sorry, I neglected to type the basis for my A.I. comment. A computer could theoretically perform error-free calculations, but computers are programmed by humans, and humans would deliver the 'result' to the rest of us. Besides, didn't you see 'I, Robot'?
That's an interesting idea. However, if the structure was built to withstand a given amount of force and weight in certain locations, then impacts and altered structure above might be enough to weaken the structure below, thereby causing it to fail; which in turn would have caused the entire structure to collapse. Surely the motion of a skyscraper would generate enough energy to cause those squibs?
Sorry, I neglected to type the basis for my A.I. comment. A computer could theoretically perform error-free calculations, but computers are programmed by humans, and humans would deliver the 'result' to the rest of us. Besides, didn't you see 'I, Robot'?
RE Virus wrote:...to produce those squibs you need more pressure than could reasonably be produced in such an uncontrolled environment. Besides, assuming the 'pancake theory', why would the floors far below the collapsing area fall earlier?
That's an interesting idea. However, if the structure was built to withstand a given amount of force and weight in certain locations, then impacts and altered structure above might be enough to weaken the structure below, thereby causing it to fail; which in turn would have caused the entire structure to collapse. Surely the motion of a skyscraper would generate enough energy to cause those squibs?
Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:56 am
DJD wrote:That's an interesting idea. However, if the structure was built to withstand a given amount of force and weight in certain locations, then impacts and altered structure above might be enough to weaken the structure below, thereby causing it to fail; which in turn would have caused the entire structure to collapse. Surely the motion of a skyscraper would generate enough energy to cause those squibs?
You ignored my previous points directed at you, and proceeded to argue the minutiae of a highly redundant issue using a highly conditional statement... You might as well say that maybe there might have been some sort of earthquake or some other phenomena that could have in some way caused the buildings to completely collapse and somehow turn into dust.
Look at this picture again...
How can you possibly believe that a fire/gravity collapse can produce this devastation? Argue this.
Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:41 am
RE Virus wrote:You ignored my previous points directed at you, and proceeded to argue the minutiae of a highly redundant issue using a highly conditional statement... You might as well say that maybe there might have been some sort of earthquake or some other phenomena that could have in some way caused the buildings to completely collapse and somehow turn into dust.
Look at this picture again...
How can you possibly believe that a fire/gravity collapse can produce this devastation? Argue this.
Regarding whatever we were discussing previously, you may be over-thinking my simple statements. I don't care to paraphrase.
As you pointed out, it is obvious that my input would be redundant without further research. I have elaborated as to why I haven't researched any of this, but you've made me curious. You must have read something that made you believe this or that so strongly. Would you care to list your scientific sources, so that I can review them?
Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:55 am
RE Virus wrote:You ignored my previous points directed at you, and proceeded to argue the minutiae of a highly redundant issue using a highly conditional statement... You might as well say that maybe there might have been some sort of earthquake or some other phenomena that could have in some way caused the buildings to completely collapse and somehow turn into dust.
Look at this picture again...
How can you possibly believe that a fire/gravity collapse can produce this devastation? Argue this.
Regarding whatever we were discussing previously, you may be over-thinking my simple statements. I don't care to paraphrase.
As you pointed out, it is obvious that my input would be redundant without further research. I have elaborated as to why I haven't researched any of this, but you've made me curious. You must have read something that made you believe this or that so strongly. Would you care to list your scientific sources, so that I can review them?
Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:09 pm
You know, it's not just RE's persistence that is the reason no one can put up a viable argument to him anymore. Look at ALL the evidence. The photographs, the videos, the suppressed testimonies, the different pieces getting shifted around in anticipation of 9/11, all those convenient coincidences, the complete lack of evidence incriminating any group of Muslim terrorists...I mean, shit, just from the basic fucking physics of it, it is clear that the WTCs were demolished.
Wake up.
Wake up.
Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:09 am
Thanks, elevation. About time someone came forward in clear terms.
Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:25 am
Did PD~ drop off the face of the earth.
He still has my SSX 1. >:-(
He still has my SSX 1. >:-(
Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:29 pm
^ Wrong thread?
Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:31 pm
Despite my deep skepticism about the "official" version of 9/11 (and agreement with RE's arguments), the big issue is the consequences not who was behind 9/11.
The world has been dragged into yet another religious/xenophobic war. Terrorism is on the rise whether it be Islamic fundamentalism or Western imperialism.
We all fear the future consequences and people are getting killed.
But heck global warming could put all of these problems in the shade. We only have one planet to live on and if we fuck that up it's Game Over Man.
The world has been dragged into yet another religious/xenophobic war. Terrorism is on the rise whether it be Islamic fundamentalism or Western imperialism.
We all fear the future consequences and people are getting killed.
But heck global warming could put all of these problems in the shade. We only have one planet to live on and if we fuck that up it's Game Over Man.
Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:40 pm
Hey Crisp, let's play a little game. Can you name me 15 names of people involved in "Western imperialism", without including Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gates, Rumsfeld, Blair?
Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:00 pm
RE,
It's 6:00 AM in Aussieland and while I'm happy to play the game, I'm buggered and the wife is about to get up and blast me for my insomnia.
I presume you want current powermongers although I am tempted to list people from the last 2000 years or at least the 20th century.
I will start with the Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his cabinet. How about the Australian Wheat Board and their "kickbacks" as well. And just to make you happy the Israeli PM (whatever his name is) and Ariel Sharon
I'm so tired now, I will see what you say on the other thread.....
Wanna start a discussion on Global Warming?
It's 6:00 AM in Aussieland and while I'm happy to play the game, I'm buggered and the wife is about to get up and blast me for my insomnia.
I presume you want current powermongers although I am tempted to list people from the last 2000 years or at least the 20th century.
I will start with the Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his cabinet. How about the Australian Wheat Board and their "kickbacks" as well. And just to make you happy the Israeli PM (whatever his name is) and Ariel Sharon
I'm so tired now, I will see what you say on the other thread.....
Wanna start a discussion on Global Warming?
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.