R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged  (Read 8664 times)

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #90 on: September 19, 2007, 02:47:41 am »

mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 03:07

"Do not accept anything simply because it has been said by your teacher, or because it has been written in your sacred book, or because it has been believed by many, or because it has been handed down by your ancestors. Accept and live only according to what will enable you to see truth face to face."

- Buddha, as quoted in "Peace Is Every Step: The Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life" by Thich Nhat Hanh

DS


Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #91 on: September 19, 2007, 05:12:50 am »

labelling everything black or white, us and them etc. is necessary to control large groups of people with relatively little effort.

'conspiracy theorists', 'truthist' etc. are labels which only apply to those who are willing to get into the game and fight it out as opposing teams.... or ARMIES

I do not want to belong to any such team or media-coined group, nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.

The first thing people reach for when they have difficulty digesting something uncomfortable is to dehumanize the source of info. and stick a label on them so that their buddies (comrades, fellow soldiers, team-members etc.) will step in and the fighting begins.

but it really has NOTHING to do with us.. or them.. because the sort of military operations such as 911 WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY US..OR THEM!

they were necessarily organized by a SMALL GROUP of INDEPENDENT people with totally different objectives, values and economic standing than the average AMERICAN or ARAB or EUROPEAN or AFRICAN citizen..any normal citizen of any land.

in short labelling people 'conspiracy theorists' or any other name which incites mindless group-thinking and antagonism places the whole issue into a war-context.

it also makes simple issues confusing and overly emotional.


Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #92 on: September 19, 2007, 05:48:00 am »

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 10:12

labelling everything black or white, us and them etc. is necessary to control large groups of people with relatively little effort.

'conspiracy theorists', 'truthist' etc. are labels which only apply to those who are willing to get into the game and fight it out as opposing teams.... or ARMIES

I do not want to belong to any such team or media-coined group, nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.

The first thing people reach for when they have difficulty digesting something uncomfortable is to dehumanize the source of info. and stick a label on them so that their buddies (comrades, fellow soldiers, team-members etc.) will step in and the fighting begins.

but it really has NOTHING to do with us.. or them.. because the sort of military operations such as 911 WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY US..OR THEM!

they were necessarily organized by a SMALL GROUP of INDEPENDENT people with totally different objectives, values and economic standing than the average AMERICAN or ARAB or EUROPEAN or AFRICAN citizen..any normal citizen of any land.

in short labelling people 'conspiracy theorists' or any other name which incites mindless group-thinking and antagonism places the whole issue into a war-context.

it also makes simple issues confusing and overly emotional.





Max, you are the biggest "us and them"er in here!

Just because you think of "us" as being the "common" people, all over the world, be they American, European or Arab, and "them" as being the people controlling everythihg, be they American, European or Arab (you seem to have varying ideas on exactly which group "they" are though, sometimes it's government, sometimes it's coporations, sometimes it's banks, sometimes it's "the old money banking families") doesn't change the fact that you display a hugely simplistic "us and them" attitude, you'll attribute just about anything nefarious to "them", no matter how weak the evidence or indeed how poor the logic.

My statement above, whilst perhaps overly simplistic, was referring to the fact that you have to apply the same standards to all sources of information, something which the SELF PROCLAIMED "truthers" preach but regularly fail to do.

Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #93 on: September 19, 2007, 10:22:32 am »

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47

Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.

Who and what are the "truthers"?

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #94 on: September 19, 2007, 10:52:40 am »

mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 15:22

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47

Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.

Who and what are the "truthers"?

DS



I think it may have started with the "Scholars for truth".

It's an overly simplistic term really, but is generally used in reference to the events of 9/11 to refer to people who profess the belief that the towers did not come down due to terrorist action. There are a variety of different claims made, varying from remote controlled planes to holographic projections and beam weapons (I kid you not), but the most common is Max's favourite, that explosives and/or thermite were used to bring the buildings down.

Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #95 on: September 19, 2007, 10:54:52 am »

mgod wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 10:22

Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 18 September 2007 23:47

Excellent advice, shame the "truthers" don't follow it.

Who and what are the "truthers"?

..Those who practice "Truthiness".
http://www.serendipit-e.com/blog/images/colbert.jpg

Keith
Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #96 on: September 19, 2007, 11:32:47 am »

The administration then?

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #97 on: September 19, 2007, 12:30:42 pm »

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12

nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.


Give me a break.  You analyze nothing.  If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it.

Tell me, max.  Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore?
Logged

mgod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4020
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #98 on: September 19, 2007, 02:37:11 pm »

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Mention Skull and Bones, go to jail!

DS
Logged
"There IS no Coolometer." - Larry Janus

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #99 on: September 20, 2007, 07:07:12 am »

jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 18:30

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12

nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.


Give me a break.  You analyze nothing.  If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it.

Tell me, max.  Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore?




because heat conduction is not the biggest concern, convection is..

like I said before the heat-sink effect is exactly what you are talking about, heat conducts up, down, sideways etc. but when we deal with fire we are talking about air reacting with fuel for a few seconds and then office equipment, carpet and the like so the heat will be concentrated upwards, although yes the heatsink effect is both up and down.. convection in air, heat travels upwards.

as soon as you move slightly away from the hotspot the temperature drops radically.

the heatsink effect is also affected by the cool atmosphere in contact with the building.



Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #100 on: September 20, 2007, 07:12:18 am »

Quote:

Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus, the thousand-year-old right to challenge one's accusers in a court of law.


a quote from a comment on the youtube video..

very good.. americans have slept right through that law..
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #101 on: September 20, 2007, 08:32:30 am »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 12:12

Quote:

Americans no longer have the right of habeas corpus, the thousand-year-old right to challenge one's accusers in a court of law.


a quote from a comment on the youtube video..

very good.. americans have slept right through that law..


Actually last time I checked (so am open to being shown something has changed) the revoking of Habeas Corpus does not apply to US nationals, but rather to foreign nationals who have been declared unlawful enemy combatants.

Not much better in my opinion, especially not for me since I'm not a US national... but it's important to actually get the facts right in these things.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #102 on: September 20, 2007, 08:40:32 am »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 20 September 2007 12:07

jimmyjazz wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 18:30

maxdimario wrote on Wed, 19 September 2007 05:12

nor do I want to take anyone's word as the truth without analyzing it personally.


Give me a break.  You analyze nothing.  If it runs counter to the assumptions you need to make to support your pet theory, you ignore it.

Tell me, max.  Why did you fail to respond to my refutation of your claim that heat conducts better "up" than "down", or any number of other technical truths that you seem completely happy to ignore?




because heat conduction is not the biggest concern, convection is..

like I said before the heat-sink effect is exactly what you are talking about, heat conducts up, down, sideways etc. but when we deal with fire we are talking about air reacting with fuel for a few seconds and then office equipment, carpet and the like so the heat will be concentrated upwards, although yes the heatsink effect is both up and down.. convection in air, heat travels upwards.

as soon as you move slightly away from the hotspot the temperature drops radically.

the heatsink effect is also affected by the cool atmosphere in contact with the building.






Convection is the heating of the air and then the movement of that air, now what you're suggesting is that heat will then be conducted from that warmer air back into the metal, but that's only going to happen if the air is at a higher temperature than the metal, but you suggest that this is going to have a notably greater effect than conduction within the metal itself.

I don't think the temperature differential between areas above those directly affected by fire and those below is going to be anything like as large as you imply, and anyway, the areas below were subjected to the additional stress of a chunk of building hitting them.

Logged

jimmyjazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1885
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #103 on: September 20, 2007, 11:06:10 am »

You said "heat travels up", which is a gross misstatement.  Don't try to weasel your way out of it now.  
Logged

ssltech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4780
Re: 9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
« Reply #104 on: September 20, 2007, 11:30:45 am »

maxdimario wrote

...a complete load of bollocks, as usual

Logged
MDM (maxdimario) wrote on Fri, 16 November 2007 21:36

I have the feeling that I have more experience in my little finger than you do in your whole body about audio electronics..
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up