TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Could the goverment have people on their payroll to post in forums like these?
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov We said the exact same thing. Look, I'm trying to actually have a discussion with you (which is what you wanted, yes? A chance to prove your points are valid?) and you're sitting here calling me a "twat" and insinuating something about my intelligence. If that's how you're going to have an intellectual discussion, then I can see we're clearly wasting our time here.

I'm sorry, dude. I'm the twat



WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds. The rate of free fall for the 47 story building is 6.8 seconds.


I'm used to dealing with the likes of Xanax and PKC.. totally rude of me.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.

yeah, because there's oh-so-much evidence supporting controlled demolition!

you might like this, its well beyond my technical abilities:

jones' critique of bazant, and bazant's reply

the best parts that i DID understand included these:

quote:

The interdisciplinary interests of Gourley, a chemical engineer with a doctorate in jurisprudence, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser�s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering. It also provides an opportunity to rebut a previous similar discussion widely circulated on the Internet, co-authored by S. E. Jones, Associate Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University and a cold fusion specialist.

quote:

Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information.

notice that this is published in the journal of engineering mechanics which isn't a publication that the conspiracy deniers have been able to get their own peer-reviewed analysis published in.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} I'm sorry, dude. I'm the twat WTC 7 Falls in under 7 seconds. The rate of free fall for the 47 story building is 6.8 seconds. I'm used to dealing with the likes of Xanax and PKC.. totally rude of me.

Ok, I may need some clarification. Are we talking about the Twin Towers or WTC 7 here? Because it seems to me that you posted a picture of one of the towers, but a video about WTC 7. The pancake theory or whatever wouldn't apply to WTC 7 because it didn't fall from the top down - the structural damage was at its base, correct? So as the lower debris fell, the bottom dropped out from the top, allowing the building to fall at a faster rate of acceleration.

Do you have any data about the rate of acceleration for either of the main towers? I would think your argument would hold more water there.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I'm merely asking if that's a valid assumption. Is it verifiable that they did indeed fall at that rate?

no, its not. and painfully obvious in videos that the towers didn't fall at freefall speed.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Ah, yes. So, I take their calculus over the law of physics? Maybe I should check out what happened during 'This Week in Washington' while I'm surfing the page. LOL You guys are all wrong. 100%.

Hum, the law of phisics? I was not aware that there was only one...

All the laws of phisics that I know of are derived from calculus. I'm sorry your not so into math. I'd suggest starting here:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Xrn...lculus+textbook

The first half is about all you should need before moving on to applications in phisics (where you will learn about all of the laws).

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Hum, the law of phisics? I was not aware that there was only one... All the laws of phisics that I know of are derived from calculus. I'm sorry your not so into math. I'd suggest starting here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=Xrn...lculus+textbook The first half is about all you should need before moving on to applications in phisics (where you will learn about all of the laws).

Thanks I left an 'S' off a word, you can't even spell 'physics'. lol

Newton�s law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, its not. and painfully obvious in videos that the towers didn't fall at freefall speed.

Remember, kids! The relationship between Matter and Gravity is absolute! A 1350 ft building does not collapse in 13 seconds if it is collapsing through the path of greatest resistance.

Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling.

Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

Apparently, nobody ever told b.s.e. that Newton was a Freemason Nazi. "Gravity" is a Zionist myth meant to keep us all down (sheeny cleverness, obviously).

You speak of theories and laws as though they are real. Sheeple like you just don't fucking know that the very evidence you use to supposedly "debunk" the NWO cover-ups is in fact theory imparted upon the masses by the NWO, itself! THEY'RE FUCKING LYING TO YOU HARVEY DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENS BECAUSE IT IS ALL A GOD DAMNED MYTH WE ARE ALL INTERACTING IN A COLLECTIVE SIMULATION KNOWN AS REALITY ETCETERA ETCETERA.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Apparently, nobody ever told b.s.e. that Newton was a Freemason Nazi. "Gravity" is a Zionist myth meant to keep us all down (sheeny cleverness, obviously). You speak of theories and laws as though they are real. Sheeple like you just don't fucking know that the very evidence you use to supposedly "debunk" the NWO cover-ups is in fact theory imparted upon the masses by the NWO, itself! THEY'RE FUCKING LYING TO YOU HARVEY DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENS BECAUSE IT IS ALL A GOD DAMNED MYTH WE ARE ALL INTERACTING IN A COLLECTIVE SIMULATION KNOWN AS REALITY ETCETERA ETCETERA.

I save that for the acid trips.

edit__

So you're behind www.truthism.com?

lol

You feeling ok Halcyon+On+On ? If you must know, the Nazi regime persecuted Freemasons:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/hitler.html
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/fascism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Freemasonry

But Newton was influenced by Masonic ideas and motifs:

quote:

Freemasonry, as a fraternal order of scientists and philosophers, emerged in the 17th century and represented something new--an amalgam of alchemy and science that allowed the creative genius of Isaac Newton and his contemporaries to flourish. In Isaac Newton’s Freemasonry, Alain Bauer presents the swirl of historical, sociological, and religious influences that sparked the spiritual ferment and transformation of that time. His research shows that Freemasonry represented a crossroads between science and spirituality and became the vehicle for promoting spiritual and intellectual egalitarianism. Isaac Newton was seminal in the “invention” of this new form of Freemasonry, which allowed Newton and other like-minded associates to free themselves of the church’s monopoly on the intellectual milieu of the time. This form of Freemasonry created an ideological blueprint that sought to move England beyond the civil wars generated by its religious conflicts to a society with scientific progress as its foundation and standard. The “science” of these men was rooted in the Hermetic tradition and included alchemy and even elements of magic. Yet, in contrast to the endless reinterpretations of church doctrine that fueled the conflicts ravaging England, this new society of Accepted Freemasons provided an intellectual haven and creative crucible for scientific and political progress. This book reveals the connections of Rosslyn Chapel, Henry Sinclair, and the Invisible College to Newton’s role in 17th-century Freemasonry and opens unexplored trails into the history of Freemasonry in Europe. ... About the Author(s) of Isaac Newton's Freemasonry Alain Bauer, a researcher and historian, is the current Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France. He is the author in French of Grand O and Le Grand Orient de France.

http://www.innertraditions.com/Prod...g=1-59477-172-3

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/book_bauer.html

Happy trolling .

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Hum, the law of phisics? I was not aware that there was only one... All the laws of phisics that I know of are derived from calculus. I'm sorry your not so into math. I'd suggest starting here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=Xrn...lculus+textbook The first half is about all you should need before moving on to applications in phisics (where you will learn about all of the laws).

Hehe, they are not "derived" from calculus... mathematics, discrete mathematics, is nothing more than a tool employed to assert the soundness and validity of a theorem. Theories come from ideas and observations. Theories can be build upon discovery of mathematical relationships but they are not "derived" form 'calculus'. I'll be quite impressed if one can formulate and validate hypothesis purely using derivatives, limits and power series... hell, anyone capable of doing that should get a fucking Nobel prize lol.

All of those sources are owned by the Jews. I don't trust a bit of it.

And of course you heard (ok, read) that the Nazis persecuted the Freemasons. It's all just an elaborate way for the Jews to in fact cause confusion amongst the uninitiated! Don't you realize their insidious plots to enslave us goyim with off-set information? It's exactly what they're trying to do with this 9/11 tower business - which they did by the way - they just edit newsfootage as it is broadcasted from the networks - which they own - using cg technology years ahead of what the commercial standard is today to appear as though it is actually defying certain laws of gravity - WHICH THEY INVENTED TOO.

THEY'RE ALL AGAINST US, I WISH YOU PEOPLE WOULD JUST WAKE UP!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On All of those sources are owned by the Jews. I don't trust a bit of it. And of course you heard (ok, read) that the Nazis persecuted the Freemasons. It's all just an elaborate way for the Jews to in fact cause confusion amongst the uninitiated! Don't you realize their insidious plots to enslave us goyim with off-set information? It's exactly what they're trying to do with this 9/11 tower business - which they did by the way - they just edit newsfootage as it is broadcasted from the networks - which they own - using cg technology years ahead of what the commercial standard is today to appear as though it is actually defying certain laws of gravity - WHICH THEY INVENTED TOO. THEY'RE ALL AGAINST US, I WISH YOU PEOPLE WOULD JUST WAKE UP!!!

Ok, now I don't know if you're being sarcastic or if you've really lost it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Ok, now I don't know if you're being sarcastic or if you've really lost it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov

Holy sarcasm Leb!

I'm just curious if the intellectually honest proponents of the pancake theory and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory have any arguments other than the appeal to authority logical fallacy and juvenile ad hominen trolling tactics . You guys seem to get all bent out of shape when people don't buy your fallacy laden arguments:

quote:

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic called a fallacy. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter lacks authority or is otherwise objectionable in some way.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm just curious if the intellectually honest proponents of the pancake theory and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory have any arguments other than the appeal to authority logical fallacy and juvenile ad hominen trolling tactics . You guys seem to get all bent out of shape when people don't buy your fallacy laden arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Present something more plausible and I'll listen. Simple as that really.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Present something more plausible and I'll listen. Simple as that really.

Shouldn't you be interested in a more plausible explanation? I've already let you know today that Al Qaeda does not exist. Didn't that register?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Shouldn't you be interested in a more plausible explanation? I've already let you know today that Al Qaeda does not exist. Didn't that register?

I think people should be interested in an explanation that is at least plausible . For me, that generally requires logical consistency and soundness, but apparently that makes one a 'conspiracy theorist' around here. If an appeal to authority is accepted, it makes you 'intellectually honest' lol.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I think people should be interested in an explanation that is at least plausible . For me, that generally requires logical consistency and soundness, but apparently that makes one a 'conspiracy theorist' around here. If an appeal to authority is accepted, it makes you 'intellectually honest' lol.

Theorising involves logic, fairy tales involve trolls.

Just for kicks, and something for you guys to plagiarize anytime that other list is posted .

10 characteristics of self proclaimed skeptics
A useful guide by shaolin_Z

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are intellectually honest: independent thinkers are always "conspiracy theorists", dupes for shoddy research, Alex Jones and the 'Truth Movement' etc. They rarely acknowledge logical fallacies in their arguments.
   
   
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on in denial no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "conspiracy nut" or "liar" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for independent thought whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length, copy pasting material they do not even understand themselves. Some of them even troll "conspiracy threads" to no end.
   
   
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from genuine skeptics about the claims that they make.
   
   
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include "conspiracy theorist," "tin foil hat," "lying ****," "truther," "paranoid," "uneducated fuck" and "intellectual dishonesty." What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to think critically themselves.
   
   
5. Inability to employ or understand logic. Aided by the principle in above, self proclaimed skeptics never notice that the small ambiguities [or unknown variables] in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any "official" accounts; a very common example would be the appeal to authority fallacy with respect to arguments regarding the cause of the WTC collapse.
   
   
6. Inability to tell good theories from bad. Self proclaimed skeptics have no place for questioning the integrity of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by authority, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it supposedly answers be accepted, as if intellectual inquiry were a matter of submitting to logical fallacies. While they do this, of course, they will claim to be "educated" and abuse the skeptics of conventional (or "official") accounts for apparently lacking same.
   
   
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a self proclaimed skeptics admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be state propaganda, disinformation or without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections to the previous lot.
   
   
8. Leaping to conclusions. Self proclaimed skeptics are very keen indeed to declare the "alternative" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the stock phrases as in 4. above. Small ambiguities [or unknown variables] in the narration of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "alternative" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these ambiguities are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. A good example of this would be automatically assuming a non-existent terrorist network, Al-Qaeda, managed to pull of the largest terrorist attack on American soil, with out any non-controversial evidence and absence of transparency.
   
   
9. Ignoring previous conspiracies and atrocities, perpetuating their pathological denial and cognitive dissonance. This dismissal makes critical thought unlikely, in order to try and demonstrate that their coincidence [or conspiracy] theory should be accorded some weight. They do not pause to reflect that the nonsense they are touting is almost always far more unlikely and complicated than observable patterns in human history and real-life.
   
   
10. It's always a coincidence. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z

Your hard work and insight is appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Theorising involves logic, fairy tales involve trolls.

You know what this thread has taught me? That you don't want a debate about issues. I came into this thread asking legitimate questions and asking you to back up assertions with proof. You responded by avoiding all of those questions and raising all sorts of red herrings (yes, a fallacy) - you jump from loosely-formed theory to theory without ever staking yourself to anything factual. It's all insinuation and supposition. Can you call into question the details of a popularly-accepted theory? Maybe - but how are you advancing the debate? Have you proposed a plausible theory of your own?

The shameful thing here is that there ARE real questions to be answered about many of the issues you're interested in, and you do your cause a great disservice by behaving the way you do.

You'd rather parade yourself around acting superior to all other lines of thought than offer a tangible line of thought of your own. Because you've come to your own "independent" conclusions handed to you by various youtube videos, you have the almighty authority to declare who is intelligent and who is not. You've raised interesting questions, but do so in a brazenly arrogant way and never even make an attempt at discovering answers. For you the question is the end result - if you can discredit some detail, the whole world system is to be doubted by extension.

The Council of Foreign Relations is an extreme example of this. Your visceral hatred of this group is based on one thing (I gather from what you've posted thusfar): the prominent role David Rockefeller played in its incorporation. Yet you've backtracked from your initial vehement assertion that Rockefeller was a Nazi. And you've yet to point to any actual activity that CFR undertakes to support your claims. It's mainly a supposition based on the fact that influential people are members and some of those influential people have other associations you don't like.

The world is too complex to be orchestrated. Anyone who has studied the myriad of complexities in the world knows that no group of fifteen people, no matter how rich or influential, could in any way control the world. My area of expertise is Africa. You know what that's taught me? Expect the unexpected and you'll still be wrong.

I'm not a physicist. I'm not an engineer. I don't know the mathematics behind the structural failings of the World Trade Center.

I do know a thing or two about United States foreign policy formulation. I know a bit about the Council on Foreign Relations through both research and practical experience. I know that there's scarcely an iota of truth to your fears about their power or aims.

I also know a thing or two about electoral politics. I certainly know enough to realize that despite their membership in the same fraternal organization, there were extraordinarily significant differences between John Kerry and George W. Bush. And between Barack Obama and John McCain. Maybe what to me is a clear division appears as nuance to others. But to cast them both as "the same" simply because neither one is agreeable to you just makes you look uneducated.

I also know a thing or two about civil conflict and development efforts in the global south. In fact, these are probably the issues I know most about, but nobody seems interested in discussing them. Should I parade around as the font of knowledge and wisdom in all things related to foreign policy and the third world? Should I call all people who dare ask questions of me or expect me to support my assertions stupid?

I digress.

The idea that your thoughts and opinions are "independently formed" is farcical at best, but the notion that by extension everyone else's opinions must be implanted by some mythical alliance of authoritarian shadow figures is absurd. Have you ever observed our government firsthand? They can't get even basic things right, and yet you seem to think that in a slow-moving bureaucracy with no secrets there exists any number of nefarious plots to control the world. We're talking about a society in which not even Sarah Palin's shopping habits can be kept secret.

Yet you don't stop there - you think there's a shadow government of neo-Nazi communists running the world. Mind you, there's no evidence you've brought to bear to support this, but doggone it you think David Rockefeller is a shady individual so it must be true.

No, you're not interested in a debate. You'd rather sit at home and pretend to know the world's secrets. You can't provide proof of anything, but surely anyone who doesn't believe you on faith must be somehow less intelligent. Grow up and maybe people will start giving credence to the things you say.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.