TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 [85] 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

sometimes you just got to let it go........

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yes 173 60.92% No 111 39.08% Maybe it's just me but not too many seem to believe the official story. The onus is on the government, you continue to neglect that they actually work for the people that put them their in the first place. This is a thread where the the majority is not in favor of the official story, the onus is on the minority (colonel and you included). You get it now? If not give up we will not hold it against you I promise.

Sorry man, but this poll is 100% NON-scientific, and thus, you should not using it as a premise in your argument. What more do you want the government to tell you? The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their theories SCIENTIFICALLY. Right now, their theories are more akin to Big Foot hiding in the forest. Are there questions? Of course. But the 9/11 conspriracists are jumping to conclusions. They should instead concentrate on an independent 9/11 commission to answer unanswered questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Sorry man, but this poll is 100% NON-scientific, and thus, you should not using it as a premise in your argument.

Don't you get it? The majority has spoken! Everybody knows engineering and those who claim to have studied in a credible institution are just trying to hide the truth!

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Author: The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Try reading the paper. Your net surfing skills are like a longtime anorexic chic. http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ransferRoss.pdf

which doesn't make him a structural or civil engineer does it? you people are totally hopeless. also, since he hasn't submitted his paper to a proper scientific journal (the first step in gaining scientific acceptance for work) then we don't give a shit.

i am unsure why we (and by "we" i mean anyone that more or less stands by the "official version") are expected to disprove every single crazy theory that comes along, when the proponents of said theories don't even bother trying to pass the rigours of analysis provided by peer review.

its about time some of you people grew up and tried to understand how things in the real world actually work.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Yes 173 60.92% No 111 39.08% Maybe it's just me but not too many seem to believe the official story. The onus is on the government, you continue to neglect that they actually work for the people that put them their in the first place. This is a thread where the the majority is not in favor of the official story, the onus is on the minority (colonel and you included). You get it now? If not give up we will not hold it against you I promise.

what year did you leave school? it was early wasn't it?

you still haven't explained to me why you think this poll on tranceaddict means anything. it fails in so many spectacular ways its not funny.

which any student of stats or research methods could tell you, but we all realise your formal schooling was obviously lacking.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I have a varied response in mind to this and using the nicest language I can and giving an example. I know what type of knowledge you need for a dual degree in Mechanical Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering from the UofA 1. AMAT 217 Calculus for Engineers and Scientists 2. AMAT 219 Multivariable Calculus for Engineers 3. CHEM 209 General Chemistry for Engineers 4. ENGG 201 Behaviour of Liquids, Gases and Solids 5. ENGG 205 Engineering Mechanics I 6. ENGG 233 Computing for Engineers I 7. ENGG 251 Design and Communications I 8. ENGG 253 Design and Communications II 9. MATH 221 Linear Algebra for Scientists and Engineers 10. PHYS 259 Electricity and Magnetism 11. Complementary Studies Course 1. AMAT 307 Differential Equations 2. CHEM 357 Industrial Organic Chemistry for Engineers 3. ENGG 311 Engineering Thermodynamics 4. ENGG 319 Probability and Statistics for Engineers 5. ENGG 317 Mechanics of Solids 6. ENGG 325 Electric Circuits and Systems 7. ENGG 349 Engineering Mechanics II 8. ENGG 407 Numerical Methods in Engineering 9. ENME 337 Computing Tools for Engineering Design 10. ENME 341 Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 11. PHYS 369 Acoustics, Optics and Radiation for Engineers Block Course - ENME 001 Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Block Course (32 hours) 3rd Year Manufacturing Engineering, regular program and Minor in Mechatronics 1. ENME 421 Materials I 2. ENME 461 Mechatronics 3. ENMF 401 Computer-Aided Design and Graphics 4. ENMF 405 Mechanics of Materials 5. ENMF 407 Human Behaviour in Organizations 6. ENMF 411 Quality Assurance 7. ENMF 415 Integrated Manufacturing Systems I 8. ENMF 417 Manufacturing and Production Processes 9. ENMF 473 Kinematics and Dynamics of Machines 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) 4th Year Manufacturing Engineering, regular program 1. ENGG 513 The Role and Responsibilities of the Professional Engineer in Society 2., 3. ENMF 512 Manufacturing Engineering Design Methodology and Application (two half-course equivalents) 4. ENMF 521 Manufacturing Practicum* 5. ENMF 533 Elements of Automation 6. - 9. Technical Electives (four half-course equivalents) 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) * Occurs over a 2-week period during the Summer Session. This course may be taken prior to third year (subject to space limitations). Contact department for dates. Note: Students are encouraged to select technical electives from a similar area in order to specialize in a subject stream. The subject streams for the manufacturing engineering technical electives are: Automation (ENME 585, 599, ENMF 503, 505, 513, 515, 529), Manufacturing Systems (ENMF 501, 507, 509, 513, 527), and Design and Manufacturing Processes (ENME 521, 547, ENMF 503, 517). AMAT 307 Differential Equations 2. CHEM 357 Industrial Organic Chemistry for Engineers 3. ENGG 311 Engineering Thermodynamics 4. ENGG 319 Probability and Statistics for Engineers 5. ENGG 317 Mechanics of Solids 6. ENGG 325 Electric Circuits and Systems 7. ENGG 349 Engineering Mechanics II 8. ENGG 407 Numerical Methods in Engineering 9. ENME 337 Computing Tools for Engineering Design 10. ENME 341 Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 11. PHYS 369 Acoustics, Optics and Radiation for Engineers Block Course - ENME 001 Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Block Course (32 hours) 3rd Year Mechanical Engineering, regular program and Minors in Mechatronics and Petroleum Engineering 1. ENME 421 Materials I 2. ENME 461 Mechatronics 3. ENME 471 Heat Transfer 4. ENME 473 Fundamentals of Kinematics and Dynamics of Machines 5. ENME 479 Mechanics of Materials I 6. ENME 485 Mechanical Engineering Thermodynamics 7. ENME 493 Machine Component Design 8. ENME 495 Fluid Mechanics 9. ENMF 417 Manufacturing and Production Processes 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) 4th Year Mechanical Engineering, regular program 1. ENGG 513 The Role and Responsibilities of the Professional Engineer in Society 2., 3. ENME 538 Mechanical Engineering Design Methodology and Application (two half-course equivalents) 4. ENME 585 Control Systems 5. ENME 599 Vibrations and Machine Dynamics 6. - 9. Technical Electives (four half-course equivalents) 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) Although I do not know what his academic history is.. none the less he has about 20 years worth of exposure to the stuff. what is the official verson.. a bunch of Saudi Nationals trained in Germany and the US took over airplanes and flew them into a few monumental buildings? Killing a village worth of people? The CIA had knowledge an attack because British Intelligence also was aware would happen and informed the Whitehouse but still no aircraft were put in the intercept vicinity of the targets? After the attack occured because the word allah appears on a blackbox they spin the terrible gaff in national defence on a international militant organization that was trained in part by the CIA? Osama Bin Laden one of the Richest men in the world was labled as being the man behind the act OH but also misidentified some individuals as being part of the attack, such as the one that was in Morocco? The US demanded that a foreign citizen be kidnapped and handed over without proper legal extradition process, and since the goverment refused because there was no evidence linking Osama to the attack NATO bommed the place and supported the overthrow and occupation of the Government - in what resulted in countless torture and resurgence of the Afghani drug trade which soilders par take in? ect... what my.. I was having a chat with people on MIRC and inspired people to action but the militants decided on a course of action that would kill thousands of people? That's not good enough? Cause we attacked a nation - for it.. we have to have a reason for it.. we have to have a reason for occupying the country, otherwise we are just monsters that ended 50,000+ peoples lives...? etc.. But are expected to disprove every single crazy theory that comes along, when the proponents of said theories don't even bother trying to pass the rigours of analysis provided by peer review. its about time some of you people grew up and tried to understand how things in the real world actually work.

[/QUOTE]

w-ashley just pwned the thread.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** I have a varied response in mind to this and using the nicest language I can and giving an example. I know what type of knowledge you need for a dual degree in Mechanical Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering from the UofA 1. AMAT 217 Calculus for Engineers and Scientists 2. AMAT 219 Multivariable Calculus for Engineers 3. CHEM 209 General Chemistry for Engineers 4. ENGG 201 Behaviour of Liquids, Gases and Solids 5. ENGG 205 Engineering Mechanics I 6. ENGG 233 Computing for Engineers I 7. ENGG 251 Design and Communications I 8. ENGG 253 Design and Communications II 9. MATH 221 Linear Algebra for Scientists and Engineers 10. PHYS 259 Electricity and Magnetism 11. Complementary Studies Course 1. AMAT 307 Differential Equations 2. CHEM 357 Industrial Organic Chemistry for Engineers 3. ENGG 311 Engineering Thermodynamics 4. ENGG 319 Probability and Statistics for Engineers 5. ENGG 317 Mechanics of Solids 6. ENGG 325 Electric Circuits and Systems 7. ENGG 349 Engineering Mechanics II 8. ENGG 407 Numerical Methods in Engineering 9. ENME 337 Computing Tools for Engineering Design 10. ENME 341 Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 11. PHYS 369 Acoustics, Optics and Radiation for Engineers Block Course - ENME 001 Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Block Course (32 hours) 3rd Year Manufacturing Engineering, regular program and Minor in Mechatronics 1. ENME 421 Materials I 2. ENME 461 Mechatronics 3. ENMF 401 Computer-Aided Design and Graphics 4. ENMF 405 Mechanics of Materials 5. ENMF 407 Human Behaviour in Organizations 6. ENMF 411 Quality Assurance 7. ENMF 415 Integrated Manufacturing Systems I 8. ENMF 417 Manufacturing and Production Processes 9. ENMF 473 Kinematics and Dynamics of Machines 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) 4th Year Manufacturing Engineering, regular program 1. ENGG 513 The Role and Responsibilities of the Professional Engineer in Society 2., 3. ENMF 512 Manufacturing Engineering Design Methodology and Application (two half-course equivalents) 4. ENMF 521 Manufacturing Practicum* 5. ENMF 533 Elements of Automation 6. - 9. Technical Electives (four half-course equivalents) 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) * Occurs over a 2-week period during the Summer Session. This course may be taken prior to third year (subject to space limitations). Contact department for dates. Note: Students are encouraged to select technical electives from a similar area in order to specialize in a subject stream. The subject streams for the manufacturing engineering technical electives are: Automation (ENME 585, 599, ENMF 503, 505, 513, 515, 529), Manufacturing Systems (ENMF 501, 507, 509, 513, 527), and Design and Manufacturing Processes (ENME 521, 547, ENMF 503, 517). AMAT 307 Differential Equations 2. CHEM 357 Industrial Organic Chemistry for Engineers 3. ENGG 311 Engineering Thermodynamics 4. ENGG 319 Probability and Statistics for Engineers 5. ENGG 317 Mechanics of Solids 6. ENGG 325 Electric Circuits and Systems 7. ENGG 349 Engineering Mechanics II 8. ENGG 407 Numerical Methods in Engineering 9. ENME 337 Computing Tools for Engineering Design 10. ENME 341 Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 11. PHYS 369 Acoustics, Optics and Radiation for Engineers Block Course - ENME 001 Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Block Course (32 hours) 3rd Year Mechanical Engineering, regular program and Minors in Mechatronics and Petroleum Engineering 1. ENME 421 Materials I 2. ENME 461 Mechatronics 3. ENME 471 Heat Transfer 4. ENME 473 Fundamentals of Kinematics and Dynamics of Machines 5. ENME 479 Mechanics of Materials I 6. ENME 485 Mechanical Engineering Thermodynamics 7. ENME 493 Machine Component Design 8. ENME 495 Fluid Mechanics 9. ENMF 417 Manufacturing and Production Processes 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) 4th Year Mechanical Engineering, regular program 1. ENGG 513 The Role and Responsibilities of the Professional Engineer in Society 2., 3. ENME 538 Mechanical Engineering Design Methodology and Application (two half-course equivalents) 4. ENME 585 Control Systems 5. ENME 599 Vibrations and Machine Dynamics 6. - 9. Technical Electives (four half-course equivalents) 10., 11. Complementary Studies Courses (two half-course equivalents) Although I do not know what his academic history is..

i will have to wait for colonel and his relevant expertise in the subject and how they differ, but if "mechanical" engineers are the same as "structural" engineers then why do they have different names?

quote:

Originally posted by ******** random non-sequiturs and fallacious reasoning

i dont care about the larger political contexts. bring me a peer-reviewed analysis that supports the controlled demolition theory. we could talk endlessly about the supposed political issues, without any measure for proof whatsoever. given the conspiracy theorist's tendency to draw the most outlandish conclusions from the tiniest pieces of (ambiguous) evidence, i see little point in debating the nature of prior knowledge because its irrelevant to whether someone planted bombs in the towers or not.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut w-ashley just pwned the thread.

\

only someone devoid of a reasoned, formal education would say that.

anyway, if he's so "scientific" in his education and knowledge, where is his peer-reviewed paper?

Then why do you you continue to post here?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Then why do you you continue to post here?

i have an honours degree from a recognised tertiary institution.

you on the other hand come across like you left school during highschool.

thus, i have a "reasoned, formal education."

Where is ANY peer-reviewed paper supporting ANY conspiracy theories of 9/11? These guys are jumping to conclusions.

EXAMPLE:

NORAD's failure to protect American airspace. Are there questions? YES! But the conspiracy theorist automatically jump to the conclusion of, "NORAD was sabotaged on purpose." Where are the orders? Who gave the orders? Where's the memo stating the purpose of any "stand down"? Where is the DIRECT evidence? That's right, there is none.

Wait you mean you are not a Structural Engineer? You do not have a Peer Reviewed Paper either?

What a fukin joke you are.

Reasoned, Formal Education, LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Wait you mean you are not a Structural Engineer? You do not have a Peer Reviewed Paper either? What a fukin joke you are. Reasoned, Formal Education, LOL.

Why should he have one to be able to ask for one?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Wait you mean you are not a Structural Engineer? You do not have a Peer Reviewed Paper either? What a fukin joke you are. Reasoned, Formal Education, LOL.

The point being (which I am totally unsurprised that you missed) that I am familiar with the world of academia (and the importance of it) as well as some of the important characteristics that may (or may not) differentiate similar bodies of work (or thought) from each other.

thus I am unlikely to post "yo w_astley owned this thread!" because I confused the issue due to lack of experience and/or knowledge of academic endeavours.

What's even funnier is that you somehow think all those credentials are more important than the capacity to produce a proper scientifically-validated (meaning peer review) study.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut What a fukin joke you are.

don't be jealous that mummy and daddy couldn't afford to send you through school. that's quite common.

again, the onus is upon you to provide the evidence, not us (again, something you would understand if you'd spent a little more time in school).

but, keep at it internet detective! your non sequiturs are a constant source of entertainment.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why should he have one to be able to ask for one?

precisely.

also, there ARE 2 peer-reviewed studies that support (more or less) the findings of the NIST report (which, despite its flaws is still superior to everything the CTs have been able to produce).

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X

Can any of you explain why you think an internet video is somehow superior to a proper, peer-reviewed study? Or why someone that bothers to make such a video doesn't bother with producing that paper?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Wait you mean you are not a Structural Engineer? You do not have a Peer Reviewed Paper either? What a fukin joke you are. Reasoned, Formal Education, LOL.

With all due respect to to Colonel, no offense, but engineers aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. They do grunt work, scientists do the thinking. Number crunching and following procedure they don't even necessarily fully appriciate or understand is a simpiified description of what an engineer does, of any kind. Scientist on the other hands, engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc. In short, engineers are grunts who can't handle too much thinking. Which is why liberal arts majors, ever so proud of their piece of cake degrees that they have a stick the size of the WTC up their ass, are fairly condescending to anyone who doesn't have a formal college education to make up for their lack of drive, intelligence, or competence. It's quite ammusing and consequently they're hard to take seriously, especially when it comes to any scientific issue. Yeah, I don't care if you have a degree in humanities, economics, or whatever else... you still are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything invovling science, and your formal education doesn't mean squat when it comes to understanding anything involving physics. You may be articulate as hell but your empty rhetoric means less than a simple quation with a three line proof. So their degrees are essentially worthless and they basically have the same calibur of rationalality, logic, and critical reasoning as someone with no degree at all. Their arrogant and ignorant attempts at arguments are ammusing to say the least, not becuase they don't necessarily know what they're talking about, but mostly because of their inflated baseless ego's with no merit.

EDIT: The most incompitent dolts I've ever had the misfortune to have to collaporate with in any type of natural science class has always been engineers who're thick as bricks and take forver to catch on to anything.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z With all due respect to to Colonel, no offense, but engineers aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. They do grunt work, scientists do the thinking. Number crunching and following procedure they don't even necessarily fully appriciate or understand is a simpiified description of what an engineer does, of any kind. Scientist on the other hands, engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc. In short, engineers are grunts who can't handle too much thinking. Which is why liberal arts majors, ever so proud of their piece of cake degrees that they have a stick the size of the WTC up their ass, are fairly condescending to anyone who doesn't have a formal college education to make up for their lack of drive, intelligence, or competence. It's quite ammusing and consequently they're hard to take seriously, especially when it comes to any scientific issue. Yeah, I don't care if you have a degree in humanities, economics, or whatever else... you still are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything invovling science, and your formal education doesn't mean squat when it comes to understanding anything involving physics. You may be articulate as hell but your empty rhetoric means less than a simple quation with a three line proof. So their degrees are essentially worthless and they basically have the same calibur of rationalality, logic, and critical reasoning as someone with no degree at all. Their arrogant and ignorant attempts at arguments are ammusing to say the least, not becuase they don't necessarily know what they're talking about, but mostly because of their inflated baseless ego's with no merit.

Oh, ok. So a tertiary level education doesn't give anyone the experience with appreciating the rigours of academic inquiry or experience in judging intellectual or academic honesty? (which is what my point was)

It's amusing for you to lambast me over my lack of scientific credientials whilst simultaneously lauding the scientific community generally, yet ignore the fact that nobody on your side of the fence actually fits the characteristics that you're preaching (engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc). NONE of your scientists have passed peer-review - if you're really such a lover of the scientific method, why you keep ignoring this glaring problem is kind of beyond me. (ie where is your simple equation with three line proof champ?)

And yes, I'll take a formal education over the idiotic and dishonest conclusions drawn by the under-educated like culorut when it comes to their ability to assess basic evidence, scientific or not.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Oh, ok. So a tertiary level education doesn't give anyone the experience with appreciating the rigours of academic inquiry or experience in judging intellectual or academic honesty? (which is what my point was) It's amusing for you to lambast me over my lack of scientific credientials whilst simultaneously lauding the scientific community generally, yet ignore the fact that nobody on your side of the fence actually fits the characteristics that you're preaching (engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc). NONE of your scientists have passed peer-review - if you're really such a lover of the scientific mindset, why you keep ignoring this glaring problem is kind of beyond me. (ie where is your simple equation with three line proof champ?) And yes, I'll take a formal education over the idiotic and dishonest conclusions drawn by the under-educated like culorut when it comes to their ability to assess basic evidence, scientific or not.

The physicists you love to deride and discredit so much has quite a few peer reviewed published journals in the past and isn't exactly some dolt with no credibility. Non sequitors and argumentum ad verecundiam don't qualify as legitimate criticism.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The physicists you love to deride and discredit so much has quite a few peer reviewed published journals in the past and isn't exactly some dolt with no credibility. Non sequitors and argumentum ad verecundiam don't qualify as legitimate criticism.

No they don�t shaolin. Not one. Getting your fellow buddies at "journal of 911 studies" to mark your work doesn't count as a proper peer review. So, let's stop being disingenuous shall we?

And even if that were true (and for emphasis i'll reiterate that its not), why we're looking to a physicist when it comes to building collapse is still beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN No they don�t shaolin. Not one. Getting your fellow buddies at "journal of 911 studies" to mark your work doesn't count as a proper peer review. So, let's stop being disingenuous shall we?

Haha, a scientifically sound argument is more than enough, and no it doesn't come from the so called sources you're trying to associate me with. I don't require external validation to reinfornce something I can easily comprehend myself with concepts I've already understand well for a while now.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN And even if that were true (and for emphasis i'll reiterate that its not), why we're looking to a physicist when it comes to building collapse is still beyond me.

Yeah, which is one of the why I stopped participating in this thread. It's beyond a lot of people apparently, which isn't unexpected from anyone that can't comprehend elementary physics or science period.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Haha, a scientifically sound argument is more than enough,

a "scientifically sound" argument is only sound because it has support through rigorous peer review. feel free to provide me with the argument if you have it at hand.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z and no it doesn't come from the so called sources you're trying to associate me with. I don't require external validation to reinfornce something I can easily comprehend myself with concepts I've already understand well for a while now.

so what you're really saying is that you know everything and do not require external sources to support your opinion, despite the fact that your rudimentary understanding of physics isn't nearly good enough to explain and comprehend the complicated nature of sky scraper collapse?

thus far the only science-driven stuff ive read from you revolved around analysing the kinetic energy and how it was dissipated. Not a particularly strong or comprehensive argument by any stretch of the imagination.

I do have an old memory of you talking about the conservation of momentum idea proposed by our old friend steven jones, but that idea has been shat on by the wider scientific community if I am not mistaken.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Yeah, which is one of the why I stopped participating in this thread. It's beyond a lot of people apparently, which isn't unexpected from anyone that can't comprehend elementary physics or science period.

Haha, touche. But your problem is that those that DO possess such relevant expertise (like our good friend colonel) ARE willing to discuss it with you but you seem to be less interested.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN a "scientifically sound" argument is only sound because it has support through rigorous peer review. feel free to provide me with the argument if you have it at hand.

No, it's soudn because it's in agreement with known laws and theorems. You've never studied discrete mathematics have you?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so what you're really saying is that you know everything and do not require external sources to support your opinion, despite the fact that your rudimentary understanding of physics isn't nearly good enough to explain and comprehend the complicated nature of sky scraper collapse? thus far the only science-driven stuff ive read from you revolved around analysing the kinetic energy and how it was dissipated. Not a particularly strong or comprehensive argument by any stretch of the imagination.

No, I'ce brought up several other points in the past, problem is, it didn't suit the negligent flawed analysis and theorising necessary for the state sactioned conspiracy theory.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I do have an old memory of you talking about the conservation of momentum idea proposed by our old friend steven jones, but that idea has been shat on by the wider scientific community if I am not mistaken. Haha, touche. But your problem is that those that DO possess such relevant expertise (like our good friend colonel) ARE willing to discuss it with you but you seem to be less interested.

Colonel actually never counter argued a single point I brought up, but simply obfuscated it with other possibilities with out presenting any reasonable need for adjustment based on probability or any other compelling justification. I eventually got sick wasting my breath, time and energy as the only repsonse I reveiced in this thread were irrelevant rants and non sequitors.

And what about the planes hitting the towers? Was that just for show?

"Let's have suicidal hi-jackers crash their planes into the towers, and THEN we'll blow them up."

Really, that is a stupid assertion...

Is it really that hard to apply the scientific method to any of these theories? Or are we to simply take our cues from Zeitgeist?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, it's soudn because it's in agreement with known laws and theorems. You've never studied discrete mathematics have you?

oh really? and which "laws and theorems" in particular? (in case youre wondering, it takes more than a little mathematical equation to represent the collapse of a building.)

are we going to go back to talking about how physics is an exact science and completely unprepared to adequately explain the nature of a sky scraper collapsing? there's a reason people get engineers to build buildings and not physicists. (and no, i dont recall doing discrete mathematics).

FYI, there's nothing about the official story that isn't in agreement with known laws and theorems, the only people that cry out about "breaking the laws of physics" are conspiracy theorists who completely misunderstand how a controlled demolition works.

having an argument that is in agreement with known laws is all well and good. its still a completely different story to get that argument tested by other experts. so again, i ask you for the peer-review in any respected scientific journal.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, I've brought up several other points in the past, problem is, it didn't suit the negligent flawed analysis and theorising necessary for the state sactioned conspiracy theory.

fair enough, you'll forgive me if i can't remember the entirety of the dozen or so 911 threads

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Colonel actually never counter argued a single point I brought up, but simply obfuscated it with other possibilities with out presenting any reasonable need for adjustment based on probability or any other compelling justification. I eventually got sick wasting my breath, time and energy as the only repsonse I reveiced in this thread were irrelevant rants and non sequitors.

well he did from where i was sitting. especially the contrast he drew between physics and civil engineering, and their relative differences concerning an ability to adequately represent something like the collapse of a sky scraper.

quote:

Originally posted by ******** don't beleive what you don't know happened, it makes life easier to beleive... and remember what you see is not necisarily real just what may be real. reality is fabricated and granted by consent of those who matter --- remember life is full of lies.

blah blah irrelevant nonsense. gotcha. you and trancer-x should have babies, you'd get on perfectly.

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