Not sure if "Loose Change" has been mentioned yet, but has anyone seen this? I personally haven't but I've heard interesting reviews about it...
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by 1dawoman
but has anyone seen this?
Yes. It’s complete nonsense. Immediately de-friend anyone who gave you an “interesting review” about it.
Spam
quote:
Originally posted by basilisk
Modern psychology disagrees: our memories are error-prone and subject to modification by many different forces. It is for this reason that eyewitness testimony is not considered a high standard of evidence. People are too easily led. "Did you see a missile strike the Pentagon?" vs "What did you see strike the Pentagon?" vs "What happened at the Pentagon?" can produce wildly inconsistent results depending on the level of suggestion. So, no, your common sense opinion is not well-founded.
Climate change is a consequence of global warming much like increased glacial melt rates, sea level rise, ocean acidification, enhanced photosynthesis, etc. There are a number of interlinked phenomena that result from GHG fertilization of the atmosphere that aren't entirely encapsulated by the phrase "climate change" so global warming it is--since that accurately describes the problem.
Even if temperatures had stopped rising in 2001 this wouldn't be a big deal. Anthropogenic warming is superimposed on natural cycles that proceed on many different time scales (e.g. the ~11 year solar cycle, the Milankovitch cycles, etc.) so there will always be some amount of natural variability involved. It's the decadal trend that matters--and that shows unequivocal warming corresponding to the IPCC projections.
Thank you.
MSZ
/wears tin-foil hat. :haha:
richard raiban
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
The pentagon and flight 93 dont make sense to me when I review the info. but saying it doesnt add up means Im retarded? lol ok.
exactly. i think that euphorica is one of the few that gets where i am coming from.
"High School Physics Teacher Corrects NIST" (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Below is the article. Below that is his website. He has put a lot of research & applied his knowledge into his work. He raises a lot of valid points. People who discredit those & their claims for using sites like Youtube are nuts. i don't understand why they would be discredited? Yes there is a lot of nonsense out there from a lot of people but not everyone falls under that category. there are a lot of intelligent people out their with their information & knowledge who share their research and knowledge through this outlet. sites like youtube allow us to gather more information (unbiased information) unlike the biased "911 Commissions Report" (as an example) which by the way was a cover-up. The 9/11 Independent Commission is an orchestrated coverup, controlled by the Bush White House and Bush Justice Department, headed by Bush-appointed directors, and run by legendary Washington fixers and veteran war criminals with direct ties to the most likely 9/11 planners, operatives and beneficiaries. Anyway, thats another argument which i dont think i am prepared to endure.
Originally posted by richard raiban
"High School Physics Teacher Corrects NIST" (National Institute of Standards and Technology).
Yeah right.
As with any other Truther claim a simple perusal of the evidence offered shows how awful it is. Chandler measured the collapse of WTC 7 as seen by a CBS news camera and determines that there were 2.5 seconds of "freefall" as explained here: http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf
In this document we find this little pearl:
quote:
Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the
stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing
of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software
tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7
was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.
Let's get this straight.
1) Building 7 collapses at a rate roughly that of freefall for 2.5 seconds.
2) Similar measurements on buildings experiencing controlled demolition indicate collapse rates "considerably less than freefall."
Usually one would conclude that controlled demolition is not what happened in the case of WTC 7... hand it to the Truther nuts to turn this into a case of demolition with "tremendous overkill", whatever the that means!
How about some error bars for the measurements? Surely the video he's using has some kind of frame rate. There's no reason to have confidence in these measurements--they're ultimately very unscientific, even if we consider the conclusions to be solid.
Again, we return to believing some complete non-expert (a high school teacher with some knowledge of basic physics) versus the combined expertise of hundreds of engineers and scientists involved with the NIST report. Let alone the fact that nothing here fits into a greater theory of what happened--it's just more senseless nitpicking about some engineering details without any understanding of the big picture. My question from the other thread remains unanswered: if, for some stupid reason, WTC 7 were demolished by US government forces who had rigged up the building with a novel form of explosive never actually used in demolition (the "nano-thermite" of Truther fame), why wait so many hours after the collapse of the towers to pull the trigger?
And you wonder why some of us discard Truther claims out of hand.
Nrg2Nfinit
well said.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by richard raiban
exactly. i think that euphorica is one of the few that gets where i am coming from.
"High School Physics Teacher Corrects NIST" (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Below is the article. Below that is his website. He has put a lot of research & applied his knowledge into his work. He raises a lot of valid points. People who discredit those & their claims for using sites like Youtube are nuts. i don't understand why they would be discredited? Yes there is a lot of nonsense out there from a lot of people but not everyone falls under that category. there are a lot of intelligent people out their with their information & knowledge who share their research and knowledge through this outlet. sites like youtube allow us to gather more information (unbiased information) unlike the biased "911 Commissions Report" (as an example) which by the way was a cover-up. The 9/11 Independent Commission is an orchestrated coverup, controlled by the Bush White House and Bush Justice Department, headed by Bush-appointed directors, and run by legendary Washington fixers and veteran war criminals with direct ties to the most likely 9/11 planners, operatives and beneficiaries. Anyway, thats another argument which i dont think i am prepared to endure.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but you can’t stop him being a ing moron.
nice one...
next you are going to tell me c02 causes global warming.... I love how I say I question some things and I am labeled as part of some "idiotic movement" nigra pls. the fact you even read/or watch any conspiracy means you had to have some questions, or at least want to hear what that stuff was about.
herp derp
Comrade Stalin
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
nice one...
next you are going to tell me c02 causes global warming.... I love how I say I question some things and I am labeled as part of some "idiotic movement" nigra pls. the fact you even read/or watch any conspiracy means you had to have some questions, or at least want to hear what that stuff was about.
herp derp
Or someone was open-minded enough to study what the other side believes, so as to be able to substantively respond to their every point. Have you done the same?
Euphorica
what do you think? You think I watched that stuff unfold and thought it was planned by someone else?
lol
Ive barely participated in this thread and barely said anything except I question many things around me....and that means Im some conspiracy nut bar who is locked up in my house so the guvment cant get me. pls.
as I said before , the ones who are so strongly against anyone who has any other thoughts are just as bad as the extremists on the other side.
You just sit here and bash and insult and lulz lulz lulz like you got it all figured out, and any other thought otherwise is just stupid and ridiculous. As I said I just dont give a anymore to bother arguing or trying to discuss it with most since it just instantly goes to bashing and trolling on you're guys part. all the time, every time.In the past, ive argued both sides(on diff forums) and it goes this route every single time...
And that doesnt mean I run around protesting or with a sign saying 9/11 was an inside job, or waht have you.
I just said, my stance is...I question things and I read about some of this stuff. It doesnt consume my life, but I know enough about it and I am aware. even if much of it turned out to be true...there really isnt much if anything you or I could personally do about it.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
nice one...
next you are going to tell me c02 causes global warming....
have you published a paper in a respectable journal disputing the AGW consensus? If not, you should shut the up. you can’t even manage to get something like 911 right, the chances that you understand the complex sciences related to climate are 1 in a trillion.
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
I love how I say I question some things and I am labeled as part of some "idiotic movement" nigra pls. the fact you even read/or watch any conspiracy means you had to have some questions, or at least want to hear what that stuff was about.
herp derp
It’s called being thorough.
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
Ive barely participated in this thread and barely said anything except I question many things around me....and that means Im some conspiracy nut bar who is locked up in my house so the guvment cant get me. pls.
Well normally that’s the MO, but in this case it just means you’re a ing moron.
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
as I said before , the ones who are so strongly against anyone who has any other thoughts are just as bad as the extremists on the other side.
yeah, because we hate liars that makes us as bad as liars, rofl.
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
You just sit here and bash and insult and lulz lulz lulz like you got it all figured out, and any other thought otherwise is just stupid and ridiculous. As I said I just dont give a anymore to bother arguing or trying to discuss it with most since it just instantly goes to bashing and trolling on you're guys part. all the time, every time.In the past, ive argued both sides(on diff forums) and it goes this route every single time...
So stop bumping this thread and we’ll disappear.
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
And that doesnt mean I run around protesting or with a sign saying 9/11 was an inside job, or waht have you.
Of course not. You’re just a lazy internet warrior who pays lip service to concepts you lack the intellectual capacity to understand or critique.
quote:
Originally posted by Euphorica
I just said, my stance is...I question things and I read about some of this stuff. It doesnt consume my life, but I know enough about it and I am aware. even if much of it turned out to be true...there really isnt much if anything you or I could personally do about it.
Ie you eat sandwiches because you don’t know any better. Nom nom nom.
