You Want Aluminum Foil? What's your hat size?
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
(Duesberg being one of them).
And there we go. His claims were opinions despite having never done any actual research on HIV. And that isn't how science works. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book,
And the criminal that first claimed that vaccines caused autism faced criminal indictment and the journal, peer reviewed by the way, that published his study retracted it, only one of a handful of retractions in something like 100 years that the journal has done. Now your professor might have been in a different position but it is also quite possible that his work was in fact flawed. Badly flawed. It happens.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Shutting down free speech is the real issue
Nope. Science is a process - it isn't free speech. If you want to cure your AIDS by heating your blood up it is likely that you can do it. If you are doing it to other people and charging for it then it no longer has anything to do with free speech.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So I challenged you to prove your assertion
See the link above. I wait with the certain expectation that you deny what it says.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go.
Facts don't make an argument. And convincing a denier, versus discussing something with a skeptic, is two entirely entirely different things.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I learn something
We will see.
Jschell, The 2006 reference is newer than the last time I was actively reading anything on the topic (Simon et al. 2006) from the article. In this article, I will concede that they don't exactly prove HAV causes AIDS, per se, but they indicate the potential for HIV to overwhelm and destroy the immune system to a degree that leaves it susceptible to other diseases. But in this case, it is more researched than previous assertions. Also, they finally extended the first incidence to the 1940s... Which also proves that it is not that "new" of a virus. So, I will accept that as "proof". As for Duesberg, he was introduced (at the time) as the foremost retrovirologist of the time, by Gallow himself. So he did have some experience in the field. This, however, does not negate the fact that the conversation was stifled. But 2006 was a long time after the arguments of 1990s... The process of science is usually that those who believe in the wrong facts DIE OFF, and those remaining shift to the other view as it becomes obvious (see flat earth). Good Job. Thank you!
-
The challenge is that these guys are smarter than you think. Most of them are lawyers. In this case, it was not worded as a threat. It was a request for a donation, with a specific range attached to it. A couple of times. Then out of the blue, he gets information that they are questioning people looking for charges. Another request he turns down. See, different "actors". Then the charges come, his passport is revoked. No way to tie the two together, but research determines the two people are linked. Also, this concept of "If this was happening, we would hear about it!" is a Bogus argument. Did you hear of the Doctor who rallied against HIV as the cause of AIDS, who was WILLINGLY Injecting himself with HIV+ patients blood??? (no, it made the news in other countries, here, it was not covered. Despite him being in Florida. The person I contacted said they could not cover it, their Editor said no). Did you know Larry King was on a 5 second delay, and was warned that these types of comments cannot come up on his LIVE SHOW? If they did, they would cut to commercial, and he would be fined. Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order? The scenarios ARE happening. I am a nobody and I have seen them first and second hand. The key thing I see in all of these cases is that they don't take EVERYTHING, they take enough. And then they leave you vulnerable. If you speak out, you WILL lose everything, and they will make you look like an idiot, so nobody will listen to a word you say. Snowden Leaked information. Look at how they go after him. Even calling him a low-level analyst, which they admit was to piss him off hoping he would make a mistake. The backstory you probably did NOT hear. They approached the business owner of the Encrypted Email tool he used, and they tried to force him to embed a virus, and steal Snowdens Encryption Keys. This guy had 2 choices. Obey and lose self-respect or shut it down, and lose his business. He choose the latter. It is actually public information. Is that NOT an example of the over-reach we are talking about? Is that blackmail? Well, not when it is sanctioned and TOP SECRET. Also, again, the government throws gag orders in there. So you DO NOT KNOW it is happening around you. The lack of clear evidence for everyone to see is NOT PROOF it is not happening. The existence of some proof is a warn
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order?
Since you were actually reasonable on the last one...want to go for another? The above comes about based solely and completely on conspiracy claims that 9/11 had other causes than the official ones and probably this specific claim is related to the "theory" that the planes running into the buildings could not cause the buildings to collapse. Which is hokum. But the conspiracy nuts make the claim that someone is being silenced. Two fundamental problems with that. 1. There is no reason to silence anyone unless the planes didn't the buildings to fail. 2. It requires a vast conspiracy. Notice that for 1 one need not even address the nut theories that the CIA or other nefarious forces were actually the ones on the plane. Just what caused the buildings to fall. The second suffers from the same limitation as all such theories - the more people that exist in conspiracy then the more likely it is that something will cause it to be revealed. One need only look at real life attempt terror attacks which involved even just a few people and yet which are revealed by random twists of fate.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order?
Since you were actually reasonable on the last one...want to go for another? The above comes about based solely and completely on conspiracy claims that 9/11 had other causes than the official ones and probably this specific claim is related to the "theory" that the planes running into the buildings could not cause the buildings to collapse. Which is hokum. But the conspiracy nuts make the claim that someone is being silenced. Two fundamental problems with that. 1. There is no reason to silence anyone unless the planes didn't the buildings to fail. 2. It requires a vast conspiracy. Notice that for 1 one need not even address the nut theories that the CIA or other nefarious forces were actually the ones on the plane. Just what caused the buildings to fall. The second suffers from the same limitation as all such theories - the more people that exist in conspiracy then the more likely it is that something will cause it to be revealed. One need only look at real life attempt terror attacks which involved even just a few people and yet which are revealed by random twists of fate.
This might be interesting. Lets talk about the building falling after being hit by airplanes. I don't know what happened, as I was not there. I found a few things "eyebrowse" raising. Building 7 Fell. No airplane hit it. Yet it fell in a similar fashion to the other buildings. I believe that was a 47 story building? Explain? Because there was no major fire engulfing the building. No Jet fuel. http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/ Notice 1,700 engineers want an investigation because it does NOT add up. Watch that video. Please explain this. Explain that one. Never before have buildings fallen like this. Even after being hit by planes. The other thing I found interesting, because I watched the coverage live (it stopped me from going to work that morning). The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report. Also, remember the never ending smoldering during the process of removing stuff. What was smoldering? This makes sense if Thermite were present. Rain and time would have a hard time extinguishing it. But suggesting that the Jet fuel was still burning like that for days. So, explaining that constant smoldering/burning. The plane hitting the pentagon. What happened to the 2 engines of Six Tons each? No broken windows where the wings should have hit the building. And that plane pushed through reinforced concrete? Superimpose the plane over he building, where it hit. This is the most amazing flying EVER of a jet that big. Finally, I find it perposterous that the passports of the people flying the planes were found, but the black boxes were not. When I travel, I have my passport on me. At worse, in my carry on. The plane the was smashed into the mountains was devastated. But the black box survived. They could not even find this thing? Either of them? Oh, and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings, via the basement. A nearby university detected an Earthquake. This time, the detected one as well. Around the time the plane hit the building. One witness said he felt the explosion below, the windows blew out, and then the plane hit the building above. The real question is. What would have caused an EARTHQUAKE to register before the building ever fell? I am curious about your take. It was building 7 and the pentagon that caused me pause. And they REMOVED all the evidence and scrapped it. Saved NONE of it to be examined. Interesting. One would think
-
This might be interesting. Lets talk about the building falling after being hit by airplanes. I don't know what happened, as I was not there. I found a few things "eyebrowse" raising. Building 7 Fell. No airplane hit it. Yet it fell in a similar fashion to the other buildings. I believe that was a 47 story building? Explain? Because there was no major fire engulfing the building. No Jet fuel. http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/ Notice 1,700 engineers want an investigation because it does NOT add up. Watch that video. Please explain this. Explain that one. Never before have buildings fallen like this. Even after being hit by planes. The other thing I found interesting, because I watched the coverage live (it stopped me from going to work that morning). The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report. Also, remember the never ending smoldering during the process of removing stuff. What was smoldering? This makes sense if Thermite were present. Rain and time would have a hard time extinguishing it. But suggesting that the Jet fuel was still burning like that for days. So, explaining that constant smoldering/burning. The plane hitting the pentagon. What happened to the 2 engines of Six Tons each? No broken windows where the wings should have hit the building. And that plane pushed through reinforced concrete? Superimpose the plane over he building, where it hit. This is the most amazing flying EVER of a jet that big. Finally, I find it perposterous that the passports of the people flying the planes were found, but the black boxes were not. When I travel, I have my passport on me. At worse, in my carry on. The plane the was smashed into the mountains was devastated. But the black box survived. They could not even find this thing? Either of them? Oh, and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings, via the basement. A nearby university detected an Earthquake. This time, the detected one as well. Around the time the plane hit the building. One witness said he felt the explosion below, the windows blew out, and then the plane hit the building above. The real question is. What would have caused an EARTHQUAKE to register before the building ever fell? I am curious about your take. It was building 7 and the pentagon that caused me pause. And they REMOVED all the evidence and scrapped it. Saved NONE of it to be examined. Interesting. One would think
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I don't know what happened
Nor to the conspiracy theorists. But the engineers do. http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Please explain this.
I am somewhat familiar with what goes on in learning to become a structural engineer much less earning advanced degrees associated with that along with civil engineering. And I do not have the engineering degrees nor the require experience to even start to do an analysis. Rather certain the conspiracists do not have it either. Know for a fact that some do not. But other people do. And they do explain it. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/[^] http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report.
Those of course are not connected.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Also, remember the never ending smoldering during...But the black box survived.
If you cherry pick a single fact and use only that to build a theory then you can prove anything. The reality is that you are trying to significantly simplify something that is vastly complicated and then using that simplification to come to a conclusion while ignoring the complexity that you dismissed. The analogy would be to find a single automobile accident where the car was totaled to an amazing degree and the driver actually survived and then use that to conclude that it was pointless to have seat belts in any vehicle. (And yes for this example I didn't provide info original on whether seat belts were in use or not.)
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings
Rather certain that is not true. Research it looking for sites that are not conspiracy based.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I don't know what happened
Nor to the conspiracy theorists. But the engineers do. http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Please explain this.
I am somewhat familiar with what goes on in learning to become a structural engineer much less earning advanced degrees associated with that along with civil engineering. And I do not have the engineering degrees nor the require experience to even start to do an analysis. Rather certain the conspiracists do not have it either. Know for a fact that some do not. But other people do. And they do explain it. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/[^] http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report.
Those of course are not connected.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Also, remember the never ending smoldering during...But the black box survived.
If you cherry pick a single fact and use only that to build a theory then you can prove anything. The reality is that you are trying to significantly simplify something that is vastly complicated and then using that simplification to come to a conclusion while ignoring the complexity that you dismissed. The analogy would be to find a single automobile accident where the car was totaled to an amazing degree and the driver actually survived and then use that to conclude that it was pointless to have seat belts in any vehicle. (And yes for this example I didn't provide info original on whether seat belts were in use or not.)
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings
Rather certain that is not true. Research it looking for sites that are not conspiracy based.
So, I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. I am not interested in the who/why. I am interested in the what/how. The only way to know the truth is to bring ALL the facts to light. I find it hard to believe that someone was able to access those buildings and setup charges. But having wired a lot of offices for networking back in the day, I can tell you that access is available, and nobody thought twice of some guy in a t-shirt and jeans going in and out of a phone room that is usually locked, especially if he has a tool belt. And climbing through the ceiling (this proves nothing). The point about the word Explosion missing from the 9/11 commission report, is that a LOT is missing from that report. Many people made statements, and they filed them unless they fit the narrative. BTW, the explanation for that entire building collapsing (WT7) if ONE BEAM failed is a bit of a stretch. (and the link to the pdf is broken) The answer I am supposed to believe is "Hey, IF THIS happened, it COULD explain it". Since "IT" happened, then that beam must have failed? QED? (I tutored quite a few engineering students in college, a couple civil engineers, almost always on the math/physics side of things). I understand the concepts to a TINY degree. One of the issues is CEMENT flooring, reinforced with rebar. Cement has amazing COMPACTION strengths, but horrible cohesion (pulling). The rebar helps, and so do fibers and other things used more modernly. As bad as it is. The speed required to fall that fast is challenging. If a CENTER BEAM SHIFTS, yes, it has the ability to stretch 1 side, but it is MIGHTILY resisted by the compaction on the other side. (The force would have to be in the direction opposite the stretching). What was delivering this force? Again, this issue for me is that they put together a group of people to collect the information, and write the report about what happened. Anyone who says differently is a CT. Any evidence they did not review NEEDS NO REVIEW. Focus on the pentagon. This is a strange case. This plane hit, and entered a small hole. The rough statement was that the 2 six ton engines folded in with the wings, ended up in the hole, and melted to the point that you could not see them. Now, there were cameras there. Cameras across the screen. We get 7 frames. Really. They confiscated the video from across the street. But they had a few of their own cameras. They wont release any more footage. Does any of this prove something else happened? Nope. But the p
-
So, I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. I am not interested in the who/why. I am interested in the what/how. The only way to know the truth is to bring ALL the facts to light. I find it hard to believe that someone was able to access those buildings and setup charges. But having wired a lot of offices for networking back in the day, I can tell you that access is available, and nobody thought twice of some guy in a t-shirt and jeans going in and out of a phone room that is usually locked, especially if he has a tool belt. And climbing through the ceiling (this proves nothing). The point about the word Explosion missing from the 9/11 commission report, is that a LOT is missing from that report. Many people made statements, and they filed them unless they fit the narrative. BTW, the explanation for that entire building collapsing (WT7) if ONE BEAM failed is a bit of a stretch. (and the link to the pdf is broken) The answer I am supposed to believe is "Hey, IF THIS happened, it COULD explain it". Since "IT" happened, then that beam must have failed? QED? (I tutored quite a few engineering students in college, a couple civil engineers, almost always on the math/physics side of things). I understand the concepts to a TINY degree. One of the issues is CEMENT flooring, reinforced with rebar. Cement has amazing COMPACTION strengths, but horrible cohesion (pulling). The rebar helps, and so do fibers and other things used more modernly. As bad as it is. The speed required to fall that fast is challenging. If a CENTER BEAM SHIFTS, yes, it has the ability to stretch 1 side, but it is MIGHTILY resisted by the compaction on the other side. (The force would have to be in the direction opposite the stretching). What was delivering this force? Again, this issue for me is that they put together a group of people to collect the information, and write the report about what happened. Anyone who says differently is a CT. Any evidence they did not review NEEDS NO REVIEW. Focus on the pentagon. This is a strange case. This plane hit, and entered a small hole. The rough statement was that the 2 six ton engines folded in with the wings, ended up in the hole, and melted to the point that you could not see them. Now, there were cameras there. Cameras across the screen. We get 7 frames. Really. They confiscated the video from across the street. But they had a few of their own cameras. They wont release any more footage. Does any of this prove something else happened? Nope. But the p
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The only way to know the truth is to bring ALL the facts to light.
That right there is a fallacy. In anything involving humans 1. There is no way to bring "ALL" of anything forward. 2 "fact" are very often subjective opinions.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone was able to access those buildings and setup charges.
That is trivial. The hard parts are why they would do that and then the subsequent involvement of a vast chain of people to to 'support' the reason where it falls apart.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The point about the word Explosion missing from the 9/11 commission report
You missed the point. You connected what news commentators said to what actually happened. The point is those two items are not connected. Do you have structure engineer with years of experience in investigating explosions in buildings who was part of the investigation and that person said that there was an unaccounted for explosion?
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
if ONE BEAM failed is a bit of a stretch
As I said although I am not a structural engineer and I do not have the years of experience related to forensic analysis I know for a fact that that is possible.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The speed required to fall that fast is challenging.
And this is based on your own structural engineering background and forensic explosion experience or because your read a ignorant opinion that someone else posted? Or worse because you read it second or even third hand? Because that statement is false.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Now, there were cameras there.. Which disintegrated.
All conspiracy nonsense, based on cherry picking results and ignoring the complexity of scenarios like this.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Or, is your mind made up. That to question it would mean buying into a conspiracy
The reality is quite simple. The conspiracy nuts would have you believe that a conspiracy of thousands of people is involved in hiding something. 1. Hiding what? 2. Thousands of people and yet all of them have perfect records at hiding the truth
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The only way to know the truth is to bring ALL the facts to light.
That right there is a fallacy. In anything involving humans 1. There is no way to bring "ALL" of anything forward. 2 "fact" are very often subjective opinions.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that someone was able to access those buildings and setup charges.
That is trivial. The hard parts are why they would do that and then the subsequent involvement of a vast chain of people to to 'support' the reason where it falls apart.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The point about the word Explosion missing from the 9/11 commission report
You missed the point. You connected what news commentators said to what actually happened. The point is those two items are not connected. Do you have structure engineer with years of experience in investigating explosions in buildings who was part of the investigation and that person said that there was an unaccounted for explosion?
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
if ONE BEAM failed is a bit of a stretch
As I said although I am not a structural engineer and I do not have the years of experience related to forensic analysis I know for a fact that that is possible.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The speed required to fall that fast is challenging.
And this is based on your own structural engineering background and forensic explosion experience or because your read a ignorant opinion that someone else posted? Or worse because you read it second or even third hand? Because that statement is false.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Now, there were cameras there.. Which disintegrated.
All conspiracy nonsense, based on cherry picking results and ignoring the complexity of scenarios like this.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Or, is your mind made up. That to question it would mean buying into a conspiracy
The reality is quite simple. The conspiracy nuts would have you believe that a conspiracy of thousands of people is involved in hiding something. 1. Hiding what? 2. Thousands of people and yet all of them have perfect records at hiding the truth
Okay, So your mind is made up and unless someone came forward and said this is how we did it, and had the list of people who knew, showed the plan... [and the media would say they were unreliable and psycho] Nobody in their right mind would start with a Thousand person conspiracy! That is a straw man argument. But, I ask you, what if it could be COMPLETED with less than 50 people involved who knew about it? The decision makers, a few people to set charges. A few people encouraged to take the planes over. With 1/4 of them dying in the process. Now how many are keeping secrets? You don't need many people to pull it off. You need the right people, to me, that is the hardest argument. How do you get the right people? Keep it small. Close up any lose ends. Misdirection.
-
Okay, So your mind is made up and unless someone came forward and said this is how we did it, and had the list of people who knew, showed the plan... [and the media would say they were unreliable and psycho] Nobody in their right mind would start with a Thousand person conspiracy! That is a straw man argument. But, I ask you, what if it could be COMPLETED with less than 50 people involved who knew about it? The decision makers, a few people to set charges. A few people encouraged to take the planes over. With 1/4 of them dying in the process. Now how many are keeping secrets? You don't need many people to pull it off. You need the right people, to me, that is the hardest argument. How do you get the right people? Keep it small. Close up any lose ends. Misdirection.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So your mind is made up and unless someone came forward and said this is how we did it, and had the list of people who knew, showed the plan
My mind is also made up that the earth is round. And there are in fact fervent believers who believe it is flat. It matters in that the alternative scenario involves so many implausibilities that one need not consider it.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would start with a Thousand person conspiracy!
How many people do you think were involved with the real way in which 9/11 occurred? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Financing_the_attacks[^] And your conclusion would be that providing all of that evidence from very disparate sources and then covering up that operation would have required how many people?
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
But, I ask you, what if it could be COMPLETED with less than 50 people involved who knew about it?
I can only conclude that either you do not know of the other people involved in the actual plot and the evidence that ties that together or that you think that it is trivial to construct such scenarios.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
You don't need many people to pull it off.
That is an incorrect statement. There were probably hundreds involved either directly or indirectly in the actual plot. A conspiracy to provide information about all of those people in the many different ways that were involved would require many more people. Do the math.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
How do you get the right people?
You posit aliens. Or real demons. Or humans with supernatural abilities. Humans, real humans, can't pull it off. As evidence by the vast (enormous) number of actual small conspiracies that fail all the time.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So your mind is made up and unless someone came forward and said this is how we did it, and had the list of people who knew, showed the plan
My mind is also made up that the earth is round. And there are in fact fervent believers who believe it is flat. It matters in that the alternative scenario involves so many implausibilities that one need not consider it.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would start with a Thousand person conspiracy!
How many people do you think were involved with the real way in which 9/11 occurred? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Financing_the_attacks[^] And your conclusion would be that providing all of that evidence from very disparate sources and then covering up that operation would have required how many people?
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
But, I ask you, what if it could be COMPLETED with less than 50 people involved who knew about it?
I can only conclude that either you do not know of the other people involved in the actual plot and the evidence that ties that together or that you think that it is trivial to construct such scenarios.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
You don't need many people to pull it off.
That is an incorrect statement. There were probably hundreds involved either directly or indirectly in the actual plot. A conspiracy to provide information about all of those people in the many different ways that were involved would require many more people. Do the math.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
How do you get the right people?
You posit aliens. Or real demons. Or humans with supernatural abilities. Humans, real humans, can't pull it off. As evidence by the vast (enormous) number of actual small conspiracies that fail all the time.
Conspiracies fail when someone has a vested interest in the truth, and actually digs in. There is a definition problem. When is a Ponzi Scheme a conspiracy? (Madoff, for example). We are standing here, finding out that the LIBOR Rates were rigged. Just now, they were forced to admit they rigged the FOREX markets. We only found out, because those that were actually injured demanded that it be looked into, and along the way, the evidence is questionable, and leads to more questions, and digging deeper. After admitting to laundering money (illegally). The AMAZING thing is that considering how much work they had to do to EXPLAIN the buildings falling, that these "terrorists" somehow calculated it? They knew the planes would bring the towers down. Otherwise, it would have been a minor incident, by comparison. Now. For the "Near Free Fall", yes, my experience with physics makes me question this. The fastest ANYTHING can fall is at freefall (which has to be adjusted for SIMPLE WIND RESISTANCE). These guys are positing that with ENOUGH downard force, cement and steel, is moved to the side, exploded and has a NET EFFECT of BARELY slowing the fall for 40+ Stories (specifically WTC7). So, one beam, taken out WITHOUT a drop of jet fuel, causes this amazing situation where LITERALLY BEFORE forces act on the stuff, it moves out of the way (near perfectly, with VERY LITTLE resistance) and follows the SAME pattern as a professionally demolished building (Center Dropping, Sides folding in) which requires blasts, engineering calculations, etc. And this happened because of an OFFICE FIRE. Keeping in mind, that the STATIC forces with PEOPLE in the building were more than covered by the strength of the cement/steel. 99% of the building has no structural damage. Is ACCUSTOMED to supporting the weight above it. And suddenly, it becomes viscous and lets everything above it drop and gets out of the way. It doesnt fail JUST NEAR the failure point, it fails EVERYWHERE within seconds, on nearly every floor, even at the furthest points from the failing beam. To me, believing that, requires believing Aliens were involved. I could see if there were EVER evidence of cement/steel structures falling this way from fires in the past. And if the building fell slower. Suffice it to say that they did not PROVE anything, they explained a possible way given very specific conditions and assumptions. If you read the paper, one of their CONSTANT assumptions is that the failure was UNIFORM everywhere, because this represen
-
Conspiracies fail when someone has a vested interest in the truth, and actually digs in. There is a definition problem. When is a Ponzi Scheme a conspiracy? (Madoff, for example). We are standing here, finding out that the LIBOR Rates were rigged. Just now, they were forced to admit they rigged the FOREX markets. We only found out, because those that were actually injured demanded that it be looked into, and along the way, the evidence is questionable, and leads to more questions, and digging deeper. After admitting to laundering money (illegally). The AMAZING thing is that considering how much work they had to do to EXPLAIN the buildings falling, that these "terrorists" somehow calculated it? They knew the planes would bring the towers down. Otherwise, it would have been a minor incident, by comparison. Now. For the "Near Free Fall", yes, my experience with physics makes me question this. The fastest ANYTHING can fall is at freefall (which has to be adjusted for SIMPLE WIND RESISTANCE). These guys are positing that with ENOUGH downard force, cement and steel, is moved to the side, exploded and has a NET EFFECT of BARELY slowing the fall for 40+ Stories (specifically WTC7). So, one beam, taken out WITHOUT a drop of jet fuel, causes this amazing situation where LITERALLY BEFORE forces act on the stuff, it moves out of the way (near perfectly, with VERY LITTLE resistance) and follows the SAME pattern as a professionally demolished building (Center Dropping, Sides folding in) which requires blasts, engineering calculations, etc. And this happened because of an OFFICE FIRE. Keeping in mind, that the STATIC forces with PEOPLE in the building were more than covered by the strength of the cement/steel. 99% of the building has no structural damage. Is ACCUSTOMED to supporting the weight above it. And suddenly, it becomes viscous and lets everything above it drop and gets out of the way. It doesnt fail JUST NEAR the failure point, it fails EVERYWHERE within seconds, on nearly every floor, even at the furthest points from the failing beam. To me, believing that, requires believing Aliens were involved. I could see if there were EVER evidence of cement/steel structures falling this way from fires in the past. And if the building fell slower. Suffice it to say that they did not PROVE anything, they explained a possible way given very specific conditions and assumptions. If you read the paper, one of their CONSTANT assumptions is that the failure was UNIFORM everywhere, because this represen
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Conspiracies fail when someone has a vested interest in the truth, and actually digs in.
False. Most conspiracies fail due to human frailties and chance.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
They knew the planes would bring the towers down.
Exactly which hijacker was interviewed who admitted that they thought the towers would fall? And conversely have you ever seen a video of someone attempting to open a ATM with a sledge hammer? Presumably those people always 'think' that the sledge hammer will work. Presumably you are aware that it does not. A random success does not mean that the 'logic' used to make the initial judgement is sound.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
For the "Near Free Fall", yes, my experience with physics makes me question this...[etc, etc, etc]
All of your conjectures are false. There are explanations, real ones, as to how the towers did disintegrate and explanations for each part. There are refutations of the incorrect ones. If the links that I posted did not explain what did happen and how the alternatives are wrong then search out ones that do explain it.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
You posit there are no evil, greedy people who foment wars and spin public opinion for profit.
You are incorrect. What I said is that people cannot pull of conspiracies. Conspiracies involve people. Vast conspiracies involve vast numbers of people. Each single person represents a single point of failure with multiple failure options. The action of each of those people represent a failure point. There are too many. Which is obvious when one looks at real conspiracies which fail and when one looks at why they failed.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I am sure you believe our REAL Unemployment is only 5% and that there is no REAL inflation, and that the banks are healthy now.
That of course only demonstrates my point. Individual humans cannot comprehend much less influence the entire global economics. Even understanding it is restricted to very, very small parts. And because of that humans attempt to generalize and consolidate knowledge into pieces that are understandable. (And often to rationalize that generality into claims that has explained it.) So as one example, and only one example