The US Govt also tells the truth - why do you choose to think that some of its info is lies and believe other bits - what is your criteria?
The US Govt also tells the truth - why do you choose to think that some of its info is lies and believe other bits - what is your criteria?
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Of course the U.S. government also tells the truth sometimes, as the best lies always have a little bit of truth in them. If the U.S. government did nothing but lie 100% of the time, even the dumbed-down American people would eventually wake up and see that their government has been hijacked out from under them by an unknown, unidentified entity, otherwise known by us as the ruling elites. That can't be allowed to happen, so the U.S. government constantly mixes truth with fiction. In this way, the government can keep the people both believing and deceived at the same time. This results in total cognitive paralysis for the majority of the population, which is exactly what our real rulers want. It's not just "divide and conquer", it's "divide, confuse, and conquer".Originally Posted by MikeC
As for what I believe, I don't believe anything automatically. As far as I am concerned, everything the government says and does is either misinformation or disinformation. I trust the U.S. government less than I'd trust a group of common street thugs.
Of course the U.S. government also tells the truth sometimes, as the best lies always have a little bit of truth in them. If the U.S. government did nothing but lie 100% of the time, even the dumbed-down American people would eventually wake up and see that their government has been hijacked out from under them by unknown, unidentified entity, otherwise known by us as the ruling elites. That can't be allowed to happen, so the U.S. government constantly mixes truth with fiction. In this way, the government can keep the people both believing and deceived at the same time. This results in total cognitive paralysis for the majority of the population, which is exactly what our real rulers want. It's not just "divide and conquer", it's "divide, confuse, and conquer".
As for what I believe, I don't believe anything automatically. As far as I am concerned, everything the government says and does is either misinformation or disinformation. I trust the U.S. government less than I'd trust a group of common street thugs.
Interesting debate between Johnathan Kay (among the Truthers) and Webster Tarpley about 911 and other conspiracies.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/305586-1
Is that right?
My 'rambles'? I don't understand anything, eh? Maybe, when you've learned how to construct a one sentence post properly, I might take notice.
Oh dear, isn't this what they call a straw man argument? Yes, like many of yours, it is.
And isn't this what they call an ad hominem? Oh, yes it is. I wonder why you'd feel the need to do that? Isn't it the 'golden rule' of debunking not to use such arguments?
Some people will do or say just about anything to maintain comfort in their false reasoning. The mere fact that you will not endorse a call for testing of samples from the wtc for explosives tells anyone that your position is seriously flawed. You make excuse after excuse for the fact it wasn't done, even though the context clearly demands it as necessary and correct. You say Nist's report is 'reasonable' even though you haven't been allowed to see critical input; you haven't seen all of it because Nist won't let you see it. But it's still 'reasonable', despite being incomplete. How can that possibly be so?
Posting mathematical fallacies has nothing to do with the above. It's designed to deflect from the real issues, such as the two examples herein.
So Mick, you've mentioned previously there are five independent reports into the events of 911. I have asked you before, but you ignored the question. Here it is again: What are the five independent reports you cite?
Last edited by lee h oswald; May 13th, 2012 at 08:00 AM.
Regardless of your dislike for whatever grammar and sentence structure I used in a post, that does not take away from the fact that basic concepts such as kinetic energy and momentum, seem to elude you.
And you believe that? KE is measured in joules, calculated by half the mass in kilos multiplied by the speed in metres p/second squared. Joule is a measure equivalent to pushing one newton through one metre, or energy required for one watt for one second or one amp through a resistance of one ohm for one second....and there's more...
Sure, the use of torture can taint something, as evidence obtained by torture is unreliable.
However I don't think any of the evidence obtained by torture pertained to the physical impact, fire or collapse. Which is what we are discussing. I said the NIST report was a reasonable account of the day because I read it, and it looks reasonable. No because of some lack of coloring by torture.
Can you quote were I said that? I suspect I was referring to reports on the collapse.So Mick, you've mentioned previously there are five independent reports into the events of 911. I have asked you before, but you ignored the question. Here it is again: What are the five independent reports you cite?
Wrong thread
Last edited by lee h oswald; May 13th, 2012 at 08:42 AM.
Just looking for it, but thought you might like this to be going on with - it's you talking about how the simulations of Purdue were faithful to Newton's laws....er...why don't you write them a letter and tell them they're going about it the wrong way?
But the parameters, and the model, are all designed to be physically accurate. They are all designed to follow all of Newtons laws (and several other laws). The actual state of the building immediately after the crash will never be known. But we can create plausible models in simulation.
Here's your quote on 'five different independent studies'
from post #153 in closed thread 911 - an inside job?
So what are the five reports and how do they qualify as 'independent'?Yes, steel girders are strong, but when faced with five different independent studies that say...
No, I think it's a valid point. We all tend to reach a bit beyond our areas of expertise. Just some people do it more than others.
You seem to misunderstand what I (and others) are talking about when it comes to the physics. Like the application of Newton's laws to deformable bodies, or why kinetic energy is relevant. After months of continued misunderstanding I think it then become relevant to look at WHY you are misunderstanding things. Is it deliberate? Are you just trolling? Is there a failure of communication on one or both sides.
Like, I say NIST's report seems like a reasonable account of the events of the day. You seem to misunderstand what I mean by that, so I try to explain, and yet you then seem to ignore all my explanations, and stick with your initial misunderstanding. You seem more intent of scoring points than in coming to any kind of agreement.
They (and I said studies, not reports) were listed in the post above that, post #152, where you quoted my post #139
http://metabunk.org/threads/106-9-11...ull=1#post1975
Kajima, MIT, NIST, Wedlinger and Perdue. I'm sure there are many more.
How could someone reasonable come to an agreement with you that an incomplete report is a satisfactory explanation? And you continue with this nonsense about Newton's laws not being relevant. You are blind to the awful logic of your position.
I didn't say it was satisfactory (at lease that I recall), and I can understand how many people would be unsatisfied if they can't access all the underlying data.
I said it was a reasonable account of what happened on that day. In particular I was referring to the impact, the fires, and the collapse.
Mick:
Oops. Think you contradicted yourself.But the parameters, and the model, are all designed to be physically accurate. They are all designed to follow all of Newtons laws (and several other laws). The actual state of the building immediately after the crash will never be known. But we can create plausible models in simulation.
Or will you just sidestep that one?
What? Now you're claiming it's not satisfactory?
It's a simplification. Hence: "and several other laws". If you just followed Newton's laws you'd not get any useful results.
Newton's laws are still laws, a simulation must still follow them.
I'm claiming it's a reasonable account of what happened. I can understand how some people might be unsatisfied. For me I don't have strong feelings of satisfaction either way. Shall we go over all the adjectives in the english language and see if they apply or not?
waffle
more waffle. no argument so resort to nonsense
Newton's laws are used all the time in calculating very real everyday occurrences. Here's Newton's first law - derived from Galileo's Inertia: A body at rest remains at rest; a body in motion continues to move at constant velocity along a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
Newton refined it to this: Every body perseveres in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a right line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
These laws can only truly exist in an inertial reference frame - one that does not exist on earth, in our environment - yet they are still used as an aid in the determination of forces acting upon real objects in the real world, deformable or not.
F=ma, Newton's second, which according to you isn't relevant, but it allows us to calculate the amount of force f an object has - yes, a real object, in the real world - due to measuring of its mass and acceleration.
Newton's third - enough said, go butt a lamp-post.
Newton's laws apply all day every day - no matter what you say
Last edited by lee h oswald; May 13th, 2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason: acceleration
Tell the bug splattered on your windscreen that Newton's laws don't really apply to you as you're a deformable body.
No it doesn't. That sounds like you are confusing force with kinetic energy.
I beg your pardon. Ofcourse I mean acceleration and not velocity. I was thinking about Aristotle's incorrect theory - are you familiar? F=mv
F=ma is correct. But only for point masses, and not really for collisions except for idealized springs. The actual forces involved in a collision of articulated deformable bodies is much more complex. If I shoot you in the hand, how much you weigh has very little to do with the force you exert on the bullet.
I don't know where you get this bullet in the hand business, but so what? It's flim-flam, F=ma is correct and you've referred to it a few times in this discussion, while at the same time dismissing its relevance. Classic
So you chose to mention the not so important Newton's laws by name, and the other more important laws went in brackets with (several other laws)
Personally I lived with a Truther for about a month. It was all I could stand. Part of these people just want to make sense of the unfathomable.
For these Truther everything often fits in. All data points are relevent including that the day before W had bad gas. The biggest issue is that while the official story may have anamolies, the alternative story does not even come close to factually supplanting the official one.
Why were the planes plainly visible?
Where did these passengers go if not to their deaths?
What of all the final calls to loved ones?
Why did al Qaeda claim responsibility?
Finally why can I not believe the government and other independent groups who back the official story?
Truther are a lot like any other conspiracy theorist like holocaust deniers and chemtrailers. They hypocritically support an assymetrical valuation of evidence. The Man's evidences from scholars and real experts is ignored or dismissed as biased, meanwhile their flimsy evidence from laymen or experts outside their specialization is rock solid even after unmerciful debunking. It reminds of that cut away on Family Guy about arguing with a mule about if Kevin Bacon was in Footloose.
Last edited by Mick; March 31st, 2013 at 09:47 AM. Reason: minor politeness, see http://metabunk.org/threads/1224-Politeness-Policy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks