QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 11:54 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 14 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 01:17 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 11:54 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 14 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories." |
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread?
I'm counting on them reading the thread. You're counting on them not reading it.
In fact I made it easy...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 3 2006, 03:03 AM)
There is a large difference between mischaracterization and telling you what you are unwittingly implying. I'am telling you what you are unwittingly implying. Because if the main stream foreign press also doesn't touch this with a ten foot poll then it's more than just the ford foundation isn't it.
You said...
and I said...
and I said...
the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes.
I remember going into detail as to all the evidence that the Administration sat on, like the PDB. Did you miss that? Well now you see it.
If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC?
In the same poll only 28% of the people knew the number of the thirdt building that fell!
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" like you did with leftgatekeepers you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the poll was worded in such a way as to get people like me, who don't see a conspiracy to blow up the WTC to vote in agreement.
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie. That seems to be your modus operandi. Statement, attack, statement, attack... You are no different than Steve all though a tad more coherent. I have yet to see you post one post without attack. Only social midgets need stools of attack to stand on. Lets see if you heed your own words and turn a new leaf this year. Please continue to attack me and I'll continue to point out the irony.
For the new year I was really trying to turn a new leaf. Note I haven't even addressed the noise. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna bend over for you. Comprendi?
You said...
QUOTE
The Zogby poll, which was recently pointed out to you, clearly shows that about 2/3 of New Yorkers want a re-investigation. So your strawman is clearly misleading, unless you can provide any real evidence that widows and widowers are significantly less likely than other New Yorkers* to want such a reinvestigation. You provide no statistical evidence for this, yet THIS is the straw man that you TRY to knock down.
and I said...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Zogby poll, which was recently pointed out to you, clearly shows that about 2/3 of New Yorkers want a re-investigation. So your strawman is clearly misleading, unless you can provide any real evidence that widows and widowers are significantly less likely than other New Yorkers* to want such a reinvestigation. You provide no statistical evidence for this, yet THIS is the straw man that you TRY to knock down. |
and I said...
the Zogby poll shows what I want as well. An investigation into why nothing was done with the evidence they had like terrorist learning how to fly planes.
I remember going into detail as to all the evidence that the Administration sat on, like the PDB. Did you miss that? Well now you see it.
If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes.
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Where does it say the administration blew up the WTC? Where does it say "The administration knew the time, place and date of the attack and did nothing"? Where does it say the administration had a conspiracy to destroy the WTC?
In the same poll only 28% of the people knew the number of the thirdt building that fell!
Then theirs the question of SO WHAT. What if 50% of the people thought Bush did. it. Not long ago a poll was done asking if Saddam had WMD. Remember that poll? What was it, 40% or something like that thought he had it. Using your logic if the number is high then we should act.
Here's the kicker... If you "follow the money" like you did with leftgatekeepers you find the poll was paid for by 911truth.org. Using your logic this poll is propaganda for the 9/11 conspiracy sites.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that the poll was worded in such a way as to get people like me, who don't see a conspiracy to blow up the WTC to vote in agreement.
As for the attack on my credibility on this board you once again offer no quotes to back up the statement that I lie. That seems to be your modus operandi. Statement, attack, statement, attack... You are no different than Steve all though a tad more coherent. I have yet to see you post one post without attack. Only social midgets need stools of attack to stand on. Lets see if you heed your own words and turn a new leaf this year. Please continue to attack me and I'll continue to point out the irony.
For the new year I was really trying to turn a new leaf. Note I haven't even addressed the noise. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna bend over for you. Comprendi?
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 12:57 AM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 14 2006, 09:18 PM)
we are doing away with corrupt media as we speak/write.
it's all gone decentral....
and there is nothing they can do about it......
Were you making a general observation, or is there specific technology/programs/projects that you were referring to?
Also, this thread is an example of "too much of a good thing". My proposal is meant to filter spam and deceptive news reporting out, and to encourage and facilitate the complete inclusion of essentials that are often being excluded or not even investigated. Without financial flows to support that, we will have a far from optimal process, which may be sufficiently ineffective to correct the fascist and totalitarian trends so self-evident in the US.
With all the millions of people in the world who don't believe in the FEMA & NIST Fairy Tales, it's just ABSURD that there was no mechanism in place to guarantee a non-governmental investigation, even without access to physical evidence.
Unfortunately, it is not a given that corrupt governments will not be able to stop a descent into complete Orwellian-ism. I have read things which give me to believe that the Chinese government is quite effective in censoring the internet there.
However, if you know something I don't, please share. It's probably best that you do so at the Randi Rhodes forum, as we are definitely dealing with non-physics issues.
Just what we need, A media with more agendas and more lairs.
The only thing we need is to bring back the fairness doctrine. It worked for many years and if Reagan didn't do away with it it would have worked for many more.
it's all gone decentral....
and there is nothing they can do about it......
Were you making a general observation, or is there specific technology/programs/projects that you were referring to?
Also, this thread is an example of "too much of a good thing". My proposal is meant to filter spam and deceptive news reporting out, and to encourage and facilitate the complete inclusion of essentials that are often being excluded or not even investigated. Without financial flows to support that, we will have a far from optimal process, which may be sufficiently ineffective to correct the fascist and totalitarian trends so self-evident in the US.
With all the millions of people in the world who don't believe in the FEMA & NIST Fairy Tales, it's just ABSURD that there was no mechanism in place to guarantee a non-governmental investigation, even without access to physical evidence.
Unfortunately, it is not a given that corrupt governments will not be able to stop a descent into complete Orwellian-ism. I have read things which give me to believe that the Chinese government is quite effective in censoring the internet there.
However, if you know something I don't, please share. It's probably best that you do so at the Randi Rhodes forum, as we are definitely dealing with non-physics issues.
Just what we need, A media with more agendas and more lairs.
The only thing we need is to bring back the fairness doctrine. It worked for many years and if Reagan didn't do away with it it would have worked for many more.
And for proper context on the Zogby poll...
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 12:30 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 09:10 PM)
An EXCELLENT and intelligent post (& email) by metamars above. Kudos!
Please keep us informed of any response you receive.
Thanks
Foxx
Thanks. I've already gotten an answer:
To which I answered:
To which I answered:
I'm aware of all of these papers, and have read parts of all of them. I will take
a closer look, and get back to you. Being unemployed and rather broke, I need to
focus on getting a job just now, but if I even get some part time waiter work, that
may allow me to re-prioritize.
One quick question, though. When you say "newcomers", do you mean newcomers
in academia with backgrounds particularly conducive to digesting 911 data - e.g.,
engineering professors for Jones' paper, and professors of history and political
science for Griffin's paper, e.g.? Or do you mean "newcomers" in general?
IMO, the latter is effectively reached by DVD's like "Loose Change" -
IF they actually come across such DVD's.
I don't believe that Jones has ever suggested fraud due to the fact that NIST only
simulated up to collapse initiation, without going beyond that point. Rather, I
think he suggested fraud due to their "fiddling" with adjustable parameters
to get the results that were wanted, but again, results limited to illuminating
(or obfuscating :-) ) collapse initiation.
BTW, anybody interested in the philosophy of science should check out metaresearch.org.
There's a lot of very shaky and censorious activity that occurs even in a pure area
of science, like cosmology, much of it also having to do with "fiddling"
in a way that's reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles.....
Re "Scholars for Truth about 9/11": Please make sure that your forum is
moderated or has some way to keep distortionists and propagandists out. There is
an engineer on the Randi Rhodes forum who doesn't believe in the FEMA Fairy Tale,
and that I invited to comment at physorg.com. He will eventually do so (he is slowed
by a stroke, and his registration failed), but in the meantime, he described the
911 physorg thread as "chaotic". There's a lot of mudslinging there, as
well as truly bizarre, illogical, and pseudo-scientific nonsense posted, and one
needs to wade through it to extract meaningful arguments and data.
While I myself, even in presenting the notion of hiring a Ph.D. Construction Engineer,
haven't addressed the issue of "what happens afterwards", I ask that you
PLEASE keep this in mind. It's not clear to me how effectively the conclusions
of scholars can be introduced to the population at large. There is a crying need
for supplanting our corrupt media, since it's antithetical to propagating truths
embarassing to the dark side of our government and Big Business. However, my media
proposal presents at least an indirect answer to this question.
Since you are a philosopher, you know that the question "If a tree falls in
a forest but there is nobody to see see it, has it truly fallen ?" may have
a long and covoluted answers :-) (note the plural). In our modern society, the related
question is: "If a scandal occurs and the media fails to report on it, does
our political system get reformed?"
The answer is "No".
I will certainly check out Scholars for Truth about 9/11, and try to contribute
as you suggested. I will also keep my fingers crossed that the media problem is
solved. Otherwise, we will continue to descend into an Orwellian nightmare.
Best,
"metamars"
PS: You will likely be displeased to hear this, but I don't hold out much hope for
catching 911 perpetrators and throwing them in jail. My activism is predicated
on the need to wake up the populace, in hopes that they will become politically
active and not allow corrupt elites to continue dragging us, and the rest of the
world, into the abyss.
I wrote an essay called "On Martin Luther and 911" which explains the
paragraph above:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...l=martin+luther
It's like watching Terry Nichols write to Timothy McVeigh. Heh!
Just listen to the stupidity. He has to HIRE a phd because none would touch this on their own. He has to buy his "Truth". Heh! It sounds so... honest?...
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread?
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread?
Please keep us informed of any response you receive.
Thanks
Foxx
Thanks. I've already gotten an answer:
QUOTE
Thank you for writing and for offering these useful suggestions. I take
it you are familiar with the papers by Griffin, Jones, and me that are
archived on my academic web site at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/? Let
me know what you think of their cumulative impact, especially for 9/11
newcomers. The NIST study was clearly intended as a cover-up, where I
agree with Steve that the failure to carry through simulations of the
purported "collapse scenarios" betrayed that it was fraudulent. We are
creating a new organization called "Scholars for Truth about 9/11" that
brings together experts and authorities in many different areas for the
purpose of exposing the false and revealing the truth about the events
of 9/11. I will no doubt be talking about it on blackopradio.com next
week, assuming everything stays on schedule, where we are currently in
the process of constructing a web site with a home page and discussion
forum. I hope when that happens you will become active and will post
ideas like these for the further consideration of the members of ST9/11.
Let's discuss these things again in the near future. With best wishes,
Jim
it you are familiar with the papers by Griffin, Jones, and me that are
archived on my academic web site at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/? Let
me know what you think of their cumulative impact, especially for 9/11
newcomers. The NIST study was clearly intended as a cover-up, where I
agree with Steve that the failure to carry through simulations of the
purported "collapse scenarios" betrayed that it was fraudulent. We are
creating a new organization called "Scholars for Truth about 9/11" that
brings together experts and authorities in many different areas for the
purpose of exposing the false and revealing the truth about the events
of 9/11. I will no doubt be talking about it on blackopradio.com next
week, assuming everything stays on schedule, where we are currently in
the process of constructing a web site with a home page and discussion
forum. I hope when that happens you will become active and will post
ideas like these for the further consideration of the members of ST9/11.
Let's discuss these things again in the near future. With best wishes,
Jim
To which I answered:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thank you for writing and for offering these useful suggestions. I take it you are familiar with the papers by Griffin, Jones, and me that are archived on my academic web site at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/? Let me know what you think of their cumulative impact, especially for 9/11 newcomers. The NIST study was clearly intended as a cover-up, where I agree with Steve that the failure to carry through simulations of the purported "collapse scenarios" betrayed that it was fraudulent. We are creating a new organization called "Scholars for Truth about 9/11" that brings together experts and authorities in many different areas for the purpose of exposing the false and revealing the truth about the events of 9/11. I will no doubt be talking about it on blackopradio.com next week, assuming everything stays on schedule, where we are currently in the process of constructing a web site with a home page and discussion forum. I hope when that happens you will become active and will post ideas like these for the further consideration of the members of ST9/11. Let's discuss these things again in the near future. With best wishes, Jim |
To which I answered:
I'm aware of all of these papers, and have read parts of all of them. I will take
a closer look, and get back to you. Being unemployed and rather broke, I need to
focus on getting a job just now, but if I even get some part time waiter work, that
may allow me to re-prioritize.
One quick question, though. When you say "newcomers", do you mean newcomers
in academia with backgrounds particularly conducive to digesting 911 data - e.g.,
engineering professors for Jones' paper, and professors of history and political
science for Griffin's paper, e.g.? Or do you mean "newcomers" in general?
IMO, the latter is effectively reached by DVD's like "Loose Change" -
IF they actually come across such DVD's.
I don't believe that Jones has ever suggested fraud due to the fact that NIST only
simulated up to collapse initiation, without going beyond that point. Rather, I
think he suggested fraud due to their "fiddling" with adjustable parameters
to get the results that were wanted, but again, results limited to illuminating
(or obfuscating :-) ) collapse initiation.
BTW, anybody interested in the philosophy of science should check out metaresearch.org.
There's a lot of very shaky and censorious activity that occurs even in a pure area
of science, like cosmology, much of it also having to do with "fiddling"
in a way that's reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles.....
Re "Scholars for Truth about 9/11": Please make sure that your forum is
moderated or has some way to keep distortionists and propagandists out. There is
an engineer on the Randi Rhodes forum who doesn't believe in the FEMA Fairy Tale,
and that I invited to comment at physorg.com. He will eventually do so (he is slowed
by a stroke, and his registration failed), but in the meantime, he described the
911 physorg thread as "chaotic". There's a lot of mudslinging there, as
well as truly bizarre, illogical, and pseudo-scientific nonsense posted, and one
needs to wade through it to extract meaningful arguments and data.
While I myself, even in presenting the notion of hiring a Ph.D. Construction Engineer,
haven't addressed the issue of "what happens afterwards", I ask that you
PLEASE keep this in mind. It's not clear to me how effectively the conclusions
of scholars can be introduced to the population at large. There is a crying need
for supplanting our corrupt media, since it's antithetical to propagating truths
embarassing to the dark side of our government and Big Business. However, my media
proposal presents at least an indirect answer to this question.
Since you are a philosopher, you know that the question "If a tree falls in
a forest but there is nobody to see see it, has it truly fallen ?" may have
a long and covoluted answers :-) (note the plural). In our modern society, the related
question is: "If a scandal occurs and the media fails to report on it, does
our political system get reformed?"
The answer is "No".
I will certainly check out Scholars for Truth about 9/11, and try to contribute
as you suggested. I will also keep my fingers crossed that the media problem is
solved. Otherwise, we will continue to descend into an Orwellian nightmare.
Best,
"metamars"
PS: You will likely be displeased to hear this, but I don't hold out much hope for
catching 911 perpetrators and throwing them in jail. My activism is predicated
on the need to wake up the populace, in hopes that they will become politically
active and not allow corrupt elites to continue dragging us, and the rest of the
world, into the abyss.
I wrote an essay called "On Martin Luther and 911" which explains the
paragraph above:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...l=martin+luther
It's like watching Terry Nichols write to Timothy McVeigh. Heh!
Just listen to the stupidity. He has to HIRE a phd because none would touch this on their own. He has to buy his "Truth". Heh! It sounds so... honest?...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 01:17 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 11:54 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 14 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories." |
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread?
I'm counting on them reading the thread. You're counting on them not reading it.
Your muddled thinking processes can use a little help.
Zogby's poll question question is
"Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?"
This is a definition of LIHOP, that works just fine for most people, PDB or not. You don't like it, but, as my Spanish teacher used to say, "tough nuggies". That's your problem, not Zogby's.
You seem to want us to believe that our leaders would "consciously" fail to act, but that this was somehow distinct from "deliberately" failing to act - is that it?
You want us to believe that if "some leaders" did not know the exact details of the plot, then this somehow excuses them from failing to act to either prevent or counteract a mass murder of American citizens.
You are being sophistic, and your sophistry is clearly exposed.
=================================================
Now, I have to admit the following error, which is clear enough from the wording. And that is, in no way can this wording be construed as MIHOP. Where I got the impression that Zogby spoke to MIHOP, I frankly don't remember. Nevertheless, it was an error to make that claim. I admit that error, and retract this claim.
Thus, it'd be fair to say that, in this instance, my own thinking was muddled, also.
Even so, I'll take my record against yours, any day. You seem incapable of producing any posts more than 1 paragraph long that don't contain serious and obvious distortions and/or emotional spew.
The Zogby issue is a case in point. Even when you're right (wrt MIHOP) , you're still wrong (wrt LIHOP.)
Being a pope, you will never admit that, but that is your problem.
Your muddled thinking processes can use a little help.
Zogby's poll question question is
"Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?"
This is a definition of LIHOP, that works just fine for most people, PDB or not. You don't like it, but, as my Spanish teacher used to say, "tough nuggies". That's your problem, not Zogby's.
You seem to want us to believe that our leaders would "consciously" fail to act, but that this was somehow distinct from "deliberately" failing to act - is that it?
You want us to believe that if "some leaders" did not know the exact details of the plot, then this somehow excuses them from failing to act to either prevent or counteract a mass murder of American citizens.
You are being sophistic, and your sophistry is clearly exposed.
=================================================
Now, I have to admit the following error, which is clear enough from the wording. And that is, in no way can this wording be construed as MIHOP. Where I got the impression that Zogby spoke to MIHOP, I frankly don't remember. Nevertheless, it was an error to make that claim. I admit that error, and retract this claim.
Thus, it'd be fair to say that, in this instance, my own thinking was muddled, also.
Even so, I'll take my record against yours, any day. You seem incapable of producing any posts more than 1 paragraph long that don't contain serious and obvious distortions and/or emotional spew.
The Zogby issue is a case in point. Even when you're right (wrt MIHOP) , you're still wrong (wrt LIHOP.)
Being a pope, you will never admit that, but that is your problem.
edited out-double post
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 03:29 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 01:17 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 11:54 PM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 14 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories." |
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
Once again another lie. It seems all you people have left are lies. I already exposed the lie of the zoby poll.
It's bought and paid for by a CT site.
The question was given at a time when Bush didn't want to give up the embarrassing august 7 PDB.
The question was put in such a way EVEN I would have said yes. Did bush know about an attack by Bin Laden? HELL YES! August 6th PDB remember... And that's what we should be investigating. Did he the know the time and place? Maybe but there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. If the question was "DID Bush plan the attacks on 9/11?" the outcome would have been much different. And even they knew it because they didn't form the question that way on purpose.
You have NOTHING but regurgitated lies. If I had a nickle for all the lies you people told on this thread I could pay the national debt...
(Emphasis mine)
Discredited the Zogby poll, have you? As usual, your arguments are far from compelling and/or sheer sophistry.
From where I sit, it'd be quite fair to say that your desperation is showing. Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread? Or that everybody has the lack of intelligence that most of your "arguments", to be taken seriously, would have to suffer from?
Methinks not. So, apparently you are not concerned that you will be exposed.
I find that interesting.
No,. I didn't discredit the Zogby polls you moron. I discredited the way you and your Roveian wannabees use them.
Do you really think that nobody will check the earlier parts of this thread?
I'm counting on them reading the thread. You're counting on them not reading it.
Your muddled thinking processes can use a little help.
Zogby's poll question question is
"Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?"
This is a definition of LIHOP, that works just fine for most people, PDB or not. You don't like it, but, as my Spanish teacher used to say, "tough nuggies". That's your problem, not Zogby's.
You seem to want us to believe that our leaders would "consciously" fail to act, but that this was somehow distinct from "deliberately" failing to act - is that it?
You want us to believe that if "some leaders" did not know the exact details of the plot, then this somehow excuses them from failing to act to either prevent or counteract a mass murder of American citizens.
You are being sophistic, and your sophistry is clearly exposed.
=================================================
Now, I have to admit the following error, which is clear enough from the wording. And that is, in no way can this wording be construed as MIHOP. Where I got the impression that Zogby spoke to MIHOP, I frankly don't remember. Nevertheless, it was an error to make that claim. I admit that error, and retract this claim.
Thus, it'd be fair to say that, in this instance, my own thinking was muddled, also.
Even so, I'll take my record against yours, any day. You seem incapable of producing any posts more than 1 paragraph long that don't contain serious and obvious distortions and/or emotional spew.
The Zogby issue is a case in point. Even when you're right (wrt MIHOP) , you're still wrong (wrt LIHOP.)
Being a pope, you will never admit that, but that is your problem.
OK, like your a two year old...
Bush, consciously failed to act on the august 6th PDB because he was told...
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S"
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
It is reasonable to conclude he consciously failed to act on this information because after he read this he did NOTHING. He didn't "Shake the trees" as Richard Clark said. He did NOTHING. He KNEW something was going to happen with hijacked jets and buildings but never did a thing.
One more little bit of information for you... The word "deliberately" and "consciously" are two different words for a reason. If you don't like it as my English teacher used to say, "tough shiit".
Estupido.
And there you are lying again. Bold faced lies which can be proven by just looking at this reply..
"You want us to believe that if "some leaders" did not know the exact details of the plot, then this somehow excuses them from failing to act to either prevent or counteract a mass murder of American citizens."
Where did I EXCUSE him??? In fact I said..
"If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes. "
I'm willing to keep reposting this until you begin to tell the truth here.
Your muddled thinking processes can use a little help.
Zogby's poll question question is
"Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?"
This is a definition of LIHOP, that works just fine for most people, PDB or not. You don't like it, but, as my Spanish teacher used to say, "tough nuggies". That's your problem, not Zogby's.
You seem to want us to believe that our leaders would "consciously" fail to act, but that this was somehow distinct from "deliberately" failing to act - is that it?
You want us to believe that if "some leaders" did not know the exact details of the plot, then this somehow excuses them from failing to act to either prevent or counteract a mass murder of American citizens.
You are being sophistic, and your sophistry is clearly exposed.
=================================================
Now, I have to admit the following error, which is clear enough from the wording. And that is, in no way can this wording be construed as MIHOP. Where I got the impression that Zogby spoke to MIHOP, I frankly don't remember. Nevertheless, it was an error to make that claim. I admit that error, and retract this claim.
Thus, it'd be fair to say that, in this instance, my own thinking was muddled, also.
Even so, I'll take my record against yours, any day. You seem incapable of producing any posts more than 1 paragraph long that don't contain serious and obvious distortions and/or emotional spew.
The Zogby issue is a case in point. Even when you're right (wrt MIHOP) , you're still wrong (wrt LIHOP.)
Being a pope, you will never admit that, but that is your problem.
OK, like your a two year old...
Bush, consciously failed to act on the august 6th PDB because he was told...
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S"
"Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."
It is reasonable to conclude he consciously failed to act on this information because after he read this he did NOTHING. He didn't "Shake the trees" as Richard Clark said. He did NOTHING. He KNEW something was going to happen with hijacked jets and buildings but never did a thing.
One more little bit of information for you... The word "deliberately" and "consciously" are two different words for a reason. If you don't like it as my English teacher used to say, "tough shiit".
Estupido.
And there you are lying again. Bold faced lies which can be proven by just looking at this reply..
"You want us to believe that if "some leaders" did not know the exact details of the plot, then this somehow excuses them from failing to act to either prevent or counteract a mass murder of American citizens."
Where did I EXCUSE him??? In fact I said..
"If you ask me today: "Some have argued that some leaders in the U.S. government knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?" I would say yes. "
I'm willing to keep reposting this until you begin to tell the truth here.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:33 PM)
......
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
Hi Foxx!
If I read you correctly, do you maintain that the floors could NOT have failed, because (regarding steel flooring structure sample tests) "...that the samples we certified met all requirements"?
For as far as I can see, the point is NOT whether these structures met the DESIGN specifications, but whether these selfsame specifications were ENOUGH to cope with what they had to endure during 9/11 events. MEANING THAT EVEN IF THEY DID MEET THE ORIGINAL SPECS, THESE SPECS DID NOT INCLUDE SURVIVAL OF THE LOSS OF THEIR FIRE/HEAT INSULATION; NOR THE IMPACT/WEIGHT OF DEBRIS FROM FLOORS ABOVE; NOR INITIAL BREAKAGES/WEAKENINGS DUE TO INITIAL PLANE IMPACT/EXPLOSION AND LOAD RE-DISTRIBUTIONS.
RC.
.
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
QUOTE
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
Hi Foxx!
If I read you correctly, do you maintain that the floors could NOT have failed, because (regarding steel flooring structure sample tests) "...that the samples we certified met all requirements"?
For as far as I can see, the point is NOT whether these structures met the DESIGN specifications, but whether these selfsame specifications were ENOUGH to cope with what they had to endure during 9/11 events. MEANING THAT EVEN IF THEY DID MEET THE ORIGINAL SPECS, THESE SPECS DID NOT INCLUDE SURVIVAL OF THE LOSS OF THEIR FIRE/HEAT INSULATION; NOR THE IMPACT/WEIGHT OF DEBRIS FROM FLOORS ABOVE; NOR INITIAL BREAKAGES/WEAKENINGS DUE TO INITIAL PLANE IMPACT/EXPLOSION AND LOAD RE-DISTRIBUTIONS.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 03:16 AM)
And for proper context on the Zogby poll...
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 03:16 AM)
And for proper context on the Zogby poll...
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
Foxx writes:
Because not knowing exactly where that steel was located would preclude its use in modelling the fire. You find a piece of steel that shows effects of being heated to 800 C but you don't know where it was. How do you then fit it into your computer model? You cannot. If you can show it came from an area where you expected 800 C then that is useful in corroborating the model. If you can identify it as having come from someplace awqay from where you expected 800 C then your model has not predicted that and that has to be noted. If you have no idea where it was then you can't do either.
Yes I am missing exactly how the underground fires burned. However, coal mine fires have burned for decades in just as 'oxygen deprived' conditions. We agree on that Foxx. Now will you also admit that you are missing the same thing? Nah, all you have to do is throw stones at anything that does not call into existance exotic weaponry and culpability of the Bush administration.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Originally posted by YID In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires. WRONG - why would any investigator discard any steel "that had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact / pre-collapse fires" simply (in the unlikely event) that they could NOT be identified as to exact location within that zone? IF any steel columns from those areas had shown greater effect of fires than the Most Representative pieces the collectors could find from those areas, they would have been saved simply to determine the maximum temperature that the fire reached 'in the area' |
Because not knowing exactly where that steel was located would preclude its use in modelling the fire. You find a piece of steel that shows effects of being heated to 800 C but you don't know where it was. How do you then fit it into your computer model? You cannot. If you can show it came from an area where you expected 800 C then that is useful in corroborating the model. If you can identify it as having come from someplace awqay from where you expected 800 C then your model has not predicted that and that has to be noted. If you have no idea where it was then you can't do either.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Steel that was exposed to heat but not identifiable as having come from the fire floors would not be useful in proving any modelling of the fires and also with no proof they came from any floor with fires would call into question where they were heat damaged, pre or post collapse.. Any steel found underground and identified as having come from the fire floors would not be useful either since its heat damage could have occured post-collapse. Amazingly, the YID and I agree on this. The ONLY thing he seems to be missing is HOW the underground fires could possibly burn hotter than his imaginary raging inferno that was burning on the fire floors, fueled by jet-fuel and office contents in a much more fire-friendly environment (having obviously much more oxygen than post-collapse rubble compacted under tons of debris and dust). All engineers, have now agreed that the conditions on the fire floors were impossible to melt steel, so how could underground fires have much less oxygen accessibilty to cause 'rivers of molten metal' to be created post-collapse. Of course, we are STILL awaiting some kind of plausible answer for THIS from any of the gravity-driven collapse supporters, which attempts to address the list of related anomalous factors which both adoucette and YID have now refused to provide, after having been directly asked for such. |
Yes I am missing exactly how the underground fires burned. However, coal mine fires have burned for decades in just as 'oxygen deprived' conditions. We agree on that Foxx. Now will you also admit that you are missing the same thing? Nah, all you have to do is throw stones at anything that does not call into existance exotic weaponry and culpability of the Bush administration.
Heres the stupidity of what you're saying. Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president murdered 3000 New Yorkers and yet they do nothing about it but take polls... How fuccking moronic is that...
NIST was charged with several tasks including investigating if the steel used was the steel called for and whether or not that steel performed as it should have according to the specs for that steel.
Foxx calls NIST's investigation into these matters 'irrelevant'. No Foxx, it was part of their job!
Foxx calls NIST's investigation into these matters 'irrelevant'. No Foxx, it was part of their job!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 03:16 AM)
And for proper context on the Zogby poll...
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
I don't "want" New Yorkers to be dumb and it it totally boggles my mind that you would read that into my comments.
If you don't believe the Zogby polls, why don't you just say so? Not many people will agree with your "interpretations" of Zogby, but if you just say "I don't believe them", at least you don't have to say why. While your opponents on this board will also likely impute a self-serving motive to your disbelief, they will at least not be able to rake you over the coals with your unbelievable 'Zogby theories'.
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
I don't "want" New Yorkers to be dumb and it it totally boggles my mind that you would read that into my comments.
If you don't believe the Zogby polls, why don't you just say so? Not many people will agree with your "interpretations" of Zogby, but if you just say "I don't believe them", at least you don't have to say why. While your opponents on this board will also likely impute a self-serving motive to your disbelief, they will at least not be able to rake you over the coals with your unbelievable 'Zogby theories'.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 03:16 AM)
And for proper context on the Zogby poll...
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
I don't "want" New Yorkers to be dumb and it it totally boggles my mind that you would read that into my comments.
If you don't believe the Zogby polls, why don't you just say so? Not many people will agree with your "interpretations" of Zogby, but if you just say "I don't believe them", at least you don't have to say why. While your opponents on this board will also likely impute a self-serving motive to your disbelief, they will at least not be able to rake you over the coals with your unbelievable 'Zogby theories'.
If you don't believe I believe the Zoby poll but not your twisting of it why don't you read my last 3 posts. Better yet, why don't you commision a new poll which says "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center - yes/no"
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
I don't "want" New Yorkers to be dumb and it it totally boggles my mind that you would read that into my comments.
If you don't believe the Zogby polls, why don't you just say so? Not many people will agree with your "interpretations" of Zogby, but if you just say "I don't believe them", at least you don't have to say why. While your opponents on this board will also likely impute a self-serving motive to your disbelief, they will at least not be able to rake you over the coals with your unbelievable 'Zogby theories'.
If you don't believe I believe the Zoby poll but not your twisting of it why don't you read my last 3 posts. Better yet, why don't you commision a new poll which says "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center - yes/no"
Hi met, CS!
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:28 AM)
Heres the stupidity of what you're saying. Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president murdered 3000 New Yorkers and yet they do nothing about it but take polls... How fuccking moronic is that...
First off, the Zogby poll only spoke to LIHOP, not MIHOP, my previous muddled thinking notwithstanding.
So, the correct question is,
"Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president allowed the murder of 3000 New Yorkers to occur and yet they do nothing about it but take polls."
Not quite. Evidece was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
I am not capable of doing Eliot Spitzer's job, and neither are most other New Yorkers.
So, what exactly do you suggest that we "little people" do to right the wrongs of 911? If you have a good suggestion that your fellow New Yorkers haven't already thought of, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
No, rounding up a posse is not a viable option.
First off, the Zogby poll only spoke to LIHOP, not MIHOP, my previous muddled thinking notwithstanding.
So, the correct question is,
"Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president allowed the murder of 3000 New Yorkers to occur and yet they do nothing about it but take polls."
Not quite. Evidece was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
I am not capable of doing Eliot Spitzer's job, and neither are most other New Yorkers.
So, what exactly do you suggest that we "little people" do to right the wrongs of 911? If you have a good suggestion that your fellow New Yorkers haven't already thought of, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
No, rounding up a posse is not a viable option.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 04:58 AM)
Hi met, CS!
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
QUOTE (metemars+)
Evidece was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 04:58 AM)
Hi met, CS!
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
Thanks adoucette!
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
Thanks adoucette!
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:54 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:48 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:18 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:09 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 03:16 AM)
And for proper context on the Zogby poll...
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
I don't "want" New Yorkers to be dumb and it it totally boggles my mind that you would read that into my comments.
If you don't believe the Zogby polls, why don't you just say so? Not many people will agree with your "interpretations" of Zogby, but if you just say "I don't believe them", at least you don't have to say why. While your opponents on this board will also likely impute a self-serving motive to your disbelief, they will at least not be able to rake you over the coals with your unbelievable 'Zogby theories'.
If you don't believe I believe the Zoby poll but not your twisting of it why don't you read my last 3 posts. Better yet, why don't you commision a new poll which says "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center - yes/no"
Too simple. Bush could have been a LIHOP'er, but other entities in the US Government could have been MIHOP'ers.
The demolition of the WTC building proves MIHOP. That fact does not mean the President Bush was a MIHOP'er, or even, for that matter, a LIHOP'er.
His behavior during the attacks strongly suggests foreknowledge of the conspiracy, but I doubt that will ever get proven in court. For that matter, I don't think anything will get proven in court. That's because there's never going to be a trial that doesn't end up getting dismissed.
As Mike Ruppert has noted, "There is nowhere to take this (911 data) to"
This doesn't mean that it's the end of the story, however. When Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church, which was extremely corrupt in those days, he didn't try to prosecute the pope, or get him thrown in jail.
The Reformation that Martin Luther sparked was good for Christianity as a whole, and yes, good for the Catholic Church as well. Martin Luther's moral courage in speaking truth to power paved the way for a sea change in European history.
His 'work', understood in a universal sense, is not yet done.....
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
What could possibly be the outcome of a full investigation into what Bush knew and when he knew it? I am sure Rove would like you diverting attention from all the real problems.
Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11
Bin Laden 'chatter' since Clinton administration
May 16, 2002 Posted: 11:48 AM EDT (1548 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bush.sept.11/
That's why the zogby poll went the way it did and you know it.
And your point is?
If you're implying that these articles, which appeared about 2 years and 3 months before the poll*, had an effect on New Yorkers' which was transient, and has now disappeared (in part or in whole), a year and 5 months after the poll, on what basis should we take your assumption seriously? Do you think New Yorkers have now forgotten the PDB revelations? Do you think that after the 911 commission delivered it bogus report, that New Yorkers read it, contemplated it, and said to themselves "Oh, gee, we got President Bush all wrong. He was really "hard at work", trying to keep us safe from terrorism. We gave him a bum rap, but now we should send him flowers to say how sorry we are."?
What I know is that you have once again created not just a strawman, but a pathetic one. No, I don't know that Zogby's poll results are due to some transient effect that has now worn off, in such a way as to miraculously save your "argument".
Your argument is bad, and you should either drop it or modify it in such a way that it can actually convince anybody other than yourself and other "popes".
I can well imagine what you'll say if the next poll (should one be taken) shows what I expect it to show.** My guess is that you will "blame" the Loose Change video and even this thread for duping people.
* Your link reveals,
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
But, the officials said, there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
and is dated May 16, 2002. Note that the pro-Administration disclaimers are there, right from the second paragraph.
The Zogby poll was conducted from 8/24/04 to 8/26/04
** given the short attention span of the American public, it's conceivable that a future poll will show a drop in LIHOP believers. However, the whole issue of the Zogby poll came up because of your straw man argument that THE NYFD and THE NYPD were not calling for a reinvestigation. Even if other New Yorkers forget, the rank and file will remember for much longer.
New yorkers aren't as dumb as you want us to be. I REMEBER the August 6th PDB and I'm sure at least 50% know as well. So what are you saying? Something like the August 6th PDB isn't worth remember for New Yorkers who lost two New York icons because of the lack of action on it?
PLEASE!!! Give me a break...
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
I don't "want" New Yorkers to be dumb and it it totally boggles my mind that you would read that into my comments.
If you don't believe the Zogby polls, why don't you just say so? Not many people will agree with your "interpretations" of Zogby, but if you just say "I don't believe them", at least you don't have to say why. While your opponents on this board will also likely impute a self-serving motive to your disbelief, they will at least not be able to rake you over the coals with your unbelievable 'Zogby theories'.
If you don't believe I believe the Zoby poll but not your twisting of it why don't you read my last 3 posts. Better yet, why don't you commision a new poll which says "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center - yes/no"
Too simple. Bush could have been a LIHOP'er, but other entities in the US Government could have been MIHOP'ers.
The demolition of the WTC building proves MIHOP. That fact does not mean the President Bush was a MIHOP'er, or even, for that matter, a LIHOP'er.
His behavior during the attacks strongly suggests foreknowledge of the conspiracy, but I doubt that will ever get proven in court. For that matter, I don't think anything will get proven in court. That's because there's never going to be a trial that doesn't end up getting dismissed.
As Mike Ruppert has noted, "There is nowhere to take this (911 data) to"
This doesn't mean that it's the end of the story, however. When Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church, which was extremely corrupt in those days, he didn't try to prosecute the pope, or get him thrown in jail.
The Reformation that Martin Luther sparked was good for Christianity as a whole, and yes, good for the Catholic Church as well. Martin Luther's moral courage in speaking truth to power paved the way for a sea change in European history.
His 'work', understood in a universal sense, is not yet done.....
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:18 AM)
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
What could possibly be the outcome of a full investigation into what Bush knew and when he knew it? I am sure Rove would like you diverting attention from all the real problems.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 05:09 AM)
QUOTE (metemars+)
Evidence was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
Petition starts at: http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
I'd also get all firemen and policemen who worked at ground zero to give statements.
For that matter, I'd also ascertain that the steel which was supposed to be shipped to China and India was actually shipped there. To go to so much trouble to get evidence out of the country, only to put it in the hands of strangers, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's the possibility of blackmail.
If the steel did make it there, I'd check to see if any "souvenirs" were kept.
Hopsicker's stories could also be investigated. Etc., etc.,
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
Petition starts at: http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
I'd also get all firemen and policemen who worked at ground zero to give statements.
For that matter, I'd also ascertain that the steel which was supposed to be shipped to China and India was actually shipped there. To go to so much trouble to get evidence out of the country, only to put it in the hands of strangers, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's the possibility of blackmail.
If the steel did make it there, I'd check to see if any "souvenirs" were kept.
Hopsicker's stories could also be investigated. Etc., etc.,
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 04:59 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:28 AM)
Heres the stupidity of what you're saying. Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president murdered 3000 New Yorkers and yet they do nothing about it but take polls... How fuccking moronic is that...
First off, the Zogby poll only spoke to LIHOP, not MIHOP, my previous muddled thinking notwithstanding.
So, the correct question is,
"Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president allowed the murder of 3000 New Yorkers to occur and yet they do nothing about it but take polls."
Not quite. Evidece was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
I am not capable of doing Eliot Spitzer's job, and neither are most other New Yorkers.
So, what exactly do you suggest that we "little people" do to right the wrongs of 911? If you have a good suggestion that your fellow New Yorkers haven't already thought of, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
No, rounding up a posse is not a viable option.
More smoke and mirrors, The CT community creates a petition and the online activists sign up. You know how many petitions I've signed to investigate Bush's actions prior to 9/11 and after? I can't even count.
I know EXACTLY how it works. You post a link on sites which hold the same views like Randi Rhodes and Mick Malloy's or the CT sites and people from all over sign it, not just NYers. The fact that YOU say you signed it is proof. You said you live in NJ... It hardly can be taken seriously. I would bet most people didn't even read the whole thing. Or if they did they didn't know enough about the issue to make an informed choice. You're not going to tell me the majority of NYers read CT sites are you? Nor are you going to tell me the building 7 "Pulled" issue is well known among NYers. BS. Most NYers read the main stream press and watch CNN or Fox. Yet the "Pulled" issue is in the petition... It's pure BS.
But again, there are things I want investigated in that petition which are spelled out...
APPENDIX B3
INDICATORS OF
FOREKNOWLEDGE
Other indicators of advance preparation for the 9/11 scenario and circulation of attack details in advance among circles beyond the purported Bin Ladin network.
(The "B"-Series is in development. Please see Updates.)
For now we are working through the following material:
Prior Knowledge and Imagination - Notes
Who knew, what did they know, what did they do about it? How did so many governments and individuals develop information indicating hijackings and aerial attacks on New York and DC in September? According to a variety of reports, Jordan provided the correct name of the 9/11 operation (Big Wedding), Israel provided names of several of the alleged hijackers, and the Russian president says he warned suicide pilots were training for an attack in the U.S. How does this square with the official FBI account, in which a perfectly secretive, insulated terror cell of 19 men left as good as no clues before they struck? What were the original sources for the many advance warnings to the U.S. government? And how can anyone claim they couldn't have even imagined the method of attack?
• Summary of warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, converging on Sept. 11 by Paul Thompson
• Bush, Rice and the Genoa Warning: Documenting a demonstrable falsehood
• Timeline of prior knowledge reports
• Mass Casualty exercise simulates aircrash into Pentagon, military reports (Oct 2000)
• NORAD plans to rehearse Pentagon crash scenario considered in April 2001, rejected as "too unrealistic," postponed until...?
• Ashcroft stops flying commercial (June 2001)
• Mayor Brown of San Francisco warned not to fly to New York on Sept. 11
• Newsweek reports Pentagon brass received 9/10 warning, cancelled 9/11 travel plans
• Odigo employees near WTC receive instant message warning two hours before attacks
• On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of Plane Crashing Into Building
• Sen. Hatch inadvertantly reveals that Bin Laden communications are monitored (Chicago Tribune, Sep 14)
• Former Clinton impeachment attorney David Schippers claims prior knowledge of 9/11
• "Warning Signs of 9/11" by Nafeez Ahmed, Chapter 4 of The War on Freedom
• FAA agent wrote May 2001 letter to Sen. Kerry warning Logan Airport ripe for multiple-hijacking "jihad" scenario
This is FAR different than investigating whether Bush blew up the towers. Now if in the course of the investigation they uncover some evidence he planed it then so be it. But this petition means nothing to the "Bush blew up the towers" issue for the reasons given.
First off, the Zogby poll only spoke to LIHOP, not MIHOP, my previous muddled thinking notwithstanding.
So, the correct question is,
"Your saying 50% of the people in NY think the president allowed the murder of 3000 New Yorkers to occur and yet they do nothing about it but take polls."
Not quite. Evidece was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
I am not capable of doing Eliot Spitzer's job, and neither are most other New Yorkers.
So, what exactly do you suggest that we "little people" do to right the wrongs of 911? If you have a good suggestion that your fellow New Yorkers haven't already thought of, I'm sure they'd like to hear it.
No, rounding up a posse is not a viable option.
More smoke and mirrors, The CT community creates a petition and the online activists sign up. You know how many petitions I've signed to investigate Bush's actions prior to 9/11 and after? I can't even count.
I know EXACTLY how it works. You post a link on sites which hold the same views like Randi Rhodes and Mick Malloy's or the CT sites and people from all over sign it, not just NYers. The fact that YOU say you signed it is proof. You said you live in NJ... It hardly can be taken seriously. I would bet most people didn't even read the whole thing. Or if they did they didn't know enough about the issue to make an informed choice. You're not going to tell me the majority of NYers read CT sites are you? Nor are you going to tell me the building 7 "Pulled" issue is well known among NYers. BS. Most NYers read the main stream press and watch CNN or Fox. Yet the "Pulled" issue is in the petition... It's pure BS.
But again, there are things I want investigated in that petition which are spelled out...
APPENDIX B3
INDICATORS OF
FOREKNOWLEDGE
Other indicators of advance preparation for the 9/11 scenario and circulation of attack details in advance among circles beyond the purported Bin Ladin network.
(The "B"-Series is in development. Please see Updates.)
For now we are working through the following material:
Prior Knowledge and Imagination - Notes
Who knew, what did they know, what did they do about it? How did so many governments and individuals develop information indicating hijackings and aerial attacks on New York and DC in September? According to a variety of reports, Jordan provided the correct name of the 9/11 operation (Big Wedding), Israel provided names of several of the alleged hijackers, and the Russian president says he warned suicide pilots were training for an attack in the U.S. How does this square with the official FBI account, in which a perfectly secretive, insulated terror cell of 19 men left as good as no clues before they struck? What were the original sources for the many advance warnings to the U.S. government? And how can anyone claim they couldn't have even imagined the method of attack?
• Summary of warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, converging on Sept. 11 by Paul Thompson
• Bush, Rice and the Genoa Warning: Documenting a demonstrable falsehood
• Timeline of prior knowledge reports
• Mass Casualty exercise simulates aircrash into Pentagon, military reports (Oct 2000)
• NORAD plans to rehearse Pentagon crash scenario considered in April 2001, rejected as "too unrealistic," postponed until...?
• Ashcroft stops flying commercial (June 2001)
• Mayor Brown of San Francisco warned not to fly to New York on Sept. 11
• Newsweek reports Pentagon brass received 9/10 warning, cancelled 9/11 travel plans
• Odigo employees near WTC receive instant message warning two hours before attacks
• On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of Plane Crashing Into Building
• Sen. Hatch inadvertantly reveals that Bin Laden communications are monitored (Chicago Tribune, Sep 14)
• Former Clinton impeachment attorney David Schippers claims prior knowledge of 9/11
• "Warning Signs of 9/11" by Nafeez Ahmed, Chapter 4 of The War on Freedom
• FAA agent wrote May 2001 letter to Sen. Kerry warning Logan Airport ripe for multiple-hijacking "jihad" scenario
This is FAR different than investigating whether Bush blew up the towers. Now if in the course of the investigation they uncover some evidence he planed it then so be it. But this petition means nothing to the "Bush blew up the towers" issue for the reasons given.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 05:09 AM)
QUOTE (metemars+)
Evidence was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
Petition starts at: http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
I'd also get all firemen and policemen who worked at ground zero to give statements.
For that matter, I'd also ascertain that the steel which was supposed to be shipped to China and India was actually shipped there. To go to so much trouble to get evidence out of the country, only to put it in the hands of strangers, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's the possibility of blackmail.
If the steel did make it there, I'd check to see if any "souvenirs" were kept.
Hopsicker's stories could also be investigated. Etc., etc.,
There you go lying again, I already proved to you the feds had NOTHING to do with the sale of steel yet you parrot it ad nauseum.
Imagine that? People saw a way to make millions off the sale of steel and sold it. PATAKI is involved in the mass murder and cover up of 3000 people because he gave Steel for the USS New York that was under construction. The residents of Fish Kills are in on the mass murder of 3000 people because they were pushing the local government to close the landfill after NY reopened it. The scrap yards were selling steel to make those 9/11 medallions, remember those? In fact that's what the fireman were angry about. They weren't mad at the feds for selling it. They were mad at the city and state. The Mayor told the scrap yards not to sell the steel.
There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own.
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
What could possibly be the outcome of a full investigation into what Bush knew and when he knew it? I am sure Rove would like you diverting attention from all the real problems.
Because theirs evidence he knew something but did nothing. Maybe he didn't know the exact time and day. Maybe he knew the whole thing but let it happen. I never said he couldn't have. What I say is stupid is saying he blew up the WTC without a shred of evidence. What's stupid is claiming an incredibly large conspiracy by the NIST and other large organisations which have nothing to do with Bush.
What could he have done? At bear minimum he could have ordered reinforced cabin doors. Ideally he could have secretly put air marshals in the air and "Shook the trees" as Clinton did. He needs to be held accountable for negligent homicide. If he did know everything about it he needs to go to jail and spend time with bubba the lubba.
Those ARE the real problems. Unlike the mini-nuke, elevator cannon theory.
Answer by Foxx
Answer by Foxx
WRONG - why would any investigator discard any steel "that had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact / pre-collapse fires" simply (in the unlikely event) that they could NOT be identified as to exact location within that zone? IF any steel columns from those areas had shown greater effect of fires than the Most Representative pieces the collectors could find from those areas, they would have been saved simply to determine the maximum temperature that the fire reached 'in the area'
Yid Response:
Exactly my point. IF there were pieces that showed evidence of high fire temps...then theoretically (according to the gravity-driven collapse theory) they MUST have come from the fire/impact zone. Even if you could not determine the precise location you would still 'know' that they had come from the fire/impact zone, and the maximum temperatures reached in that zone would be able to be determined through actual physical forensic evidence. As it stands, there IS ABSOLUTELY NO physical or forensic evidence that the existent fires were above 250 deg C.
Although certain pieces that the collectors found have exhibited very high temperatures (as in the euctectic reactions samples), suddenly this fact does NOT fit the official story either... so they hide and throw away that forensic evidence.
As I have previously explained there are laws AGAINST tampering with, or DESTROYING forensic evidence... and NIST is Clearly guilty of such behaviour.
Exactly my point. IF there were pieces that showed evidence of high fire temps...then theoretically (according to the gravity-driven collapse theory) they MUST have come from the fire/impact zone. Even if you could not determine the precise location you would still 'know' that they had come from the fire/impact zone, and the maximum temperatures reached in that zone would be able to be determined through actual physical forensic evidence. As it stands, there IS ABSOLUTELY NO physical or forensic evidence that the existent fires were above 250 deg C.
Although certain pieces that the collectors found have exhibited very high temperatures (as in the euctectic reactions samples), suddenly this fact does NOT fit the official story either... so they hide and throw away that forensic evidence.
As I have previously explained there are laws AGAINST tampering with, or DESTROYING forensic evidence... and NIST is Clearly guilty of such behaviour.
by YID
If you can identify it as having come from someplace away from where you expected 800 C then your model has not predicted that and that has to be noted. If you have no idea where it was then you can't do either.
All columns were clearly marked and identifiable through stampings and stenciled markings. Even had 'fire' wiped out the stenciled markings, it would not have destroyed the stamped markings.
Originally posted by YID :
Steel that was exposed to heat but not identifiable as having come from the fire floors would not be useful in proving any modelling of the fires and also with no proof they came from any floor with fires would call into question where they were heat damaged, pre or post collapse.. Any steel found underground and identified as having come from the fire floors would not be useful either since its heat damage could have occured post-collapse.
Reply by Foxx :
Reply by YID :
Yes I am missing exactly how the underground fires burned.
Reply by Foxx:
Finally, a confession... we are making progress.
Reply by YID :
However, coal mine fires have burned for decades in just as 'oxygen deprived' conditions. We agree on that Foxx.
Reply by Foxx:
When you can show evidence of coal burning below the WTC let me know. Otherwise the fact that coal mine fires burn in less than ideal conditions is completely irrelevant. Rocket fuel burns in outer space with absolutely no oxygen available (except that contained within the fuel itself).
Rocket fuel is actually a more plausible and likely explaination for the underground fires at WTC because we know for a fact that the office rubble (which hadn't been converted into talcum powder sized dust during the fall) certainly DIDN'T turn into coal.
Reply by YID :
Now will you also admit that you are missing the same thing?
Reply by Foxx:
I admit that I have no specific evidence to prove exactly what the fuel WAS, which was burning in oxygen-starved conditions beneath the rubble and caused steel to flow in rivers of molten metal.
However, I do know for a fact that neither office rubble nor hydrocarbon fires (apart from the input of forced high-oxygen air from a bellows-effect) Can NOT reach temperatures sufficient to forge or melt steel.
As hydrocarbons and office rubble are the ONLY two plausible sources of fuel available (under the gravity-driven collapse theory)... then I must plausibly conclude that whatever fueled the underground fires did NOT originate from a gravity-driven collapse scenario.
Reply by YID :
Nah, all you have to do is throw stones at anything that does not call into existance exotic weaponry and culpability of the Bush administration.
Reply by Foxx:
What other alternatives exist?
PS - I don't say the BUSH administration is directly culpable for causing the underground fires.
Reply by YID :
NIST was charged with several tasks including investigating if the steel used was the steel called for and whether or not that steel performed as it should have according to the specs for that steel.
Foxx calls NIST's investigation into these matters 'irrelevant'. No Foxx, it was part of their job!
Reply by Foxx:
I did not say that investigation of the materials strengths, and mechanical properties of WTC was irrelevant... ONLY that these properties were 'irrelevant to the causes of the initiation of collapse (and even moreso with regard to complete GLOBAL collapse). This has been proven by the NIST investigation itself which concluded there "was NOTHING wrong with the mechanical and physical properties of the steel which could have been contributory to the 'collapse'."
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
Petition starts at: http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
I'd also get all firemen and policemen who worked at ground zero to give statements.
For that matter, I'd also ascertain that the steel which was supposed to be shipped to China and India was actually shipped there. To go to so much trouble to get evidence out of the country, only to put it in the hands of strangers, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's the possibility of blackmail.
If the steel did make it there, I'd check to see if any "souvenirs" were kept.
Hopsicker's stories could also be investigated. Etc., etc.,
There you go lying again, I already proved to you the feds had NOTHING to do with the sale of steel yet you parrot it ad nauseum.
Imagine that? People saw a way to make millions off the sale of steel and sold it. PATAKI is involved in the mass murder and cover up of 3000 people because he gave Steel for the USS New York that was under construction. The residents of Fish Kills are in on the mass murder of 3000 people because they were pushing the local government to close the landfill after NY reopened it. The scrap yards were selling steel to make those 9/11 medallions, remember those? In fact that's what the fireman were angry about. They weren't mad at the feds for selling it. They were mad at the city and state. The Mayor told the scrap yards not to sell the steel.
There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own.
Having lost all credibility and arguments the Schneibster resorts now to spamming techniques under the pen-name of CS who has even less credibilty and more open vitriolic assaults, allegations and insults to spew. Do not be fooled by CS's assertions that he is from NY. Schneibster is actually in the pacific northwest.
There is so much spam from this looney-toons character, I'm probably skimming past relevant posts. They are getting harder to find... but that's the purpose isn't it Schneiby.
metamars, with all due respect... you are wasting your time feeding this troll, and believe me he is quite enjoying his new role as the 'worlds greatest spammer' (in his own mind).
There is so much spam from this looney-toons character, I'm probably skimming past relevant posts. They are getting harder to find... but that's the purpose isn't it Schneiby.
metamars, with all due respect... you are wasting your time feeding this troll, and believe me he is quite enjoying his new role as the 'worlds greatest spammer' (in his own mind).
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 15 2006, 05:15 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 04:18 AM)
The fact is everyone wants an investigation on what Bush knew and when did he know it. Why don't you prove me wrong and commission a zobby poll which couldn't be misunderstood. "Did Bush blow up the World Trade Center"... Point blank. Why play games if you're so sure? I know why. Because you're full of shiit.
What could possibly be the outcome of a full investigation into what Bush knew and when he knew it? I am sure Rove would like you diverting attention from all the real problems.
Because theirs evidence he knew something but did nothing. Maybe he didn't know the exact time and day. Maybe he knew the whole thing but let it happen. I never said he couldn't have. What I say is stupid is saying he blew up the WTC without a shred of evidence. What's stupid is claiming an incredibly large conspiracy by the NIST and other large organisations which have nothing to do with Bush.
What could he have done? At bear minimum he could have ordered reinforced cabin doors. Ideally he could have secretly put air marshals in the air and "Shook the trees" as Clinton did. He needs to be held accountable for negligent homicide. If he did know everything about it he needs to go to jail and spend time with bubba the lubba.
Those ARE the real problems. Unlike the mini-nuke, elevator cannon theory.
Gordon’s explanation puts to rest the Pancake theory and the entire mass of one floor falling on another:
If the Bolts and welds fail, the load would not transfer to the other end as Shnobster implies. The other end would only become a pivot. This makes the Pancake theory impossible. The floor could not fall symmetrically. That is so obvious when you think about it.
With shnobsters analysis, if you have a bookshelf with supports at both ends .You remove one support, the load doubles at the other end causing the support to fail then the shelf falls (or remains in place if the support is strong enough ).
QUOTE
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end;
(gordon) -------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
(gordon) -------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down.
(gordon) ------With the chords still connected at one end, and it being likely that the unconnected ends would be grouped in the areas of highest temperature, and thus be either on the perimeter columns, or on the core columns, rather than a random mix, the floor would pivot about the remaining connections and only one end would impact the lower floor. .
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support, .
(gordon) ----That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
(gordon) -------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
(gordon) -------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down.
(gordon) ------With the chords still connected at one end, and it being likely that the unconnected ends would be grouped in the areas of highest temperature, and thus be either on the perimeter columns, or on the core columns, rather than a random mix, the floor would pivot about the remaining connections and only one end would impact the lower floor. .
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support, .
(gordon) ----That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
If the Bolts and welds fail, the load would not transfer to the other end as Shnobster implies. The other end would only become a pivot. This makes the Pancake theory impossible. The floor could not fall symmetrically. That is so obvious when you think about it.
With shnobsters analysis, if you have a bookshelf with supports at both ends .You remove one support, the load doubles at the other end causing the support to fail then the shelf falls (or remains in place if the support is strong enough ).
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 15 2006, 07:22 AM)
Gordon’s explanation puts to rest the Pancake theory and the entire mass of one floor falling on another:
If the Bolts and welds failed, the load would not transfer to the other end as Shnobster implies. The other end would only become a pivot. This makes the Pancake theory impossible. The floor could not fall symmetrically. That is so obvious when you think about it; must be why the shills are panicking.
With shnobsters analysis, if you have a bookshelf with supports at both ends .You remove one support, the load doubles at the other end causing the support to fail then the shelf falls (or remains in place if the support is strong enough ). I would hate to see something shnobster designed.
We put the pancaking issue to rest with photographic evidence. The core stood for seconds after the rest was on the ground. Like this...
So how could the core stand if the rest didn't pancake around it? reasonlie physics I guess...
QUOTE
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end;
(gordon) -------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
(gordon) -------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down.
(gordon) ------With the chords still connected at one end, and it being likely that the unconnected ends would be grouped in the areas of highest temperature, and thus be either on the perimeter columns, or on the core columns, rather than a random mix, the floor would pivot about the remaining connections and only one end would impact the lower floor. .
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support, .
(gordon) ----That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
(gordon) -------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
(gordon) -------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down.
(gordon) ------With the chords still connected at one end, and it being likely that the unconnected ends would be grouped in the areas of highest temperature, and thus be either on the perimeter columns, or on the core columns, rather than a random mix, the floor would pivot about the remaining connections and only one end would impact the lower floor. .
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support, .
(gordon) ----That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
If the Bolts and welds failed, the load would not transfer to the other end as Shnobster implies. The other end would only become a pivot. This makes the Pancake theory impossible. The floor could not fall symmetrically. That is so obvious when you think about it; must be why the shills are panicking.
With shnobsters analysis, if you have a bookshelf with supports at both ends .You remove one support, the load doubles at the other end causing the support to fail then the shelf falls (or remains in place if the support is strong enough ). I would hate to see something shnobster designed.
We put the pancaking issue to rest with photographic evidence. The core stood for seconds after the rest was on the ground. Like this...
So how could the core stand if the rest didn't pancake around it? reasonlie physics I guess...
QUOTE
Originally posted by YID
In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires.
In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires.
Answer by Foxx
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by YID In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires. |
Answer by Foxx
WRONG - why would any investigator discard any steel "that had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact / pre-collapse fires" simply (in the unlikely event) that they could NOT be identified as to exact location within that zone? IF any steel columns from those areas had shown greater effect of fires than the Most Representative pieces the collectors could find from those areas, they would have been saved simply to determine the maximum temperature that the fire reached 'in the area'
Yid Response:
QUOTE
Because not knowing exactly where that steel was located would preclude its use in modelling the fire. You find a piece of steel that shows effects of being heated to 800 C but you don't know where it was. How do you then fit it into your computer model? You cannot.
If you can show it came from an area where you expected 800 C then that is useful in corroborating the model.
If you can show it came from an area where you expected 800 C then that is useful in corroborating the model.
Exactly my point. IF there were pieces that showed evidence of high fire temps...then theoretically (according to the gravity-driven collapse theory) they MUST have come from the fire/impact zone. Even if you could not determine the precise location you would still 'know' that they had come from the fire/impact zone, and the maximum temperatures reached in that zone would be able to be determined through actual physical forensic evidence. As it stands, there IS ABSOLUTELY NO physical or forensic evidence that the existent fires were above 250 deg C.
Although certain pieces that the collectors found have exhibited very high temperatures (as in the euctectic reactions samples), suddenly this fact does NOT fit the official story either... so they hide and throw away that forensic evidence.
As I have previously explained there are laws AGAINST tampering with, or DESTROYING forensic evidence... and NIST is Clearly guilty of such behaviour.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because not knowing exactly where that steel was located would preclude its use in modelling the fire. You find a piece of steel that shows effects of being heated to 800 C but you don't know where it was. How do you then fit it into your computer model? You cannot. If you can show it came from an area where you expected 800 C then that is useful in corroborating the model. |
Exactly my point. IF there were pieces that showed evidence of high fire temps...then theoretically (according to the gravity-driven collapse theory) they MUST have come from the fire/impact zone. Even if you could not determine the precise location you would still 'know' that they had come from the fire/impact zone, and the maximum temperatures reached in that zone would be able to be determined through actual physical forensic evidence. As it stands, there IS ABSOLUTELY NO physical or forensic evidence that the existent fires were above 250 deg C.
Although certain pieces that the collectors found have exhibited very high temperatures (as in the euctectic reactions samples), suddenly this fact does NOT fit the official story either... so they hide and throw away that forensic evidence.
As I have previously explained there are laws AGAINST tampering with, or DESTROYING forensic evidence... and NIST is Clearly guilty of such behaviour.
by YID
If you can identify it as having come from someplace away from where you expected 800 C then your model has not predicted that and that has to be noted. If you have no idea where it was then you can't do either.
All columns were clearly marked and identifiable through stampings and stenciled markings. Even had 'fire' wiped out the stenciled markings, it would not have destroyed the stamped markings.
Originally posted by YID :
Steel that was exposed to heat but not identifiable as having come from the fire floors would not be useful in proving any modelling of the fires and also with no proof they came from any floor with fires would call into question where they were heat damaged, pre or post collapse.. Any steel found underground and identified as having come from the fire floors would not be useful either since its heat damage could have occured post-collapse.
Reply by Foxx :
QUOTE
Amazingly, the YID and I agree on this. The ONLY thing he seems to be missing is HOW the underground fires could possibly burn hotter than his imaginary raging inferno that was burning on the fire floors, fueled by jet-fuel and office contents in a much more fire-friendly environment (having obviously much more oxygen than post-collapse rubble compacted under tons of debris and dust).
All engineers, have now agreed that the conditions on the fire floors were impossible to melt steel, so how could underground fires have much less oxygen accessibilty to cause 'rivers of molten metal' to be created post-collapse.
Of course, we are STILL awaiting some kind of plausible answer for THIS from any of the gravity-driven collapse supporters, which attempts to address the list of related anomalous factors which both adoucette and YID have now refused to provide, after having been directly asked for such.
All engineers, have now agreed that the conditions on the fire floors were impossible to melt steel, so how could underground fires have much less oxygen accessibilty to cause 'rivers of molten metal' to be created post-collapse.
Of course, we are STILL awaiting some kind of plausible answer for THIS from any of the gravity-driven collapse supporters, which attempts to address the list of related anomalous factors which both adoucette and YID have now refused to provide, after having been directly asked for such.
Reply by YID :
Yes I am missing exactly how the underground fires burned.
Reply by Foxx:
Finally, a confession... we are making progress.
Reply by YID :
However, coal mine fires have burned for decades in just as 'oxygen deprived' conditions. We agree on that Foxx.
Reply by Foxx:
When you can show evidence of coal burning below the WTC let me know. Otherwise the fact that coal mine fires burn in less than ideal conditions is completely irrelevant. Rocket fuel burns in outer space with absolutely no oxygen available (except that contained within the fuel itself).
Rocket fuel is actually a more plausible and likely explaination for the underground fires at WTC because we know for a fact that the office rubble (which hadn't been converted into talcum powder sized dust during the fall) certainly DIDN'T turn into coal.
Reply by YID :
Now will you also admit that you are missing the same thing?
Reply by Foxx:
I admit that I have no specific evidence to prove exactly what the fuel WAS, which was burning in oxygen-starved conditions beneath the rubble and caused steel to flow in rivers of molten metal.
However, I do know for a fact that neither office rubble nor hydrocarbon fires (apart from the input of forced high-oxygen air from a bellows-effect) Can NOT reach temperatures sufficient to forge or melt steel.
As hydrocarbons and office rubble are the ONLY two plausible sources of fuel available (under the gravity-driven collapse theory)... then I must plausibly conclude that whatever fueled the underground fires did NOT originate from a gravity-driven collapse scenario.
Reply by YID :
Nah, all you have to do is throw stones at anything that does not call into existance exotic weaponry and culpability of the Bush administration.
Reply by Foxx:
What other alternatives exist?
PS - I don't say the BUSH administration is directly culpable for causing the underground fires.
Reply by YID :
NIST was charged with several tasks including investigating if the steel used was the steel called for and whether or not that steel performed as it should have according to the specs for that steel.
Foxx calls NIST's investigation into these matters 'irrelevant'. No Foxx, it was part of their job!
Reply by Foxx:
I did not say that investigation of the materials strengths, and mechanical properties of WTC was irrelevant... ONLY that these properties were 'irrelevant to the causes of the initiation of collapse (and even moreso with regard to complete GLOBAL collapse). This has been proven by the NIST investigation itself which concluded there "was NOTHING wrong with the mechanical and physical properties of the steel which could have been contributory to the 'collapse'."
Hi all,
I'm examining this again at the following link under new theories:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418
I have been looking at the energy requirements to create 30 micron dust particles and the energy required would be equal to 2-4 months of power created by a power station, in the time it took the WTC to collapse...
Come across, as I would really like to hear from people with solid knowledge of practical physics...
I'm examining this again at the following link under new theories:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4418
I have been looking at the energy requirements to create 30 micron dust particles and the energy required would be equal to 2-4 months of power created by a power station, in the time it took the WTC to collapse...
Come across, as I would really like to hear from people with solid knowledge of practical physics...
Newtonian physics cannot explain the WTC collapse.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 15 2006, 06:48 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 05:48 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 05:09 AM)
QUOTE (metemars+)
Evidence was presented to NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and there's an online petition where people asked Spitzer to prosecute the 911 crimes. I 'signed' the petition myself.
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
Petition starts at: http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
I'd also get all firemen and policemen who worked at ground zero to give statements.
For that matter, I'd also ascertain that the steel which was supposed to be shipped to China and India was actually shipped there. To go to so much trouble to get evidence out of the country, only to put it in the hands of strangers, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's the possibility of blackmail.
If the steel did make it there, I'd check to see if any "souvenirs" were kept.
Hopsicker's stories could also be investigated. Etc., etc.,
There you go lying again, I already proved to you the feds had NOTHING to do with the sale of steel yet you parrot it ad nauseum.
Imagine that? People saw a way to make millions off the sale of steel and sold it. PATAKI is involved in the mass murder and cover up of 3000 people because he gave Steel for the USS New York that was under construction. The residents of Fish Kills are in on the mass murder of 3000 people because they were pushing the local government to close the landfill after NY reopened it. The scrap yards were selling steel to make those 9/11 medallions, remember those? In fact that's what the fireman were angry about. They weren't mad at the feds for selling it. They were mad at the city and state. The Mayor told the scrap yards not to sell the steel.
There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own.
Wow! You're knocking down straw men LEFT and RIGHT! Perhaps you should change your handle to "Straw Men DESTROYER". "Common Sense" is obviously inappropriate.
Where do I say that "the Feds" "sold the steel"? The WTC buildings were certainly not owned by "the Feds", but the evidence for demolition is overwhelming. And furthermore, the destruction of the spire clearly points to some kind of destructive power not known to the public at large, but almost certainly known by DOD.
Or are you now going to accuse me of being a liar because you are going to claim that I claim that Silverstein and his group of private investors must be "feds"? Can you not wrap your mind around the concept that both overt and covert elements of the US Government could work hand in hand with private enterprises? It's really not only a terribly simple concept, but a factual one, also.
And, in fact, common knowledge.
Are you even capable of posting for more than 3 sentences without a straw man argument?
Seriously, Arthur. Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with ?
On second thoughts, maybe it is.
Seriously, Arthur. Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with ?
On second thoughts, maybe it is.
No F-P, the counter argument was the FIRST Sentence.
But you knew that.
The real story is how Foxx just skipped over this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Arthur
Firstly, the sequence of events that led to the death of 3000 innocent people in NYC on 9-11-2001 has never been explained.
The government is legally accountable for it's actions (or lack of).
No-one in the world has been charged in direct connection to 9-11.
Seriously, Arthur. Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with ?
On second thoughts, maybe it is.
No F-P, the counter argument was the FIRST Sentence.
But you knew that.
The real story is how Foxx just skipped over this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Arthur
The real story is how Foxx just skipped over this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Wow...that's a real 'outer' adoucette I guess in your mind you thought that was devastating logic?
Quite honestly, I thought you had drifted so far off the topic in desperation that you forgot the original topic.
The difference between whether the SEAoNY was a volunteer effort and their association with the BPS, with my original loose statement that the collection effort was done under the auspices of FEMA, in conjunction with the ASCE and NIST was so frivolous that I saw nothing in that post worthy of comment.
I don't need to respond to your parroting of the SChneibsters allegations that everyone (besides himself) lies. Any reader can decide for themselves whether I am a liar. Personally, I think only people who are seriously losing arguments and becoming seriously frustrated resort to such allegations, and sorry I don't intend to get into the following arguement...
Detractor Foxx is a LIAR
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Detractor Foxx is a LIAR
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Although, I'm quite sure you would prefer to degerate into that arguement, rather than try to address some of my/our irrefutable points.
Amazing Bellows, my donkey!
Firstly, the causes that led to the death of 3000 innocent people in NYC on 9-11-2001 has never been explained.
The government is legally accountable for it's actions (or lack of).
No-one in the world has been charged in direct connection to 9-11.
A ) Yes it has, maybe you missed it. But 19 hijackers commandeered 4 commercial jets running them into the towers and the pentagon.
B ) True - See 9-11 commission report.
c ) Not exactly true, but why quibble. I do believe the military prefers to deal with the supporters and planners in their own way. International Terrorism can't be dealt with in the context of US criminal trials. They are for a CIVILIZED society, where the rules of law and evidence prevail. Terrorists don't live in a civilized world, nor obey its rules, so the same rules don't apply.
Arthur
Wow...that's a real 'outer' adoucette I guess in your mind you thought that was devastating logic?
Quite honestly, I thought you had drifted so far off the topic in desperation that you forgot the original topic.
The difference between whether the SEAoNY was a volunteer effort and their association with the BPS, with my original loose statement that the collection effort was done under the auspices of FEMA, in conjunction with the ASCE and NIST was so frivolous that I saw nothing in that post worthy of comment.
I don't need to respond to your parroting of the SChneibsters allegations that everyone (besides himself) lies. Any reader can decide for themselves whether I am a liar.
Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues?
NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER?
NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT.
He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD.
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
Until then, once again I encourage people to read this post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
follow the links to the NIST documents (its a short one, even Metemars can read it, its only 13 pages) and see how Foxx has PURPOSEFULLY distorted the TRUTH.
Arthur
What EVIDENCE was presented?????
Since NONE has been presented in over 200 pages in this thread.
NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM.
Well, there is Silverstein admitting to the world that he "pulled" his building.
Signed it yourself did you, wow!
Ah, any chance you have a link for this online petition.
Arthur
Petition starts at: http://www.justicefor911.org/signatures.php
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
I'd also get all firemen and policemen who worked at ground zero to give statements.
For that matter, I'd also ascertain that the steel which was supposed to be shipped to China and India was actually shipped there. To go to so much trouble to get evidence out of the country, only to put it in the hands of strangers, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There's the possibility of blackmail.
If the steel did make it there, I'd check to see if any "souvenirs" were kept.
Hopsicker's stories could also be investigated. Etc., etc.,
There you go lying again, I already proved to you the feds had NOTHING to do with the sale of steel yet you parrot it ad nauseum.
Imagine that? People saw a way to make millions off the sale of steel and sold it. PATAKI is involved in the mass murder and cover up of 3000 people because he gave Steel for the USS New York that was under construction. The residents of Fish Kills are in on the mass murder of 3000 people because they were pushing the local government to close the landfill after NY reopened it. The scrap yards were selling steel to make those 9/11 medallions, remember those? In fact that's what the fireman were angry about. They weren't mad at the feds for selling it. They were mad at the city and state. The Mayor told the scrap yards not to sell the steel.
There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own.
Wow! You're knocking down straw men LEFT and RIGHT! Perhaps you should change your handle to "Straw Men DESTROYER". "Common Sense" is obviously inappropriate.
Where do I say that "the Feds" "sold the steel"? The WTC buildings were certainly not owned by "the Feds", but the evidence for demolition is overwhelming. And furthermore, the destruction of the spire clearly points to some kind of destructive power not known to the public at large, but almost certainly known by DOD.
Or are you now going to accuse me of being a liar because you are going to claim that I claim that Silverstein and his group of private investors must be "feds"? Can you not wrap your mind around the concept that both overt and covert elements of the US Government could work hand in hand with private enterprises? It's really not only a terribly simple concept, but a factual one, also.
And, in fact, common knowledge.
Are you even capable of posting for more than 3 sentences without a straw man argument?
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 15 2006, 07:08 AM)
Having lost all credibility and arguments the Schneibster resorts now to spamming techniques under the pen-name of CS who has even less credibilty and more open vitriolic assaults, allegations and insults to spew. Do not be fooled by CS's assertions that he is from NY. Schneibster is actually in the pacific northwest.
There is so much spam from this looney-toons character, I'm probably skimming past relevant posts. They are getting harder to find... but that's the purpose isn't it Schneiby.
metamars, with all due respect... you are wasting your time feeding this troll, and believe me he is quite enjoying his new role as the 'worlds greatest spammer' (in his own mind).
Ah, but it's quite obvious that CS is a "pope". Anybody else who can't figure that out is, - hmmmm, how to put this? - so unclever that I'm not particularly concerned about convincing them of anything, anyway.
Part of the point of answering CS's nonsense is actually to completely discredit him. Anybody with an IQ over 80 should clearly understand what he's all about - if not before I disect his nonsense, then certainly afterwards. In doing so, we also discredit their side - perhaps unfairly, but such is human nature. It is also bad for our side when a moronic "true believer" presents "arguments" against the FEMA Fairy Tale. Which is why I suspect that the most non-sensical of these characters may, in fact, have a hidden agenda. You know who I'm thinking of.
If CS is really Schneibster (something I doubt), then Schneibster is really talented. Schneibster impresses me as very intelligent, the CS persona quite stupid. Why would a Shneibster want his side to look bad? Does getting kicks out of fooling us make up for the loss of credibility that is naturally imputed to their whole side make it worth it? Unfortunately, lots of spam and crass insults probably do drive away the serious technical types who I'd hope would be here in abundance, so such a stategy is not inconceivable.
It's precisely because of the spamming by popes, sophists, and real or pretending morons that I recommended to Fetzer that he only allow a moderated forum.
The other reason for responding to arguments of CS's side is, as I previously have mentioned, they have actually (collectively) done a fair job of debunking nonsense from our side and inspired some research from our side that makes our case stronger, and may also prove quite valuable to serious investigators that take our work as a starting point. Note, e.g., that I mentioned my calculation based on BZ's stiffness constant, and the absurdities it implied, to Professor Jones.
The net net is that they have helped us sharpen our arguments, as well as drop bad ones, though you have to wade through the entire mega-post, spam and all, to extract what is valuable.
I have to admit, though, as some, like CS, become more desparate, we reach such a point of diminishing returns that ignoring them makes more sense. Why, that's just "common sense" - get it? It's too bad there's no ignore button. I think there should be, and that when any poster has others on "ignore", that information should show up or be easily viewable by everybody else. In a moderated forum, there should also be a "penalty box" where gratuitous insulters and sophists can "do time", before they're completely banned.
There is so much spam from this looney-toons character, I'm probably skimming past relevant posts. They are getting harder to find... but that's the purpose isn't it Schneiby.
metamars, with all due respect... you are wasting your time feeding this troll, and believe me he is quite enjoying his new role as the 'worlds greatest spammer' (in his own mind).
Ah, but it's quite obvious that CS is a "pope". Anybody else who can't figure that out is, - hmmmm, how to put this? - so unclever that I'm not particularly concerned about convincing them of anything, anyway.
Part of the point of answering CS's nonsense is actually to completely discredit him. Anybody with an IQ over 80 should clearly understand what he's all about - if not before I disect his nonsense, then certainly afterwards. In doing so, we also discredit their side - perhaps unfairly, but such is human nature. It is also bad for our side when a moronic "true believer" presents "arguments" against the FEMA Fairy Tale. Which is why I suspect that the most non-sensical of these characters may, in fact, have a hidden agenda. You know who I'm thinking of.
If CS is really Schneibster (something I doubt), then Schneibster is really talented. Schneibster impresses me as very intelligent, the CS persona quite stupid. Why would a Shneibster want his side to look bad? Does getting kicks out of fooling us make up for the loss of credibility that is naturally imputed to their whole side make it worth it? Unfortunately, lots of spam and crass insults probably do drive away the serious technical types who I'd hope would be here in abundance, so such a stategy is not inconceivable.
It's precisely because of the spamming by popes, sophists, and real or pretending morons that I recommended to Fetzer that he only allow a moderated forum.
The other reason for responding to arguments of CS's side is, as I previously have mentioned, they have actually (collectively) done a fair job of debunking nonsense from our side and inspired some research from our side that makes our case stronger, and may also prove quite valuable to serious investigators that take our work as a starting point. Note, e.g., that I mentioned my calculation based on BZ's stiffness constant, and the absurdities it implied, to Professor Jones.
The net net is that they have helped us sharpen our arguments, as well as drop bad ones, though you have to wade through the entire mega-post, spam and all, to extract what is valuable.
I have to admit, though, as some, like CS, become more desparate, we reach such a point of diminishing returns that ignoring them makes more sense. Why, that's just "common sense" - get it?
It's too bad there's no ignore button. I think there should be, and that when any poster has others on "ignore", that information should show up or be easily viewable by everybody else. In a moderated forum, there should also be a "penalty box" where gratuitous insulters and sophists can "do time", before they're completely banned.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
As I have previously explained there are laws AGAINST tampering with, or DESTROYING forensic evidence... and NIST is Clearly guilty of such behaviour.
The material was recovered from a SCRAP YARD, most of it after having sat in a heated pile for months so this hardly applies. Too bad there aren't laws against being a MORON.
Arthur
The material was recovered from a SCRAP YARD, most of it after having sat in a heated pile for months so this hardly applies. Too bad there aren't laws against being a MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE
Too bad there aren't laws against being a MORON.
Seriously, Arthur. Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with ?
On second thoughts, maybe it is.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 05:48 AM)
My source for the claim that evidence that was handed to Eliot Spitzer is Karl Schwarz. Not all of it is in the public domain.
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
Who the heck is Karl Schwarz?
And why is it not all in the public domain?????
I love it, now the CTrs have "secret" evidence. They would show it to you but then they'd have to kill ya.
Photographic evidence of WHAT?????
Your so called "SQUIBS"????
The fact that the pile was hot for a long time?
These "things" you bring up are evidence of NOTHING.
You CT'rs are all the same, you DEMAND that EVERY LITTLE THING BE EXPLAINED TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
NO actionable items means the ability to charge at least one SPECIFIC person with a SPECIFIC crime.
NIST did an EXCELLENT job.
METAMARS has said he hasn't bothered to read the NIST report.
Yet you have the audacity to call the NIST workers BOZOs.
That just makes you an arrogant MORON.
Arthur
Then, too, despite your denial, there is plenty of photographic evidence, your amazing contortions such as the "Amazing Bellows Theory" notwithstanding. I remind you that your claim of "no evidence" means that you have little credibility on that score, alone. Of course, with your other fables considered, whatever credibility you have is essentially zero.
And wherever the vaporized steel and other physical evidence may be, if it still exists, I'm sure Spitzer could ferret it out, if he really wanted to. (Well, assuming he didn't get whacked in the process.)
Not being a lawyer, I don't know what to make of your "NOT ONE ACTIONABLE ITEM". The petition to Spitzer calls for an investigation, and doesn't name any perpetrators. The idea that there is not tons of things he could investigate is silly. Myself, I would start with air traffic controllers, not to mention commissioning a full study of the collapses such as NIST could of done, and didn't. I'd also get the bozos from FEMA and NIST under oath, not to mention Silverstein.
Who the heck is Karl Schwarz?
And why is it not all in the public domain?????
I love it, now the CTrs have "secret" evidence. They would show it to you but then they'd have to kill ya.
Photographic evidence of WHAT?????
Your so called "SQUIBS"????
The fact that the pile was hot for a long time?
These "things" you bring up are evidence of NOTHING.
You CT'rs are all the same, you DEMAND that EVERY LITTLE THING BE EXPLAINED TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
NO actionable items means the ability to charge at least one SPECIFIC person with a SPECIFIC crime.
NIST did an EXCELLENT job.
METAMARS has said he hasn't bothered to read the NIST report.
Yet you have the audacity to call the NIST workers BOZOs.
That just makes you an arrogant MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 02:16 PM)
QUOTE
Too bad there aren't laws against being a MORON.
Seriously, Arthur. Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with ?
On second thoughts, maybe it is.
No F-P, the counter argument was the FIRST Sentence.
But you knew that.
The real story is how Foxx just skipped over this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Arthur
QUOTE
These "things" you bring up are evidence of NOTHING.
You CT'rs are all the same, you DEMAND that EVERY LITTLE THING BE EXPLAINED TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
You CT'rs are all the same, you DEMAND that EVERY LITTLE THING BE EXPLAINED TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
Firstly, the sequence of events that led to the death of 3000 innocent people in NYC on 9-11-2001 has never been explained.
The government is legally accountable for it's actions (or lack of).
No-one in the world has been charged in direct connection to 9-11.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 02:21 PM)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 02:16 PM)
QUOTE
Too bad there aren't laws against being a MORON.
Seriously, Arthur. Is that the best counter-argument you can come up with ?
On second thoughts, maybe it is.
No F-P, the counter argument was the FIRST Sentence.
But you knew that.
The real story is how Foxx just skipped over this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Arthur
The real story is how Foxx just skipped over this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Wow...that's a real 'outer' adoucette
I guess in your mind you thought that was devastating logic? Quite honestly, I thought you had drifted so far off the topic in desperation that you forgot the original topic.
The difference between whether the SEAoNY was a volunteer effort and their association with the BPS, with my original loose statement that the collection effort was done under the auspices of FEMA, in conjunction with the ASCE and NIST was so frivolous that I saw nothing in that post worthy of comment.
I don't need to respond to your parroting of the SChneibsters allegations that everyone (besides himself) lies. Any reader can decide for themselves whether I am a liar. Personally, I think only people who are seriously losing arguments and becoming seriously frustrated resort to such allegations, and sorry I don't intend to get into the following arguement...
Detractor Foxx is a LIAR
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Detractor Foxx is a LIAR
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Foxx am not
Detractor are too
Although, I'm quite sure you would prefer to degerate into that arguement, rather than try to address some of my/our irrefutable points.
Amazing Bellows, my donkey!
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 02:33 PM)
Firstly, the causes that led to the death of 3000 innocent people in NYC on 9-11-2001 has never been explained.
The government is legally accountable for it's actions (or lack of).
No-one in the world has been charged in direct connection to 9-11.
A ) Yes it has, maybe you missed it. But 19 hijackers commandeered 4 commercial jets running them into the towers and the pentagon.
B ) True - See 9-11 commission report.
c ) Not exactly true, but why quibble. I do believe the military prefers to deal with the supporters and planners in their own way. International Terrorism can't be dealt with in the context of US criminal trials. They are for a CIVILIZED society, where the rules of law and evidence prevail. Terrorists don't live in a civilized world, nor obey its rules, so the same rules don't apply.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 15 2006, 02:48 PM)
Wow...that's a real 'outer' adoucette
I guess in your mind you thought that was devastating logic? Quite honestly, I thought you had drifted so far off the topic in desperation that you forgot the original topic.
The difference between whether the SEAoNY was a volunteer effort and their association with the BPS, with my original loose statement that the collection effort was done under the auspices of FEMA, in conjunction with the ASCE and NIST was so frivolous that I saw nothing in that post worthy of comment.
I don't need to respond to your parroting of the SChneibsters allegations that everyone (besides himself) lies. Any reader can decide for themselves whether I am a liar.
Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues?
NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER?
NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT.
He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD.
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
Until then, once again I encourage people to read this post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
follow the links to the NIST documents (its a short one, even Metemars can read it, its only 13 pages) and see how Foxx has PURPOSEFULLY distorted the TRUTH.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 01:25 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 15 2006, 07:08 AM)
Having lost all credibility and arguments the Schneibster resorts now to spamming techniques under the pen-name of CS who has even less credibilty and more open vitriolic assaults, allegations and insults to spew. Do not be fooled by CS's assertions that he is from NY. Schneibster is actually in the pacific northwest.
There is so much spam from this looney-toons character, I'm probably skimming past relevant posts. They are getting harder to find... but that's the purpose isn't it Schneiby.
metamars, with all due respect... you are wasting your time feeding this troll, and believe me he is quite enjoying his new role as the 'worlds greatest spammer' (in his own mind).
Ah, but it's quite obvious that CS is a "pope". Anybody else who can't figure that out is, - hmmmm, how to put this? - so unclever that I'm not particularly concerned about convincing them of anything, anyway.
Part of the point of answering CS's nonsense is actually to completely discredit him. [b]Anybody with an IQ over 80 should clearly understand what he's all about - if not before I disect his nonsense, then certainly afterwards. In doing so, we also discredit their side - perhaps unfairly, but such is human nature. It is also bad for our side when a moronic "true believer" presents "arguments" against the FEMA Fairy Tale. Which is why I suspect that the most non-sensical of these characters may, in fact, have a hidden agenda. You know who I'm thinking of.
If CS is really Schneibster (something I doubt), then Schneibster is really talented. Schneibster impresses me as very intelligent, the CS persona quite stupid. Why would a Shneibster want his side to look bad? Does getting kicks out of fooling us make up for the loss of credibility that is naturally imputed to their whole side make it worth it? Unfortunately, lots of spam and crass insults probably do drive away the serious technical types who I'd hope would be here in abundance, so such a stategy is not inconceivable.
It's precisely because of the spamming by popes, sophists, and real or pretending morons that I recommended to Fetzer that he only allow a [/i]moderated[/i] forum.
The other reason for responding to arguments of CS's side is, as I previously have mentioned, they have actually (collectively) done a fair job of debunking nonsense from our side and inspired some research from our side that makes our case stronger, and may also prove quite valuable to serious investigators that take our work as a starting point. Note, e.g., that I mentioned my calculation based on BZ's stiffness constant, and the absurdities it implied, to Professor Jones.
The net net is that they have helped us sharpen our arguments, as well as drop bad ones, though you have to wade through the entire mega-post, spam and all, to extract what is valuable.
I have to admit, though, as some, like CS, become more desparate, we reach such a point of diminishing returns that ignoring them makes more sense. Why, that's just "common sense" - get it? It's too bad there's no ignore button. I think there should be, and that when any poster has others on "ignore", that information should show up or be easily viewable by everybody else. In a moderated forum, there should also be a "penalty box" where gratuitous insulters and sophists can "do time", before they're completely banned.
As usual metamars... scintillating logic and excellent points, (my emphasis in bold above)
A genius (like Dr. Jekyl or Hannibal Lector) is smart enough to pretend to be less intelligent, so as to disguise his true identity, and motive for such behaviour.
A genius (like Dr. Jekyl or Hannibal Lector) is smart enough to pretend to be less intelligent, so as to disguise his true identity, and motive for such behaviour.
lots of spam and crass insults probably do drive away the serious technical types who I'd hope would be here in abundance, so such a stategy is not inconceivable.
Exactly my point. In the fantasy world of his own deluded mind, he actually thinks he is being quite clever, and is giggling to himself over his 'cleverness'.
He exhibits signs of a sociopath who believes he is smarter than the cops, and gleefully watches them chase false clues he purposely leaves about. A sociopath actually believes in his own mind that there is absolutely no one in the world as clever as themselves... hence, my earlier statement that 'God forbid that I should ever run into him in real life'. His fascination with perverse sexual undertones and degradations is another sign of a seriously disturbed individual. In actual fact, if I were a moderator, I'd advise the authorities of his IP address, and seriously suggest they look into this character.
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
I believe they are reputable, but that doesn't mean that they won't do a poll for a client, even if they know the question the client wants asked is "leading".
Arthur
I tremble in the light of your greatness Oh Wondrous Bellows Believer. You are focusing on minutuae related to semantics, as you have no other leg to stand on.
While searching the NIST documents please find the physical forensic evidence of any columns subjected to steel buckling temperatures. You might also want to search the UL tests for evidence that any of the samples FAILED under scientific testing.
The only ones purposely distorting Truth here are the gravity-driven collapse supporters.
A) We were told that 19 hijackers comandeered 4 jets. The "proof" that was presented is a mish-mash of physically impossible phone calls, indestructible passports...not forgetting the korans etc. ....looks more like a B-movie script.
Hmmm. Officials backing the "official conspiracy theory" were rewarded, officials questioning the "official conspiracy theory" were sacked, demoted or worse...
C) War is terrorism. The only difference being the scale of one to the other. Despite the linguistic and quasi-legal gymnastics involved, the results (or outcome) of both are the same.. dead innocent people.
C) War is terrorism. The only difference being the scale of one to the other. Despite the linguistic and quasi-legal gymnastics involved, the results (or outcome) of both are the same.. dead innocent people.
The only person who would make a statement like this is someone who supports terrorism
F-P, you truely make me sick and I do hope you get your just rewards.
Arthur
There is so much spam from this looney-toons character, I'm probably skimming past relevant posts. They are getting harder to find... but that's the purpose isn't it Schneiby.
metamars, with all due respect... you are wasting your time feeding this troll, and believe me he is quite enjoying his new role as the 'worlds greatest spammer' (in his own mind).
Ah, but it's quite obvious that CS is a "pope". Anybody else who can't figure that out is, - hmmmm, how to put this? - so unclever that I'm not particularly concerned about convincing them of anything, anyway.
Part of the point of answering CS's nonsense is actually to completely discredit him. [b]Anybody with an IQ over 80 should clearly understand what he's all about - if not before I disect his nonsense, then certainly afterwards. In doing so, we also discredit their side - perhaps unfairly, but such is human nature. It is also bad for our side when a moronic "true believer" presents "arguments" against the FEMA Fairy Tale. Which is why I suspect that the most non-sensical of these characters may, in fact, have a hidden agenda. You know who I'm thinking of.
If CS is really Schneibster (something I doubt), then Schneibster is really talented. Schneibster impresses me as very intelligent, the CS persona quite stupid. Why would a Shneibster want his side to look bad? Does getting kicks out of fooling us make up for the loss of credibility that is naturally imputed to their whole side make it worth it? Unfortunately, lots of spam and crass insults probably do drive away the serious technical types who I'd hope would be here in abundance, so such a stategy is not inconceivable.
It's precisely because of the spamming by popes, sophists, and real or pretending morons that I recommended to Fetzer that he only allow a [/i]moderated[/i] forum.
The other reason for responding to arguments of CS's side is, as I previously have mentioned, they have actually (collectively) done a fair job of debunking nonsense from our side and inspired some research from our side that makes our case stronger, and may also prove quite valuable to serious investigators that take our work as a starting point. Note, e.g., that I mentioned my calculation based on BZ's stiffness constant, and the absurdities it implied, to Professor Jones.
The net net is that they have helped us sharpen our arguments, as well as drop bad ones, though you have to wade through the entire mega-post, spam and all, to extract what is valuable.
I have to admit, though, as some, like CS, become more desparate, we reach such a point of diminishing returns that ignoring them makes more sense. Why, that's just "common sense" - get it?
It's too bad there's no ignore button. I think there should be, and that when any poster has others on "ignore", that information should show up or be easily viewable by everybody else. In a moderated forum, there should also be a "penalty box" where gratuitous insulters and sophists can "do time", before they're completely banned. As usual metamars... scintillating logic and excellent points, (my emphasis in bold above)
QUOTE
Schneibster impresses me as very intelligent, the CS persona quite stupid. Why would a Shneibster want his side to look bad?
A genius (like Dr. Jekyl or Hannibal Lector) is smart enough to pretend to be less intelligent, so as to disguise his true identity, and motive for such behaviour.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Schneibster impresses me as very intelligent, the CS persona quite stupid. Why would a Shneibster want his side to look bad? |
A genius (like Dr. Jekyl or Hannibal Lector) is smart enough to pretend to be less intelligent, so as to disguise his true identity, and motive for such behaviour.
lots of spam and crass insults probably do drive away the serious technical types who I'd hope would be here in abundance, so such a stategy is not inconceivable.
Exactly my point. In the fantasy world of his own deluded mind, he actually thinks he is being quite clever, and is giggling to himself over his 'cleverness'.
He exhibits signs of a sociopath who believes he is smarter than the cops, and gleefully watches them chase false clues he purposely leaves about. A sociopath actually believes in his own mind that there is absolutely no one in the world as clever as themselves... hence, my earlier statement that 'God forbid that I should ever run into him in real life'. His fascination with perverse sexual undertones and degradations is another sign of a seriously disturbed individual. In actual fact, if I were a moderator, I'd advise the authorities of his IP address, and seriously suggest they look into this character.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 05:14 AM)
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
I believe they are reputable, but that doesn't mean that they won't do a poll for a client, even if they know the question the client wants asked is "leading".
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
I tremble in the light of your greatness Oh Wondrous Bellows Believer. You are focusing on minutuae related to semantics, as you have no other leg to stand on.
While searching the NIST documents please find the physical forensic evidence of any columns subjected to steel buckling temperatures. You might also want to search the UL tests for evidence that any of the samples FAILED under scientific testing.
The only ones purposely distorting Truth here are the gravity-driven collapse supporters.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Firstly, the causes that led to the death of 3000 innocent people in NYC on 9-11-2001 has never been explained. The government is legally accountable for it's actions (or lack of). No-one in the world has been charged in direct connection to 9-11. A ) Yes it has, maybe you missed it. But 19 hijackers commandeered 4 commercial jets running them into the towers and the pentagon. B ) True - See 9-11 commission report. c ) Not exactly true, but why quibble. I do believe the military prefers to deal with the supporters and planners in their own way. International Terrorism can't be dealt with in the context of US criminal trials. They are for a CIVILIZED society, where the rules of law and evidence prevail. Terrorists don't live in a civilized world, nor obey its rules, so the same rules don't apply. Arthur |
A) We were told that 19 hijackers comandeered 4 jets. The "proof" that was presented is a mish-mash of physically impossible phone calls, indestructible passports...not forgetting the korans etc. ....looks more like a B-movie script.
Hmmm. Officials backing the "official conspiracy theory" were rewarded, officials questioning the "official conspiracy theory" were sacked, demoted or worse...C) War is terrorism. The only difference being the scale of one to the other. Despite the linguistic and quasi-legal gymnastics involved, the results (or outcome) of both are the same.. dead innocent people.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 15 2006, 03:33 PM)
I tremble in the light of your greatness Oh Wondrous Bellows Believer. You are focusing on minutuae related to semantics, as you have no other leg to stand on.
While searching the NIST documents please find the physical forensic evidence of any columns subjected to steel buckling temperatures. You might also want to search the UL tests for evidence that any of the samples FAILED under scientific testing.
The only ones purposely distorting Truth here are the gravity-driven collapse supporters.
Not to worry, Foxx, I'll get to you soon enough, I do notice that none of your current challenges use the same wording as your PREVIOUS LIES.
Now its not, "no steel > 250 C",
its
"columns subjected to steel buckling temps".
Which of course is known as "framing the debate", since THAT ISN'T THE REASON NIST GIVES FOR THE TOWERS COLLAPSE.
PUTZ
Once again, you fail to offer any support for your LIE that 80% of the steel from the TOWERS was looked over.
You once again fail to APPOLOGISE to people for CHANGING THE WORDING to make it APPEAR that the previous statement, "80% of the steel had been examined", was true.
Most liars are more contrite when caught.
Arthur
While searching the NIST documents please find the physical forensic evidence of any columns subjected to steel buckling temperatures. You might also want to search the UL tests for evidence that any of the samples FAILED under scientific testing.
The only ones purposely distorting Truth here are the gravity-driven collapse supporters.
Not to worry, Foxx, I'll get to you soon enough, I do notice that none of your current challenges use the same wording as your PREVIOUS LIES.
Now its not, "no steel > 250 C",
its
"columns subjected to steel buckling temps".
Which of course is known as "framing the debate", since THAT ISN'T THE REASON NIST GIVES FOR THE TOWERS COLLAPSE.
PUTZ
Once again, you fail to offer any support for your LIE that 80% of the steel from the TOWERS was looked over.
You once again fail to APPOLOGISE to people for CHANGING THE WORDING to make it APPEAR that the previous statement, "80% of the steel had been examined", was true.
Most liars are more contrite when caught.
Arthur
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 03:40 PM)
C) War is terrorism. The only difference being the scale of one to the other. Despite the linguistic and quasi-legal gymnastics involved, the results (or outcome) of both are the same.. dead innocent people.
The only person who would make a statement like this is someone who supports terrorism
F-P, you truely make me sick and I do hope you get your just rewards.
Arthur
Metamars says the the federal gooberment thugs got rid of evidence. The implication is the federal gooberment under dubaya is covering up something. When Straw Men DESTROYER points to the federal gooberment not being able to sell the steel metamars says So WHAT? My question is why did metamars bring up the sold steel if it means nothing?
It's really not only a terribly simple concept, but a factual one, also
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who are the real terrorist appologists (sic) here....
What exactly are my just rewards ?
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who are the real terrorist appologists (sic) here....
What exactly are my just rewards ?
I don't know, maybe pick the "wrong" train?
Arthur
Could you clarify that, please Arthur ?
It's a little abstract...
Could you clarify that, please Arthur ?
It's a little abstract...
That's where you are wrong, Terrorism isn't ABSTRACT.
Arthur
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
Originally posted by arthur
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
Until then, once again I encourage people to read this post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Hmmm, your link takes me to...
Latest PhysOrg Weblog story: Not a Hoax, One-Eyed Kitten Had Bizarre Condition
I'm not sure I follow your point? Do you mean this link...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE) in the above. The quote should read...
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE) in the above. The quote should read...
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
follow the links to the NIST documents (its a short one, even Metemars can read it, its only 13 pages) and see how Foxx has PURPOSEFULLY distorted the TRUTH.
Arthur
With regard to WHO exactly was involved in the 'collection process'... NIST states...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (page 87 / adobe 137)
PS - Arthur, please don't go sneezing on the keyboard and spreading your virus around here...
Killing people is wrong, regardless if it through terrorism or war. War is not noble, it's not big and it's not clever.
Thanks for the props galdur. Ditto to you too.
QUOTE
Imagine that? People saw a way to make millions off the sale of steel and sold it. PATAKI is involved in the mass murder and cover up of 3000 people because he gave Steel for the USS New York that was under construction. The residents of Fish Kills are in on the mass murder of 3000 people because they were pushing the local government to close the landfill after NY reopened it. The scrap yards were selling steel to make those 9/11 medallions, remember those? In fact that's what the fireman were angry about. They weren't mad at the feds for selling it. They were mad at the city and state. The Mayor told the scrap yards not to sell the steel.
There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own.
There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imagine that? People saw a way to make millions off the sale of steel and sold it. PATAKI is involved in the mass murder and cover up of 3000 people because he gave Steel for the USS New York that was under construction. The residents of Fish Kills are in on the mass murder of 3000 people because they were pushing the local government to close the landfill after NY reopened it. The scrap yards were selling steel to make those 9/11 medallions, remember those? In fact that's what the fireman were angry about. They weren't mad at the feds for selling it. They were mad at the city and state. The Mayor told the scrap yards not to sell the steel. There are many possible reasons for the quick sale of the steel but the feds selling it is not even possible. They can't sell what they don't own. |
It's really not only a terribly simple concept, but a factual one, also
It really is as simple as this -
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53881
Schneibster etc can pile lie upon lie in their increasingly desperate and repugnant efforts to deny it, but it is, and will forever be, there for all who care to see it.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53881
Schneibster etc can pile lie upon lie in their increasingly desperate and repugnant efforts to deny it, but it is, and will forever be, there for all who care to see it.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| C) War is terrorism. The only difference being the scale of one to the other. Despite the linguistic and quasi-legal gymnastics involved, the results (or outcome) of both are the same.. dead innocent people. The only person who would make a statement like this is someone who supports terrorism F-P, you truely make me sick and I do hope you get your just rewards. Arthur |
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who are the real terrorist appologists (sic) here....
What exactly are my just rewards ?
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 05:01 PM)
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who are the real terrorist appologists (sic) here....
What exactly are my just rewards ?
I don't know, maybe pick the "wrong" train?
Arthur
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who are the real terrorist appologists (sic) here.... What exactly are my just rewards ? I don't know, maybe pick the "wrong" train? Arthur |
Could you clarify that, please Arthur ?
It's a little abstract...
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 05:12 PM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think it takes a genius to figure out who are the real terrorist appologists (sic) here.... What exactly are my just rewards ? I don't know, maybe pick the "wrong" train? Arthur |
Could you clarify that, please Arthur ?
It's a little abstract...
That's where you are wrong, Terrorism isn't ABSTRACT.
Arthur
Firstly, I’m going to go well off topic so we can have a laugh and lighten the mood maybe. A BBC newsreader has just been on the TV stating, “After this bulletin we go to Match of the Day, where we feature the Manchester derby. For those of you who do not want to know the score look away now. (Pause) Robbie Fowler scored again as City added to United’s woes in a 3-1 win…….”
Does this numpty listen with his eyes?
Incidentally, for those who do not know, he was talking about football. And for our American friends when I say football I do not mean that game you play with the rugby ball and the armour, but rather what the rest of the world (ie those not in the World Series) refer to as football.
Schneibster said,
We may agree to disagree, or we may find conclusions to be drawn from the data. In any case, let us do these things harmoniously, rather than otherwise. I will apologize for any remaining prior harsh words at this time, and attempt to avoid them in the future. My realization that your style was not obfuscation but pedantry has eased this greatly.
No need to apolgise - no offence was taken - but thanks anyway..
One thing that I will point out, and I do not specifically mean to yourself but in general. I responded to a point that you made, it is unimportant what the specific point was, by firstly saying “If this were true, then blah, blah“. I realised that this could be interpreted as my not believing your assertion or at least trying to cast doubt on its veracity, but what I actually wanted to explore was, what the result of your assertion was, whether it was true or not. I changed the wording to “Because of this, then blah, blah” There is a difference between these two phrases, and this meant that my statement was not exactly how I would have liked it to appear. The change I made was a result of all the insults flying around, and this illustrates how counterproductive those insults are.
Don’t get me wrong, where I come from sarcasm has been elevated to an art form, and face to face among friends it is perfectly acceptable, if correctly delivered. (I hope that my poking fun at your football will be taken in that light) This is more difficult through this medium. I can take the piss with the best of them, but all this would do is win me a few cheap laughs among those who agree with me, and provoke another non-physics response from those who don’t.
It is difficult enough to plough through the 250 pages of this thread without the added inconvenience of having to filter out all the insults.
Can all parties please agree a truce?
To Schneibster,
I thought that I had responded to your post on radiative heat transfer but obviously my response was insufficient.
All bodies above 0 K emit radiation. (When I say radiation I am referring to the wavelengths concerned with heat transfer )
Generally gases do not take part in radiative heat transfer.
The heat emitted is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin to the power of four.
Radiation moves in straight lines and therefore the two bodies must be visible ( in line of sight) with each other for a transfer between them to take place.
From this we can see that what you say is correct in that a photon can be absorbed by a body, irrespective of the temperature of the body which emitted that photon. This would suggest that the laws of thermodynamics which state that heat energy will move from a hot body to a cold body are transgressed by radiative heat energy, The apparent paradox can be explained by noting that both the hot body and the cold body would be emitting radiation and the amount emitted by the hot body would be greater than that emitted by the cold body. The transfer would act in both directions but the net heat transfer through radiation would be from hot to cold, and the laws of thermodynamics would still be satisfied.
Gordon.
Does this numpty listen with his eyes?
Incidentally, for those who do not know, he was talking about football. And for our American friends when I say football I do not mean that game you play with the rugby ball and the armour, but rather what the rest of the world (ie those not in the World Series) refer to as football.
Schneibster said,
We may agree to disagree, or we may find conclusions to be drawn from the data. In any case, let us do these things harmoniously, rather than otherwise. I will apologize for any remaining prior harsh words at this time, and attempt to avoid them in the future. My realization that your style was not obfuscation but pedantry has eased this greatly.
No need to apolgise - no offence was taken - but thanks anyway..
One thing that I will point out, and I do not specifically mean to yourself but in general. I responded to a point that you made, it is unimportant what the specific point was, by firstly saying “If this were true, then blah, blah“. I realised that this could be interpreted as my not believing your assertion or at least trying to cast doubt on its veracity, but what I actually wanted to explore was, what the result of your assertion was, whether it was true or not. I changed the wording to “Because of this, then blah, blah” There is a difference between these two phrases, and this meant that my statement was not exactly how I would have liked it to appear. The change I made was a result of all the insults flying around, and this illustrates how counterproductive those insults are.
Don’t get me wrong, where I come from sarcasm has been elevated to an art form, and face to face among friends it is perfectly acceptable, if correctly delivered. (I hope that my poking fun at your football will be taken in that light) This is more difficult through this medium. I can take the piss with the best of them, but all this would do is win me a few cheap laughs among those who agree with me, and provoke another non-physics response from those who don’t.
It is difficult enough to plough through the 250 pages of this thread without the added inconvenience of having to filter out all the insults.
Can all parties please agree a truce?
To Schneibster,
I thought that I had responded to your post on radiative heat transfer but obviously my response was insufficient.
All bodies above 0 K emit radiation. (When I say radiation I am referring to the wavelengths concerned with heat transfer )
Generally gases do not take part in radiative heat transfer.
The heat emitted is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin to the power of four.
Radiation moves in straight lines and therefore the two bodies must be visible ( in line of sight) with each other for a transfer between them to take place.
From this we can see that what you say is correct in that a photon can be absorbed by a body, irrespective of the temperature of the body which emitted that photon. This would suggest that the laws of thermodynamics which state that heat energy will move from a hot body to a cold body are transgressed by radiative heat energy, The apparent paradox can be explained by noting that both the hot body and the cold body would be emitting radiation and the amount emitted by the hot body would be greater than that emitted by the cold body. The transfer would act in both directions but the net heat transfer through radiation would be from hot to cold, and the laws of thermodynamics would still be satisfied.
Gordon.
Let me get this right Arthur....
After explaining that the results (or outcomes) of terrorism and war are the same (dead innocent people)....
a) you accuse me of being a terrorist appologist (sic)
imply that my just rewards would be me being blown up on a public train (killed, I presume, possibly with more innocent victims)
For somebody that claims to work with logic for a living, I really cannot see any logic whatsoever in your statements, except as a puerile attention deflecting exercise...
After explaining that the results (or outcomes) of terrorism and war are the same (dead innocent people)....
a) you accuse me of being a terrorist appologist (sic)
imply that my just rewards would be me being blown up on a public train (killed, I presume, possibly with more innocent victims)For somebody that claims to work with logic for a living, I really cannot see any logic whatsoever in your statements, except as a puerile attention deflecting exercise...
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 15 2006, 05:41 PM)
Let me get this right Arthur....
After explaining that the results (or outcomes) of terrorism and war are the same (dead innocent people)....
a) you accuse me of being a terrorist appologist (sic)
imply that my just rewards would be me being blown up on a public train (killed, I presume, possibly with more innocent victims)
For somebody that claims to work with logic for a living, I really cannot see any logic whatsoever in your statements, except as a puerile attention deflecting exercise...
Could be, I'm running a fever, which is why I'm deferring my rebuttal to Foxx's lies until I feel better.
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Arthur
After explaining that the results (or outcomes) of terrorism and war are the same (dead innocent people)....
a) you accuse me of being a terrorist appologist (sic)
imply that my just rewards would be me being blown up on a public train (killed, I presume, possibly with more innocent victims)For somebody that claims to work with logic for a living, I really cannot see any logic whatsoever in your statements, except as a puerile attention deflecting exercise...
Could be, I'm running a fever, which is why I'm deferring my rebuttal to Foxx's lies until I feel better.
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues?
NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER?
NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT.
He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD
Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues?
NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER?
NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT.
He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Adoucette Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues? NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER? NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT. He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD |
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
Originally posted by arthur
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
Until then, once again I encourage people to read this post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Hmmm, your link takes me to...
Latest PhysOrg Weblog story: Not a Hoax, One-Eyed Kitten Had Bizarre Condition
I'm not sure I follow your point? Do you mean this link...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C
The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE)
in the above. The quote should read..."Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C |
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE)
in the above. The quote should read..."Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
follow the links to the NIST documents (its a short one, even Metemars can read it, its only 13 pages) and see how Foxx has PURPOSEFULLY distorted the TRUTH.
Arthur
With regard to WHO exactly was involved in the 'collection process'... NIST states...
QUOTE
Members of the FEMA-sponsored and ASCE-led Building Performance Assessment Team, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkley, CA with support from the National Science Foundation, had begun work to identify and collect WTC structural steel from various recycling yards where the steel was taken during the clean-up effort. The Port Authority of New York and New York Jersey (Port Authority) also collected structural steel elements for future exhibits and memorials.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (page 87 / adobe 137)
PS - Arthur, please don't go sneezing on the keyboard and spreading your virus around here...
Nice job Foxx, FP, Brian and others who constantly
dismantle the empty shills here.
dismantle the empty shills here.
QUOTE
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Killing people is wrong, regardless if it through terrorism or war. War is not noble, it's not big and it's not clever.
Thanks for the props galdur. Ditto to you too.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 14 2006, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 04:58 AM)
Hi met, CS!
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
Thanks adoucette!
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
RC,
What is you real position on the forum? I see you are a moderator on a special section however you authoritarian attitude toward MMC make me think otherwise. Is this how you try to bring a maverick scientist into line?
MMC.
You are a disgrace to the word 'scientist'. You have OBVIOUSLY NOT read all the info on that other thread, otherwise you would not be repeating the same debunked assertions here. And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES...and not just 'air'. The sudden concentration of energy involved would have produced 'explosive' combustion in the compressed FUEL-AIR situations within the collapsed floors. There's your 'bomb'. And since the 'concrete' used on the floors was of the LIGHTWEIGHT consistency; and the panels and wall-coverings were of the soft 'drywall' variety, then of course the collapse would EASILY produce such dust; not to mention the 'calcining' (to CaO+CO2) of some 'concrete' material by the high temps involved. Please do yourself a favour: RE-READ AND COMPREHEND FULLY THE MEANING OF ALL THAT APPEARS IN THAT OTHER THREAD before going on with THIS farce of a 'scientific treatment'. Your attempts here have so far done nothing but bring the spectre of disrespect and derision for all true scientists here.
RC.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54586
MMC had some interesting information in this thread.
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
Thanks adoucette!
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
RC,
What is you real position on the forum? I see you are a moderator on a special section however you authoritarian attitude toward MMC make me think otherwise. Is this how you try to bring a maverick scientist into line?
QUOTE
MMC.
You are a disgrace to the word 'scientist'. You have OBVIOUSLY NOT read all the info on that other thread, otherwise you would not be repeating the same debunked assertions here. And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES...and not just 'air'. The sudden concentration of energy involved would have produced 'explosive' combustion in the compressed FUEL-AIR situations within the collapsed floors. There's your 'bomb'. And since the 'concrete' used on the floors was of the LIGHTWEIGHT consistency; and the panels and wall-coverings were of the soft 'drywall' variety, then of course the collapse would EASILY produce such dust; not to mention the 'calcining' (to CaO+CO2) of some 'concrete' material by the high temps involved. Please do yourself a favour: RE-READ AND COMPREHEND FULLY THE MEANING OF ALL THAT APPEARS IN THAT OTHER THREAD before going on with THIS farce of a 'scientific treatment'. Your attempts here have so far done nothing but bring the spectre of disrespect and derision for all true scientists here.
RC.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54586
MMC had some interesting information in this thread.
Sarcasm among friends requires first the presumption of friendship; that is possible, if our conversations over time tend toward it, but not on first acquaintance. This is particularly true on the 'Net, where even self-deprecating sarcasm can be seen as insulting, because of the lack of visual feedback (facial expression and body language) and tonal feedback. You are no doubt aware of at least some of this; I am not attempting to suggest that you are not intelligent (particularly considering the perspicacity of your posts), just pointing it out.
Your truce is accepted, and I'll go one farther and presume that you are not being nasty when I see something that could be interpreted either way. Although I wouldn't push it too entirely far.
Oh... you mean like this...
Oh... you mean like this...
Pakistan's foreign ministry has protested to the United States over an airstrike on a remote village near the Afghan border that killed 18 people but apparently missed its target, Osama bin Laden's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri...
Pakistan's Foreign Office said Saturday it lodged a protest with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Ryan Crocker, and the issue is being "thoroughly investigated."
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan's information minister, called the attack "highly condemnable."...
According to a Pakistani intelligence official, al-Zawahiri -- bin Laden's right-hand man in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- was not killed in the CIA-ordered airstrike on Damadola....
U.S. sources said al-Zawahiri was the target of the strike and initially reported that he may have been among those killed.
The Pakistani intelligence official said it was not known whether al-Zawahiri was in the area.
The attack killed eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN. Three homes were targeted.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/...rike/index.html
Oh, well al-Zawahiri MIGHT have been there... what's another 18 innocent civilians... 5 innocent kids blown to bits because some yahoo shoot-em-up american cowboy got some poor intelligence...
... (maybe from some spy in Damadola who had a beef with his neighbors).
But, hey... who cares... it's a NOBLE CAUSE... well that's justification right there isn't it.
Please don't bother responding to this with whining about 'collateral damages'... I won't be listening.
They were probably from a previously unheard of terrorist group. Or they had links to terrorists, or they harboured terrorists, or they were linked to al-quaeda..or....
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
Pfffttt
Since Foxx is from Canada, America can't take credit for his actions. It's people like galdur, foxx and to some extent metamars who insist on attacking. Though metamars does it in suttle ways it's still attacking. I hold up the mirror in a more direct way.
I made an offer a while back not to attack and what happened... Others saw it as a sign of weakness and continued to attack.
When I came to this board I started reading the thread from the begining and noticed the unfair attacks on Schneibster which continue to this day. (Foxx, Galdur)
Either we're all going to behave or none of us should. The constant degrading of members on one side of the issue while the other side remains quite will only give license to insult from the offending side. More will pile on.
Believe it or not I live by my credo. "Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw." But I only use that saw when insulted. And believe me I can insult better than most on this board.
So if everyone plays nice from now on I will to. But as Foxx demonstrates it's highly unlikely.
Why do you only have 2 posts? Seriously, can you be more specific as to who you are representing.
Your truce is accepted, and I'll go one farther and presume that you are not being nasty when I see something that could be interpreted either way. Although I wouldn't push it too entirely far.
QUOTE (gordon+)
I thought that I had responded to your post on radiative heat transfer but obviously my response was insufficient.
All bodies above 0 K emit radiation. (When I say radiation I am referring to the wavelengths concerned with heat transfer )
Generally gases do not take part in radiative heat transfer.
The heat emitted is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin to the power of four.
Radiation moves in straight lines and therefore the two bodies must be visible ( in line of sight) with each other for a transfer between them to take place.
From this we can see that what you say is correct in that a photon can be absorbed by a body, irrespective of the temperature of the body which emitted that photon. This would suggest that the laws of thermodynamics which state that heat energy will move from a hot body to a cold body are transgressed by radiative heat energy, The apparent paradox can be explained by noting that both the hot body and the cold body would be emitting radiation and the amount emitted by the hot body would be greater than that emitted by the cold body. The transfer would act in both directions but the net heat transfer through radiation would be from hot to cold, and the laws of thermodynamics would still be satisfied.
All bodies above 0 K emit radiation. (When I say radiation I am referring to the wavelengths concerned with heat transfer )
Generally gases do not take part in radiative heat transfer.
The heat emitted is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin to the power of four.
Radiation moves in straight lines and therefore the two bodies must be visible ( in line of sight) with each other for a transfer between them to take place.
From this we can see that what you say is correct in that a photon can be absorbed by a body, irrespective of the temperature of the body which emitted that photon. This would suggest that the laws of thermodynamics which state that heat energy will move from a hot body to a cold body are transgressed by radiative heat energy, The apparent paradox can be explained by noting that both the hot body and the cold body would be emitting radiation and the amount emitted by the hot body would be greater than that emitted by the cold body. The transfer would act in both directions but the net heat transfer through radiation would be from hot to cold, and the laws of thermodynamics would still be satisfied.
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
The key point here is the temperature of the source of the heat; and the temperature of a flame is between 900C and 1300C (a bit below that higher value) according to this reference. This indicates that positive net heat transfer due to radiative absorption will occur until the steel has reached a temperature of at least 900C, a temperature it will never reach because it would be no more capable of supporting a structural load at that temperature than a pile of spaghetti is capable of supporting a rock, according to this reference.
The key point here is the temperature of the source of the heat; and the temperature of a flame is between 900C and 1300C (a bit below that higher value) according to this reference. This indicates that positive net heat transfer due to radiative absorption will occur until the steel has reached a temperature of at least 900C, a temperature it will never reach because it would be no more capable of supporting a structural load at that temperature than a pile of spaghetti is capable of supporting a rock, according to this reference.
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Oh... you mean like this...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by adoucette On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME. |
Oh... you mean like this...
Pakistan's foreign ministry has protested to the United States over an airstrike on a remote village near the Afghan border that killed 18 people but apparently missed its target, Osama bin Laden's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri...
Pakistan's Foreign Office said Saturday it lodged a protest with the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Ryan Crocker, and the issue is being "thoroughly investigated."
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan's information minister, called the attack "highly condemnable."...
According to a Pakistani intelligence official, al-Zawahiri -- bin Laden's right-hand man in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- was not killed in the CIA-ordered airstrike on Damadola....
U.S. sources said al-Zawahiri was the target of the strike and initially reported that he may have been among those killed.
The Pakistani intelligence official said it was not known whether al-Zawahiri was in the area.
The attack killed eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN. Three homes were targeted.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/...rike/index.html
Oh, well al-Zawahiri MIGHT have been there... what's another 18 innocent civilians... 5 innocent kids blown to bits because some yahoo shoot-em-up american cowboy got some poor intelligence...
... (maybe from some spy in Damadola who had a beef with his neighbors).
But, hey... who cares... it's a NOBLE CAUSE... well that's justification right there isn't it.
Please don't bother responding to this with whining about 'collateral damages'... I won't be listening.
BTW, gordon, sorry I haven't completed my response to your earlier post; I'm an American football fan, and a Seattle fan, so yesterday was kind of busy and Pittsburgh has just opened the game against the team most people consider the best in the league by scoring twice; IOW it is ON (this will NOT be a blowout, at least not the first half), and I'm gonna watch it. I'll try to get to the remaining response later today or tonite.
and Pittsburgh has just opened the game against the team most people consider the best in the league by scoring twice; IOW it is ON (this will NOT be a blowout, at least not the first half), and I'm gonna watch it. I'll try to get to the remaining response later today or tonite.
QUOTE
The attack killed eight men, five women and five children, Pakistani intelligence sources told CNN. Three homes were targeted.
They were probably from a previously unheard of terrorist group. Or they had links to terrorists, or they harboured terrorists, or they were linked to al-quaeda..or....
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
Pfffttt
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
Foxx replied
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
I think this response is out of order, but I am willing to accept that this may be a cultural difference. I'm not from the US, although I have visited in the past. (Not sure if I'd be allowed back though) I do not remember experiencing or witnessing the level of abuse which is prevalent on this forum. Is this the norm in the US nowadays? I think not and I hope not.
Schneibster was the first to respond to an attempt by myself to rid this thread of those insults. That plea was not directed at Schneibster, but rather to all posters on the thread. I would have hoped that others would do the same, or at least direct their insults to those who have not as yet modified their behaviour.
Gordon.
Originally posted by Schneibster
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
Foxx replied
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
I think this response is out of order, but I am willing to accept that this may be a cultural difference. I'm not from the US, although I have visited in the past. (Not sure if I'd be allowed back though) I do not remember experiencing or witnessing the level of abuse which is prevalent on this forum. Is this the norm in the US nowadays? I think not and I hope not.
Schneibster was the first to respond to an attempt by myself to rid this thread of those insults. That plea was not directed at Schneibster, but rather to all posters on the thread. I would have hoped that others would do the same, or at least direct their insults to those who have not as yet modified their behaviour.
Gordon.
BTW, gordon, sorry I haven't completed my response to your earlier post; I'm an American football fan, and a Seattle fan, so yesterday was kind of busy and Pittsburgh has just opened the game against the team most people consider the best in the league by scoring twice; IOW it is ON (this will NOT be a blowout, at least not the first half), and I'm gonna watch it. I'll try to get to the remaining response later today or tonite.
No problem with the reply. Hope you enjoy the match. The way that the Rangers are playing this season, I might start developing a further interest in your version of the beautiful game.
Gordon.
No problem with the reply. Hope you enjoy the match. The way that the Rangers are playing this season, I might start developing a further interest in your version of the beautiful game.
Gordon.
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 15 2006, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
Foxx replied
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
I think this response is out of order, but I am willing to accept that this may be a cultural difference. I'm not from the US, although I have visited in the past. (Not sure if I'd be allowed back though) I do not remember experiencing or witnessing the level of abuse which is prevalent on this forum. Is this the norm in the US nowadays? I think not and I hope not.
Schneibster was the first to respond to an attempt by myself to rid this thread of those insults. That plea was not directed at Schneibster, but rather to all posters on the thread. I would have hoped that others would do the same, or at least direct their insults to those who have not as yet modified their behaviour.
Gordon.
Since Foxx is from Canada, America can't take credit for his actions. It's people like galdur, foxx and to some extent metamars who insist on attacking. Though metamars does it in suttle ways it's still attacking. I hold up the mirror in a more direct way.
I made an offer a while back not to attack and what happened... Others saw it as a sign of weakness and continued to attack.
When I came to this board I started reading the thread from the begining and noticed the unfair attacks on Schneibster which continue to this day. (Foxx, Galdur)
Either we're all going to behave or none of us should. The constant degrading of members on one side of the issue while the other side remains quite will only give license to insult from the offending side. More will pile on.
Believe it or not I live by my credo. "Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw." But I only use that saw when insulted. And believe me I can insult better than most on this board.
So if everyone plays nice from now on I will to. But as Foxx demonstrates it's highly unlikely.
Originally posted by Schneibster
It is a pleasure to debate with someone who honestly presents points that are well-thought and contain accurate technical understanding. In this case, although accurate, your visualization is incomplete.
Foxx replied
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
I think this response is out of order, but I am willing to accept that this may be a cultural difference. I'm not from the US, although I have visited in the past. (Not sure if I'd be allowed back though) I do not remember experiencing or witnessing the level of abuse which is prevalent on this forum. Is this the norm in the US nowadays? I think not and I hope not.
Schneibster was the first to respond to an attempt by myself to rid this thread of those insults. That plea was not directed at Schneibster, but rather to all posters on the thread. I would have hoped that others would do the same, or at least direct their insults to those who have not as yet modified their behaviour.
Gordon.
Since Foxx is from Canada, America can't take credit for his actions. It's people like galdur, foxx and to some extent metamars who insist on attacking. Though metamars does it in suttle ways it's still attacking. I hold up the mirror in a more direct way.
I made an offer a while back not to attack and what happened... Others saw it as a sign of weakness and continued to attack.
When I came to this board I started reading the thread from the begining and noticed the unfair attacks on Schneibster which continue to this day. (Foxx, Galdur)
Either we're all going to behave or none of us should. The constant degrading of members on one side of the issue while the other side remains quite will only give license to insult from the offending side. More will pile on.
Believe it or not I live by my credo. "Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw." But I only use that saw when insulted. And believe me I can insult better than most on this board.
So if everyone plays nice from now on I will to. But as Foxx demonstrates it's highly unlikely.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Jan 15 2006, 01:43 PM)
Since Foxx is from Canada, America can't take credit for his actions. It's people like galdur, foxx and to some extent metamars who insist on attacking. Though metamars does it in suttle ways it's still attacking. I hold up the mirror in a more direct way.
I made an offer a while back not to attack and what happened... Others saw it as a sign of weakness and continued to attack.
When I came to this board I started reading the thread from the begining and noticed the unfair attacks on Schneibster which continue to this day. (Foxx, Galdur)
Either we're all going to behave or none of us should. The constant degrading of members on one side of the issue while the other side remains quite will only give license to insult from the offending side. More will pile on.
Believe it or not I live by my credo. "Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw." But I only use that saw when insulted. And believe me I can insult better than most on this board.
So if everyone plays nice from now on I will to. But as Foxx demonstrates it's highly unlikely.
Why do you only have 2 posts? Seriously, can you be more specific as to who you are representing.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 15 2006, 06:41 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 14 2006, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 15 2006, 05:03 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 04:58 AM)
Hi met, CS!
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
Thanks adoucette!
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
RC,
What is you real position on the forum? I see you are a moderator on a special section however you authoritarian attitude toward MMC make me think otherwise. Is this how you try to bring a maverick scientist into line?
MMC.
You are a disgrace to the word 'scientist'. You have OBVIOUSLY NOT read all the info on that other thread, otherwise you would not be repeating the same debunked assertions here. And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES...and not just 'air'. The sudden concentration of energy involved would have produced 'explosive' combustion in the compressed FUEL-AIR situations within the collapsed floors. There's your 'bomb'. And since the 'concrete' used on the floors was of the LIGHTWEIGHT consistency; and the panels and wall-coverings were of the soft 'drywall' variety, then of course the collapse would EASILY produce such dust; not to mention the 'calcining' (to CaO+CO2) of some 'concrete' material by the high temps involved. Please do yourself a favour: RE-READ AND COMPREHEND FULLY THE MEANING OF ALL THAT APPEARS IN THAT OTHER THREAD before going on with THIS farce of a 'scientific treatment'. Your attempts here have so far done nothing but bring the spectre of disrespect and derision for all true scientists here.
RC.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54586
MMC had some interesting information in this thread.
Hi reasonwhy.
FYI:
- I am moderator along with Tor ONLY on a 'special project' Sub-forum on Cosmology theory...and NO OTHER FORUM.
- Any input I have to other forum threads are MINE ALONE as an ordinary poster.
- Any comments/observations/criticisms I make of MMC are based on substantiated observable facts and information...like all the information available in THIS thread which MMC has obviously failed to peruse thoroughly BEFORE making his assertions in his own thread, the 'deficiencies' and 'misrepresentations' of which ANY MEMBER MAY POINT OUT based on the objective evidence available.
- MMC is perfectly entitled to REBUT with his own substantiated arguments...so no intimidation is even POSSIBLE in such an OPEN and unrestricted discussion where MMC may present objective evidence to say why he is right and others are wrong...as any TRUE scientist would be expected to do.
And reasonwhy, please ask yourself this: If MMC is genuine in his aim to discuss fully all the relevant PHYSICS of 9/11 events, what better place to start than to READ THIS THREAD FULLY (as any true scientist would do as a matter of 'research' course), AND THEN CONTRIBUTE HERE any comments/observations based on ALL THE INFO AVAILABLE HERE ALREADY...instead of wanting to ignore all that has gone on here and starting a thread based on INCOMPLETE information and ALREADY DEBUNKED assertions?
Obviously , reasonwhy, you yourself have no pride in what it is to BE a true scientist, otherwise you would be the first to understand WHY it is the DUTY of OTHER scientists to take anyone to task who is obviously NOT following THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which MMC is patently NOT doing in his 9/11 thread, as demonstrated for all other scientists to see in the FLAWED way he is 'gathering/presenting/testing his OWN 'info'. That's all I have to say on the subject of MMC as a 'scientist'. You can make of it what you will. But we scientists have a duty, and I would be failing in MINE, as an ordinary PhysOrgForum member and true scientist, if I did NOT apprise MMC of what I see as his 'deficiencies' in that respect insofar as his 9/11 thread is concerned. BTW, it is also my RIGHT to do so if the science/debate warrants it.
I hope the above answers your concerns in this matter. Ciao, reasonwhy!
RC.
.
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
Originally posted by arthur
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
Until then, once again I encourage people to read this post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Hmmm, your link takes me to...
Latest PhysOrg Weblog story: Not a Hoax, One-Eyed Kitten Had Bizarre Condition
I'm not sure I follow your point? Do you mean this link...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE) in the above. The quote should read...
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE) in the above. The quote should read...
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
follow the links to the NIST documents (its a short one, even Metemars can read it, its only 13 pages) and see how Foxx has PURPOSEFULLY distorted the TRUTH.
Arthur
With regard to WHO exactly was involved in the 'collection process'... NIST states...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (page 87 / adobe 137)
PS - Arthur, please don't go sneezing on the keyboard and spreading your virus around here...
I don't know why the link function didn't work and I'm too sick to care to figure it out, but doing it this way seems to get you there.
topic link
It takes you to the correct spot and has nothing to do with one eyed kittens or donkeys.
Arthur
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
Obviously , reasonwhy, you yourself have no pride in what it is to BE a true scientist, otherwise you would be the first to understand WHY it is the DUTY of OTHER scientists to take anyone to task who is obviously NOT following THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which MMC is patently NOT doing in his 9/11 thread, as demonstrated for all other scientists to see in the FLAWED way he is 'gathering/presenting/testing his OWN 'info'. That's all I have to say on the subject of MMC as a 'scientist'. You can make of it what you will. But we scientists have a duty, and I would be failing in MINE, as an ordinary PhysOrgForum member and true scientist, if I did NOT apprise MMC of what I see as his 'deficiencies' in that respect insofar as his 9/11 thread is concerned. BTW, it is also my RIGHT to do so if the science/debate warrants it.
I hope the above answers your concerns in this matter. Ciao, reasonwhy!
RC.
.
I obviously am not a scientist. Can you show me scientifically on this thread were the use of a nuclear bomb has been proven false?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
If steel is shown to have the same high reflection/absorption ratio at infrared , we may have to refer to it as a "white body". "Black body" would certainly be inappropriate....
What's a "Zogby" poll; is that anything like the "Push" polls lobbyists have here in Aussie when they want to 'skew' the responses by limiting/misrepresenting/arranging their questions so that they can always get/interpret the "answers" they are after whether or not the respondents intention was such or not?
RC.
Zogby is a polling company.
In this case one of the 9/11 conspiracy sites came up with the questions.
Zogby just conducted the poll.
The question is too ambiguous to draw any conclusions from.
You could answer it yes, as some have mentioned, and not at all believe that the Admin LIHOP.
Being incompetent is not the same as planning an attack.
Arthur
Thanks adoucette!
BTW, are "Zogby" a reputable firm? I ask only because (as far as I know) no reputable firm here in Aussie will conduct such "Push" polls; and its usually conducted over the phone by 'political' party "pollsters"' just before an election so that its then too late for people to wise up until AFTER the election, hehehe...when its too late to complain.
But in any case, if Zogby ARE 'reputable', don't they have any 'standards' or 'warning signs' DISCRETION at all?...or do they just provide the 'logistics' for anyone who pays up; and NOT any 'standing' behind such obviously AMBIVALENT/AMBIGUOUS 'polls'.
RC.
.
RC,
What is you real position on the forum? I see you are a moderator on a special section however you authoritarian attitude toward MMC make me think otherwise. Is this how you try to bring a maverick scientist into line?
QUOTE
MMC.
You are a disgrace to the word 'scientist'. You have OBVIOUSLY NOT read all the info on that other thread, otherwise you would not be repeating the same debunked assertions here. And you missed where I said that about the 'compressed' BURNING MATTER AND COMBUSTION GASES...and not just 'air'. The sudden concentration of energy involved would have produced 'explosive' combustion in the compressed FUEL-AIR situations within the collapsed floors. There's your 'bomb'. And since the 'concrete' used on the floors was of the LIGHTWEIGHT consistency; and the panels and wall-coverings were of the soft 'drywall' variety, then of course the collapse would EASILY produce such dust; not to mention the 'calcining' (to CaO+CO2) of some 'concrete' material by the high temps involved. Please do yourself a favour: RE-READ AND COMPREHEND FULLY THE MEANING OF ALL THAT APPEARS IN THAT OTHER THREAD before going on with THIS farce of a 'scientific treatment'. Your attempts here have so far done nothing but bring the spectre of disrespect and derision for all true scientists here.
RC.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54586
MMC had some interesting information in this thread.
Hi reasonwhy.
FYI:
- I am moderator along with Tor ONLY on a 'special project' Sub-forum on Cosmology theory...and NO OTHER FORUM.
- Any input I have to other forum threads are MINE ALONE as an ordinary poster.
- Any comments/observations/criticisms I make of MMC are based on substantiated observable facts and information...like all the information available in THIS thread which MMC has obviously failed to peruse thoroughly BEFORE making his assertions in his own thread, the 'deficiencies' and 'misrepresentations' of which ANY MEMBER MAY POINT OUT based on the objective evidence available.
- MMC is perfectly entitled to REBUT with his own substantiated arguments...so no intimidation is even POSSIBLE in such an OPEN and unrestricted discussion where MMC may present objective evidence to say why he is right and others are wrong...as any TRUE scientist would be expected to do.
And reasonwhy, please ask yourself this: If MMC is genuine in his aim to discuss fully all the relevant PHYSICS of 9/11 events, what better place to start than to READ THIS THREAD FULLY (as any true scientist would do as a matter of 'research' course), AND THEN CONTRIBUTE HERE any comments/observations based on ALL THE INFO AVAILABLE HERE ALREADY...instead of wanting to ignore all that has gone on here and starting a thread based on INCOMPLETE information and ALREADY DEBUNKED assertions?
Obviously , reasonwhy, you yourself have no pride in what it is to BE a true scientist, otherwise you would be the first to understand WHY it is the DUTY of OTHER scientists to take anyone to task who is obviously NOT following THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which MMC is patently NOT doing in his 9/11 thread, as demonstrated for all other scientists to see in the FLAWED way he is 'gathering/presenting/testing his OWN 'info'. That's all I have to say on the subject of MMC as a 'scientist'. You can make of it what you will. But we scientists have a duty, and I would be failing in MINE, as an ordinary PhysOrgForum member and true scientist, if I did NOT apprise MMC of what I see as his 'deficiencies' in that respect insofar as his 9/11 thread is concerned. BTW, it is also my RIGHT to do so if the science/debate warrants it.
I hope the above answers your concerns in this matter. Ciao, reasonwhy!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 15 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues?
NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER?
NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT.
He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD
Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues?
NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER?
NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT.
He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Adoucette Notice how Foxx completely IGNORES the IMPORANT issues? NO DEFENSE OF HIS CLAIM THAT 80% OF THE STEEL HAD BEEN LOOKED OVER? NO DEFENSE OF WHY HE ALTERED THE WORDING (WTC SITE BECOMES WTC TOWERS) TO MAKE HIS POINT. He admits that his catagorizaiton of the search was a "loose statement", but CLEARLY that wasn't the KEY issue. HE ALTERED THE WORDING IN THE DOCUMENT TO MISLEAD |
Nonsense. Point out the original quote I used and the actual quote from NIST to show where I have altered the wording to mislead. You posted such nonsense with regard to this, and I ignored it specifically because your statement and twisting of words was so obviously ridiculous. You are starting to sound an awful lot like another poster here who's favourite word is LIES.
Originally posted by arthur
By the way, Foxx, another of your lies will be exposed shortly (on no steel > 250C), I've been reading the NIST report that you quote from a lot and find that ONCE again, you PURPOSEFULLY distort the truth.
Until then, once again I encourage people to read this post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54559
Hmmm, your link takes me to...
Latest PhysOrg Weblog story: Not a Hoax, One-Eyed Kitten Had Bizarre Condition
I'm not sure I follow your point? Do you mean this link...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C
The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE)
in the above. The quote should read..."Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C |
My apologies for the serious distortion (and obvious LIE)
in the above. The quote should read..."Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C... and Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC "
And I have edited that post to state the above. As I view it, it hasn't changed the context of the post except insignificantly.
As I said, you have become so desperate that you are grasping at straws, and trying to find minutuae to pick at.
The keyword which should be focused upon is 250 deg C... (482 deg F)... hardly temperatures at which fire destroys the structural integrity of steel. That is consistent with results of fire tests in uninsulated steel framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 deg C (680 deg F).
Oh but wait... now I suppose you will seize upon the phrase "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C", and imply that because they said 'above' 250 deg C, they actually mean 800 deg C?
It is clear from all previous reports which make this statement with regard to temperatures that they mean around 250 deg C. This is also implied when they discuss these paint-cracking test methods on page 90 (adobe 140)...
(Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
follow the links to the NIST documents (its a short one, even Metemars can read it, its only 13 pages) and see how Foxx has PURPOSEFULLY distorted the TRUTH.
Arthur
With regard to WHO exactly was involved in the 'collection process'... NIST states...
QUOTE
Members of the FEMA-sponsored and ASCE-led Building Performance Assessment Team, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkley, CA with support from the National Science Foundation, had begun work to identify and collect WTC structural steel from various recycling yards where the steel was taken during the clean-up effort. The Port Authority of New York and New York Jersey (Port Authority) also collected structural steel elements for future exhibits and memorials.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (page 87 / adobe 137)
PS - Arthur, please don't go sneezing on the keyboard and spreading your virus around here...
I don't know why the link function didn't work and I'm too sick to care to figure it out, but doing it this way seems to get you there.
topic link
It takes you to the correct spot and has nothing to do with one eyed kittens or donkeys.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 15 2006, 05:15 PM)
To Schneibster,
I thought that I had responded to your post on radiative heat transfer but obviously my response was insufficient.
All bodies above 0 K emit radiation. (When I say radiation I am referring to the wavelengths concerned with heat transfer )
Generally gases do not take part in radiative heat transfer.
The heat emitted is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin to the power of four.
Radiation moves in straight lines and therefore the two bodies must be visible ( in line of sight) with each other for a transfer between them to take place.
From this we can see that what you say is correct in that a photon can be absorbed by a body, irrespective of the temperature of the body which emitted that photon. This would suggest that the laws of thermodynamics which state that heat energy will move from a hot body to a cold body are transgressed by radiative heat energy, The apparent paradox can be explained by noting that both the hot body and the cold body would be emitting radiation and the amount emitted by the hot body would be greater than that emitted by the cold body. The transfer would act in both directions but the net heat transfer through radiation would be from hot to cold, and the laws of thermodynamics would still be satisfied.
Gordon.
This following is closely related, and I had raised the issue earlier. I had reasoned that absorption of infrared radiation was essentially 0 inside of a conductor.
It turns out that I was right, but for the wrong reason. The absorption of electromagnetic radiation in matter depends critically on the details of the molecular constituents, and also critically on the radiative frequencies that are amenable to absorption in the particular matter.
In the case of metals and infrared, radiative hear transfer is a skin or surface phenomenon:
http://www.infraredheaters.com/fundamen.htm
Misconception #4
Courtesy of EPRI/CMF
Technology Guidebook for Electric Infrared Process Heating
* Short-wavelength IR penetrates more than medium and long-wavelength IR.
* Although this statement is true in many cases, it is not universally true. For example, metals do not transmit IR radiation of any wavelength. All the IR radiation incident on a metal is absorbed or reflected at the surface. On the other hand, some non-metals transmit radiation. These include water, glass, quartz, and some ceramic and polymer materials. These same materials also may transmit longer wavelength
(emphasis mine)
There will be a rapid, exponential decay of em radiation absorption near the surface, and what is not absorbed at the surface will be reflected
Thus, there's no way to heat the interior of the steel columns via radiation (or even the surfaces that are not in a line of sight to strong radiative sources). You are still basically reduced to heating the interior of the columns via conduction from the surface.
Quite frankly, even if the fire-proofing was removed from a fractured (or otherwise damaged) column, while the column would be more vulnerable, I can't help but ask "So what?" Ito moving heat throughout the WTC's steel frame before the flames can "move on", steel ain't so hot (pardon the pun, couldn't resist). While the temperature is in it's lower range, most of the heat transfer is going to be by conduction, anyway, and that will be limited (how exactly, I don't know), by the fact that gasses will have a much lower thermal conductivity than steel. It's not until the fire reaches a certain intensity that radiation will supplant convection, and 1) some of that radiation will get reflected 2) what isn't reflected will only be absorbed in surfaces facing the flames.
The issue of the flames "moving on" is critical because is most of the heat transfer is radiative, that energy density will fall off as the inverse square of the distance.
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
===============================
Looking at the picture of the woman standing in the "hole" left by one of the planes, where we can see that most of the exterior steel columns are quite straight very close to their fractured ends, I now raise a question that I don't recall anybody addressing. (My apologies if it was - I tended to skip over the fire stuff in the early part of the thread.)
And that is, "How would NIST possibly know how much fire-proofing fell off? Or, if they simulated the destruction of fire-proofing, how accurate is their simulation?"
Foxx, this is a job for you!
click for a better view
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunka...jpg/Plate26.JPG
I thought that I had responded to your post on radiative heat transfer but obviously my response was insufficient.
All bodies above 0 K emit radiation. (When I say radiation I am referring to the wavelengths concerned with heat transfer )
Generally gases do not take part in radiative heat transfer.
The heat emitted is proportional to the temperature in Kelvin to the power of four.
Radiation moves in straight lines and therefore the two bodies must be visible ( in line of sight) with each other for a transfer between them to take place.
From this we can see that what you say is correct in that a photon can be absorbed by a body, irrespective of the temperature of the body which emitted that photon. This would suggest that the laws of thermodynamics which state that heat energy will move from a hot body to a cold body are transgressed by radiative heat energy, The apparent paradox can be explained by noting that both the hot body and the cold body would be emitting radiation and the amount emitted by the hot body would be greater than that emitted by the cold body. The transfer would act in both directions but the net heat transfer through radiation would be from hot to cold, and the laws of thermodynamics would still be satisfied.
Gordon.
This following is closely related, and I had raised the issue earlier. I had reasoned that absorption of infrared radiation was essentially 0 inside of a conductor.
It turns out that I was right, but for the wrong reason. The absorption of electromagnetic radiation in matter depends critically on the details of the molecular constituents, and also critically on the radiative frequencies that are amenable to absorption in the particular matter.
In the case of metals and infrared, radiative hear transfer is a skin or surface phenomenon:
QUOTE
http://www.infraredheaters.com/fundamen.htm
Misconception #4
Courtesy of EPRI/CMF
Technology Guidebook for Electric Infrared Process Heating
* Short-wavelength IR penetrates more than medium and long-wavelength IR.
* Although this statement is true in many cases, it is not universally true. For example, metals do not transmit IR radiation of any wavelength. All the IR radiation incident on a metal is absorbed or reflected at the surface. On the other hand, some non-metals transmit radiation. These include water, glass, quartz, and some ceramic and polymer materials. These same materials also may transmit longer wavelength
(emphasis mine)
There will be a rapid, exponential decay of em radiation absorption near the surface, and what is not absorbed at the surface will be reflected
Thus, there's no way to heat the interior of the steel columns via radiation (or even the surfaces that are not in a line of sight to strong radiative sources). You are still basically reduced to heating the interior of the columns via conduction from the surface.
Quite frankly, even if the fire-proofing was removed from a fractured (or otherwise damaged) column, while the column would be more vulnerable, I can't help but ask "So what?" Ito moving heat throughout the WTC's steel frame before the flames can "move on", steel ain't so hot (pardon the pun, couldn't resist). While the temperature is in it's lower range, most of the heat transfer is going to be by conduction, anyway, and that will be limited (how exactly, I don't know), by the fact that gasses will have a much lower thermal conductivity than steel. It's not until the fire reaches a certain intensity that radiation will supplant convection, and 1) some of that radiation will get reflected 2) what isn't reflected will only be absorbed in surfaces facing the flames.
The issue of the flames "moving on" is critical because is most of the heat transfer is radiative, that energy density will fall off as the inverse square of the distance.
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
===============================
Looking at the picture of the woman standing in the "hole" left by one of the planes, where we can see that most of the exterior steel columns are quite straight very close to their fractured ends, I now raise a question that I don't recall anybody addressing. (My apologies if it was - I tended to skip over the fire stuff in the early part of the thread.)
And that is, "How would NIST possibly know how much fire-proofing fell off? Or, if they simulated the destruction of fire-proofing, how accurate is their simulation?"
Foxx, this is a job for you!
click for a better view
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunka...jpg/Plate26.JPG
Quote;arthur
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that YOUR votes are counted fairly or that FEMA will respond to YOUR national emergency or why YOUR loved ones' and friends have to die or become disabled for a concocted cause that satisfies a PNAC ideological objective or.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote;arthur
Could be, I'm running a fever.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you got the fever, alright, it's called the burn of fascism. There's no known cure. It's highly contagious in the soulless, materialistic and sycophant communities. Many claim that it leads to an expedient and efficient way of living life. But others point out, that like the incestuous nature of monarchical institutions, the constant recycling of friendly, familiar faces, eventually leads to the genetic equivalent of inspirational brain drain. The source of the disease can be traced back to transmutative contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can do nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That's how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden... oops.... i forgot; the ends justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that YOUR votes are counted fairly or that FEMA will respond to YOUR national emergency or why YOUR loved ones' and friends have to die or become disabled for a concocted cause that satisfies a PNAC ideological objective or.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote;arthur
Could be, I'm running a fever.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you got the fever, alright, it's called the burn of fascism. There's no known cure. It's highly contagious in the soulless, materialistic and sycophant communities. Many claim that it leads to an expedient and efficient way of living life. But others point out, that like the incestuous nature of monarchical institutions, the constant recycling of friendly, familiar faces, eventually leads to the genetic equivalent of inspirational brain drain. The source of the disease can be traced back to transmutative contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can do nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That's how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden... oops.... i forgot; the ends justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 15 2006, 02:44 PM)
Obviously , reasonwhy, you yourself have no pride in what it is to BE a true scientist, otherwise you would be the first to understand WHY it is the DUTY of OTHER scientists to take anyone to task who is obviously NOT following THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which MMC is patently NOT doing in his 9/11 thread, as demonstrated for all other scientists to see in the FLAWED way he is 'gathering/presenting/testing his OWN 'info'. That's all I have to say on the subject of MMC as a 'scientist'. You can make of it what you will. But we scientists have a duty, and I would be failing in MINE, as an ordinary PhysOrgForum member and true scientist, if I did NOT apprise MMC of what I see as his 'deficiencies' in that respect insofar as his 9/11 thread is concerned. BTW, it is also my RIGHT to do so if the science/debate warrants it.
I hope the above answers your concerns in this matter. Ciao, reasonwhy!
RC.
.
I obviously am not a scientist. Can you show me scientifically on this thread were the use of a nuclear bomb has been proven false?
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 15 2006, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE
Does anybody have info on how much of IR will be reflected vs. absorbed on the skin of the column?
Wrong frequency, but at 1 MHz, steel reflects about 10x as much radiation as it absorbs*:
http://www.vividinc.com/newSite/emirfi.shtml
If I'm reading this correctly.....
If steel is shown to have the same high reflection/absorption ratio at infrared , we may have to refer to it as a "white body". "Black body" would certainly be inappropriate....
Quote RealityCheck page 8
The real answer is of course....
RealityCheck Posted on Jan 15 2006, 10:44 PM
The real answer is of course....
RealityCheck Posted on Jan 15 2006, 10:44 PM
Obviously , reasonwhy, you yourself have no pride in what it is to BE a true scientist, otherwise you would be the first to understand WHY it is the DUTY of OTHER scientists to take anyone to task who is obviously NOT following THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which MMC is patently NOT doing in his 9/11 thread, as demonstrated for all other scientists to see in the FLAWED way he is 'gathering/presenting/testing his OWN 'info'. That's all I have to say on the subject of MMC as a 'scientist'. You can make of it what you will. But we scientists have a duty, and I would be failing in MINE, as an ordinary PhysOrgForum member and true scientist, if I did NOT apprise MMC of what I see as his 'deficiencies' in that respect insofar as his 9/11 thread is concerned. BTW, it is also my RIGHT to do so if the science/debate warrants it.
As it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt on page 8 (!!) of this thread that you have been found guilty of misrepresenting the information to fit your conceptual framework, I'm pretty amazed you have the audacity to come back to this thread... and accuse others of not being true scientists !!!
As it happens, I did check out your special forum. It was pretty interesting. Shame that models will never be able to fully describe our universe. Mathematics comes closest, but it too depends on axioms.
Our three final postures or relationships with the universe can be distilled to a Unity (somewhat like a mystic), a duality (common with scientific materialists) or a nothing (zen Buddhist or taoist.)
This is the science of sciences.
QUOTE
Hello everyone.
Now let’s see...hmmmm...
(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework;
(2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;
Now let’s see...hmmmm...
(1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework;
(2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof;
The real answer is of course....
RealityCheck Posted on Jan 15 2006, 10:44 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hello everyone. Now let’s see...hmmmm... (1) A steel frame skyscraper which, UNLIKE ALL PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, used ONLY an outer ‘SHELL’ of steel and glass to essentially produce a ‘square tube’ from whose ‘walls’ were suspended floor slabs fixed at their edges by welds/rivets etc. to that ‘exo-skeleton’ framework; (2) Those floor slabs, UNLIKE PREVIOUS SKYSCRAPERS, had LITTLE or NO CONTIGUOUS CENTRAL SUPPORT FRAMEWORK/CONCRETE-COLUMNS running from foundations to roof; |
The real answer is of course....
RealityCheck Posted on Jan 15 2006, 10:44 PM
Obviously , reasonwhy, you yourself have no pride in what it is to BE a true scientist, otherwise you would be the first to understand WHY it is the DUTY of OTHER scientists to take anyone to task who is obviously NOT following THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which MMC is patently NOT doing in his 9/11 thread, as demonstrated for all other scientists to see in the FLAWED way he is 'gathering/presenting/testing his OWN 'info'. That's all I have to say on the subject of MMC as a 'scientist'. You can make of it what you will. But we scientists have a duty, and I would be failing in MINE, as an ordinary PhysOrgForum member and true scientist, if I did NOT apprise MMC of what I see as his 'deficiencies' in that respect insofar as his 9/11 thread is concerned. BTW, it is also my RIGHT to do so if the science/debate warrants it.
As it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt on page 8 (!!) of this thread that you have been found guilty of misrepresenting the information to fit your conceptual framework, I'm pretty amazed you have the audacity to come back to this thread... and accuse others of not being true scientists !!!
As it happens, I did check out your special forum. It was pretty interesting. Shame that models will never be able to fully describe our universe. Mathematics comes closest, but it too depends on axioms.
Our three final postures or relationships with the universe can be distilled to a Unity (somewhat like a mystic), a duality (common with scientific materialists) or a nothing (zen Buddhist or taoist.)
This is the science of sciences.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 15 2006, 11:20 PM)
Quote;arthur
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that YOUR votes are counted fairly or that FEMA will respond to YOUR national emergency or why YOUR loved ones' have to die or becomed disabled for a concocted cause that satisfies a PNAC ideological objective or.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote;arthur
Could be, I'm running a fever.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you got the fever, alright, it's called the burn of fascism. There's no known cure. It's highly contagious in the soulless, materialistic and sycophant communities. Many claim that it leads to an expedient and efficient way of living life. But others point out, that like the incestuous nature of monarchical institutions, the constant recycling of friendly, familiar faces, eventually leads to the genetic equivalent of inspirational brain drain. The source of the disease can be traced back to contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That"s how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima and Nagasaki oops.... i forgot; the end justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference
What a load of horse pucky.
Really impressed by your literary references to great works of Science Fiction.
In case you hadn't noticed it 1984 has come and gone and no such new world order, of course during Reagan era we did see the fall of the Communist block.
We did hear Gorby say that Communism was a FAILED EXPERIMENT.
Quite different than the earlier "We Will Bury You" rants from the USSR.
Go with the force Luktober
Arthur
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that YOUR votes are counted fairly or that FEMA will respond to YOUR national emergency or why YOUR loved ones' have to die or becomed disabled for a concocted cause that satisfies a PNAC ideological objective or.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote;arthur
Could be, I'm running a fever.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you got the fever, alright, it's called the burn of fascism. There's no known cure. It's highly contagious in the soulless, materialistic and sycophant communities. Many claim that it leads to an expedient and efficient way of living life. But others point out, that like the incestuous nature of monarchical institutions, the constant recycling of friendly, familiar faces, eventually leads to the genetic equivalent of inspirational brain drain. The source of the disease can be traced back to contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That"s how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima and Nagasaki oops.... i forgot; the end justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference
What a load of horse pucky.
Really impressed by your literary references to great works of Science Fiction.
In case you hadn't noticed it 1984 has come and gone and no such new world order, of course during Reagan era we did see the fall of the Communist block.
We did hear Gorby say that Communism was a FAILED EXPERIMENT.
Quite different than the earlier "We Will Bury You" rants from the USSR.
Go with the force Luktober
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 16 2006, 12:13 AM)
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jan 15 2006, 11:20 PM)
Quote;arthur
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that YOUR votes are counted fairly or that FEMA will respond to YOUR national emergency or why YOUR loved ones' have to die or becomed disabled for a concocted cause that satisfies a PNAC ideological objective or.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote;arthur
Could be, I'm running a fever.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you got the fever, alright, it's called the burn of fascism. There's no known cure. It's highly contagious in the soulless, materialistic and sycophant communities. Many claim that it leads to an expedient and efficient way of living life. But others point out, that like the incestuous nature of monarchical institutions, the constant recycling of friendly, familiar faces, eventually leads to the genetic equivalent of inspirational brain drain. The source of the disease can be traced back to contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That"s how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima and Nagasaki oops.... i forgot; the end justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference
What a load of horse pucky.
Really impressed by your literary references to great works of Science Fiction.
In case you hadn't noticed it 1984 has come and gone and no such new world order, of course during Reagan era we did see the fall of the Communist block.
We did hear Gorby say that Communism was a FAILED EXPERIMENT.
Quite different than the earlier "We Will Bury You" rants from the USSR.
Go with the force Luktober
Arthur
Well,Arthur... Heh... If nothing else, your last post (I must admit), made me chuckle. very 'entertaining' Luktober???
Now... onto the 'Truce' situation...
Originally posted by gordon
I think this response is out of order, but I am willing to accept that this may be a cultural difference. I'm not from the US, although I have visited in the past. (Not sure if I'd be allowed back though) I do not remember experiencing or witnessing the level of abuse which is prevalent on this forum. Is this the norm in the US nowadays? I think not and I hope not.
Schneibster was the first to respond to an attempt by myself to rid this thread of those insults. That plea was not directed at Schneibster, but rather to all posters on the thread. I would have hoped that others would do the same, or at least direct their insults to those who have not as yet modified their behaviour.
Point taken, gordon. Perhaps I should have added a smiley to my above quote?
I (personally), have no doubts that the 'Schneibster', 'Common Sense', 'CHUCKLES' (who has not been brought out of the closet for a while), and I suspect many one or two visit 'Guests' are in fact the same poster. He's just made another dead give-away blunder (as pointed out by reasonwhy)...
The above was the last post of "CommOn Sense"
Given the statements made by the NEW "CommEn sense" in this post here...
The above was the last post of "CommOn Sense"
Given the statements made by the NEW "CommEn sense" in this post here...
Commen sense
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5911
Joined: 25-December 05
Posted: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54839
Jan 15 2006, 09:43 PM
...It is blatantly obvious that both the above 'characters' are one and the same
Now, Perhaps there are some here who think "who cares? It's irrelevant to the issue at hand".
As for me, I don't view such circumstances as unimportant to the issues...but maybe that's just ME.
My first point of concern is that in order to sign up for membership, (as I understand it) a person must provide their IP number.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought forums generally frowned upon persons signing up under numerous false identities? It is also my understanding (perhaps mistakenly) that one reason for providing an IP address is so that forums can 'weed' out those who attempt to sign up under numerous names. There are numerous valid reasons for NOT wanting people to be signing up under various 'identities', but that's a whole different 'book'...
suffice it to say that such behaviour on internet forums has been shown to lead to all kinds of 'abuses' and 'disruptions'.
I'm not a computer programmer genius, but it seems to me that an IP address is 'attached' to a particular individual computer... and I suppose if a person had an entire bank of computers set up in their 'office'... they could sign up under numerous 'identities'.
Such a situation would allow an individual (or group of individuals) to essentially manipulate (or AT LEAST ATTEMPT to manipulate) a forum towards their own purposes.
My second point of concern is for what PURPOSE are such actions being undertaken?
Is the party (guilty of such actions) just some 'loose cannon sociopath' with serious emotional and psychological problems?... is the person just some computer whiz teenager playing around on the internet having 'laughs'?...or IS there some more 'sinister' purpose for such actions?
Given the 'positions' taken by "The Schneibster", and his vitriolic attacks since his first post against Andrew Johnson on this thread some 200 pages ago, (when he mysteriously arrived after the 'outing' of ah_t - or whatever his name was)...his degrading constant stream of insults, his spamming, and outright threats...
I'm afraid I have no sympathy or empathy at all for this 'character'.
So now he want's to play 'nice'? Fine...
I will not address Schneibster directly or indirectly any further as long as he refrains from his insulting behaviour...
and let's just see how long he lasts playing 'rational intelligent human being with-no-agenda'.
As for me personally, I come to these 9/11 forums neither to purposely insult others, nor to be the butt of others verbal abuse'. NEITHER do I like it when I see others being verbally abused.
I agree that in an intelligent un-biased debate there is NO PLACE for such behaviour.
However, I also feel there is NO PLACE for 'manipulators' either.
I see no 'abuse' directed at Schneibster in my initial quote above.
As far as I am concerned I was stating a simple obvious fact. If the above quote is NOT TRUE, then it will become readily apparent to any who analyse the postings of this 'character' on this thread. CAN Schneibster change his personality from his past conduct?
If so... then maybe he can be a valuable 'asset' (according to metamars opinions here)...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54726
My 'truce offered' (as pointed out above) is dependant upon Schneibsters actions from this point forward.
Treat others as you wish to be treated, Schneibster, and you won't have any 'problems' from my corner... and GIVE UP the charades... you are CERTAINLY NOT fooling 'some' of us here.
Your veiled threats such as ...
Fine... I live by the same credo... only I carry a bigger saw... and that is the TRUTH.
Peace... for the third time
and (hopefully) if you behave, I will not bring out my 'saw' again, nevertheless, in the end, the TRUTH WILL BE EXPOSED.
Get used to disappointment.
It isn't ANYONE's job to make sure all YOUR questions get answered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that YOUR votes are counted fairly or that FEMA will respond to YOUR national emergency or why YOUR loved ones' have to die or becomed disabled for a concocted cause that satisfies a PNAC ideological objective or.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote;arthur
Could be, I'm running a fever.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you got the fever, alright, it's called the burn of fascism. There's no known cure. It's highly contagious in the soulless, materialistic and sycophant communities. Many claim that it leads to an expedient and efficient way of living life. But others point out, that like the incestuous nature of monarchical institutions, the constant recycling of friendly, familiar faces, eventually leads to the genetic equivalent of inspirational brain drain. The source of the disease can be traced back to contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That"s how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima and Nagasaki oops.... i forgot; the end justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference
What a load of horse pucky.
Really impressed by your literary references to great works of Science Fiction.
In case you hadn't noticed it 1984 has come and gone and no such new world order, of course during Reagan era we did see the fall of the Communist block.
We did hear Gorby say that Communism was a FAILED EXPERIMENT.
Quite different than the earlier "We Will Bury You" rants from the USSR.
Go with the force Luktober
Arthur
Well,Arthur... Heh... If nothing else, your last post (I must admit), made me chuckle. very 'entertaining'
Luktober???Now... onto the 'Truce' situation...
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx Oh, look... Schneibster has returned with the 'good-cop persona', now that he has shuffled the 'bad-cop persona' off to his alter-ego. |
Originally posted by gordon
I think this response is out of order, but I am willing to accept that this may be a cultural difference. I'm not from the US, although I have visited in the past. (Not sure if I'd be allowed back though) I do not remember experiencing or witnessing the level of abuse which is prevalent on this forum. Is this the norm in the US nowadays? I think not and I hope not.
Schneibster was the first to respond to an attempt by myself to rid this thread of those insults. That plea was not directed at Schneibster, but rather to all posters on the thread. I would have hoped that others would do the same, or at least direct their insults to those who have not as yet modified their behaviour.
Point taken, gordon. Perhaps I should have added a smiley to my above quote?
I (personally), have no doubts that the 'Schneibster', 'Common Sense', 'CHUCKLES' (who has not been brought out of the closet for a while), and I suspect many one or two visit 'Guests' are in fact the same poster. He's just made another dead give-away blunder (as pointed out by reasonwhy)...
QUOTE
Common Sense
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 310
Member No.: 5912
Joined: 25-December 05
Posted: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54662
Jan 15 2006, 07:36 AM
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 310
Member No.: 5912
Joined: 25-December 05
Posted: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54662
Jan 15 2006, 07:36 AM
The above was the last post of "CommOn Sense"
Given the statements made by the NEW "CommEn sense" in this post here...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Common Sense Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 310 Member No.: 5912 Joined: 25-December 05 Posted: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54662 Jan 15 2006, 07:36 AM |
The above was the last post of "CommOn Sense"
Given the statements made by the NEW "CommEn sense" in this post here...
Commen sense
Newbie
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5911
Joined: 25-December 05
Posted: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54839
Jan 15 2006, 09:43 PM
...It is blatantly obvious that both the above 'characters' are one and the same
Now, Perhaps there are some here who think "who cares? It's irrelevant to the issue at hand".
As for me, I don't view such circumstances as unimportant to the issues...but maybe that's just ME.
My first point of concern is that in order to sign up for membership, (as I understand it) a person must provide their IP number.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought forums generally frowned upon persons signing up under numerous false identities? It is also my understanding (perhaps mistakenly) that one reason for providing an IP address is so that forums can 'weed' out those who attempt to sign up under numerous names. There are numerous valid reasons for NOT wanting people to be signing up under various 'identities', but that's a whole different 'book'...
suffice it to say that such behaviour on internet forums has been shown to lead to all kinds of 'abuses' and 'disruptions'.
I'm not a computer programmer genius, but it seems to me that an IP address is 'attached' to a particular individual computer... and I suppose if a person had an entire bank of computers set up in their 'office'... they could sign up under numerous 'identities'.
Such a situation would allow an individual (or group of individuals) to essentially manipulate (or AT LEAST ATTEMPT to manipulate) a forum towards their own purposes.
My second point of concern is for what PURPOSE are such actions being undertaken?
Is the party (guilty of such actions) just some 'loose cannon sociopath' with serious emotional and psychological problems?... is the person just some computer whiz teenager playing around on the internet having 'laughs'?...or IS there some more 'sinister' purpose for such actions?
Given the 'positions' taken by "The Schneibster", and his vitriolic attacks since his first post against Andrew Johnson on this thread some 200 pages ago, (when he mysteriously arrived after the 'outing' of ah_t - or whatever his name was)...his degrading constant stream of insults, his spamming, and outright threats...
I'm afraid I have no sympathy or empathy at all for this 'character'.
So now he want's to play 'nice'? Fine...
I will not address Schneibster directly or indirectly any further as long as he refrains from his insulting behaviour...
and let's just see how long he lasts playing 'rational intelligent human being with-no-agenda'.
As for me personally, I come to these 9/11 forums neither to purposely insult others, nor to be the butt of others verbal abuse'. NEITHER do I like it when I see others being verbally abused.
I agree that in an intelligent un-biased debate there is NO PLACE for such behaviour.
However, I also feel there is NO PLACE for 'manipulators' either.
I see no 'abuse' directed at Schneibster in my initial quote above.
As far as I am concerned I was stating a simple obvious fact. If the above quote is NOT TRUE, then it will become readily apparent to any who analyse the postings of this 'character' on this thread. CAN Schneibster change his personality from his past conduct?
If so... then maybe he can be a valuable 'asset' (according to metamars opinions here)...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54726
My 'truce offered' (as pointed out above) is dependant upon Schneibsters actions from this point forward.
Treat others as you wish to be treated, Schneibster, and you won't have any 'problems' from my corner... and GIVE UP the charades... you are CERTAINLY NOT fooling 'some' of us here.
Your veiled threats such as ...
QUOTE
"Believe it or not I live by my credo. "Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. I carry a saw."
Fine... I live by the same credo... only I carry a bigger saw... and that is the TRUTH.
Peace... for the third time
and (hopefully) if you behave, I will not bring out my 'saw' again, nevertheless, in the end, the TRUTH WILL BE EXPOSED.
QUOTE (metamars+)
And that is, "How would NIST possibly know how much fire-proofing fell off? Or, if they simulated the destruction of fire-proofing, how accurate is their simulation?"
Foxx, this is a job for you!
It is ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING, that in one post you critisize the "BOZO's" at NIST and yet you HAVEN'T bothered to read their REPORT.
They COVER this, and so much more, and they EXPLAIN how they model the various things and how the models are tested against reality etc etc.
You know, how REAL SCIENTISTS CONDUCT RESEARCH.
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
By the way, all the questions about absorbtion of energy by steel, they cover.
Arthur
Foxx, this is a job for you!
It is ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING, that in one post you critisize the "BOZO's" at NIST and yet you HAVEN'T bothered to read their REPORT.
They COVER this, and so much more, and they EXPLAIN how they model the various things and how the models are tested against reality etc etc.
You know, how REAL SCIENTISTS CONDUCT RESEARCH.
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
By the way, all the questions about absorbtion of energy by steel, they cover.
Arthur
[QUOTE=adoucette,Jan 16 2006, 12:13 AM]. The source of the disease can be traced back to contagions found in the GEORGE Orwell novel, "1984". (Ironic that the title also coincides with the mid-point of the Reagan administration). Symptoms include an obsession with "the ends justify the means" doctrine. If we can do something, we will! Conversely, If we can nothing, we're there to!. Patients have been know to greatly over extend themselves, constraining and depleting the vitality, of the in-law, side of the family. They can readily disassociate themselves from uncomfortable consequences, much like a lizard's ability to lose its' tail. They use military force, the way the "Krell" from "Forbidden Planet", materialized their intent, limited to no less than the entire potential energy of "Altair". "Monsters from the id". That"s how I see you and your kind, Aurthur, "Monsters from the id".
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima and Nagasaki oops.... i forgot; the end justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference [/QUOTE]
What a load of horse pucky.
Really impressed by your literary references to great works of Science Fiction.
In case you hadn't noticed it 1984 has come and gone and no such new world order, of course during Reagan era we did see the fall of the Communist block.
We did hear Gorby say that Communism was a FAILED EXPERIMENT.
Quite different than the earlier "We Will Bury You" rants from the USSR.
Go with the force Luktober
Arthur [/QUOTE]
1984 was written as allegory of the existing conditions in 1948. orwell merely switched the last two numbers of the date around.
marshall mcluhan wrote in 'the mechanical bride', in 1951, "The misleading effect of books like George Orwell's '1984' is to project into the future a state of affairs that already exist. Such books distract from the present actuality".
so, in NINETEEN FIFTY-ONE, mcluhan had already indentified the totalitarian information state created by the printed word and the 'extensions of man'.
(as well as did orwell, imo. i think the reason orwell 'disguised' it as the future was so he would GET PUBLISHED. if you write a book describing how the publishing industry controls 'reality', you won't get published.)
maybe 'communism' was a 'strawman', and gorby a shill for the nwo grift.
Synopsis of the New World Order: You're either inside the castle or outside the moat. I don't quite see how democracy fits into that game plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote;arthur
On the other hand, you seem to claim that TERRORISM, which is specifically directed against CIVILIANS is the same as a WAR, engaged for NOBLE purposes (i.e. to STOP TERRORISM as opposed to CONQUEST), with rules of engagement designed to MINIMIZE injuries to civilians, are the SAME.
Seems to me you make NO DISTINCTION between what is morally correct and what is morally abhorrent.
Terrorism against civilians: BAD!
War against civilians: GOOD! (and noble): Hiroshima and Nagasaki oops.... i forgot; the end justifies the means
Distinctions without a difference [/QUOTE]
What a load of horse pucky.
Really impressed by your literary references to great works of Science Fiction.
In case you hadn't noticed it 1984 has come and gone and no such new world order, of course during Reagan era we did see the fall of the Communist block.
We did hear Gorby say that Communism was a FAILED EXPERIMENT.
Quite different than the earlier "We Will Bury You" rants from the USSR.
Go with the force Luktober
Arthur [/QUOTE]
1984 was written as allegory of the existing conditions in 1948. orwell merely switched the last two numbers of the date around.
marshall mcluhan wrote in 'the mechanical bride', in 1951, "The misleading effect of books like George Orwell's '1984' is to project into the future a state of affairs that already exist. Such books distract from the present actuality".
so, in NINETEEN FIFTY-ONE, mcluhan had already indentified the totalitarian information state created by the printed word and the 'extensions of man'.
(as well as did orwell, imo. i think the reason orwell 'disguised' it as the future was so he would GET PUBLISHED. if you write a book describing how the publishing industry controls 'reality', you won't get published.)
maybe 'communism' was a 'strawman', and gorby a shill for the nwo grift.
Note to Activists
In light of Professor Jim Fetzer's efforts wrt "Scholars for Truth about 9/11", please consider either holding off attempting to reach physicists, engineers, applied mathematicians, etc., with the papers of Professor Jones, Hoffman, and Trumpman until Fetzer's organization is all set up, or at least alerting them to its imminent appearance.
I know that seems disloyal but an honest appraisal of the level of debate at physorg makes it obvious why another forum with a higher "signal to noise ratio" is desirable.
Of course, if Professor Fetzer does not buy my suggestion for a moderated forum, then all bets are off.
In light of Professor Jim Fetzer's efforts wrt "Scholars for Truth about 9/11", please consider either holding off attempting to reach physicists, engineers, applied mathematicians, etc., with the papers of Professor Jones, Hoffman, and Trumpman until Fetzer's organization is all set up, or at least alerting them to its imminent appearance.
I know that seems disloyal
but an honest appraisal of the level of debate at physorg makes it obvious why another forum with a higher "signal to noise ratio" is desirable.Of course, if Professor Fetzer does not buy my suggestion for a moderated forum, then all bets are off.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 16 2006, 01:09 AM)
QUOTE (metamars+)
And that is, "How would NIST possibly know how much fire-proofing fell off? Or, if they simulated the destruction of fire-proofing, how accurate is their simulation?"
Foxx, this is a job for you!
It is ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING, that in one post you critisize the "BOZO's" at NIST and yet you HAVEN'T bothered to read their REPORT.
They COVER this, and so much more, and they EXPLAIN how they model the various things and how the models are tested against reality etc etc.
You know, how REAL SCIENTISTS CONDUCT RESEARCH.
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
By the way, all the questions about absorbtion of energy by steel, they cover.
Arthur
arthur... please provide references (document & page #) which support each of your above 'pope-ish proclamations'
Thanks
Edit to add...
Probably most did NOT, but I'm pretty sure that 'Eagar the Idiot' found his there... along with a bonus surprise free-pass card to a cushy position in Homeland Security.
Probably just another 'coincidence'???...
add it to the list of a thousand other 'co-inky-dinks'?
Foxx, this is a job for you!
It is ABSOLUTELY MIND BOGGLING, that in one post you critisize the "BOZO's" at NIST and yet you HAVEN'T bothered to read their REPORT.
They COVER this, and so much more, and they EXPLAIN how they model the various things and how the models are tested against reality etc etc.
You know, how REAL SCIENTISTS CONDUCT RESEARCH.
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
By the way, all the questions about absorbtion of energy by steel, they cover.
Arthur
arthur... please provide references (document & page #) which support each of your above 'pope-ish proclamations'
Thanks
Edit to add...
QUOTE
Originally posted by adoucette
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
They didn't get their PhDs in a cracker jack box.
Probably most did NOT, but I'm pretty sure that 'Eagar the Idiot' found his there... along with a bonus surprise free-pass card to a cushy position in Homeland Security.
Probably just another 'coincidence'???...
add it to the list of a thousand other 'co-inky-dinks'?
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 16 2006, 12:59 AM)
I agree that in an intelligent un-biased debate there is NO PLACE for such behaviour.