Top Japanese Scientists: Warming Is Not Caused By Human Activity

[LambeauXLIV]

http://www.infowars.com/top-japanese-scientists-warming-is-not-caused-by-human-activity/

[Snowman]

Not a good website to get your info from. They beleive 9/11 was an inside job.

[LambeauXLIV]

meh...I just saw it on another forum without really looking into it

[LambeauXLIV]

I was feeling rather lazy

[rforsythe]

It's actually worse for us if we didn't cause it. Think about it. That would mean it isn't reversible, and that we've made such an insignificant impact that the greater functions of the planet will go on irrespective of anything we do. We'll just get to sit and watch while the planet does a global fuck-you and the next dominant species comes about.

I like everyone who says "humans couldn't have caused it, so no need to worry". In reality, that's the less-desirable outcome.

[Snowman]

No problem. That site has had an agenda from day one and has gotten better at getting reconised. I like the stuff about the secret concentration camps for the americans that disagree with the goverment.

[RajunCajun]

Not a good website to get your info from. They beleive 9/11 was an inside job.

And you don't???

It's awfully odd how many things don't add up when it comes to the buildings collapsing! And is funny how some things added up too well. Hmmm?? I'm not saying that our gov had anything to do with it, but I do think that people in the gov are capable of such things, and there was a lot of compelling evidence that supports the conspiracy theory. Capable, shit, we do that sort of thing in war against other countries, well, hopefully not killing thousands of innocent civilians,,,,,except for WWII and the A-Bombs.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

And you don't???

It's awfully odd how many things don't add up when it comes to the buildings collapsing! And is funny how some things added up too well. Hmmm?? I'm not saying that our gov had anything to do with it, but I do think that people in the gov are capable of such things, and there was a lot of compelling evidence that supports the conspiracy theory. Capable, shit, we do that sort of thing in war against other countries, well, hopefully not killing thousands of innocent civilians,,,,,except for WWII and the A-Bombs.
It was absolutely NOT an inside job. we know exactly what the root cause of the collapse was, determined by experts and aided by the guy who DESIGNED the buildings. Besides the nutjobs flying into the buildings, it was the FIRE that caused the collapse.

[LambeauXLIV]

it was the FIRE that caused the collapse.

That's what they want you to believe :lol:

[puckstr]

It was absolutely NOT an inside job. we know exactly what the root cause of the collapse was, determined by experts and aided by the guy who DESIGNED the buildings. Besides the nutjobs flying into the buildings, it was the FIRE that caused the collapse.


i do not buy it

[Snowman]

http://www.newsfollowup.com/images/cruisemissileengine_at_pentagon911.jpg

Looks like an engine to me...

[salsashark]

http://meltyourfaceoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[McVaaahhh]

Going to go over the whole 9/11 thing again are we?

I love how all these conspiracy theorists use a lack of evidence to support their own theories. They never say "We found this that proves our theory" They only say "We didn't find this, or they didn't release this, so our theory must be correct".

Just because the gov't didn't release tapes doesn't mean that a missle or whatever is what hit the pentagon. Come to me with something solid the supports your theory, rather than the lack of one piece of evidence that would support the other.

Also, there are some titanium parts in those engines, but the whole engine is NOT made out of titanium. And they were found...

[lightspeed]

Any body that understands a little physics and chemistry (and who doesn't allow their emotions to get in the way) knows that a plane (three planes couldn't demolish that building) didn't bring down those towers. I absolutely believe that Bush had something to do with it or he knew about it before it happened.

[puckstr]

Going to go over the whole 9/11 thing again are we?

I love how all these conspiracy theorists use a lack of evidence to support their own theories. They never say "We found this that proves our theory" They only say "We didn't find this, or they didn't release this, so our theory must be correct".

Just because the gov't didn't release tapes doesn't mean that a missle or whatever is what hit the pentagon. Come to me with something solid the supports your theory, rather than the lack of one piece of evidence that would support the other.

Also, there are some titanium parts in those engines, but the whole engine is NOT made out of titanium. And they were found...

You can believe whatever you choose to believe.
I will be content with believing what I believe and catching ridicule from the "right"....Oh well no biggie.
http://votestrike.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/sheeple.202183909_std.jpg

[dirkterrell]

Any body that understands a little physics and chemistry (and who doesn't allow their emotions to get in the way) knows that a plane (three planes couldn't demolish that building) didn't bring down those towers.


I might plausibly be able to claim knowledge of a little physics and chemistry but let's just discuss the facts. It's quite clear that the planes didn't demolish the buildings because we all watched them stand there burning for quite a while. They obviously did collapse later. Why?



I absolutely believe that Bush had something to do with it or he knew about it before it happened.

Any proof of that?

Dirk

[McVaaahhh]

Yeah but I don't follow B.S. theories that are plucked out of somebody's ass either. Like I said, show me some PROOF that the buildings fell because of whatever else, or that a missile hit the pentagon. Missing video tapes do not prove ANYTHING.


You can believe whatever you choose to believe.
I will be content with believing what I believe and catching ridicule from the "right"....Oh well no biggie.
http://votestrike.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/sheeple.202183909_std.jpg

[McVaaahhh]

Any proof of that?

Dirk


I believe that part of the definition of a conspiracy theory is that there is no proof.

[Matty]

Any body that understands a little physics and chemistry (and who doesn't allow their emotions to get in the way) knows that a plane (three planes couldn't demolish that building) didn't bring down those towers.


I might plausibly be able to claim knowledge of a little physics and chemistry but let's just discuss the facts. It's quite clear that the planes didn't demolish the buildings because we all watched them stand there burning for quite a while. They obviously did collapse later. Why?


I absolutely believe that Bush had something to do with it or he knew about it before it happened.


Any proof of that?

Dirk


Hahahahhaa... this could get entertaining.

[puckstr]

Hahahahhaa... this could get entertaining.


This is just not worth my time nor my energy

meh

[lightspeed]

I might plausibly be able to claim knowledge of a little physics and chemistry but let's just discuss the facts. It's quite clear that the planes didn't demolish the buildings because we all watched them stand there burning for quite a while. They obviously did collapse later. Why?



Any proof of that?

Dirk

From what I saw the building was demolished in a similar fashion as planned demolitions are played out.

Any proof of Bush knowing about it. Well I tend to look at the surrounding evidence since I have no inside knowledge of secret societies...etc. A little common sense tells a wife that her husband is cheating without her actually seeing him put is penis in another woman. Staying out late without excuses, working late all the time, condems in the pocket when he's supposed to be going to the bar with his buddies; naked pics of other women performing felatio on him in his phone..lol, coming back from said bar with heavy amounts of perfume on his person; quickly jumping in the shower when coming home from a store run...etc. No she didn't acutally see him cheat, but if she can seperate herself from her love from him, and be objective, the evidence points to something being wrong. And it's enough to go with her gut and follow up on what the evidence is pointing to.

I was taught to use this reasoning when I was an MP. If someone looks like they are doing something wrong...in many cases they are and it's worth keeping an eye on them. If it looks like a dog...smells like a dog...barks like a dog...walks on four legs...eats alpo... It JUST MAY be a dog.

The evidence surrounding Bush was that he cared more about pleasing the pockets of his friends than he did about doing what was best for our country and its' citizens. Just do a little research and you will find rooms of info on what we are talking about here. This is obvious and part of the reason we have had so much of our constitution ripped apart. Also...duh, we are in a financial crisis. The fire that he added to durring his term is the smoke we are breathing in right now. 911 was just part of the whole scam IMO. Wars are started for financial reasons...not b/c the gov. is so aware of injustices going on in other parts of the world.

But since we are on a public forum as someone mentioned when I admitted to severly breaking speed limit laws....I'll leave it at this.

Also, I'm just an average Joe who doesn't know too much...so I go with my gut...and it tells me that he tore our country apart with little to no concern for the average citizen.

[d3spair]

Anyone who still believes anything that crackpipe administration had to say is worth pitying at this point. This includes the 'official' story of 9/11. What were there true intentions? Hard to say, but from an economics angle I think we needed a reason to enter the middle east and try to stabilize our oil supply (read: prop up the failing dollar), because they actually realized our economy was unsustainable. Look where we are now as proof.

On Topic: I welcome global warming.

[McVaaahhh]

Just so I understand the conspiracy theorists correctly.

You believe that our Government murdered almost 3000 U.S. citizens so they could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan, which was really a cover so they could go to war in Iraq to fill their pockets?

[Snowman]

Ans see how well that worked....

[puckstr]

Just so I understand the conspiracy theorists correctly.

You believe that our Government murdered almost 3000 U.S. citizens so they could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan, which was really a cover so they could go to war in Iraq to fill their pockets?


Yes I do

[McVaaahhh]

Yes I do

The terrorist also believe that when they blow themselves up and kill lots of people they are going to the highest level of heaven where 21 virgins will be waiting for them...

[dirkterrell]

From what I saw the building was demolished in a similar fashion as planned demolitions are played out.


I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to talk some basic physics and chemistry. :)



Any proof of Bush knowing about it. Well I tend to look at the surrounding evidence since I have no inside knowledge of secret societies...etc. A little common sense tells a wife that her husband is cheating without her actually seeing him put is penis in another woman. Staying out late without excuses, working late all the time, condems in the pocket when he's supposed to be going to the bar with his buddies; naked pics of other women performing felatio on him in his phone..lol, coming back from said bar with heavy amounts of perfume on his person; quickly jumping in the shower when coming home from a store run...etc. No she didn't acutally see him cheat, but if she can seperate herself from her love from him, and be objective, the evidence points to something being wrong. And it's enough to go with her gut and follow up on what the evidence is pointing to.


Those later items (photos, perfume, etc) are hard evidence. Where is any hard evidence implicating the federal government in anything with 9/11 (other than typical bureaucratic cluelessness)? Where is this objective evidence you implore us to look at?



I was taught to use this reasoning when I was an MP. If someone looks like they are doing something wrong...in many cases they are and it's worth keeping an eye on them. If it looks like a dog...smells like a dog...barks like a dog...walks on four legs...eats alpo... It JUST MAY be a dog.


Sure, but to arrest them you have to have some evidence.



The evidence surrounding Bush was that he cared more about pleasing the pockets of his friends than he did about doing what was best for our country and its' citizens. Just do a little research and you will find rooms of info on what we are talking about here.


Show them to me. Otherwise you are blowing smoke (amusing since you were the one that argued we shouldn't let our emotions get in the way of believing your claims about 9/11).



This is obvious and part of the reason we have had so much of our constitution ripped apart. Also...duh, we are in a financial crisis. The fire that he added to durring his term is the smoke we are breathing in right now. 911 was just part of the whole scam IMO. Wars are started for financial reasons...not b/c the gov. is so aware of injustices going on in other parts of the world.


So, no evidence just your opinion. Everyone here knows I'm no fan of big government or politicians in general but it is one thing to make a claim that you believe something and another altogether to claim that your opinion is backed up by "simple physics and chemistry."



But since we are on a public forum as someone mentioned when I admitted to severly breaking speed limit laws....I'll leave it at this.


How convenient.



Also, I'm just an average Joe who doesn't know too much...


Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a ride yesterday: "Don't form strong opinions about things you know very little about."



so I go with my gut...and it tells me that he tore our country apart with little to no concern for the average citizen.

Maybe so but one's gut feelings have about zero weight in a scientific/engineering argument about the building collapses.

Dirk

[lightspeed]

And by the way...I think it is absolutely hilarious that they found a passport and a license to identify one of the "terrorist" in all of the rubble...while out of the same side of their mouths saying the fire from the plane was sooooooo hot , it was able to melt the columns in the building....:D:applause::lol:

Guess it was one of those super laminated passports...

[puckstr]

The terrorist also believe that when they blow themselves up and kill lots of people they are going to the highest level of heaven where 21 virgins will be waiting for them...


as if there are 21 virgins ANYWHERE

[TFOGGuys]

... We'll just get to sit and watch while the planet does a global fuck-you and the next dominant species comes about.

I for one, welcome our Giant cockroach overlords....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YguzGB6vlFQ/SPpb2I3guFI/AAAAAAAAByU/_yul80wT8QE/s400/starshiptroopers_l.jpg

[McVaaahhh]

as if there are 21 virgins ANYWHERE

:pointlaugh:

[TFOGGuys]

http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/mars_attacks.jpg

Damned Illegal aliens....

[lightspeed]

I'm disappointed. I thought we were going to talk some basic physics and chemistry. :)



Those later items (photos, perfume, etc) are hard evidence. Where is any hard evidence implicating the federal government in anything with 9/11 (other than typical bureaucratic cluelessness)? Where is this objective evidence you implore us to look at?



Sure, but to arrest them you have to have some evidence.



Show them to me. Otherwise you are blowing smoke (amusing since you were the one that argued we shouldn't let our emotions get in the way of believing your claims about 9/11).



So, no evidence just your opinion. Everyone here knows I'm no fan of big government or politicians in general but it is one thing to make a claim that you believe something and another altogether to claim that your opinion is backed up by "simple physics and chemistry."



How convenient.



Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw on a ride yesterday: "Don't form strong opinions about things you know very little about."



Maybe so but one's gut feelings have about zero weight in a scientific/engineering argument about the building collapses.

Dirk

Yup all of this is my opinion. :drink: And since none of us has the inside story we can only base our opinions on surrounding evidence. I hardley think blowing smoke can be connected to basing opinions off of emotions. Two different things there. I'm doing neither. I'll say again...wars are started for financial reasons. I could give you volumes of information...but I really don't feel like digging up all of that info and putting it up on here. But..if you look for it, you will find it.

However, since you are the expert...give me some facts that you have...or maybe even an opinion of what you think the truth is...

As far as the towers falling....I count what my eyes saw as fact enough for me. And the reality is that those buildings did not fall b/c of a plane...and or heat from jet fuel. We were lied to...

And I think opinions are great to have whether you have strong knowledge of what you are talking about or not.... That's why I love this country...we can all say what we want within reason...:). Bush blew up the towers...

[rforsythe]

I for one, welcome our Giant cockroach overlords....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YguzGB6vlFQ/SPpb2I3guFI/AAAAAAAAByU/_yul80wT8QE/s400/starshiptroopers_l.jpg

Rememmmberrrr your traiiininnnnng... and you will make it out alive!

[Kanabiis]

Just so I understand the conspiracy theorists correctly.

You believe that our Government murdered almost 3000 U.S. citizens so they could have an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan, which was really a cover so they could go to war in Iraq to fill their pockets?


History shows that the government cares nothing for its citizens....

Tuskegee syphilis experiements -
Small Pox blankets
Dr. Cornelius Rhodes radiation experiments on US soldiers
Chicago Maleria experiments
Mustard gas experiments on 4,000 7th day adventists who refused to join military service.
Project Paperclip- flouride experiments on US citizens
Kilpatrick LSD experiments
Release of Yellow fever infected Mosquitos over Savannah GA in 1956

This is just a small list of unclassified experiments the US governemnt performed on US citizens without their knowledge or consent. No conspiricy theories here, these are confirmed. This is just a small list of the hundreds of either dangerous or deadly medical experiments performed on American Citizens without knowledge or consent. The Mustard gas experiments are particularly troubling because they were performed on citizens who, expressing their rights to religious freedom and not joining military service to go to war, instead were subjected to horible experiments with Mustard gas, a now outlawed chemical weapons.

And those are just the medical atrocities perfromed just this century by the US government.

Lets not even begin to discuss the Gulf of Tonkin incident, you know, the entire 'cause' of the Vietnam war.

On 30 November 2005, the NSA released the first installment of previously classified information regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, including Mr. Hanyok's article, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964" Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1. The Hanyok article stated that intelligence information was presented to the Johnson administration "in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events." Instead, "only information that supported the claim that the communists had attacked the two destroyers was given to Johnson administration officials."

You want to talk about 3000 American citizens, lets talk about 58,913 American citizens dead over a little 'misinformation'. To suggest that the US government is not capable of lying or falsifying information to lead to war is just plain silly.

None of these examples are 'conspiricy theories', they are facts. To believe that the US government always has her citizens best interests in mind is naieve, or just plain lying to yourself.

Now, I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I do believe that very little effort was made to prevent it.

August memo, Bin laden determined to attack the US, the fact that then National Security Advisor C. Rice was unable to directly recall the memo until presented to her during congressional hearings is your proof.

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR who not only did not pay attention to a dire threat, but aparently barely read it according to her testimony, and yet nobody found this quite interesting, if reading memos regarding the security of the nation was not a priority of hers then what the fuck was, it was her godddamn job.

But thats what you get when you appoint an Oil company board member to the position of National Security Advisor, again something nobody seemed to have a problem with. Talk about lack of qualifications.

But yes, keep believing everything the Governement does is in your interest...

[rforsythe]

We were lied to...

Bush blew up the towers...

So (1) prove it, and (2) what are you planning to do about it?

I love watching people get all heated up about this, that, and the other thing on Internet forums. It's like this gigantic expulsion of emotional energy with no actual outcome (the tantric sex of the debate world, if you will).

Do I think we were told all of the facts about what happened? Shit no. I don't think anyone really believes we were, that is a free thinking individual. But it's one thing to suspect you weren't told the truth; it's entirely another to claim your suspicions ARE truth. The fact is that hard evidence one way or the other doesn't exist where you or I will ever find it, so the conspiracy theorists and pro-government hippies will go back and forth forever.

Anyway, I just find a lot of humor in that.

[Devaclis]

Here is what I don't understand:

Why is it that a bunch of tards are arguing government conspiricy vs. "They are all out to get us" instead of riding or searhing for porn?

I have a theory - you are all gay hate motorcycles :)

[McVaaahhh]

But yes, keep believing everything the Governement does is in your interest...

Never said that, nor do I believe that. I believe that for the most part the Gov't does what it believes is in the best interest of the people (some day I may be proven wrong, but I hope for all of our sake it doesn't happen), but there is definitely underhanded and shady things going on in the government behind closed doors.

I just don't believe that the Gov't flew commercial airliners into the sides of buildings to start a war. If somebody presents me with evidence that proves that it was an inside job then ya, I may believe it. In this case though, nobody has anything other than feelings/beliefs/opinions that the US gov't is responsible for the attacks.

Did they ignore warnings? Probably, or they just didn't think they were as credible as they were. I'm sure there are hundreds of warnings coming in daily, it's easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback when they miss something. No different than all the warning signs that the police or others missed before Columbine or Virginia Tech.

[dirkterrell]

However, since you are the expert...give me some facts that you have...or maybe even an opinion of what you think the truth is...


Where did I claim to be "the expert"? I merely asked you to back up your claim that "simple physics and chemistry" could prove that the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse. Being a physicist, I was interested in hearing your arguments.



As far as the towers falling....I count what my eyes saw as fact enough for me. And the reality is that those buildings did not fall b/c of a plane...and or heat from jet fuel. We were lied to...


And why should someone trust your opinion? How much physics do you know? Do you have a mechanical engineering background? What is it that makes you think you know enough about these topics to have an informed opinion about how a building collapse works? I'm just curious why you feel so strongly that you understand enough about metallurgy, statics, etc to publicly state such a forceful opinion. Honestly, I'd rather talk about facts than qualifications but you've stated that this is just your opinion so we need to know a little about your background to know whether it's even worth the time to listen to you.



And I think opinions are great to have whether you have strong knowledge of what you are talking about or not....

Yep, we all have the right to make fools of ourselves. :)

Dirk

[lightspeed]

So (1) prove it, and (2) what are you planning to do about it?

I love watching people get all heated up about this, that, and the other thing on Internet forums. It's like this gigantic expulsion of emotional energy with no actual outcome (the tantric sex of the debate world, if you will).

Do I think we were told all of the facts about what happened? Shit no. I don't think anyone really believes we were, that is a free thinking individual. But it's one thing to suspect you weren't told the truth; it's entirely another to claim your suspicions ARE truth. The fact is that hard evidence one way or the other doesn't exist where you or I will ever find it, so the conspiracy theorists and pro-government hippies will go back and forth forever.

Anyway, I just find a lot of humor in that.

I'm not heated at all... Myself and a few others saw all of this coming years ago when BUSH BLEW UP THE TOWERS...so what I DID about it was to prepare myself financially so that I could sit here comfortably munchin on a vegan pizza, getting ready to ride my bike with some other bikers and enjoy my day...lol.

I'm sure the proffessor will back me in this. There are very few things that even in the world of science that we can prove. Most things we take for granted are theories not laws. Much of chemistry and physics is based off of theories. Electron theory for example is a theory....not a law. No one has actually seen an electron. Yet....physics and chemistry is based off of it. So...to prove something is not as simple as it may seem. This is precisely why no one offered any proof that Bush DID NOT blow up the towers...:lol:

[puckstr]

So (1) prove it, and (2) what are you planning to do about it?

.

1 Yes Bush is a big fat stupid poo poo headed LIAR
2 Not a goddamn thing


Here is what I don't understand:

Why is it that a bunch of tards are arguing government conspiricy vs. "They are all out to get us" instead of riding or searhing for porn?

I have a theory - you are all gay hate motorcycles :)

I do not have to search for porn.:hump:

[Kanabiis]

Never said that, nor do I believe that. I believe that for the most part the Gov't does what it believes is in the best interest of the people (some day I may be proven wrong, but I hope for all of our sake it doesn't happen), but there is definitely underhanded and shady things going on in the government behind closed doors.

I just don't believe that the Gov't flew commercial airliners into the sides of buildings to start a war. If somebody presents me with evidence that proves that it was an inside job then ya, I may believe it. In this case though, nobody has anything other than feelings/beliefs/opinions that the US gov't is responsible for the attacks.

Did they ignore warnings? Probably, or they just didn't think they were as credible as they were. I'm sure there are hundreds of warnings coming in daily, it's easy to Monday-Morning-Quarterback when they miss something. No different than all the warning signs that the police or others missed before Columbine or Virginia Tech.

So basically it will take armed thugs busting down your door and shooting your family because some 'tipster' claimed you were manufacturing meth in your basement before you realize something is wrong in Denmark?

WOW... talk about blinded by patriotisim.

There once was a man, just like you, who looked all around him and refused to see what was really going on in the world around him. We remember him now becuse his apathy and cognative disodence got the best of him when the world around him came crashing down, his name: Pastor Martin Niemöller and here are his words:

they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

[Snowman]

The terrorist also believe that when they blow themselves up and kill lots of people they are going to the highest level of heaven where 21 virgins will be waiting for them...
Now back to this virgin thing…

I thought the number was 72, but then again in this economy I’m sure there have been some layoffs in that department as well. :) Get it “Layoffs” Ha I kill myself…

Just a sidenote... Anyway... Flame on!!!

[lightspeed]

Where did I claim to be "the expert"? I merely asked you to back up your claim that "simple physics and chemistry" could prove that the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse. Being a physicist, I was interested in hearing your arguments.



And why should someone trust your opinion? How much physics do you know? Do you have a mechanical engineering background? What is it that makes you think you know enough about these topics to have an informed opinion about how a building collapse works? I'm just curious why you feel so strongly that you understand enough about metallurgy, statics, etc to publicly state such a forceful opinion. Honestly, I'd rather talk about facts than qualifications but you've stated that this is just your opinion so we need to know a little about your background to know whether it's even worth the time to listen to you.



Yep, we all have the right to make fools of ourselves. :)

Dirk

Thats not very nice:no:. R we getting angry enought to call names and throw a tempertantrum. I'm not emotionally attached to either point of view, so I will continue to voice my opinions until some compelling argument comes along to show me that I'm wrong. I don't want or need anyone 2 listen to my opinions. As far as my qualifications....as with all things, I know nothing.

So...since you know about physics...and the way metal behaves...break it down to me what actually happened. I'm all ears...

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yup all of this is my opinion. :drink: And since none of us has the inside story we can only base our opinions on surrounding evidence. I hardley think blowing smoke can be connected to basing opinions off of emotions. Two different things there. I'm doing neither. I'll say again...wars are started for financial reasons. I could give you volumes of information...but I really don't feel like digging up all of that info and putting it up on here. But..if you look for it, you will find it.

However, since you are the expert...give me some facts that you have...or maybe even an opinion of what you think the truth is...

As far as the towers falling....I count what my eyes saw as fact enough for me. And the reality is that those buildings did not fall b/c of a plane...and or heat from jet fuel. We were lied to...

And I think opinions are great to have whether you have strong knowledge of what you are talking about or not.... That's why I love this country...we can all say what we want within reason...:). Bush blew up the towers...
Well, then your opinion is totally ignorant and your argument without merit. Listen to Dirk, who actually does have a clue and a physics background. Or you can listen to me as well. Can't believe I'm having to repeat this to you conspiracy dipshits, er, theorists (emphasis on THEORISTS) with ZERO evidence other than what you completely UNTRAINED eyes tell you.

The unique structure of the towers was an element in the collapse. in a normal buliding, there are large beams located on a grid pattern. In the towers, there was a unique open floor design where the outer walls were structural members, tied to a central beam grid that the elevators were inside of. The inner and outer walls were connected by lightweight trusses to support the vertical load from the floor above and to keep the outer structural walls of the building from buckling. When the outer walls were pierced and weakened, the buildings still stood for a long time. The uncontrolled fire then weakened the trusses, allowing the outer walls to buckle, and then the mass of the floors above came down like a hammer, like they do in controlled demolition. Physics dictated how the building came down, not a conspiracy. Ever tried standing on an empty pop can? Notice how it will support your weight easily despite being paper thin? Then you fractionally dimple the side by touching it and it crushes instantly? That's called buckling, and is EXACTLY why the towers came down. Beside the nutjobs in the planes, the root cause is still the fire. Period.

You probably still believe we never made it to the moon too......

[Kanabiis]

Lightspeed... I think you need a refresher course in high school science.... I don't mean this as an insult, but if you are going to start talking facts and science, making statments such as 'theory is not law' does not help your cause, as it is not only incorrect, but shows proof that you lack or have forgotten the fundementals of what science is, and the language being used. This is important, because if you are going to participate in a debate, there must be an agreement that the language used to convey ideas is agreed upon. Your confusion over the terms theory and law in the context of science is the first indicator.

The definition of the word "theory" in the context of science is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists, but there is no debate in the world of scientists.

The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.

My point being, the fact that you believe there is a difference between 'law' and 'theory' in the world of science shows that you may not a have as complete understanding that you think you do. It is a common mistake made by laymen, or non-scientists but it is an unforgivable mistake to be made by anyone who claims to have any sort of formal scientific education.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yep, we all have the right to make fools of ourselves. :)

Dirk
Awww, C'mon Dirk, let's not attempt to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.....:)

That'd be kinda like beating up on a kid from the short bus.

[dirkterrell]

I'm sure the proffessor will back me in this.


Who's the professor?



There are very few things that even in the world of science that we can prove. Most things we take for granted are theories not laws.


Define what you mean by "theory" and "law". The colloquial meanings of those words are very different from what scientists mean when using them.



Much of chemistry and physics is based off of theories.


As is all of science. But I'm betting you and I are using the word theory in different ways.

Dirk

[salsashark]

IBTL

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.phpi/463c5922/arguing.jpg?cb=1115204527

[lightspeed]

This is not proof bro.. This is a theory..is it not?

[Snowman]

Dude I’m sure he believes we are still secretly a British colony and the whole ”Revolution” thing was just an elaborate way for the English monarchy to retain control with the land holders of the day. Why else would we have taken their side in WW2.

[lightspeed]

I will get back to this after my ride....This is getting good, and no I'm not a physicist, or a person with a heavy science background...but I bet I can hang with your guys who claim to hold these titles...

My theory is that if I don't get out of here...I will get left behind. So, peace. And you guys should just relax...it's gonna be okay.lol

[TFOGGuys]

Thats not very nice:no:. R we getting angry enought to call names and throw a tempertantrum. I'm not emotionally attached to either point of view, so I will continue to voice my opinions until some compelling argument comes along to show my that I'm wrong. I don't want or need anyone 2 listen to my opinions. As far as my qualifications....as with all things, I know nothing.

So...since you know about physics...and the way metal behaves...break it down to me what actually happened. I'm all ears...

Fact: A 747 holds 48,445 gallons of jet fuel (basically kerosene).

A fire fueled by this much kerosene would generate about 6.9 million KJ, enough to raise the ambient temperature in 2 floors of the WTC to over 835 degrees C. At this temperature, the steel used in the towers would lose 80-90 % of it's yield strength.
If the planes had hit several floors higher than they did, the towers most likely would not have collapsed. Either the terrorists got incredibly lucky, or they planned the attacks with significant research and knowledge of the building's construction. They did plan ahead, in that they selected planes that had a capacity fuel load for a cross country flight (bound for Kalifornia).

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

you should watch " zeitgeist" and "zeitgeist addendum".Just one thing....the huge titanium engines of the plane that flew into pentagon could not have melted (as they claim) as those fires were not even close to being hot enough to melt titanium.Fact!And how the fuck is it that all the video recordings showing what really happened at the pentagon alone,were imeediately ceased and never released.It could not be because someone is trying to cover something,is it?
Having spent time in the avation industry I can tell you they are not all made of Ti. Further, the difference between high-temp alloys is not so much their ultimate melting point, but the strength curves near the top where the melting point is. Mild steel (as in the buildings) loses much of it's strength as the temp rises, the high-temp metals keep much of their strength until they finally melt. From Matweb:

Material: Melting point:
Ti 2820-2910F
Low Carbon Steel 2250-2790F

And yes, the fire, depending on the configuration, could easily have gotten that hot. I saw a series of pictures once of a motorcycle crash. There was a fire and you could see how progressively the FRAME melted simply from a small gas fire.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

...but I bet I can hang with your guys who claim to hold these titles...


In any technical discussion, you will be crushed like a cockroach......go ride.:)

[Snowman]

From what I understand, the terrorists plan was to strike the buildings as low as possible in order to knock them over into other buildings below.

The structure being essentially a hollow tube, would not allow this to happen because the outer walls were strong enough to contain the impact. However containing the impact and the fire compromised the inner structure and pulled the outer walls in on itself and thus the buildings fell for the most part straight down.

The only way they could have knocked one of the towers over would be to compromise one of the corners at its base. The outer wall of the lower 3 floors had a different design the outer walls above and if they could have taken out a corner, the non supported weight could have pulled the tower over.

However, there would have been no way to fly a plane into that corner at its base because of the number of other buildings around. They got lucky to do the damage they did.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Fact: A 747 holds 48,445 gallons of jet fuel (basically kerosene).

A fire fueled by this much kerosene would generate about 6.9 million KJ, enough to raise the ambient temperature in 2 floors of the WTC to over 835 degrees C. At this temperature, the steel used in the towers would lose 80-90 % of it's yield strength.
If the planes had hit several floors higher than they did, the towers most likely would not have collapsed. Either the terrorists got incredibly lucky, or they planned the attacks with significant research and knowledge of the building's construction. They did plan ahead, in that they selected planes that had a capacity fuel load for a cross country flight (bound for Kalifornia).
These idiots didn't know that, if they did they would have hit as close to the base of the towers as possible. The reason the second tower collapsed before the first is because the second one was hit significantly lower, with much more mass above it to buckle the outer walls. If they'd flown the planes into the towers just above the line where the fire crews could effectively fight the flames, they would have come down much sooner. I think they were planning on using the mass of the plane as leverage in trying to knock it over like a domino.

[TFOGGuys]

These idiots didn't know that, if they did they would have hit as close to the base of the towers as possible. The reason the second tower collapsed before the first is because the second one was hit significantly lower, with much more mass above it to buckle the outer walls. If they'd flown the planes into the towers just above the line where the fire crews could effectively fight the flames, they would have come down much sooner. I think they were planning on using the mass of the plane as leverage in trying to knock it over like a domino.

Good point, Frank. I think part of the reason why they were as high as they were was to get over the surrounding buildings to hit the towers. I seem to remember hearing on 60 Minutes that the CIA had intercepted communications from as early as 1985 from Osama bin Laden, postulating the effectiveness of commercial airliners as weapons.

[Shea]

I will get back to this after my ride....This is getting good, and no I'm not a physicist, or a person with a heavy science background...but I bet I can hang with your guys who claim to hold these titles...

Yea, because your showing so far has been stellar...



My theory is that if I don't get out of here...I will get left behind. So, peace. And you guys should just relax...it's gonna be okay.lol

Okay, with loons like you making uniformed decisions? I think your professor should have his license to teach suspended for gross incompetence.

So you say that the towers fell in a manner akin to a controlled demolition and therefore this is proof of a sinister government plan to murder civilians? Ok, well this shows that you lack an actually understanding of what happened on September 11 and controlled demolitions in general.

Point of fact is that they looked so similar is because the actual mechanics were similar. Controlled demolition uses the buildings own weight against it by removing key structural supports and letting the building fall in on itself. The fire resulting from thousands of gallons of Jet-A and the structural impact of a 350,000 lb aircraft caused supporting members to fail. This caused the pancake effect of the upper portion to fall onto the lower portion. You call that fake, I call it engineering and science.

[puckstr]

Yea, because your showing so far has been stellar...



Okay, with loons like you making uniformed decisions? I think your professor should have his license to teach suspended for gross incompetence.

So you say that the towers fell in a manner akin to a controlled demolition and therefore this is proof of a sinister government plan to murder civilians? Ok, well this shows that you lack an actually understanding of what happened on September 11 and controlled demolitions in general.

Point of fact is that they looked so similar is because the actual mechanics were similar. Controlled demolition uses the buildings own weight against it by removing key structural supports and letting the building fall in on itself. The fire resulting from thousands of gallons of Jet-A and the structural impact of a 350,000 lb aircraft caused supporting members to fail. This caused the pancake effect of the upper portion to fall onto the lower portion. You call that fake, I call it engineering and science.


so this pancake effect happened at WTC 7 also ?

.

[Matty]

Hahahahhaa... this could get entertaining.

Told Ya!!!! :cheers:

[McVaaahhh]

So basically it will take armed thugs busting down your door and shooting your family because some 'tipster' claimed you were manufacturing meth in your basement before you realize something is wrong in Denmark?

WOW... talk about blinded by patriotisim.



Shit, I have no clue where you can come to that conclusion from my previous post...


Are there things wrong in our government? Abso-friggen-lutely.

Is EVERY politician only working for themselves? No, I don't think so.

Are there bad apples, even high up in the chain? No doubt about it

Am I patriotic? Yes, I would like to think so. This is the best damn country in the world and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. If you think differently, I'm sure they would take you in Iraq. (Just don't let the door hit you on the way out)

Am I blinded by said Patriotism? Hardly. I am far from pro-government. My statements in this thread have been regarding the 9/11 events only. Remember, hindsight is 20/20, and after every tragic event everyone always talks about the warnings that were ignored.

[Shea]

On back on topic, there is not the so-called "consensus" that climate change (which in and of itself is natural and has occurred throughout history) is man-made. In fact there are some big brains that say that models are grossly over exaggerated and based on flawed science. Our own PhD can attest to the inaccuracies and limitations of modeling such a complex system as an entire planet's climate.

[Snowman]

so this pancake effect happened at WTC 7 also ?

.WTC 7 fell because of the damage from tower two I believe.

This allowed a fire to spread to the fuel tanks for the building generators that supplied not only the buildings emergency systems but also several of the buildings around it. It was also the emergency commend center thus requiring larger amounts of fuel to be storied.

This fire was left unchecked and eventually compromised the buildings main support beams causing its collapse. Building 7 was more of a grid work of structural supports. Once the mains were compromised they to pulled the building down on itself.

[puckstr]

On back on topic, there is not the so-called "consensus" that climate change (which in and of itself is natural and has occurred throughout history) is man-made. In fact there are some big brains that say that models are grossly over exaggerated and based on flawed science. Our own PhD can attest to the inaccuracies and limitations of modeling such a complex system as an entire planet's climate.

I am all for global warming...fuck cold weather
bring on the bikinis....................

BUT NOT ON FAT CHICKS


WTC 7 fell because of the damage from tower two I believe.

This allowed a fire to spread to the fuel tanks for the building generators that supplied not only the buildings emergency systems but also several of the buildings around it. It was also the emergency commend center thus requiring larger amounts of fuel to be storied.

This fire was left unchecked and eventually compromised the buildings main support beams causing its collapse. Building 7 was more of a grid work of structural supports. Once the mains were compromised they to pulled the building down on itself.

Still not buying that ALL 3 buildings fell into there own footprints.
Especially WTC7

[McVaaahhh]

Still not buying that ALL 3 buildings fell into there own footprints.
Especially WTC7

Problem is, you've got no evidence to back your theory.

[Shea]

so this pancake effect happened at WTC 7 also ?

.

No idea Steve, but this site has some videos that suggest that it did.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[puckstr]

Problem is, you've got no evidence to back your theory.


dude it is only MY opinion....
RELAXXXX and drink some more kool-aid

[Snowman]

On back on topic, there is not the so-called "consensus" that climate change (which in and of itself is natural and has occurred throughout history) is man-made. In fact there are some big brains that say that models are grossly over exaggerated and based on flawed science. Our own PhD can attest to the inaccuracies and limitations of modeling such a complex system as an entire planet's climate.
I would agree the climate modeling techniques we currently do have has some flaws. Just the mass of data to evaluate is requiring the largest computers we have. And even those the accuracy predicting weather fall off over 20 years or so. But I wouldn’t negate the general conclusion of all the models saying we are in an accelerated warming cycle.

We may disagree when it comes to cause and what if anything we can do about it. I would postulate that man is not helping no matter how much or little you think we are doing to cause it. Cause or not it is happening.

And as far as what things we can do, becoming more efficient in way we use energy, move to more renewable sources, clean up the known pollution issues, have more to do with than just global warming.

[Snowman]

Still not buying that ALL 3 buildings fell into there own footprints.
Especially WTC7 The only time I think I have seen a building of any size “fall over” was in an earthquake situation. Move the ground several feet out from under and non-supported building (no basement structure) and yes you can get it to fall over. The WTC buildings were not designed that way.

[McVaaahhh]

dude it is only MY opinion....
RELAXXXX and drink some more kool-aid

Kool-aid is good... :yumyum:

[TFOGGuys]

On back on topic, there is not the so-called "consensus" that climate change (which in and of itself is natural and has occurred throughout history) is man-made. In fact there are some big brains that say that models are grossly over exaggerated and based on flawed science. Our own PhD can attest to the inaccuracies and limitations of modeling such a complex system as an entire planet's climate.

Shea, how dare you unjack this thread? :wtf:

[puckstr]

http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/global-warming-bikini.jpg

is this proof enough?

[Snowman]

and he didn't need a computer to tell him that...

[Shea]

I would agree the climate modeling techniques we currently do have has some flaws. Just the mass of data to evaluate is requiring the largest computers we have. And even those the accuracy predicting weather fall off over 20 years or so. But I wouldn’t negate the general conclusion of all the models saying we are in an accelerated warming cycle.

Nor am I saying such Randal (looks at the temp today). The climate fluctuates on many factors, not least of which is that big luminescent ball of hydrogen in the sky. My point is that most climate models focus specifically on CO2 emissions and don't take into effect many of the more common causes. There is a predisposition towards blaming man for the changing climate and anytime you go into research looking to justify your beliefs you generally come away happy. Add to that the political aspect and wham, bam, you've got yourself a "problem".



We may disagree when it comes to cause and what if anything we can do about it. I would postulate that man is not helping no matter how much or little you think we are doing to cause it. Cause or not it is happening. Granted but does that mean we need to fundamentally change our societies, redistribute MASSIVE amounts of wealth and basically hand over our market economies to Al Gore? I would say no. Yes, the climate is changing, we can do little to help or hinder it. Everybody take a deep breath and calm down.



And as far as what things we can do, becoming more efficient in way we use energy, move to more renewable sources, clean up the known pollution issues, have more to do with than just global warming.Become more efficient? Absolutely. Pour taxpayer money into questionable, immature and economically unviable alternative energy sources? Probably not.

[Shea]

Shea, how dare you unjack this thread? :wtf:

Sorry man :) Uh, Bush sucks and Obama will save us all!!! Better?

[puckstr]

Sorry man :) Uh, Bush sucks and Obama will save us all!!! Better?


BUSH sucks
OBAMA is the DEVIL

[Shea]

BUSH sucks
OBAMA is the DEVIL


So much hate young padawan. Release your anger and become one with the hope and love of the Obama!

It doesn't matter how much of your freedom he crushes, how much of your liberty he takes and how much control over your daily life he usurps...all that matters is that he sounds good behind a teleprompter.

[puckstr]

So much hate young padawan. Release your anger and become one with the hope and love of the Obama!

It doesn't matter how much of your freedom he crushes, how much of your liberty he takes and how much control over your daily life he usurps...all that matters is that he sounds good behind a teleprompter.


Join the dark side?
NEVER!!!!!!!!!

[Shea]

Join the dark side?
NEVER!!!!!!!!!

We have cookies

[rforsythe]

It doesn't matter how much of your freedom he crushes, how much of your liberty he takes and how much control over your daily life he usurps...all that matters is that he sounds good behind a teleprompter.

Funny... The same was said about Bush as well.

[Shea]

Funny... The same was said about Bush as well.

Liar, Bush never sounded good, whether behind a teleprompter or not :)

[rforsythe]

Ok you got me there.

[Snowman]

Nor am I saying such Randal (looks at the temp today). The climate fluctuates on many factors, not least of which is that big luminescent ball of hydrogen in the sky. My point is that most climate models focus specifically on CO2 emissions and don't take into effect many of the more common causes. There is a predisposition towards blaming man for the changing climate and anytime you go into research looking to justify your beliefs you generally come away happy. Add to that the political aspect and wham, bam, you've got yourself a "problem"..
As you said if you go into research looking to justify your beliefs you generally come away happy. That counters both our arguments.

On the CO2 note… What changed my mind was when I was at the south pole station I had the chance to see the real data coming in from the air monitoring station that is down there. They have been sniffing the air for last 30 years now and I have seen the CO2 component of our atmosphere rise dramatically.


Granted but does that mean we need to fundamentally change our societies, redistribute MASSIVE amounts of wealth and basically hand over our market economies to Al Gore? I would say no. Yes, the climate is changing, we can do little to help or hinder it. Everybody take a deep breath and calm down..
Well I’m not fan of the AL Gore myself. He is a politician no matter how many Nobel Prizes they give him he will always be pushing his agenda. And panic is one tool they use to get what they want done going.



Become more efficient? Absolutely. Pour taxpayer money into questionable, immature and economically unviable alternative energy sources? Probably not.
I personally would prefer to pay the equivalent of $4.00 a gallon to fill a hydrogen powered car (where the hydrogen is created from electrolysis from seawater and powered by nuclear energy) than to pay $1.80 to countries with citizens who chant “Death to America”. Many do say that nuclear power is an immature and economically unviable alternative. Things like solar and wind have been around allot longer and wind in particular is becoming more economically viable daily.

I do feel peoples fear of change that could eventually get us into a situation where we have no choice but to panic. And panic is allot more expensive than planning. Just look at how much the panic induced bailouts of the finance industry is costing us now, the same will come for energy in time.

[puckstr]

We have cookies


not even if they are baked with hope and taste like change

[Shea]

As you said if you go into research looking to justify your beliefs you generally come away happy. That counters both our arguments.

On the CO2 note… What changed my mind was when I was at the south pole station I had the chance to see the real data coming in from the air monitoring station that is down there. They have been sniffing the air for last 30 years now and I have seen the CO2 component of our atmosphere rise dramatically.

I would say that overstating CO2's impact on climate models by 300% and then declaring an emergency is not science but fraud. I wish I could find Lord Monkton's (the scientist who challenged Gore to defend his views publicly) piece on how skewed and erroneous some of the models have become...



I personally would prefer to pay the equivalent of $4.00 a gallon to fill a hydrogen powered car (where the hydrogen is created from electrolysis from seawater and powered by nuclear energy) than to pay $1.80 to countries with citizens who chant “Death to America”. Many do say that nuclear power is an immature and economically unviable alternative. Things like solar and wind have been around allot longer and wind in particular is becoming more economically viable daily.

That is your choice, but I would be opposed if it were to be imposed on everyone based on flawed science. While I agree that sending money to idiot tyrants in the Middle East and/or ignorant socialists in S. America is not the wisest course of action, however the market determines what is the most efficient source of fuel.

I would love to see government get out of the way and let our domestic resources be developed, new third generation molten salt reactors come online and the solar industry become worthwhile but I don't see them doing anything of the sort. Add to that the solar industry competing for the same resources as the tech sector...

Of course it's getting to the point where we can just burn all the fiat money the government is printing for fuel and not have to worry about it :)

[Shea]

not even if they are baked with hope and taste like change

Oh they taste like somethin' and it ain't "change". :)

[Kanabiis]

"It doesn't matter how much of your freedom he crushes, how much of your liberty he takes and how much control over your daily life he usurps...all that matters is that he sounds good behind a teleprompter."

Funny... The same was said about Bush as well.

And is quite a bit more accurate so far....

I mean seriously, name a SINGLE FUCKING liberty that Obama has so far taken away. Not that I am a fan of his, but jesus christ, to claim that Obama will take away your liberties while completely overlooking, or flat out denying the ACTUAL civil liberties that were striped away by the Bush administration is EXACTLY the problem with partisan politcs in this country.

But hey, if your political party is more important to you then your country you are part of the problem. If you like Rush Limbag and the rest of those thugs think its more imporant to be proud to be Republican then proud to be American, you are the problem. The same goes for any democrat that feels that way, fuck your party, the 2 parties are the reason why we are in this mess.

Obama *might* take away civil liberties sometime in his administration, and when he does, I will protest loudly. But to overlook Bush's assault on your rights, and then to run around screaming the sky is falling because Obama *might* just makes you look stupid.

And for the record, one of Obama's first executive orders reversed Bush's suspension of Hebias Corpus, the fundemental basis to our Judicial system.

But if you think forcing the government to prove they have legal merit to keep you in jail is not that important of a civil liberty then what kind of American are you? Or maybe you just dont care because hey, its not you in federal prison for years without charges or even being told what your crime was so fuck em right.

God Damn partisan hacks piss me off.....

[InlineSIX24]

You probably still believe we never made it to the moon too......


Well.. there was that Coke Bottle cap in the photo..
:devious:

[TFOGGuys]

I mean seriously, name a SINGLE FUCKING liberty that Obama has so far taken away..

The liberty to make racially insensitive jokes without impugning the Office of The President? :dunno:

I think a lot of the scrutiny that President Obama is facing concerning his policies and potential policies is a result of the previous 2 presidents' habits of running roughshod over our rights "for our own good". The fact that our new Attorney General is talking about an outright ban on many currently legal firearms to "aid Mexico in it's war on the drug cartels" speaks volumes about where this administration's mindset lies. Clinton had the Brady Ban and the Roadless Initiative, Bush had the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretaps, Obama has the financial Failout Plan and the war on the 2nd Amendment....

[rforsythe]

I think you all should vote me in for president...

- You all will be able to say what you want, shoot what you want, and live where you want.
- You'll be held responsible for stupidity. Your hand will not be held. You want freedom to choose, then you deal with your choices. Stop expecting the Universal Bailout to save you.
- The same goes for corporations.
- The rights of the citizens come above the profits of the powerful.
- You'll pay taxes. So will anyone else taking advantage of life here. Don't like it? Don't be surprised when we ship your ass to the Yukon.
- Global warming or not, stop killing the fucking planet.
- I'm sure there's more, but that's how I'd run the place.

[puckstr]

I think you all should vote me in for president...

- You all will be able to say what you want, shoot what you want, and live where you want.
- You'll be held responsible for stupidity. Your hand will not be held. You want freedom to choose, then you deal with your choices. Stop expecting the Universal Bailout to save you.
- The same goes for corporations.
- The rights of the citizens come above the profits of the powerful.
- You'll pay taxes. So will anyone else taking advantage of life here. Don't like it? Don't be surprised when we ship your ass to the Yukon.
- Global warming or not, stop killing the fucking planet.
- I'm sure there's more, but that's how I'd run the place.

Ralph you already have WAY too much power

[rforsythe]

Ralph you already have WAY too much power

But imagine how much better we'd all be if I could drop the ban hammer on assholes and incompetent pricks! :twisted:

[TFOGGuys]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/justice.memos.released/

Discuss.

[salsashark]

:pointlaugh: Emos released! what... into the wild?


oh... memos... stupid hyperlink lied to me :(

[Kanabiis]

The liberty to make racially insensitive jokes without impugning the Office of The President? :dunno:

I think a lot of the scrutiny that President Obama is facing concerning his policies and potential policies is a result of the previous 2 presidents' habits of running roughshod over our rights "for our own good". The fact that our new Attorney General is talking about an outright ban on many currently legal firearms to "aid Mexico in it's war on the drug cartels" speaks volumes about where this administration's mindset lies. Clinton had the Brady Ban and the Roadless Initiative, Bush had the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretaps, Obama has the financial Failout Plan and the war on the 2nd Amendment....

While I disagree with any of these curtails of liberty, they pale in comparison to the effects of the Bush administration.

Yes, taking away a few types of firearms from being sold is an encrochment of the 2nd amendment. But it is interesting to see how people rank thier rights and protest the taking of them, take away something physical from someone and boy do you see protests and cries of anti-christ and whatever else the NRA is saying about Obama.

But when Bush suspended Hebias Corpus NOBODY protested, not the NRA, not Rush Limbag, not Sean Hanity, Bill O'liely NOBODY. But Hebias Corpus is a thousand times more powerful and important then being able to own an AK-47.. yes, they are both rights, but one of those rights is the basis for our entire judicial system.

I find it interesting that people put more stock in the right to own a certain type of gun, then the right to speech and protest, the right to petition the government for greivance, the right to privacy, for the love of god the right to privacy.

The Bush administration evesdropped on private American communications for 6 years unfiltered, unregulated and completley illegaly and nobody cried. He DID those thing, not might, not talked about, not discussed HE DID IT...

Where were the Rush Limbags and NRA then? I would argue your right to privacy trumps your right to own a *certain* firearm in the scope of Liberties.

I am a gun owner, yes I do not want a gun ban of any kind, but I find it funny that people are spending so much energy fighting a bill that hasn't even been written yet, where the hell is the energy being spent to get the rights ALREADY TAKEN back, anyone, anyone?

Why is it that the most important property right anyone talks about is gun property. What about the other property rights you have already lost, immenent domain, the fact that the Bush Admin seized weapons from citizens in New Orleans and some of those weapons have still yet to be returned. Again where was the NRA on that, where was Limbag on that? Oh they were negros with guns, we can't have that now can we.

So no offense TFOG, but if your screaming about little property rights right now, your about 8 years late to the party, Bush took more property rights from you then any gun ban will ever serve to do.

The government, Rethuglicans and Demoncrats are assaulting your liberties, they like to play this partisan game called 'point the finger' so you target your ire and anger twords the other party. For Rethugs its gun rights, for demoncrats its abortion, it keeps both sides crying about little shit, while they steal the things that really matter right from under your nose.

But hey, its easier to blame the Rethuglicans or Demoncrats for all the problems rather then really changing things. You know why there are 2 parties? Its easier to just write 2 checks......

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Well.. there was that Coke Bottle cap in the photo..
:devious:
Hey, the astronauts get thirsty too.....:)

What you DIDN'T see was the empty Jim Beam bottle!:drink:

[puckstr]

But imagine how much better we'd all be if I could drop the ban hammer on assholes and incompetent pricks! :twisted:

Then who on the CSC would be left?

[Shea]

While I disagree with any of these curtails of liberty, they pale in comparison to the effects of the Bush administration.

Yes, taking away a few types of firearms from being sold is an encrochment of the 2nd amendment. But it is interesting to see how people rank thier rights and protest the taking of them, take away something physical from someone and boy do you see protests and cries of anti-christ and whatever else the NRA is saying about Obama.

Property is one of the primary reasons for the foundation of this country. Pursuit of Happiness is property. See the video in my sig line..



But when Bush suspended Hebias Corpus NOBODY protested, not the NRA, not Rush Limbag, not Sean Hanity, Bill O'liely NOBODY. But Hebias Corpus is a thousand times more powerful and important then being able to own an AK-47.. yes, they are both rights, but one of those rights is the basis for our entire judicial system. When did Bush suspend Habeas Corpus? And I would argue that owning firearms is the basis of liberty. All rights have to be defended, not just the ones you agree with or "don't affect you that much".



I find it interesting that people put more stock in the right to own a certain type of gun, then the right to speech and protest, the right to petition the government for greivance, the right to privacy, for the love of god the right to privacy. I as well, which is why I don't support the ACLU. They pick and choose the rights that they find acceptable.



The Bush administration evesdropped on private American communications for 6 years unfiltered, unregulated and completley illegaly and nobody cried. He DID those thing, not might, not talked about, not discussed HE DID IT...And the Obama administration has stated that they are ok with it, will allow it to continue and are blocking rulings to the contrary. So much for change.



I am a gun owner, yes I do not want a gun ban of any kind, but I find it funny that people are spending so much energy fighting a bill that hasn't even been written yet, where the hell is the energy being spent to get the rights ALREADY TAKEN back, anyone, anyone? Welcome to reality. You voted for change and got more of the same.

Dude, seriously what is with the purposeful misspellings? It only detracts from an otherwise valid argument. Yay, you can manage to put "thug" in Republican, how juvenile.

[TFOGGuys]

Yes, taking away a few types of firearms from being sold is an encrochment of the 2nd amendment. But it is interesting to see how people rank thier rights and protest the taking of them, take away something physical from someone and boy do you see protests and cries of anti-christ and whatever else the NRA is saying about Obama.

But when Bush suspended Hebias Corpus NOBODY protested, not the NRA, not Rush Limbag, not Sean Hanity, Bill O'liely NOBODY. But Hebias Corpus is a thousand times more powerful and important then being able to own an AK-47.. yes, they are both rights, but one of those rights is the basis for our entire judicial system.

The other is the only method for retaining the 1st,4th, and 5th Amendments.



I find it interesting that people put more stock in the right to own a certain type of gun, then the right to speech and protest, the right to petition the government for greivance, the right to privacy, for the love of god the right to privacy. The right to privacy is interpreted to derive from the 4th Amendment, but is not specifically guaranteed. I agree that it should be absolute and inviolable, but that's not how the Constitution is actually written.




The Bush administration evesdropped on private American communications for 6 years unfiltered, unregulated and completley illegaly and nobody cried. He DID those thing, not might, not talked about, not discussed HE DID IT...

Where were the Rush Limbags and NRA then? I would argue your right to privacy trumps your right to own a *certain* firearm in the scope of Liberties.

I am a gun owner, yes I do not want a gun ban of any kind, but I find it funny that people are spending so much energy fighting a bill that hasn't even been written yet, where the hell is the energy being spent to get the rights ALREADY TAKEN back, anyone, anyone?HR45 was introduced this session, and has not been killed yet. Eric Holder and President Obama have both come out in favor of disarming the populace.


Why is it that the most important property right anyone talks about is gun property. What about the other property rights you have already lost, immenent domain, the fact that the Bush Admin seized weapons from citizens in New Orleans and some of those weapons have still yet to be returned. Again where was the NRA on that, where was Limbag on that? Oh they were negros with guns, we can't have that now can we. Lawsuits are still ongoing in the New Orleans situation. I agree that the Bush administration WAY overstepped any authority granted by the Constitution, by way of the Patriot Act. Eminent Domain is also a crock of shit, particularly when applied to give private developers land for commercial purposes (a legacy of Mr. Clinton's Supreme Court, btw).


So no offense TFOG, but if your screaming about little property rights right now, your about 8 years late to the party, Bush took more property rights from you then any gun ban will ever serve to do.

The government, Rethuglicans and Demoncrats are assaulting your liberties, they like to play this partisan game called 'point the finger' so you target your ire and anger twords the other party. For Rethugs its gun rights, for demoncrats its abortion, it keeps both sides crying about little shit, while they steal the things that really matter right from under your nose. For me, it's get the government out of my fucking life



But hey, its easier to blame the Rethuglicans or Demoncrats for all the problems rather then really changing things. You know why there are 2 parties? Its easier to just write 2 checks......All the more reason to scrap the current bunch in the next congressional election and start over. Corruption, like an infection, only grows over time.

[DARK ANGEL]

Not a good website to get your info from. They beleive 9/11 was an inside job.



it was...


www.zeitgeist.com

[puckstr]

it was...


www.zeitgeist.com (http://www.zeitgeist.com)


no doubt sister

[Kanabiis]

Gixxer.... the mispellings are on purpose, the new names correctly define who they really are. Call it juvinille, but it accurately represents who these people really are. But again, if you identify yourself more as a Republican or Democrat then as an American then maybe you would take offense to those monikers.

As to suspension of Hebias Corpus, google military commisions act of 2006.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm

A little light reading if your so inclined.....

But it appears that you seem to think I am some kind of Obama supporter, which again is typical of partisan supporters... If I talk bad about Bush then I *MUST* be some kind of 'libural'... again a failing of partisan politics, and speaks volumes more of you then me.

I did indeed vote for change, by caucusing and voting for Ron Paul.... you know what they say about people who assume though....

TGFO, I will have to address your points later, as I am heading out to ride now...

[Shea]

it was...


www.zeitgeist.com (http://www.zeitgeist.com)

Yeah that web developer has a great site. Has nothing to do with 9-11 theories, but a great site :p

[puckstr]

11111111111111111111111111111111100000000000000000 00000000011111
11000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000
11111111111111111111110000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000

[Shea]

Gixxer.... the mispellings are on purpose, the new names correctly define who they really are. Call it juvinille, but it accurately represents who these people really are. But again, if you identify yourself more as a Republican or Democrat then as an American then maybe you would take offense to those monikers.

No shit, I know they were on purpose. They make an otherwise decent argument look like a pathetic juvenile rant. I take offense as an American who values intelligent rational discourse over emotional diatribes.



As to suspension of Hebias Corpus, google military commisions act of 2006.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm


Habeas Corpus applies to US citizens, not foreign combatants taken on the field of battle. You, obviously disagree with that opinion.



But it appears that you seem to think I am some kind of Obama supporter, which again is typical of partisan supporters... If I talk bad about Bush then I *MUST* be some kind of libural... again a failing of partisan politics, and speaks volumes more of you then me.

I made no such assertion. I talk bad about Bush, but am no Obama supporter. I support freedom, liberty and life free of government intervention ("help").



I did indeed vote for change, by caucusing and voting for Ron Paul.... you know what they say about people who assume though....

Yeah, you're doing a lot of it about me...

[lightspeed]

In any technical discussion, you will be crushed like a cockroach......go ride.:)

What an ASSumption of you to make while knowing absolutely nothing about me. This attitude and ego is part of the reason why the planet is going up in smoke....

When your scientists...doctors...engineers etc. begin to wake up to the fact that they are part of the problem, this world may start to make some leeway. The very technology your physicists created in their all knowing intelligence is responsible for much of the problems we face in 2009.

[lightspeed]

Yea, because your showing so far has been stellar...



Okay, with loons like you making uniformed decisions? I think your professor should have his license to teach suspended for gross incompetence.

So you say that the towers fell in a manner akin to a controlled demolition and therefore this is proof of a sinister government plan to murder civilians? Ok, well this shows that you lack an actually understanding of what happened on September 11 and controlled demolitions in general.

Point of fact is that they looked so similar is because the actual mechanics were similar. Controlled demolition uses the buildings own weight against it by removing key structural supports and letting the building fall in on itself. The fire resulting from thousands of gallons of Jet-A and the structural impact of a 350,000 lb aircraft caused supporting members to fail. This caused the pancake effect of the upper portion to fall onto the lower portion. You call that fake, I call it engineering and science.

I never said I have proof of anything. I said I have formulated my opinions based off of surrounding evidence. You on the other hand are saying you have proof. I have asked for this educated quess you are making to be proven...and I have yet to recieve any proof from you of your stance.

[TFOGGuys]

Habeas Corpus applies to US citizens, not foreign combatants taken on the field of battle....

Not to mention terrorists that fight for no flag, and obey no conventions. The Bush administration committed an number of reprehensible acts in the name of "homeland security"(which sounds disturbingly like protecting the Fatherland), but as long as the same people remain in power, it's only likely to get worse. Democrat, Republican....just labels that obscure the truth:Politicians are not about representing the common good, nor are they about protecting the rights of the citizenry. Politicians are motivated by the desire to make enough of their voting constituency believe that they are doing "good" to get reelected, thus enabling them to spend the next term working to get reelected, ad infinitum, until they become well enough connected that they can be the puppeteers instead of the puppets.

Okay...my head is going to explode---anyone got a good kittah pic?

[lightspeed]

Fact: A 747 holds 48,445 gallons of jet fuel (basically kerosene).

A fire fueled by this much kerosene would generate about 6.9 million KJ, enough to raise the ambient temperature in 2 floors of the WTC to over 835 degrees C. At this temperature, the steel used in the towers would lose 80-90 % of it's yield strength.
If the planes had hit several floors higher than they did, the towers most likely would not have collapsed. Either the terrorists got incredibly lucky, or they planned the attacks with significant research and knowledge of the building's construction. They did plan ahead, in that they selected planes that had a capacity fuel load for a cross country flight (bound for Kalifornia).

Have you conducted such an experiment to be certain that the amount of jet fuel not kerosene those planes contained at the time of this incident could in fact cause the steel in the towers to lose enough strength to give way in the manner that we all observed.

If not...your guess as to what happened and how it happened holds no water with me... :)

[lightspeed]

Having spent time in the avation industry I can tell you they are not all made of Ti. Further, the difference between high-temp alloys is not so much their ultimate melting point, but the strength curves near the top where the melting point is. Mild steel (as in the buildings) loses much of it's strength as the temp rises, the high-temp metals keep much of their strength until they finally melt. From Matweb:

Material: Melting point:
Ti 2820-2910F
Low Carbon Steel 2250-2790F

And yes, the fire, depending on the configuration, could easily have gotten that hot. I saw a series of pictures once of a motorcycle crash. There was a fire and you could see how progressively the FRAME melted simply from a small gas fire.

So you're basing your guess as to what happened on a motorcycle crash...lol:shocked:. And this would suggest that a motorcycle frame is made of the same material used to construct the twin towers...

Elaborate on the configuration of the fire caused by the jets that hit the towers and how said fire reached and sustained temperatures of this magnitude long enough to weaken the beams in exactly the right places in order for the building to collapse on itself the way it did at a velocity of freefall..

Then I'd like you to tell me that you have.....in a controlled environment conducted such an experiment to determine that your explanation is correct.:wait:

Then also tell me that you've conducted the same experiment in a non controlled environment where all of the factors present on september 11th existed.

If you can't do this and have not proof of this, your guess as to what happened means nothing more than mine or anyone else who ventures to formulate an opinion as to what happened to bring down those towers.

[dirkterrell]

If you can't do this and have not proof of this, your guess as to what happened means nothing more than mine or anyone else who ventures to formulate an opinion as to what happened to bring down those towers.

Well, the NIST published an extremely thorough report on their rather extensive analysis of the collapses. I can't say I've read all 10,000 pages but I read enough to see that they were pretty thorough in their analysis of the various aspects of the collapse. I don't see any violations of "simple physics and chemistry" in their analysis. You claim you do. Please elaborate.

Dirk

[lightspeed]

And who funded the NIST to do the so called research? And if you would...can you post a link to this report for all to see b/c your reading their findings and regurgitating and or interpreting the results means absolutely nothing to me.:)

And, is that paragraph all you can pick out of my statement to debase?? Certainly a person of your stature can do better than this.

[The Black Knight]

Yes, taking away a few types of firearms from being sold is an encrochment of the 2nd amendment. But it is interesting to see how people rank thier rights and protest the taking of them, take away something physical from someone and boy do you see protests and cries of anti-christ and whatever else the NRA is saying about Obama.

I find it interesting that people put more stock in the right to own a certain type of gun, then the right to speech and protest, the right to petition the government for greivance, the right to privacy, for the love of god the right to privacy.

Where were the Rush Limbags and NRA then? I would argue your right to privacy trumps your right to own a *certain* firearm in the scope of Liberties.

I am a gun owner, yes I do not want a gun ban of any kind, but I find it funny that people are spending so much energy fighting a bill that hasn't even been written yet, where the hell is the energy being spent to get the rights ALREADY TAKEN back, anyone, anyone?

Why is it that the most important property right anyone talks about is gun property. What about the other property rights you have already lost, immenent domain, the fact that the Bush Admin seized weapons from citizens in New Orleans and some of those weapons have still yet to be returned. Again where was the NRA on that, where was Limbag on that? Oh they were negros with guns, we can't have that now can we.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you Kanabiis on what the NRA has done, especially with regards to Katrina and New Orleans. The NRA campaign for everyone who lost their firearms in New Orleans. And is just now finally seeing some action taken with the settling of lawsuits and so forth. For more info go here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318478,00.html
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=11653

Those links show some of what NRA has done for those people affected by Katrina.

It's not that people put more stock in one right over the other. However, if you were to ask me which is the most important right. Well it's the "Right to keep and bear arms." Why?? because with this "Right" I can protect myself from criminals and corruption in government and it's politicians.

I think the reason so many people fight for their Rights to firearms is because it's our last resort and back up plan against a tyrannical government hell bent on submission of it's populace. Sure the right to Freedom of Speech is great. But what happens when no one is listening??? Corruption may not listen to Free Speech, however it will listen to the report of a gun blast.

What I'm trying to get at is our Founding Fathers outlined it that. At least I believe so. In that our First Amendment is the preferred method of choice when dealing with all sorts of opposition and in any situation. But as a back-up to the First Amendment, they gave us the Second Amendment. Why?? because when all else has failed, when all of the talking has been done and when all of the listening has been. If corruption and tyranny still won't give in to reason, it is then the duty of the citizens to restore balance to their country through use of force and force by any means, even if it is deadly force.

It can't be repeated enough by authors and founding fathers of generations long since gone. But that, "an armed man is a citizen. an unarmed man is a subject." And "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

I know as dedicated to freedoms as you are, I don't need to quote more. But those words ring clearly more today then they ever have. I believe we are on the brink of something big. And people by default are feeling it too, and now more then ever we need our Second Amendment to back us up.

When you mention that "Right to Privacy" trumps "Right to bear arms" is a seriously scary statement. How can you have this Right to Privacy when you can't fight for it?? When all you are left with is you running off at the mouth to politicians whom have turned a def ear because they no possess all means of weaponry and you possess nothing?? Sure the freedom to speak out is strong but if not backed up by right to bear arms means nothing.

I believe the whole Bill of Rights is held together solely by the Second Amendment. It's the last line of defense in our other freedoms. If it falls and is done away with, then it's open season on the rest of our freedoms. If we can't defend our First and Fourth and Fifth Amendments with Force, then we might as well not defend them at all.

And I get where you are coming from in the fact that people have become some complacent. It's the unfortunate American way to become complacent and everyone is to blame for it. We haven't been diligent stewards of our country and it's Bill of Rights. We haven't forced our hand enough on our politicians to keep them honest and truthful. We have let our politicians run us, thus creating the problem we are in today. And it's easy for it happen, people can get side tracked real easy. In an Age where technology rules and comfort and ease of use has taken over, people have freely slipped into a coma of not caring so to speak.

Which is why we should use the British as our prime example. They have been disarmed and are now reaping the whirlwinds of their own actions. They bought into their governments B.S. and now pay the price. All they can do is protest and issue us warnings to not let it happen on our own soil. And with that I'll end with a quote from a exceptional founding father.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[TFOGGuys]

And who funded the NIST to do the so called research? And if you would...can you post a link to this report for all to see b/c your reading their findings and regurgitating and or interpreting the results means absolutely nothing to me.:)



So....apparently your opinion should carry more weight than that of several teams of NIST researchers, despite your admitted lack of background in mechanical engineering, chemistry, and physics, because "it looks like a controlled demolition"? You are obviously far, far more intelligent than anyone on this board who might actually have some knowledge of those fields, so I would suggest you locate the NIST study and dissect it for yourself. Or maybe everyone on this board is actually a coconspirator (Except Steve)?

Edit: here's the link
(http://wtc.nist.gov/)

[dirkterrell]

And who funded the NIST to do the so called research?


The American people funded it. But what does that have to do with anything?



And if you would...can you post a link to this report for all to see b/c your reading their findings and regurgitating and or interpreting the results means absolutely nothing to me.:)


Sure, here is the link to the final report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/



And, is that paragraph all you can pick out of my statement to debase??


I wasn't aware of trying to debase anything. http://www.boulder.swri.edu/%7Eterrell/images/goofy.gifIf you ever actually make a testable statement based on science, I will evaluate it but so far you haven't even come close to backing up your statement that "simple physics and chemistry" can falsify the hypothesis that the planes caused the buildings to collapse. The best you've done is say that Bush did it and your "support" for it is that you believe it. I'd be tempted to call that something akin to circular reasoning but I hesitate to use the word "reasoning" there.



Certainly a person of your stature can do better than this.

All I've asked you to do is back up your claim that simple physics can chemistry falsify the findings of the ~200 experts (both government and private) who showed pretty convincingly how the towers fell. So, let's hear these simple arguments. You sure seem to be having a hard time making them

Dirk

[LambeauXLIV]

wow...I just came back from working on my bike and riding all day...it seems everyone here has been productive...

[TFOGGuys]

wow...I just came back from working on my bike and riding all day...it seems everyone here has been productive...

:music: I shot an arrow in the air, it must come down, I know not where:music:

:lol:

[lightspeed]

So....apparently your opinion should carry more weight than that of several teams of NIST researchers, despite your admitted lack of background in mechanical engineering, chemistry, and physics, because "it looks like a controlled demolition"? You are obviously far, far more intelligent than anyone on this board who might actually have some knowledge of those fields, so I would suggest you locate the NIST study and dissect it for yourself. Or maybe everyone on this board is actually a coconspirator (Except Steve)?

Edit: here's the link
(http://wtc.nist.gov/)

Again, it isn't significant to me whether people hold stock in my opinions. Whether you agree or not the sun will come up tomorrow and life goes on. But, I'm done with this topic; as I said before neither side has access to any real proof of what happened. Therefore this is nothing more than verbal gymnastics.:cyber:.

You guys have fun..........:vader:

[lightspeed]

The American people funded it. But what does that have to do with anything?



Sure, here is the link to the final report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/





Dirk

Preciate that..:)

[*GSXR~SNAIL*]

Wow...

[dirkterrell]

I will get back to this after my ride....This is getting good, and no I'm not a physicist, or a person with a heavy science background...but I bet I can hang with your guys who claim to hold these titles...


Well, we have ample evidence to falsify at least one claim of yours...

Dirk

[lightspeed]

The American people funded it. But what does that have to do with anything?





Dirk

I'm of the opinion that if enough money is involved, many of our scientists will find water on the surface of our sun.

[dirkterrell]

I'm of the opinion that if enough money is involved, many of our scientists will find water on the surface of our sun.

Ah, the classic ad hominem logical fallacy.

Dirk

[lightspeed]

Well, we have ample evidence to falsify at least one claim of yours...

Dirk

Again...opinions are like..........

[lightspeed]

Ah, the classic ad hominem logical fallacy.

Dirk

Ur opinion that it's a fallacy.

[dirkterrell]

Ur opinion that it's a fallacy.

Definition of ad hominem fallacy from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem):


An ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument), also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

You have not addressed the findings in the NIST report which you dismiss by essentially claiming that the scientists/engineers were bought off (of which, of course, you offer no proof). That is an ad hominem attack.

Dirk

[InlineSIX24]

Wow...

Yeah. Just think if everyone had to use Legos and a Slinky to prove their point.

[lightspeed]

Definition of ad hominem fallacy from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem):



You have not addressed the findings in the NIST report which you dismiss by essentially claiming that the scientists/engineers were bought off (of which, of course, you offer no proof). That is an ad hominem attack.

Dirk


Wouldn't dare dismiss their research without actually going through it myself. Didn't dismiss any findings....I've only said that if enough money is involved many..etc. Define many...lol.:)

[dirkterrell]

Wouldn't dare dismiss their research without actually going through it myself. Didn't dismiss any findings...

Then what does this quote from your first post mean?


Any body that understands a little physics and chemistry (and who doesn't allow their emotions to get in the way) knows that a plane (three planes couldn't demolish that building) didn't bring down those towers

The NIST report shows how it did and backs it up with lots of evidence. You claim it didn't (and haven't offered a shred of evidence or any logical argument based on physics or chemistry). Therefore you are dismissing the findings of the NIST research.

Dirk

[Sonic Boom]

You all fall for it EVERY time.

http://ncbcmacduffs.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Kite_Surfer.17183802.jpg

[Wintermute]

Sorry Lightspeed, the mechanics of the WTC collapse are pretty easy to understand:

1. Jet fuel explosion blows shitty 70s-era fireproofing off structural members.
2. Jet fuel and office furnishing-fueled fire gets freshly-exposed beams soft enough to buckle under the 200+ ton weight of the undamaged floors above.
3. Compared to the Empire State Building, which survived an accidental hit by a WWII bomber, the WTC was under-built because we'd figured out how to save millions in materials through tight engineering by the '70s. This engineering didn't factor in suicidal religious assholes wielding commercial airliners as weapons.
4. When it comes to a tightly-designed 70s-designed building, a little shake from a couple of weakened beams with the masses we're talking about is game over. That 200+ tons of the upper floors was hauling ass in no time after the beams buckled. The lower part of the building didn't stand a chance.

This is from a really good Nova on the subject from years back:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

[puckstr]

You all fall for it EVERY time.

http://ncbcmacduffs.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Kite_Surfer.17183802.jpg


Next vacation I am going to kitesurf

[Devaclis]

I disagree. We can't say what we to about you here on the internets. Imagine what the repercussions would be if you were Prez?

No thanks. I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut.


I think you all should vote me in for president...

- You all will be able to say what you want, shoot what you want, and live where you want.
- You'll be held responsible for stupidity. Your hand will not be held. You want freedom to choose, then you deal with your choices. Stop expecting the Universal Bailout to save you.
- The same goes for corporations.
- The rights of the citizens come above the profits of the powerful.
- You'll pay taxes. So will anyone else taking advantage of life here. Don't like it? Don't be surprised when we ship your ass to the Yukon.
- Global warming or not, stop killing the fucking planet.
- I'm sure there's more, but that's how I'd run the place.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

What an ASSumption of you to make while knowing absolutely nothing about me. This attitude and ego is part of the reason why the planet is going up in smoke....

When your scientists...doctors...engineers etc. begin to wake up to the fact that they are part of the problem, this world may start to make some leeway. The very technology your physicists created in their all knowing intelligence is responsible for much of the problems we face in 2009.
I can tell by your lack of technical knowledge of any kind you'd be crushed. PEOPLE are responsible for problems, not technology. Dynamite being a key example. Go ride and leave the meaningful discussions to the educated.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I never said I have proof of anything. I said I have formulated my opinions based off of surrounding evidence. You on the other hand are saying you have proof. I have asked for this educated quess you are making to be proven...and I have yet to recieve any proof from you of your stance.
No, actually you have based your opinions on the UNTRAINED observations you've made on TV footage.

I've seen the compiled evidence, conclusions, and opinions of Engineers I trusted when I saw the documentary. These people had no axe to grind, one way or the other, and, as mentioned before, one of them was the guy that was responsible for the towers in the first place. Their explanation was well thought out, in the manner of the root cause investigations I have seen over the years. There was nothing to lead me, a trained professional, to believe there was anything like the hysterically political conspiracy you propose.

In addition, I've worked in the Mechanical Engineering field for 26 years, so I think I've got a far better handle on these things than some kid (that would be you) whos' information system consists of the opinions formed from internet videos.

The towers fell because of the root cause details I described, because the experts determined that to be the cause.

[rforsythe]

I disagree. We can't say what we to about you here on the internets. Imagine what the repercussions would be if you were Prez?

No thanks. I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut.

People can say whatever they want on here. They just have to do it maturely, or they are given the opportunity to go say it somewhere else. Part of that whole "being held responsible for stupidity" thing (the second statement in my "if I were Prez" mantra).

[McVaaahhh]

That's the problem with beliefs, you can't argue with them.

The people that believe that 9/11 was an inside job, can't be convinced otherwise. No matter what scientific evidence you bring, shit even a confession from Bin Laden wouldn't work. They'll just say "They were paid off" or whatever. It's a hopeless cause Frank.

[Shea]

That's the problem with beliefs, you can't argue with them.

The people that believe that 9/11 was an inside job, can't be convinced otherwise. No matter what scientific evidence you bring, shit even a confession from Bin Laden wouldn't work. They'll just say "They were paid off" or whatever. It's a hopeless cause Frank.

:imwithstupid:

I believe this Brian guy is a worthless piece of crap. No matter how nice or funny he is cannot persuade me otherwise. :p

[McVaaahhh]

:imwithstupid:

I believe this Brian guy is a worthless piece of crap. No matter how nice or funny he is cannot persuade me otherwise. :p

I believe you're right. :alien:

[puckstr]

still bored