WTF? So you think the video is crazy too? Then what is the point of your posts?
I really hate the conspiracy theory area - it is like you are having a group discussion with psychotics in the looney bin.
Interesting 9/11 video
- Thread starter Kittamaru
- Start date
WTF? So you think the video is crazy too? Then what is the point of your posts?
I really hate the conspiracy theory area - it is like you are having a group discussion with psychotics in the looney bin.
All you have to do is watch, read and then comment. The point of my posts are that even the so-called moderator did not watch, read and then comment. And now it is clear that you have done not done the first two things or you wold know what the point of my posts have been.
You don't even know what's going on and already you're in there with the WTFs, and words like hate, psychotic and looney. Please watch the video, read the three and a half pages of comments, and then you will perhaps have a better question than WTF, and better judgements than derogatory remarks.
I want to look at all this you've mentioned, but I have been busy responding to the person who ostensibly is moderating this thread, but is in fact merely standing in the way of any serious discussion as he scoffs at the video we are supposed to be discussing, but he hasn't watched more than a few minutes of, and then defending myself from his belligerent accusations - his reaction to my wondering what such a person is doing moderating a science forum.
I'll read and and get back to you when I can.
P.S. I don't appreciate your attitude. it's accusatory. I am already biased against your arguments and you have only yourself to blame - because of the way you speak to me. Browbeating is no way to explain, convince and teach.
I have to ask... did YOU actually watch the entire video?
Because... well, the discussion is specific to what impacted the Pentagon... and a good part of the video is about the WTC... so watching the entire video is moot point.
You are using a HUGE Red Herring to try and distract from the actual discussion... why is that?
I did watch it all, and you didn't. This is getting ridiculous. If you had watched the whole video, you would understand the context, the over-all theme and meaning of the video. There is no red herring here, and it's now completely stupid that so many people have spent more time arguing about why they don't need to watch the video than the time that is needed to just see it.
And what discussion? You said it was interesting, Trippy said it was crap, and then I told Trippy to get a clue. Anything anyone else has said is moot because.... I get tired of saying it... they haven't watched more than a few minutes of it. The Pentagon part, the WTC part are major parts, but still just parts. Please hear the man out before jumping to conclusions. I can't believe I am getting attacked for saying that ...on a science forum!
And what discussion? You said it was interesting, Trippy said it was crap, and then I told Trippy to get a clue. Anything anyone else has said is moot because.... I get tired of saying it... they haven't watched more than a few minutes of it. The Pentagon part, the WTC part are major parts, but still just parts. Please hear the man out before jumping to conclusions. I can't believe I am getting attacked for saying that ...on a science forum!
[cough] It wasn't a video, it was a diagram with a couple of paragraphs explaining it. But thank you for proving my point: information was provided to you and you didn't read it.Arne said:
I recognize that this is a personal comment, but so be it: it seems that you are having some honest difficulty following the discussion in the thread. I suggest that rather than demanding we write you a book, you instead focus on one issue at a time. For example:
8:45. "...there were no photographs showing any recognizable wreckage from a 757..." Beyond that, you have said:
...and you reference the 7:25 timestamp and "onward in the video for several minutes", which covers the quote I referenced. I mean, what else have we been talking about here?
So be clear:
1. why did you ask where the plane debris was? Didn't you already know? Or, more simply:
2. Do you acknowledge that plane debris was found at the Pentagon and photos of that debris exist and are easy to find?
3. Do you acknowledge that the video's claim of no recognizable plane debris from a 757 is simply and obviously false?
If Trippy already watched the part of the video relevant to what we are discussion (the supposed lack of airplane debris AT THE PENTAGON) then why does the part of the video NOT discussion the Pentagon attack have any relevance?
Again, red herring...
He hasn't watched that part. Russ Waters did. This is your thread. My only part in it is to wonder why an ill informed moderator would jump right in at post #2 to squelch any discussion and give us his bias (i.e. giving negative comments on the whole after only misunderstanding the first five minutes).
Your comments here are exactly what I am having a problem with: moderators making accusations and false judgements without having understood what is going on.
Last edited:
No, now your're stealing my points. Info was sent to you and you didn't read it. Thank you for proving my point. I called it a video because I had not had time to look yet.
You wrote:
I replied:
Would you like me to show you the times of the posts, or are you scientific enough to go back and see for yourself? With this sentence I am writing NOW, is the third time I have informed you that I haven't yet looked at any of the material you, and the ersatz moderator have suggested. True, at this point it's been a few hours, but I have been away from the computer. I do that sometimes.
You are way too eager to accuse me of, ho ho, look at that, things you yourself are guilty of! And what things? Not having read carefully or really paid attention to the topic under discussion.
uke:Sorry, my reaction to your condescending crap! Can't help it. At no time did I ask you to write a book. You are confusing your own smarmy remarks with something I said. What did I say? Doesn't matter, you weren't paying any attention! It is you and Trippy who are having difficulty, although I can't say it's 'honest' difficulty following the discussion.
So you watched all the up to 8:45? How terribly fair and open-minded of you! A hundred and twenty seconds of a 72-minute video and now you demand answers to your questions!
And you ask 'what else have we been talking about here?'
We are talking about watching the entire video! I can't believe you still aren't getting that! I suppose you also missed where I said, if you are not interested in watching all of, then don't comment on any of it. That's the issue here. You and Trippy have countered that you don't need to, but look! You can't even read through one of my posts without misconstruing it, and either consciously or unconsciously bending it to your own ends. Why should we imagine you can make it through a 72-minute video and have something intelligent and unbiased to say?
I will not respond to your three questions because they have nothing to do with what happened in the video - they are senseless to anyone who has watched the whole thing. They are based n your limited understanding of watching a minute and twenty seconds. This is ridiculous! You both could have watched the video twice in the time you've spent thinking up insults and making up excuses for not watching the video, but you prefer to remain ignorant and accuse me of what you are!
Since you aren't reading any of the information being provided to you, it is unsurprising that you don't even know what post we are talking about: it is post 31, link 2.
Like I said, you should probably slow down and follow your own advice about examining what is provided.
Anyway, you're dodging pretty hard now. So I guess there isn't much to discuss here.
Like I said, you should probably slow down and follow your own advice about examining what is provided.
Anyway, you're dodging pretty hard now. So I guess there isn't much to discuss here.
I agree that there is nothing to discuss. It is you and Trippy who are doing all the dodging. You still do not admit your errors. Me, I am busy elsewhere with my real life, and threads that interest me. Here my only interest has been outrage that people will comment and decide without knowing, and then make wild accusations rather than admit they were wrong to be so lazy and hasty. I told you that I WILL read it, and here you are again blaming me for not having read it. I pity this need of yours to be always in the right.
Oh, and I've made this point before, when I do read it it's going to be with great reluctance to agree with anything you or Trippy have said because you've been such insufferable bigots about all this. See what a fine moderator Trippy is? He makes up his mind on a topic, condemns it, and then berates people who point out that his style is not conducive to discussion and learning. Ho hum.
Yes. The assertion that I have any kind of an agenda beyond a reasonable discussion is completely untrue, a falsehood, a lie. I have neither the time nor the energy for hidden agendas and the like.
You made an accusation, I was providing you with evidence that the accusation is false.
The only person that's derailing this thread is you. My first couple of posts, the posts you're kvetching about (responses to you to one side) were on topic. I expressed an opinion on the video, made my criticism of the part of the video I commented on clearer, and addressed Kittamaru's comments regarding the lack of debris. All on topic, nothing repressing further discussion.
No straw grasping here, just a plain english interpretation.
I have not watched the video.
I have watched some of the video.
I have watched all of the video.
Three different statements, three different meanings
Not quite what I said - what I said was that, technicaly the hypothesis "There are no photos showing plane debris" only requires one photo of plane debris to disprove it.
Your logical fallacy is the texas sharpshooter
You have picked one photo out of the six that I posted in thread.
There is nothing that can make the first five minutes contextually correct and I am quietly confident that my opinion would remain unchanged had I watched the video in its entirety.
Again with the gratuitous insults. When I criticize you, it is because I feel you are not doing your job, and I tell you why I think so. You're response has largely consisted of denial and name-calling. Nice work![/quote]
It's an observation. You demanded that I not talk down to you or patronize you, and yet your first reply to me was you doing precisely that. You're demanding that those around you adhere to a standard you yourself can not or will not adhere to, which is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
There was no attitude in the question, I simply asked you if you understood the physics of collisions and how it might apply to the distribution of debris.
There's nothing snide about the question. It's a valid question which you have yet to answer - do you understand the law of the conservation of momentum or not? Can you understand how it might apply to this situation, and what it might mean for where one might expect to find debris and bodies and such?
If my aim was to quash discussion I have obviously failed, and if I wanted to moderate this thread I would simply do so. It wouldn't be the first time I have moderatred my fellow moderators by deleting posts or closing or deleting threads. I'm quite sure i'll do so again at some point in the future.
The only problem here is you and your inability to get past the colour of my name.
More argumentum ad hominem and evasion. So far, you've done a lot of name calling without addressing anything I have actually said.
Neither obfuscation nor a side issue, also not an attempt to misunderstand what you meant born of a desire to be right. Perhaps if you spent less time reacting to the colour of my name, and more time responding to what I have actually said...
That's one way of interpreting what I said, I suppose.
When you demand that someone do something that you yourself can-not do then you lack credibility... I mean... Take a minute to think about what you just said...
Perhaps if you spent less time engaging in such ad-hominem behaviour you'd have more time to review the material I have posted.
Going by what you just said, the only person stopping you is you. I also note that it's been six hours since you replied to that post. Have you reviewed the material your referring to yet?
Attitude? The only thing that's remotely personal in that post is the reference to your insipid whining.
No, I didn't, I said that what I had watched up to that point was crap. Get it?
Neither myself nor Russ have jumped to any conclusions, we have commented on what we have seen of the video.
I misunderstood nothing, and I have not squelched any discussion. I did express a negative opinion on what I had seen so you got that much right at least..
So far the only false judgements have been yours.
This is an outright lie. At no point have I made this claim. The only claim I have made is that I have only commented on that portion of the video that I have seen.
I'm dodging nothing.
I have, in this thread even. Or were you referring to my commentary on the first few minutes of the video? Even though I explaine dmy initial comment in detail, you have yet to address anything I actually said in that post. All you've done is assert that I am wrong, without substantianting that claim by responding to my post and illustrating where (you think) I erred.
So let me get this straight...
You have spent the last couple of pages blaming me because I haven't watched the video because of real life issues and that I will likely watch it in the future, and in the 'next breath' your complaining about people blaming you for not having read those links?
The only thing I've commented on so far is what I have seen of the video. Aside from that all I have done is asked you questions based on what you have stated or implied.
I've read over all four pages of this thread carefully, and I've looked at the sites you've recommended. There is something to the websites, but not as much as you suppose, and you still suppose wrong because you haven't seen but five minutes of the 72-minute video. Looking back over the thread I still see that what your mostly doing is covering for the fact that you haven't watched the video. I keep asking that you watch it before you comment, and the best you ever come back with is that, well, I haven't answered your questions either - despite that I keep explaining that most of your questions are irrelevant if you haven't watched the entire video. Another trick of yours is to put words into my mouth, i.e., foist opinions and chains of reasoning, on me that I never expressed, and then deconstructing my supposed logic in thinking as I do. I realize this is just your way of showing how clever you are, but mostly it has nothing to do with anything. Your ally RW is especially adept at that. He even accuses me of deliberately not reading your sites, looking at your charts, when only a few minutes have passed and I was busy responding to your most recent fudgings of the issue.
You shouldn't tell me what I think or believe and then demand that I answer the question - just so you don't have to answer mine. And you can't just simply gainsay - proclaiming something is or is not true because you say so and offer no evidence or reason. You did that quite a lot in your final post. Anyway, I am thinking of it as your final posts. Let's get back to this if you ever actually watch the video. We've argued for four pages about a video you haven't seen and have already made your mind up about without watching. I won't be surprised if you carry your unscientific prejudice into your viewing time - if you ever do actually watch it.
Remember, I don't even necessarily agree with the conclusions the video suggests. I just dislike your making your mind up about it five minutes in, and then trying to come off all scientific with a deeper understanding of the 'word' theory' - as if the rest of us are incapable of your wondrous level of expertise.
If you persist in your empty diatribes against me I would ask that you do not call me a troll or a liar or presume to tell me what my thoughts or opinions are.
Good bye.
You shouldn't tell me what I think or believe and then demand that I answer the question - just so you don't have to answer mine. And you can't just simply gainsay - proclaiming something is or is not true because you say so and offer no evidence or reason. You did that quite a lot in your final post. Anyway, I am thinking of it as your final posts. Let's get back to this if you ever actually watch the video. We've argued for four pages about a video you haven't seen and have already made your mind up about without watching. I won't be surprised if you carry your unscientific prejudice into your viewing time - if you ever do actually watch it.
Remember, I don't even necessarily agree with the conclusions the video suggests. I just dislike your making your mind up about it five minutes in, and then trying to come off all scientific with a deeper understanding of the 'word' theory' - as if the rest of us are incapable of your wondrous level of expertise.
If you persist in your empty diatribes against me I would ask that you do not call me a troll or a liar or presume to tell me what my thoughts or opinions are.
Good bye.
Is anyone else seeing this or did I accidentally eat some expired bacon for dinner?
Pretty standard fare, I'd say.
You have to consider that the events of 9/11/2001 was 13 years ago, the subject has been done to death. People have the recollections of the events as they unfolded as well as all this truther nonsense that's been posted and reposted thousands of times across the internet. Some people realise it's best to look forwards than dwell on a past since you can't change anything back then, heck the government back then was a different one, so what do people expect to get from this? :wallbang: (other than a headache)
Yeah, it has been done to death for 13 years and the most DETAILED data that you will find which supposedly specifies the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on each level of the north tower is the spreadsheet by Gregory Urich.
But if you look at the spreadsheet you will notice that he does not actually specify the height of each level. He uses an equation that gives an approximation so every level is the same height, but they were not in the real building. Most levels were 12 feet from floor to floor but that would result in a 1320 foot building if they were all that height but the north tower was 1368 feet. Some stories were 14 feet. So the bottom line is we do not have accurate data on the towers after 13 years.
But if you do the calculation of the height by dividing the supposed Potential Energy of each level by the supposed Mass of each level you will find that he has the roof lower than the top 10 stories of the building.
But it only took 4 months to build a 54 foot 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel to test the oscillation of the structure in 1940.
ROFLMAO
I guess computers have made us stupid.
Try finding a discussion of the location of the Center of Mass of the top portion of the south tower that tilted 22 degrees. Certainly a curious omission by scientists and engineers for THIRTEEN YEARS. When in human history has such a large man-made mass ever been in such an unstable position so high up? It is only in the last century that we could get that much mass so high.
The 9/11 Affair is a Scientific Farce!
psik
Oh Jesus Christ, are you going on about this again? You were already shown, repeatedly, how it doesn't matter worth a damn where the center of mass of the tower was - when it fell, it fell down, as gravity dictates. It doesn't matter if it was upside-down - it's still the same amount of mass, exerting the same amount of force, on the structure below it REGARDLESS of orientation.
This is just another red-herring attempt by truthers who haven't a goddamn leg to stand on!
You talk but you have not shown much less PROVEN anything.
Yeah, just CLAIMING something is a Red Herring is supposed to settle an argument. Gregory Urich did the same thing when I pointed out that his weight distribution for the perimeter wall panels had to be wrong.
So build a physical model that can support its own weigh and at least has the weight evenly distributed, if not bottom heavy, and get the top 15%, or less, by height to fall and destroy the rest.
Shouldn't some engineering school have been able to do that in nearly 13 years? Oh yeah, has any school even said they would try?
psik
Why? And what does it tell you that that hasn't happened? It should tell you that engineering students/profs see no value in putting that much effort into debunking tortured/obscure conspiracy theories. It just isn't worth their time.