To A Moving Train: TAKE HEED!

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

it was only "debunked" cuz somehow, somewhere, Bush has a relative who worked at the magazine.

not exactly proof of debunking

I can understand if that's all you came away with from the debunking of the PM article. I personally came away with quite a bit more. To the degree that for me, it's a moot point debating.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The official govt report of which the entire PM story is based on is complete and utter shite...

which many swallowed hook, line, and sinker

And still no one has come close to explaining the free fall of #7....how many years later now?

Oh yeah... I forgot...but the Islamophobics seem to know.

jlew24asu

angelica wrote:

I can understand if that's all you came away with from the debunking of the PM article. I personally came away with quite a bit more. To the degree that for me, it's a moot point debating.

I'd love to know what more you got out of it

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

I'd love to know what more you got out of it

The truth is, jlew, there were pages and pages, and threads and threads of debates on this topic. There were many perspectives and points of view shared, based on the much information that was shared.

We all see what we're wired to see--in other words what we want to see. My personal perspective isn't all that important.

What is important is that because someone else sees something that you don't see, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means you don't see it.

I realize that people here sometimes baselessly jump to conclusions based on a guess, and that they do not have proof. And the fear and blame is clear to others of us, when sometimes individuals on this board are being unrealistic--they appear as though little children at times. To some of us, it's obvious when people are acting out their own issues that are going on inside and that they then colour what they see. The bottom line, is though, that there is also the kernals of truth that exist in these points of view that cannot be ignored, without the burden of ignorance coming back upon oneself.

jlew24asu

angelica wrote:

The truth is, jlew, there were pages and pages, and threads and threads of debates on this topic. There were many perspectives and points of view shared, based on the much information that was shared.

We all see what we're wired to see--in other words what we want to see. My personal perspective isn't all that important.

What is important is that because someone else sees something that you don't see, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means you don't see it.

I realize that people here sometimes baselessly jump to conclusions based on a guess, and that they do not have proof. And the fear and blame is clear to others of us, when sometimes individuals on this board are being unrealistic--they appear as though little children at times. To some of us, it's obvious when people are acting out their own issues that are going on inside and that they then colour what they see. The bottom line, is though, that there is also the kernals of truth that exist in these points of view that cannot be ignored, without the burden of ignorance coming back upon oneself.

I'm just wondering what you, personally, got out of it and how/why you see proof that PM is 100% debunked. I value your opinion is all.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

objection...stop pandering the witness...

godpt3

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

objection...stop pandering the witness...

*badger*

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

I'm just wondering what you, personally, got out of it and how/why you see proof that PM is 100% debunked. I value your opinion is all.

Maybe give this link a listen to jlew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WULRQCgvsdE

angelica

jlew24asu wrote:

I'm just wondering what you, personally, got out of it and how/why you see proof that PM is 100% debunked. I value your opinion is all.

I will say there was enough counterpoints in the debates about PM's view that showed it to be the same as any other view or perspective--it had it's strengths and it had it's weak points. And to me, it's a view as valid as my own, your own, or Rolands. They are taking facts like we all are. And when they interpret them, that's equal to us interpreting them. While Popular Mechanics holds authority in our society, and people listen to them, it doesn't mean their interpretations of the facts are any more accurate.

While we're using our sources to make each other right or wrong, we're losing sight that we're all on the same team. There is no right or wrong in being brother/sisters and wanting to know the truth. In these debates, we're trying to be right many times, more than we seek to communicate and understand each other. No matter how many sources of "authority" we use to back us up, if we are not seeking to find the truth, but are seeking to trump the other guy, we keep going in circles. The way to peace and learning and understanding this information on both sides comes from within, not from an article or from a new or more "correct" interpretation of facts.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

godpt3 wrote:

*badger*

life wasted...

spiral out

angelica wrote:

I will say there was enough counterpoints in the debates about PM's view that showed it to be the same as any other view or perspective--it had it's strengths and it had it's weak points. And to me, it's a view as valid as my own, your own, or Rolands. They are taking facts like we all are. And when they interpret them, that's equal to us interpreting them. While Popular Mechanics holds authority in our society, and people listen to them, it doesn't mean their interpretations of the facts are any more accurate.

While we're using our sources to make each other right or wrong, we're losing sight that we're all on the same team. There is no right or wrong in being brother/sisters and wanting to know the truth. In these debates, we're trying to be right many times, more than we seek to communicate and understand each other. No matter how many sources of "authority" we use to back us up, if we are not seeking to find the truth, but are seeking to trump the other guy, we keep going in circles. The way to peace and learning and understanding this information on both sides comes from within, not from an article or from a new or more "correct" interpretation of facts.

I like reading your posts, you have a way of explaining things so eloquently.

angelica

spiral out wrote:

I like reading your posts, you have a way of explaining things so eloquently.

Thank-you very much.

freedomboy

jeffbr wrote:

Post #2. Completely out of left field.

BTW brokendave, I liked the video.

ty!

freedomboy

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

People just don't realize...They think it's being unpatriotic or something, and what a serious mistake that is. Ignorance by default. America the perfect....yeah sure... Bad politicians get elected all the time...it doesn't mean you hate your country becasue you can see right through their bullshit.

See how the media brainwashes? With or against! Friend or Foe!....what a huge crock of shit.

It's really hard to believe how absolutely dense the general population is on these matters.


p.s.
yeah and...sorry for stealing your thread Dave, I'm blaming it on the beers last night.

Stop being a bitch, and do something about it! Seriously, I am spending a year organizing with a union, and then I have decided to become a full time anti-war organizer... I will make money by selling art when I can...

That is a year from last month... You have 11 months... You see problems, here is your chance to change it... I am recruiting an organizing team right now.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

brokendave wrote:

Stop being a bitch, and do something about it! Seriously, I am spending a year organizing with a union, and then I have decided to become a full time anti-war organizer... I will make money by selling art when I can...

That is a year from last month... You have 11 months... You see problems, here is your chance to change it... I am recruiting an organizing team right now.

Bitching or speaking out against it?....so where do you draw the line exactly?

Glad to hear what you're doing. How do you know exactly what I'm doing again?

I would have made what you said a thread on it's own to motivate people instead of a reply towards me.

just saying...

Songburst

godpt3 wrote:

nothing falls faster than 9.8 m/s squared. Unless you think Isaac Newton was in on the conspiracy, too.

You mean nothing accelerates faster than 9.8 m/s^2. Everything free-falls with a velocity of Final velocity = (Initial Velocity) + (acceleration x time).

The argument that I think is being made is that if the floors above the point of impact (where presumably the collapse started) were to start falling, the "stable" floors below the point of impact should have provided some resistance to the top floors on the way down. This is a valid question, but not being a structural engineer (I'm an electrical eng), I'm not sure of all of the variables involved in the collapse of those buildings. I do know that buildings are supposed to fall along the path of least resistance which is what makes demolishing buildings such a neat science. I wouldn't think that the path of least resistance for the WTC towers would be through the in-tact structures, but maybe the forces of the falling top were so great, that a cascaded collapse could happen. I initially thought that the tops of those buildings were going to fall off sideways when they started to fall. Anyway I'm sure that it's been studied and debunked somewhere by someone.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Songburst wrote:

You mean nothing accelerates faster than 9.8 m/s^2. Everything free-falls with a velocity of Final velocity = (Initial Velocity) + (acceleration x time).

The argument that I think is being made is that if the floors above the point of impact (where presumably the collapse started) were to start falling, the "stable" floors below the point of impact should have provided some resistance to the top floors on the way down. This is a valid question, but not being a structural engineer (I'm an electrical eng), I'm not sure of all of the variables involved in the collapse of those buildings. I do know that buildings are supposed to fall along the path of least resistance which is what makes demolishing buildings such a neat science. I wouldn't think that the path of least resistance for the WTC towers would be through the in-tact structures, but maybe the forces of the falling top were so great, that a cascaded collapse could happen. I initially thought that the tops of those buildings were going to fall off sideways when they started to fall. Anyway I'm sure that it's been studied and debunked somewhere by someone.

That's just it. There wasn't any resistance at all for the buildings to have all come rushing down like that. The tops of the buildings could have probably been dropped from hundreds of feet floating above down on the base of the buildings, and they would have slowly crunched down under the weight and slowly come to a stop.

Not only that, it all would have come to a stop at some point before reaching to bottom, not completely vaporize (mind you)all the way down. There would be huge chunks and sections of floors left over at the base and big sections of pancaked floors still in tact....There was none of that. Think about it. Each floor is at rest. It takes a certain amount of force and energy to get it moving and break through it, and so on for each floor...all the way down. It's not spontaneous, progressive increasing in force, and instant.

It's a process that takes time and absorbs a great deal of energy over and over again. It doesn't cascade and pick up momentum. It slows down increasingly as time goes on and comes to a halt. Some people think the entire building was like a bow under great stress just ready to break free, with no vertical strength or rigidity, or immense resistance capabilities at all.

A few people still think the tops of the building were like a giant elephant's foot stepping on a tiny fly scenario. That's the wrong way to think about it. There was a whole lot of stable and good building with 100% strength to oppose the weight from above. Especially the north tower which was hit near the very top.

Anyone that still believes the north tower's small little top section (in comparison) buckled just a tiny bit and then proceeded to plow through the entire building as if there was no opposition, needs to re evaluate their thinking.

Also what about building #7? Who can deny that it wasn't taken down without some kind of assistance? That could never just happen to a building with a little bit of fire and minor damage. A completely symmetrical and perfect collapse? I mean...honestly come on.

You really have to think about what you're being told about 9/11.

Hardly anyone believes the official story now. There hasn't been a valid explanation as to why all three fell like they did. The gov't story only succeeded in making assumptions....many of which were totally wrong, and had to be changed over and over again.

It's time to realize what it was, and what is really going on.

gue_barium

brokendave wrote:

We are all guilty of this from time to time... This time, we will all be reminded by a 17 year old:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYrIecDo-So

(YouTube Video)

That guy reeks of obsessive masturbation. Hehee. I watched the free will argument he gave as well. The thing determinists don't seem to understand is that determinism is not an argument against free will. It is an argument of free will.

brainofPJ

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Popular Mechanics?!?!...ahahha

No really...that was a good joke.

lol...

Sometimes you really do manage to pull out some good ones...

says the one who links wikipedia

RolandTD20Kdrummer

brainofPJ wrote:

says the one who links wikipedia

Links wikipedia to what?...I've heard of broad sweeping over generalized biased statements before....but uh...come again?