"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"
--Albert Einstein.
"Facts are stupid things."
--Ronald Reagan
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
That was actually a mis-statement. Reagan was trying to quote John Adams' statement:
"Facts are stubborn things"
i know how the story goes...maybe it was a freudian slip. i mean he couldn't even remember selling over 2,000TOW missiles (and other weaponry) to the Iranians via Israel in order to violate Congress and support the terro...err...freedom fighting contras
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i know how the story goes...maybe it was a freudian slip. i mean he couldn't even remember selling over 2,000TOW missiles (and other weaponry) to the Iranians via Israel in order to violate Congress and support the terro...err...freedom fighting contras
Are you looking to me to defend Ronald Reagan's presidency? If so, I suggest you look elsewhere.
I'm simply saying that you shouldn't quote someone whose words were obviously different than the intention. The quote comes from a stump speech that, if read, contains the word "stubborn", not "stupid". Reagan gave this speech many times and read it correctly.
Are you looking to me to defend Ronald Reagan's presidency? If so, I suggest you look elsewhere.
I'm simply saying that you shouldn't quote someone whose words were obviously different than the intention. The quote comes from a stump speech that, if read, contains the word "stubborn", not "stupid". Reagan gave this speech many times and read it correctly.
i'm not looking for a defense of him, i'm just saying he's a liar and just b/c they say it was writen differently doesn't mean it wasn't a freudian slip. kinda like when rummy said something about the plane over PA being shot down
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i'm not looking for a defense of him, i'm just saying he's a liar
Ok.
and just b/c they say it was writen differently doesn't mean it wasn't a freudian slip.
Ok. I never said it wasn't a freudian slip. However, considering Reagan's view of the world, I doubt he was a man who thought that facts were "stupid".
kinda like when rummy said something about the plane over PA being shot down
The rest of your post there is quite right. A "fact" today may only be part of a bigger fact. But just because some "facts" change, doesn't mean they all do. And it doesn't mean that the flawed perception of them invalidates their reality.
If you are meaning, for example, the facts that spring into the development of computers, are absolute facts in such specifically defined contexts, then I agree and I amend what I said. To (poorly) reiterate a point I've heard baraka make before: because we've gone beyond Newtonian physics does not render invalid what is valid within Newtonion physics.
By the way, this is also my same deal with ID--I wouldn't presume to want to invalidate evolution theory, but merely bring it up to par with what I've learned about what I know as the intelligence of evolution.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you are meaning, for example, the facts that spring into the development of computers, are absolute facts in such specifically defined contexts, then I agree and I amend what I said. To (poorly) reiterate a point I've heard baraka make before: because we've gone beyond Newtonian physics does not render invalid what is valid within Newtonion physics.
Agreed.
By the way, this is also my same deal with ID--I wouldn't presume to want to invalidate evolution theory, but merely bring it up to par with what I've learned about what I know as the intelligence of evolution.
In terms of theoretical possibility, sure. In terms of the evidence we have from the events of 9/11, not even close.
We have plenty of evidence supporting both theories.
Both are very much dependent on "real physics".
Dependant, yes. However some theories defy those dependancies. The buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds. Not just free-fall speeds but the speed an object would fall in a vaccum (no wind resistance). That disregards friction and inertia.
A "lot of energy", huh? What do you think you get when a 110 story structure collapses on itself?
Technically if an object, such as a concrete floor pan, falls ontop of another object, much of that energy is absorbed by the impact. We should see a decline in downward force with the pancake theory. However, based on the increasing speed of collapse, it's only acceptable to say there was no resistance. If you perform a simple collapse experiment you will see what I mean. 80 floors will not collapse effortlessly from 10 floors falling ontop of them. If you build a paper box and drop it ontop of another equally sized paper box, what happens is the dropped box is deflected, the box it lands on doesn't dissapear into a cloud of paper bits. I realize concrete is a different material, and obviously much weaker than paper in this example.
Now imagine enough of that to eat through 50 steel columns. And imagine the evidence that type of burn leaves behind. We're talking about clear-cuts through steel, not bent and molten steel
Yes, I have actually Here is a video of several thermite experiments. The last one in particular, the thermite reaction quickly burns a hole through the car and ignites the gas tank, takes only a few seconds.
In this picture you can see a steel column directly behind the firefighter that is almost perfectly cut diagonally with charred molten steel residue around the top.
This one I've never heard. Tritium is often found in the atmosphere and it's created (I believe) as a product of sunlight and certain gasses. If you're proposing a nuclear device at WTC, you're going to have to explain a whole lot of other things, however. Can you point to the Tritium measurements as a start?
Dr. Stefan Grossman proposed an FGN may have been used. He is finishing up his documentary on it, should be available within the next few weeks from http://www.gallerize.com/911_home.htm, what we have here is the official study of tritium found at ground zero
No one is trying to convince them of that. Kerosene is not jet fuel, friend. Your conspiracy theorists forgot that jet fuel and kerosene are not the same.
All jet fuel/aviation fuel is kerosine based, that information is readily available all over the internet.
"The most common fuel worldwide is a kerosene/paraffin oil-based fuel classified as JET A-1, which is produced to an internationally standardized set of specifications. In the United States only, a version of JET A-1 known as JET A is also used. See the section for JET A-1 below.
The only other jet fuel that is commonly used in civilian aviation is called JET B. JET B is a fuel in the naptha-kerosene region that is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance. However, JET B's lighter composition makes it more dangerous to handle, and it is thus restricted only to areas where its cold-weather characteristics are absolutely necessary.
Both JET A and JET B can contain a number of additives:
Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) to increase the fuel's flash point;
Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, eg. AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example
Corrosion inhibitors, eg. DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) agents, eg. Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense;
Biocide additives."
Maximum burning temperature: 980 degrees C (1796 degrees F)
That's true. The official theory is nothing but speculation since so much information is unavailable. However, the official theory uses quite a bit of the available information to come to conclusions, rather than just piecemeal measurements used to back pre-existing conclusions.
If you actually read the NIST report, you will see they provide no evidence at all. Basically, they went into it with the conclusion that planes hit the buildings, and the fire brought them down. They merely repeat that conclusion over and over without providing any explanations. They made it long enough that the average person wouldn't read it and would just take their word for it. Also, their investigation was restricted to the point of airline impact to the collapse of the towers. Their investigation did not include the alleged "anti-terror" drill that had the WTC towers evacuated weeks before the attack. It also didn't include the 1337 degrees C temperatures recorded at ground zero days afterwards.
Did their tests include a 110-story building falling on top of said steel?
In order for the buildings to fall to begin with the steel would have had to melt or at the very least weaken and bend. The steel analyzed from the WTC site was bent, however after the collapse, it's arguable that the steel was bent from inertia rather than fire. There tests included elevated steel beams with a massive flame raging beneath them. You can view the tests here
Hehe...they didn't "sell it to me". They simply presented a case that is far more conclusive than anything else out there.
Here's the problem....a lot of people seem to suffer from Intelligent Designism on this issue. They think that if they could just disprove one theory, somehow that will prove another. If, tomorrow, we find out that Darwin was wrong it doesn't make the ID people right. The same holds true on 9/11.
There is a major difference. Darwinism has stood the test of time and almost no scientists disagree with it, without having a religious agenda. The theory of what occured on 9/11 was dismantled before it was even hatched. Explosions were reported by eye-whitnesses at the moment they occured and were left out of any official report or investigation. Of all the people interviewed by NIST, only a few were whitnesses to the actual events. They chose to include only the accounts that suited their story.
EDIT: Fixed broken link
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Dependant, yes. However some theories defy those dependancies. The buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds.
How, according to your theory, is this possible even if the buildings were imploded? Why is debris shown falling faster than the whole building itself?
Not just free-fall speeds but the speed an object would fall in a vaccum (no wind resistance). That disregards friction and inertia.
Are you willing to bet your whole argument if this point is proven to be false?
How, according to your theory, is this possible even if the buildings were imploded? Why is debris shown falling faster than the whole building itself?
Are you willing to bet your whole argument if this point is proven to be false?
I've studied the videos quite closely, I don't see any of the upward/outward projected debris falling faster than the building. Only the debris that is projected downward. Which brings up the point that something projected this debris in all directions.
Considering that you disregarded the other points about the collapse. No I would not "bet" my "whole argument" if "this point is proven to be false". I actually borrowed a physics book and confirmed this argument.
You see, I don't know beyond reasonable doubt what happened. However, the evidence raises a lot of questions, it at the very least warrants a proper investigation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
"Facts are stupid things."
--Ronald Reagan
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
That was actually a mis-statement. Reagan was trying to quote John Adams' statement:
"Facts are stubborn things"
i know how the story goes...maybe it was a freudian slip. i mean he couldn't even remember selling over 2,000TOW missiles (and other weaponry) to the Iranians via Israel in order to violate Congress and support the terro...err...freedom fighting contras
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Are you looking to me to defend Ronald Reagan's presidency? If so, I suggest you look elsewhere.
I'm simply saying that you shouldn't quote someone whose words were obviously different than the intention. The quote comes from a stump speech that, if read, contains the word "stubborn", not "stupid". Reagan gave this speech many times and read it correctly.
i'm not looking for a defense of him, i'm just saying he's a liar and just b/c they say it was writen differently doesn't mean it wasn't a freudian slip. kinda like when rummy said something about the plane over PA being shot down
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Ok.
Ok. I never said it wasn't a freudian slip. However, considering Reagan's view of the world, I doubt he was a man who thought that facts were "stupid".
Ok.
If you are meaning, for example, the facts that spring into the development of computers, are absolute facts in such specifically defined contexts, then I agree and I amend what I said. To (poorly) reiterate a point I've heard baraka make before: because we've gone beyond Newtonian physics does not render invalid what is valid within Newtonion physics.
By the way, this is also my same deal with ID--I wouldn't presume to want to invalidate evolution theory, but merely bring it up to par with what I've learned about what I know as the intelligence of evolution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Agreed.
Ok.
We have plenty of evidence supporting both theories.
Dependant, yes. However some theories defy those dependancies. The buildings collapsed at free-fall speeds. Not just free-fall speeds but the speed an object would fall in a vaccum (no wind resistance). That disregards friction and inertia.
Technically if an object, such as a concrete floor pan, falls ontop of another object, much of that energy is absorbed by the impact. We should see a decline in downward force with the pancake theory. However, based on the increasing speed of collapse, it's only acceptable to say there was no resistance. If you perform a simple collapse experiment you will see what I mean. 80 floors will not collapse effortlessly from 10 floors falling ontop of them. If you build a paper box and drop it ontop of another equally sized paper box, what happens is the dropped box is deflected, the box it lands on doesn't dissapear into a cloud of paper bits. I realize concrete is a different material, and obviously much weaker than paper in this example.
Yes, I have actually Here is a video of several thermite experiments. The last one in particular, the thermite reaction quickly burns a hole through the car and ignites the gas tank, takes only a few seconds.
In this picture you can see a steel column directly behind the firefighter that is almost perfectly cut diagonally with charred molten steel residue around the top.
Dr. Stefan Grossman proposed an FGN may have been used. He is finishing up his documentary on it, should be available within the next few weeks from http://www.gallerize.com/911_home.htm, what we have here is the official study of tritium found at ground zero
All jet fuel/aviation fuel is kerosine based, that information is readily available all over the internet.
"The most common fuel worldwide is a kerosene/paraffin oil-based fuel classified as JET A-1, which is produced to an internationally standardized set of specifications. In the United States only, a version of JET A-1 known as JET A is also used. See the section for JET A-1 below.
The only other jet fuel that is commonly used in civilian aviation is called JET B. JET B is a fuel in the naptha-kerosene region that is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance. However, JET B's lighter composition makes it more dangerous to handle, and it is thus restricted only to areas where its cold-weather characteristics are absolutely necessary.
Both JET A and JET B can contain a number of additives:
Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) to increase the fuel's flash point;
Antioxidants to prevent gumming, usually based on alkylated phenols, eg. AO-30, AO-31, or AO-37;
Antistatic agents, to dissipate static electricity and prevent sparking; Stadis 450, with dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid (DINNSA) as the active ingredient, is an example
Corrosion inhibitors, eg. DCI-4A used for civilian and military fuels, and DCI-6A used for military fuels;
Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII) agents, eg. Di-EGME; FSII is often mixed at the point-of-sale so that users with heated fuel lines do not have to pay the extra expense;
Biocide additives."
Maximum burning temperature: 980 degrees C (1796 degrees F)
If you actually read the NIST report, you will see they provide no evidence at all. Basically, they went into it with the conclusion that planes hit the buildings, and the fire brought them down. They merely repeat that conclusion over and over without providing any explanations. They made it long enough that the average person wouldn't read it and would just take their word for it. Also, their investigation was restricted to the point of airline impact to the collapse of the towers. Their investigation did not include the alleged "anti-terror" drill that had the WTC towers evacuated weeks before the attack. It also didn't include the 1337 degrees C temperatures recorded at ground zero days afterwards.
In order for the buildings to fall to begin with the steel would have had to melt or at the very least weaken and bend. The steel analyzed from the WTC site was bent, however after the collapse, it's arguable that the steel was bent from inertia rather than fire. There tests included elevated steel beams with a massive flame raging beneath them. You can view the tests here
There is a major difference. Darwinism has stood the test of time and almost no scientists disagree with it, without having a religious agenda. The theory of what occured on 9/11 was dismantled before it was even hatched. Explosions were reported by eye-whitnesses at the moment they occured and were left out of any official report or investigation. Of all the people interviewed by NIST, only a few were whitnesses to the actual events. They chose to include only the accounts that suited their story.
EDIT: Fixed broken link
How, according to your theory, is this possible even if the buildings were imploded? Why is debris shown falling faster than the whole building itself?
Are you willing to bet your whole argument if this point is proven to be false?
I've studied the videos quite closely, I don't see any of the upward/outward projected debris falling faster than the building. Only the debris that is projected downward. Which brings up the point that something projected this debris in all directions.
Considering that you disregarded the other points about the collapse. No I would not "bet" my "whole argument" if "this point is proven to be false". I actually borrowed a physics book and confirmed this argument.
You see, I don't know beyond reasonable doubt what happened. However, the evidence raises a lot of questions, it at the very least warrants a proper investigation.