The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9361  Postby proudfootz » Oct 07, 2017 8:43 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik


That's kind of what I was thinking. :thumbup:

Imagine if the guy made a formula for how long it takes a bridge to collapse based on data about collapsed bridges with zero input about bridges that didn't collapse.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9362  Postby proudfootz » Oct 07, 2017 8:54 pm

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
Animavore wrote:

Is "I know you are but what am I?" your favourite argument.

It aparently only comes up when he runs out of other arguments.


I never used the phrase.

You are laboring under a delusion.

It looks like you were taken in by one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.

nice :lol:
and I bet Duane Tolbert Gish never use 'term' Gish Gallop in a debate either. :roll:


It's likely Gish didn't use that term.

As for whatever Animaviore is accusing me of (perhaps jokingly?), perhaps it would be better if he tried to address the arguments than crack jokes and whimper about how he doesn't like my tone or whatever it's supposed to mean.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9363  Postby Animavore » Oct 07, 2017 9:04 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Agi Hammerthief wrote:
It aparently only comes up when he runs out of other arguments.


I never used the phrase.

You are laboring under a delusion.

It looks like you were taken in by one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.

nice :lol:
and I bet Duane Tolbert Gish never use 'term' Gish Gallop in a debate either. :roll:


It's likely Gish didn't use that term.

As for whatever Animaviore is accusing me of (perhaps jokingly?), perhaps it would be better if he tried to address the arguments than crack jokes and whimper about how he doesn't like my tone or whatever it's supposed to mean.

How does one address a "I know you are but what am I?" argument except to make a "I know you are but what am I?" argument back?

I suppose I could finish with, "Got you last. No returns".
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39124
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9364  Postby proudfootz » Oct 07, 2017 9:29 pm

I don't even know what the phrase you keep using means, how it relates to anything I posted, or why it is bad form.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9365  Postby cyghost » Oct 08, 2017 8:17 am

google it ffs
cyghost
 
Posts: 232

South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9366  Postby proudfootz » Oct 08, 2017 9:38 am

cyghost wrote:google it ffs


I did that already - nothing to indicate that anything I wrote fit the description, nor does it answer my other questions.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9367  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 10, 2017 3:54 am

proudfootz wrote:
cyghost wrote:google it ffs

I did that already - nothing to indicate that anything I wrote fit the description, nor does it answer my other questions.

And strangely even I as non native speaker got the point; and called you out on Tu Quoque numerous times.

If you didn't show a reasonable and well educated posting behavior across the rest of the board, right up to the point where you run out of arguments, or this thread in general, your proposed ignorance would be more believable. :cheers:
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1959
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9368  Postby proudfootz » Oct 10, 2017 9:49 am

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
cyghost wrote:google it ffs

I did that already - nothing to indicate that anything I wrote fit the description, nor does it answer my other questions.

And strangely even I as non native speaker got the point; and called you out on Tu Quoque numerous times.

If you didn't show a reasonable and well educated posting behavior across the rest of the board, right up to the point where you run out of arguments, or this thread in general, your proposed ignorance would be more believable. :cheers:


Indeed I am a reasonable and reasonably well educated person. :cheers:

It remains to be demonstrated that I have ever run out of well supported and rationale arguments. :scratch:

It appears to me that the reverse of your suggestion is true. :naughty:

Indeed, once again the discussion has been derailed and reduced to vague accusations concerning my character. :whistle:

No, I do not like these red herrings and spam. :lol:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9369  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 11, 2017 5:18 am

proudfootz wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik


That's kind of what I was thinking. :thumbup:

Imagine if the guy made a formula for how long it takes a bridge to collapse based on data about collapsed bridges with zero input about bridges that didn't collapse.


So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?

See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1271
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9370  Postby proudfootz » Oct 11, 2017 9:34 am

Just A Theory wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:Unsurprisingly, someone has already done some research on how quickly large scale conspiracies would reveal themselves. One of the conclusions is that for a conspiracy to last 5 years, the maximum amount of people involved would be around 2500.

So there is actual scientific research to back up post #2.


But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik


That's kind of what I was thinking. :thumbup:

Imagine if the guy made a formula for how long it takes a bridge to collapse based on data about collapsed bridges with zero input about bridges that didn't collapse.


So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?

See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.


Unsurprisingly, you miss the point that the guy assumes all bridges collapse and using only a few examples won't even have a very reliable formula for prediction of future collapses.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9371  Postby NuclMan » Oct 11, 2017 2:05 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:

But you are only going to get data on conspiracies that are exposed. So it presumes there are no large conspiracies that have never been exposed. There would be no data on any that might actually exist. How many conspirators prove from the start their complete willingness to kill anybody?

Speculating about conspiracies is psychological BS. :yuk: Just do the physics. Conspirators can't change that. :naughty:

psik


That's kind of what I was thinking. :thumbup:

Imagine if the guy made a formula for how long it takes a bridge to collapse based on data about collapsed bridges with zero input about bridges that didn't collapse.


So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?

See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.


Unsurprisingly, you miss the point that the guy assumes all bridges collapse and using only a few examples won't even have a very reliable formula for prediction of future collapses.


But all bridges will collapse so it's not a useful data set anyway. A reliable formula would be developed by using examples of those that fail prematurely.
NuclMan
 
Posts: 708

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9372  Postby psikeyhackr » Oct 11, 2017 3:45 pm

Just A Theory wrote:So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?

See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.


My aren't you brilliant. That discussion is not about bridge failure modes, it is about bridge failure statistics. There is a significant difference. Part of why the debate goes on is people playing semantic BS games. :roll:

The majority of people who get accused of being in the so called 'Truth Movement' are more interested in conspiracies than physics.

If we are to apply physics to bridges then the starring case is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It only took 4 months to build a 1/200th scale, 50 foot model, and that had to be done in a wind tunnel. But the bridge only lasted 4 months. By the time they were ready to apply what they learned from the model there was no more bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB008RAluyg

So the curious thing is that the people who claim that an airliner could destroy the north tower can't come up with a physical or virtual model in 16.08 years. Of course they could not do virtual models in 1940. No electronic computers. :lol:

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9373  Postby Just A Theory » Oct 12, 2017 12:44 am

psikeyhackr wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?

See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.


My aren't you brilliant. That discussion is not about bridge failure modes, it is about bridge failure statistics. There is a significant difference. Part of why the debate goes on is people playing semantic BS games. :roll:


Pot, kettle, black.

The majority of people who get accused of being in the so called 'Truth Movement' are more interested in conspiracies than physics.


I'd say that's an apt description. You certainly don't seem interested in the physics.


So the curious thing is that the people who claim that an airliner could destroy the north tower can't come up with a physical or virtual model in 16.08 years. Of course they could not do virtual models in 1940. No electronic computers. :lol:

psik


If only there was a government report, comprehensively researched and produced within a few years of the towers collapsing. I'm sure that if there was such a report then we could all look at that to understand how it is that the towers collapsed.

Ah well, I guess we'll just have to argue on the internet instead.
"He who begins by loving Christianity more than Truth, will proceed by loving his sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1772-1834
Just A Theory
 
Posts: 1271
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9374  Postby proudfootz » Oct 12, 2017 1:00 am

NuclMan wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Just A Theory wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

That's kind of what I was thinking. :thumbup:

Imagine if the guy made a formula for how long it takes a bridge to collapse based on data about collapsed bridges with zero input about bridges that didn't collapse.


So let me get this straight. In your hypothetical research on bridge failure modes, you'd examine bridges which haven't collapsed in order to get the most appropriate data set?

See, this is why the "truth" movement has made no progress in nearly 17 years.


Unsurprisingly, you miss the point that the guy assumes all bridges collapse and using only a few examples won't even have a very reliable formula for prediction of future collapses.


But all bridges will collapse so it's not a useful data set anyway. A reliable formula would be developed by using examples of those that fail prematurely.


Yes, if humans disappear from the Earth all of the bridges we built will probably eventually collapse before they are replaced.

Good call! :thumbup:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9375  Postby psikeyhackr » Oct 12, 2017 1:44 pm

Just A Theory wrote:If only there was a government report, comprehensively researched and produced within a few years of the towers collapsing. I'm sure that if there was such a report then we could all look at that to understand how it is that the towers collapsed.

Ah well, I guess we'll just have to argue on the internet instead.


Does that mean you should have no trouble finding the amount of concrete in the Twin Towers specified in the NCSTAR1 report?

Does that mean you should have no trouble finding the Center of Gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower specified in the NCSTAR1 report?

Care to provide the quotes and tell up where they are in the report? It is only 10,000 pages. It should fit somewhere.

psik
Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History
User avatar
psikeyhackr
 
Posts: 1350

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9376  Postby Agi Hammerthief » Oct 12, 2017 6:54 pm

proudfootz wrote:It appears to me that the reverse of your suggestion is true. :naughty:

"I know you are, but what am I?"
* my (modified) emphasis ( or 'interpretation' )

when you chop off your neighbours head and use it as a vase, you can call it 'culture'.
it's called civilisation is when this gets you jailed for the rest of your live.
User avatar
Agi Hammerthief
 
Posts: 1959
Age: 44
Male

Country: .de
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9377  Postby Animavore » Oct 12, 2017 7:02 pm

psikeyhackr wrote:Does that mean you should have no trouble finding the amount of concrete in the Twin Towers specified in the NCSTAR1 report?

Does that mean you should have no trouble finding the Center of Gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower specified in the NCSTAR1 report?

Care to provide the quotes and tell up where they are in the report? It is only 10,000 pages. It should fit somewhere.

psik


Not so fast, you. You have your own answering to do.

Animavore wrote:
psikeyhackr wrote:
Animavore wrote:Nice model, but it is not a scale model of the tower, it's not even built in the same way. It is not set on fire. And it is not penetrated by the object hitting it. It's not even hit at the equivalent point near the top. It doesn't prove anything.


Wrong!

It proved that changing the mass and the distribution of mass of a vertical flexible structure changed the behavior of the structure due to a shearing impact.


How?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39124
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9378  Postby proudfootz » Oct 12, 2017 7:51 pm

Agi Hammerthief wrote:
proudfootz wrote:It appears to me that the reverse of your suggestion is true. :naughty:

"I know you are, but what am I?"


You guys love that phrase so much!

Image

:lol:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9379  Postby Animavore » Oct 12, 2017 7:56 pm

A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 39124
Age: 39
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#9380  Postby proudfootz » Oct 13, 2017 12:50 am

i know you are but what am i?
A phrase used to signify that an argument has degraded to an immature level. Used as a response to someone that's turned a friendly discussion in to a personal argument.

Person 1: I hate iphones!
Person 2: I think they rawk. iPhones for everyone!
Person 1: You're a poo brain.
Person 2: I know you are but what am I?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... 0am%20I%3F


Thanks for trying to derail the thread and make it all about me!
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10296

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests