PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-15, 02:20:22
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 737745 times)

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859

Basically EM is saying he can get the same heating and light output of an incandescent filament with pulses of 3 to 4 Watts input versus 60 Watts input at 120 VAC, 60 Hz.


I took that more like the typical EMDevices sneaky challenge. I wasn't going to bite but wait to see who supported the statement.

'Apparent light'? Yes. The brightness can 'appear' to be brighter for a given energy supplied to the light when comparing nice mains A.C. to noisy R.F. or pulses. (Especially when the bulb is burned out and the illumination is from the spark gap replacing the filament  ;D )

Heat? No.

There may be a slight difference in efficiency but Watt-Hours are Watt-Hours. If he puts in 3-4 watts then the heat generated will be the same or slightly less.

As far as not being here for the whole flurry.... Not enough time for that.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
So -- I challenge you to provide evidence to support your statement, "the fires in WTC1, 2, and 7 did melt steel and that resulted in the collapses of the buildings and the explanation is so easy and so simple..."   Perhaps a video of a steel beam melting (not just bending) during an office fire?  Thanks.

I can only give you my common-sense analysis without being able to cite specific evidence, although I have to assume it exists.  I think I saw the Nova episode that ArtistGuy linked to a few years ago.  I watched the first few minutes and saw that they made reference to the floor supports softening and sagging (a.k.a. deforming) from high temperatures leading to the overall structural failure of the towers.  That's the real answer so let me explore this.

So for starters, I was using the term "melting" in the colloquial sense, meaning the deformation and/or melting of the the steel and other metals in use in the buildings.

So I suppose that we can look at this in two parts:

The first part is that with respect to the steel girders, I am saying that they deformed due to high temperatures which ultimately caused the buildings to collapse.  This is in contrast to the statement that you cited in your paper, "The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."  In the quote from the paper above, they may or may not be referring to "melt" in the colloquial sense, but I don't think we need to get hung up on this issue.  Your paper goes into considerable detail about the temperature/melting/deforming  issue and I linked to it.  I heard the same line of reasoning repeatedly in the lay press over the years.  Something like "The burning temperature of jet fuel and/or office furnishings was lower than the temperature to melt and/or deform the structural steel.   Therefore something must be amiss and/or there was a conspiracy that brought the buildings down because it would be impossible to cause the structural steel to fail."  From looking at some of your talks and writings I think that is also one of your central themes.

The second part is that I don't think that anyone would disagree that while the steel girders were heating up and softening and then deforming, that metal was indeed literally melting as the towers burned.  Exactly what was melting I don't precisely know but we all know of two facts that we can all agree on.  There was molten metal pouring out one of the corners of the towers, everyone knows the video clip.  Then when they were cleaning up they found pools of molten metal at the bases of the towers.  I think but I am not sure that you might use that to support your argument that thermite or nano-thermite was used to melt the metal.  However, my gut feel is that the amount of thermite needed to melt the estimated mass of molten metal in the bases of the towers would not make any sense at all.  The argument that thermite was used to cut through the main support girders was clearly rebutted as being invalid when you estimate how much themite it would take to cut through a main support beam and what the cut would look like.  I think ArtistGuy linked to an analysis showing this.  Then ArtistGuy linked to a clip that clearly showed that the diagonal cuts in the main support beams were done by the teams doing the clean up.

Okay, so back to the first issue, how did the temperature get high enough to "melt," or more appropriately deform, the floor supports and the main support girders, etc, when the combustibles don't burn at that high a temperature?

Now we go back to basic physics to arrive at the explanation.  The planes crashed into the towers and created a "cavern" of destruction and death inside each tower.  The jet fuel burned off fairly quickly and you were basically left with a 3D volume that was insulated from the outside world by the non-burning floors above and below the impact zone.   Each 3D volume still contained an aggressive burning fire.

So let's examine what the equivalent electrical circuit looks like:  The burning fire is is a power source.  (It's not a voltage source or a current source.)  The 3D volume is a capacitor, i.e.; it has some thermal capacitance.  The insulation with respect to the outside world is a resistor (i.e.; a thermal resistance).

The voltage is analogous to the temperature.

So you have a power source putting power into a capacitor in parallel with a resistor.  If the resistor is a high value, the voltage across the capacitor and resistor will increase and increase until the resistor is finally dissipating as much power as is being supplied by the power source.

So the ridiculously simple thermal modeling using an electrical circuit with three components tells you that "the sky is (possibly) the limit" as far as the temperature goes inside the 3D cavity inside each WTC tower.

Putting it another way:  The maximum temperature inside the burning cavity inside each tower had nothing to do with the maximum burning temperature of the jet fuel and other combustible materials.

I will put it another way:  You are beaming a strong flux of infrared thermal heat power at the steel girders at X watts per square meter and they simply will soak it up and increase in temperature until they get so hot that they get soft and start to sag.  Heat is being wicked away from the girders but at a much slower rate than the continuous bombardment of infrared heat power flux.

So there is common sense laid out for you with simple modeling using a basic electrical circuit.  This is what I said was "one level above what you will see in the lay press."

The bottom line is that it's no surprise at all that the steel girders got so hot that they deformed leading to the collapse of the buildings, no surprise at all.

This is somewhat analogous to "flashover."   In flashover the temperature in a room rises linearly with respect to time for the reasons outlined above until it gets so hot that everything in the room spontaneously starts to burn at the same time.

http://www.workingfire.net/misc3.htm

Quote
The scientific definition of flashover states it is caused by the radiation feedback of heat. Heat from the growing fire is absorbed into the upper walls and contents of the room, heating up the combustible gases and furnishings to their auto-ignition temperature. This build up of heat in the room triggers flashover.

This stuff is so basic that I am puzzled as to why after looking at a fair amount of your material, Professor Jones, that there is no mention of this concept.  I watched all eight parts of one of your talks and you never address this issue of the natural process where the temperature has the potential to go so high that steel can literally melt.  Did you ever consider this?

MileHigh

P.S.:  Like everybody, I was shocked when the towers came down.  I had no idea that it was going to happen ahead of time.  But then you start to think about it after the fact and contemplate things, apply the basic physical concepts, review the evidence, absorb the available information, etc, and it all makes sense.
« Last Edit: 2011-12-12, 03:27:31 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
I will state a little addendum to this, it's an experiment that I did when I might have been 10 years old.

Get yourself a D cell battery and an old disposable speaker.

I am sure some of you have tried taking a piece of wire and shorting it across a D cell and you felt the wire warm up between your fingers.  I did this before the arrival of alkaline batteries so if you did it today with an alkaline battery the wire might get quite hot.

Now, you carefully remove the voice coil from the speaker and you short the battery across it.  Since the voice coil has closely spaced wire it's not surprising that it gets hot.

Then finally, the big test.

You carefully fold up the voice coil until it's all compacted together, it might be the size of the eraser head on the end of a pencil.

Now you connect the battery and watch what happens.  The voice coil will get white hot and then shortly thereafter fail.

So what's the conclusion:  Even an ordinary D cell battery can make resistive metal white hot, even turn it into molten metal, if you can make the thermal resistance to the outside world high enough.  Note that the source of heat is a power source, not a voltage source or a current source.

By folding up the voice coil you are reducing it's surface area to the outside world and therefore making the thermal resistance to the outside world higher.

The same type of process was going on inside WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.  Fires were burning inside the buildings and the thermal resistance to the outside world was high enough and the fires burned long enough such that the temperature got so high that the steel girders deformed and the buildings collapsed.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Finally, here is the good old waveform that some of us have seen a million times:



This is approximately what the voltage waveform would look like for a constant power source pumping power into a capacitor in parallel with a resistor.

You can imagine for the sake of argument that at 55% of the maximum voltage (i.e.; temperature) that the steel girders would start to soften, and that at 70% of the maximum voltage (i.e.; temperature) that the steel girders would be at their melting point.

So you can see, if you do a thought experiment were the WTC towers do not collapse, that the temperature has the potential to go beyond the melting point of the steel support beams.

MileHigh
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 608
Excellent analysis Milehigh, as the outcast of the outcasts here, I can believe that Physicsprof was given early retirement not for being a whistle blower but for being a kook.

I have been reading his papers on the thermite issue and I just don't see it, he say's 'probably' so many times I wonder if he even believes himself.  He claims there is a 100 degree C difference between the ignition temperature of the red and gray particles and real thermite, so is this red and gray stuff actually thermite, I would say no with that big of a temperature difference, and there was certainly enough material of the nature of thermite in the WTC to be quite prolific in the debris, especially with the grinding process going on in the collapse.

If there is a smoking gun in the two papers on it I read, please shoot me with it so I don't have to read any more of this stuff.  If there is a smoking gun in the papers where?


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2589
Excellent analysis Milehigh, as the outcast of the outcasts here, I can believe that Physicsprof was given early retirement not for being a whistle blower but for being a kook....

Ad hominem, and not substantiated at all.  Indeed, I have been invited by the BYU Physics Department (where I was a Full Professor of Physics) to give a colloquium there in March 2012.  I will be speaking about energy research.

Furthermore, BYU made me an Emeritus Professor after I accepted early retirement.

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 337
MileHigh and Room3327,

I have a couple of questions, how could the BBC know in advance that the WTC Building 7 was about
to collapse? BBC actually reported the collapse live on TV approx. 25 minutes before it did happen.

The flight data recorder was found form the plane that hit Pentagon. The data shows that the cockpit door
was never opened between before takeoff and crash into the Pentagon. How is it possible to hijack a
plane if the cockpit door was never opened during flight?

GL.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2589
@PhysicsProf
 A quick question, physicists  believe that conservation of energy and matter and  the laws of
thermodynamics 
cannot be violated ever. Because of this, perpetual motion is impossible, most devices presently
 here require creation of energy so therefore are impossible. A free energy device therefore is
  impossible, because it requires creation of energy. There are claims of free energy devices
 using pseudoscientific energy, like cold electricity, vacuum energy, radiant energy,
 zero point energy or other things ,pure bull.What is your view on conservation of energy and matter and
 the laws of thermodynamics? 


   As I have said elsewhere on the forum, an "anomalous" energy source can be found and still preserve the fundamental laws of physics.

For example -- "dark energy" is estimated by astrophysicists to predominate (at ~70%) in the total mass-energy of the universe.  We do not yet know what this energy is, nor how it interacts with "ordinary" matter.  A novel energy source could tap into "dark energy" -- for example -- without violating conservation of energy etc.

This from an old posting of mine:
Quote

I would define a "novel energy" (NE) device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:

1.  Energy from a non-conventional source.  This excludes:  fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3).  It does not exclude:  earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields.  Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.

2.  More power out than in (that is, COP = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.

4.  The power output must be capable of scaling up.  (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.)  To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.

5.  I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide, and not controlled by some big corporation or government entity.  A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.

6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated.   For example, if a proton-nickel --> radioactive copper isotope production is claimed (as in a recent Bologna, Italy claim), then demonstration of copper isotope production is required.  This could be done by detecting the decay products of the produced radioisotopes, which should not be difficult to measure quantitatively.

I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1493
Insights.

Things are not at all as they seem.


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 118
@PhysicsProf
If you mean a converter,converting an unknown form of energy
into electrical energy,then were in agreement.The only device that fits that category
is the TPU,however  the inventor masked the details,think of an onion,
you hear about the outer skin all the time here,but the real truth lies beneath the layers.
Some advice,if you get involved with the TPU don't drink the koolaid(SM can't lie,won't lie,and wants you to make a TPU)
or you will go around in circles as people have for years,that's the real  plan of the inventor.
   
Group: Guest
Groundloop:

Of course I don't have the real answers to your questions but I can suggest some possible answers:

Quote
I have a couple of questions, how could the BBC know in advance that the WTC Building 7 was about
to collapse? BBC actually reported the collapse live on TV approx. 25 minutes before it did happen.

In one of my links there was a lot of detail about WTC7 that I had never heard before.  Apparently firemen were in the building for hours and then they started to notice a tilt on one side of the building (if I remember correctly) and then they noticed a five-story-high curve or bulge half-way up on one side of the building.

Then they started hearing noises inside the building, creaking noises and banging noises indicating that the metal superstructure was under great extra stress and shifting.  They decided to evacuate the building because it was showing all of the signs that it was going to collapse.

Two hours later the building did indeed collapse.

So, after the firefighters abandoned WTC7 they may have communicated to the press that they thought the building might collapse.  This was simply misunderstood by the BBC and they thought that they said that the building did collapse.

Quote
The flight data recorder was found form the plane that hit Pentagon. The data shows that the cockpit door
was never opened between before takeoff and crash into the Pentagon. How is it possible to hijack a
plane if the cockpit door was never opened during flight?

The door switch wasn't working.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh and Room3327,

I have a couple of questions, how could the BBC know in advance that the WTC Building 7 was about
to collapse? BBC actually reported the collapse live on TV approx. 25 minutes before it did happen.

The flight data recorder was found form the plane that hit Pentagon. The data shows that the cockpit door
was never opened between before takeoff and crash into the Pentagon. How is it possible to hijack a
plane if the cockpit door was never opened during flight?

GL.


http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=65587

The FDR parameter for the FLT DECK DOOR was not active and recorded on this model B757. Flight 77 was a B757-2 with "N" numbers, "of N644AA" indicating that it was built in late 1991, when this model was manufactured at Boeing. On this model the FDR did not record the state of this parameter in the FDR data, even though they left room for it and recorded this data later in the newer B757-3.

There is no indication that this model had ever been upgraded to a B757-3

The last 42 hours on the FDR data shows in fact no record of this function becoming active, meaning the door switch parameter had never been recorded as open on any of these flights even though this data covered 12 separate flights, again confirming that this FDR parameter was inoperative on this model of B757-2.


BBC (there are others about this):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html


General to conspiracy 'coverup':

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


Mr. Jones has even been given a whole page dedicated to his theories.

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

 
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1493
How to Know if You Are Alexithymic

One website lists these signs. It says you might:

    - find it difficult to talk about your own emotions;
    - be perceived by others as excessively logical, or unsentimental without being unfriendly;
    - be perplexed by other people's emotional reactions;
    - give pedantic and long-winded answers to practical questions;
    - make personal decisions according to principles rather than feelings;
    - suffer occasional inexplicable physiological disturbances such as palpitations, stomach ache, or hot flushes.

Alexithymia is defined by:

   1. difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing between feelings and the bodily sensations of emotional arousal
   2. difficulty describing feelings to other people
   3. constricted imaginal processes, as evidenced by a scarcity of fantasies
   4. a stimulus-bound, externally oriented cognitive style.


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1493
Piecing the puzzle together requires looking
into the past to find the trail which ultimately
leads to 9/11 and beyond.

How the power structure was developed.

Are some in the U.S. above the law?


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Group: Guest
Actually when you look at this whole issue in more detail, like I did for the first time very recently, some interesting observations can be made.

Upon close examination, there are parallels between many free energy propositions and the arguments made by the 9/11 "Truthers."

Take the case of RomeroUK.  Everybody gets excited and he is put on a pedestal and people are asking him for technical guidance for all of the minutiae with respect to building a replication.  But when you dig deeper into Romero you quickly find out that he is just an ordinary experimenter that is just a beginner in electronics and he is just pushing his luck and winging it when he is giving out advice.  Nobody can make a successful replication, the extra wires are found that powered the device, and you are left with nothing, just nonsensical foolishness.  And I have plowed through a few free energy propositions in my time and made mincemeat of them and quickly realized that the people promoting them were borderline clueless.

Same thing for the whole technical analysis of the 9/11 conspiracy theories about the actual building collapses.  WTC7 was clearly not a controlled demolition and the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to put selective blinders on on only see what you want to see and for the most part you are simply misinterpreting what the facts are showing you.  The technical aspect promoted by the "Truthers" is beyond a Swiss cheese with respect to the number of holes in the argument.  You also find that the people backing the proposition in many many cases don't have any technical credibility and are on flights of fancy.

You can always believe that this was a modern-day Reichstag fire if conspiracy theory runs through your veins.  You will never convince some people otherwise.  But putting the political/false flag/NWO/bla bla bla stuff aside for a second, the technical points with respect to planes flying into the WTC towers and causing the immense amount of destruction all makes perfect sense.  You don't need squibs or explosives perfectly placed where the planes impacted the buildings and a million other far-fetched ideas to have what happened really happen.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1493
Quote from: MileHigh
Take the case of RomeroUK.  Everybody gets excited and he is put on a pedestal and people are asking him for technical guidance for all of the minutiae with respect to building a replication

Hopefully, not "everyone."  The numbers of
those who were gullibly taken in is surprisingly
large however.

Quote from: MileHigh
You can always believe that this was a modern-day Reichstag fire if conspiracy theory runs through your veins.  You will never convince some people otherwise.

This is true:  "A man convinced against his will is
of the same opinion still..."

Any change in beliefs will always originate from
within.  Even in those cases where the techniques
of Trauma Based Mind Control have been utilized.

But then, the purpose of "debate" is not to change
anyone's mind - rather, it should be to enable
truth to rise to the surface.  All who participate
may continue to believe as they will.  Or, change
their minds as they see fit.


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3634
It's turtles all the way down
1)Actually when you look at this whole issue in more detail, like I did for the first time very recently, some interesting observations can be made.

2)Upon close examination, there are parallels between many free energy propositions and the arguments made by the 9/11 "Truthers."

3)Take the case of RomeroUK.  Everybody gets excited and he is put on a pedestal and people are asking him for technical guidance for all of the minutiae with respect to building a replication. But when you dig deeper into Romero you quickly find out that he is just an ordinary experimenter that is just a beginner in electronics and he is just pushing his luck and winging it when he is giving out advice.  Nobody can make a successful replication, the extra wires are found that powered the device, and you are left with nothing, just nonsensical foolishness.  And I have plowed through a few free energy propositions in my time and made mincemeat of them and quickly realized that the people promoting them were borderline clueless.

Same thing for the whole technical analysis of the 9/11 conspiracy theories about the actual building collapses.  WTC7 was clearly not a controlled demolition and the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to put selective blinders on on only see what you want to see and for the most part you are simply misinterpreting what the facts are showing you.  The technical aspect promoted by the "Truthers" is beyond a Swiss cheese with respect to the number of holes in the argument.  You also find that the people backing the proposition in many many cases don't have any technical credibility and are on flights of fancy.

You can always believe that this was a modern-day Reichstag fire if conspiracy theory runs through your veins.  You will never convince some people otherwise.  But putting the political/false flag/NWO/bla bla bla stuff aside for a second, the technical points with respect to planes flying into the WTC towers and causing the immense amount of destruction all makes perfect sense.  You don't need squibs or explosives perfectly placed where the planes impacted the buildings and a million other far-fetched ideas to have what happened really happen.

MileHigh

Point one: This is condescension, as if no one except MH is able to look at anything in greater or more detail and draw a conclusion. It is a veiled form of arrogance. The implication is that none here are as smart or as analytical as MH.

Point two: This is a technique called "poisoning the well", or "dropping a turd into the punchbowl", no one will drink from it anymore. Further, MH paints with a broad brush here, anyone questioning the official story is called a "truther" as if they are all the same and all believe the same things. Associating 9/11 alternative theories with Romero's failed machine and all other bogus FE devices seems to fit the technique.

Point three: There's that broad brush stroke again, use of the word "everyone" as if all on the forum are just lemmings that blindly follow any free energy offering.

Regarding the rest of MH's post, this could easily be turned inside out and used by the other side of the debate, but I won't go there, as it is too obvious.

As I said before, I don't believe or put faith in 99.99% of the FE stuff posted on many of the forums including this one. Nor do I believe in 99.99% of the 9 /11 theories posted on the many forums. I also don't believe in 99.99% of the pat answers that are often given as rebuttals to questions of 9 /11. So, as a forum member,  I reject being labelled in this manner. So what do I believe in? I'm still in a sorting process, just gathering information.

For the record, "truther" implies someone searching for the truth, which is not a bad thing regardless of MH's attempt at besmirching the word and anyone associated with it. We might in fact call MH a "free energy truther" as he is someone trying to dispel  some of the untruth surrounding the FE community. This is a good thing and I applaud him for it. What I don't applaud is the arrogance of his style as if he "knows it all".

We can never get to the truth about many things, the rabbit hole is just too deep, and we will never have sufficient information, so the tendency will always be to fall back on the simplest explanation. Occams Razor?

What we can rely on is the body of truths given to us by the great electrical and physics researchers of the past. These have been proven by experiment. Hopefully we can build on their offerings and discover novel energy techniques.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
For the record, "truther" implies someone searching for the truth, which is not a bad thing regardless of MH's attempt at besmirching the word and anyone associated with it. We might in fact call MH a "free energy truther" as he is someone trying to dispel  some of the untruth surrounding the FE community. This is a good thing and I applaud him for it. What I don't applaud is the arrogance of his style as if he "knows it all".

Well, it is hard to not be at least a little arrogant when you are right EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Is there a free energy device out there?  No.

And here is what gets me about the conspiracy people.  Why doesn't anyone ever try to think about this from the conspiracy planning standpoint?  How does a plan like this, to crash planes into buildings (except for the Pentagon, which was a missile, right?), ever get greenlit?

If you want to explode the buildings, then plan explosives, and blame it on the terrorists.  Why crash planes into them, which is a plan fraught with risks?  Take WTC7 for example, all this hoopla about no plane hitting it and it going down.  If they just brought everything down with explosives, this would not even be an issue.

And the Pentagon, what is this nonsense about a missile and not a plane?  I mean, they used planes in the other attacks, what would be so bad about using a plane here too?  No, they gotta use a missile and claim it was a plane, see how that is better?

And the fourth plane, crashing in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania.  What is the point of that?  Surely the outrage from the twin towers going down and the Pentagon getting hit is not enough, right?  There is going to be insufficient pretext to war unless they also crash a plane in the middle of nowhere, right?

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3634
It's turtles all the way down
From ebag:
Quote
Well, it is hard to not be at least a little arrogant when you are right EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Is there a free energy device out there?  No.

Agreed, but with caution, as it is a mistake to apply credulity to everything a person says because they may or may not be right on one issue.

MH has picked on an easy one to bolster his credibility in other areas. But you and he may not be 100% right.

There may be devices out there that are classified that we can not know of.


MH comes off as a "know it all", but it is very clear, to me at least, what he does not know.

People soon cease to question someone who appears to  "know it all" (Chinese proverb)

That's why debate on this issue is pointless as every argument can be inverted. As an example, here is an inversion of MH's statement in his prior post:

Quote
Same thing for the whole technical analysis of the 9/11 standard accepted theories about the actual building collapses.  WTC7 was clearly  a controlled demolition and the only way to not arrive at that conclusion is to put selective blinders on on only see what you want to see and for the most part you are simply misinterpreting what the facts are showing you.  The technical aspect promoted by the government official story is beyond a Swiss cheese with respect to the number of holes in the argument.  You also find that the people backing the proposition in many many cases don't have any technical credibility and are on flights of fancy.

Debate is pointless.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Ion:

You can attack me all you want but I stand by what I said.  A closer examination of the technical claims made by the "Truthers" shows that the claims have no credibility as far as I am concerned.

I posted a link where a guy said that the firefighters noticed a lean and a bow in WTC7 that indicated that it was on the verge of keeling over.  Nor did I know that there was a huge 10-story gash in the building.  I bet you with some research you could find irrefutable evidence that it's all the truth.  And that makes all of the WTC7 conspiracy theories junk and it makes a lot of the "Truthers" witting or unwitting propagandists.

I used the term "everybody" in a narrative sense and you are implying that I meant it in a literal sense about the people on this forum.  I think that any reasonably astute person would have understood what I meant including you, yet you used it to attack me along with other ad hominem attacks.

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3634
It's turtles all the way down
mh

Don't get rattled, I was only making observations, much as you make observations, "upon closer examination" bla bla, definitely not an attack, sorry you perceive it that way.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1493
Quote from: eatenbyagrue
...

And here is what gets me about the conspiracy people.  Why doesn't anyone ever try to think about this from the conspiracy planning standpoint?  How does a plan like this, to crash planes into buildings (except for the Pentagon, which was a missile, right?), ever get greenlit?

If you want to explode the buildings, then plan[t] explosives, and blame it on the terrorists.  Why crash planes into them, which is a plan fraught with risks?  Take WTC7 for example, all this hoopla about no plane hitting it and it going down.  If they just brought everything down with explosives, this would not even be an issue.

And the Pentagon, what is this nonsense about a missile and not a plane?  I mean, they used planes in the other attacks, what would be so bad about using a plane here too?  No, they gotta use a missile and claim it was a plane, see how that is better?

And the fourth plane, crashing in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania.  What is the point of that?  Surely the outrage from the twin towers going down and the Pentagon getting hit is not enough, right?  There is going to be insufficient pretext to war unless they also crash a plane in the middle of nowhere, right?

All wars and all planning for wars is conspiracy.

All events which further an agenda are conspiracy.

Understanding how the conspiracy "works" requires
intimate involvement with those who plan the events
and organize their implementation.  The average
"media-fed" being has little appreciation for the
simplicity of conspirational effort.  Only a select
"few" at the highest levels know all.  Lower level
minions carry out the "dirty work" without knowldedge
of the "big picture."  The minions "follow orders."

What appears on the "tube" via the "talking heads"
is a consipiracy.  Right down to the words that are
actually spoken and the facial expressions and the
verbal intonation.  Training and "grooming" is a long
drawn out process and those who excel are paid well
for their service.

One day all of the secret workings will be exposed.
That work is in progress at this very moment.

Those who conspire to control the world care naught
about "the good of man" or the "betterment of the
social paradigm."  They are ruthless.

Watch in amazement as the atrocities so characteristic
of the Soviet Union begin to occur everywhere world-
wide.  It has already begun...


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Group: Guest
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]
   
Group: Guest
All wars and all planning for wars is conspiracy.

All events which further an agenda are conspiracy.

Why spend 50 lines saying nothing?
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1493
Quote from: eatenbyagrue
Why spend 50 lines saying nothing?

Translation?


---------------------------
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
   
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-15, 02:20:22