Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

The Line


  • Please log in to reply
337 replies to this topic

#271    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,352 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:40 AM

Are these walls of quoted text deliberate??  Sheeeez..  How's about learning to quote *only* that being debated, and remembering that old saying about brevity..

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#272    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 June 2013 - 11:55 AM

View PostYamato, on 18 June 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

No publications == no credibility.   Zero structural engineers refuting NIST in all of academia in almost 12 years now and as a result you're chasing after lies of mice to ignore the honesty of the elephant.

Only with an unerring faith in current mainstream academia.

And there are both structural engineers and publications which refute NIST... only they do not fall under your selective criteria due to the reasons mentioned... which you are completely unprepared to consider, or at any rate, discuss.

Oh well, enjoy...



http://www.ae911trut...stigation-.html

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#273    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,352 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:37 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 June 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Only with an unerring faith in current mainstream academia.
That same academia that made the Internet you are posting on.. and every other bit of technology and infrastructure you are currently enjoying?

"There's a reason for peer review." - ChrLz

Yep, I do have quite a bit of faith in it.  You denigrate it, yet use it and rely on it every moment of your life.

Quote

And there are both structural engineers and publications which refute NIST...
There are also people who write fiction, who troll, or who are just plain bat-poop crazy ... like Anders Bjorkman, to name just one (in a different field of tinfoilhattery - go on, look him up.  Wowsers - he has a degree and everything!!!)

Quote

only they do not fall under your selective criteria due to the reasons mentioned...
It's not 'our' selective criteria, it's the system by which charlatans and frauds and incompetents are relegated to the gutter in which they rightly belong.  It's the system that reveals who knows their stuff, who understands the real complexities of the real world and the whole concept of applied science and engineering.  Properly applied.

It's the system that while not absolutely perfect, is as close as we can get.  And finally it's a system that is open to correction, if the 'corrections' are actually based on sound knowledge applied wisely, and are better at explaining/describing happenings in the real world.  That's a mighty important IF.

Quote

which you are completely unprepared to consider, or at any rate, discuss.
Pardon me?  You're here freely defending it, there are numerous websites expounding this garbage, and you and the other believers have had ample opportunity to give it your best shot.  And if anyone in the 'mainstream' thought that there was anything to it other than the handwaving ignorance of the uninformed or biased, then it might grab a foothold.

Yet.. strangely it doesn't, it hasn't, it isn't.  Sure, you can decide that is because the ebil gubmint is controlling everyone and suppressing Da Truf.

But I take a different view.  So does the mainstream.  And threads like this - that reveal the basic errors in much of the ludicrous analyses presented by these sad, rejected, non-mainstreamers - give a good indication of why it's getting nowhere.

It's getting nowhere because it is wrong.

So, you enjoy ... your freedom to keep pushing it uphill, as they say..

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#274    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 June 2013 - 01:58 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 18 June 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

Its name is Carter.

It's the fastest civilian computer in the U.S., and ranked 54th out of the top 500 supercomputers globally.
To be strictly accurate, the WTC impact simulation pre-dates Carter, so was done on an  earlier example of Purdue's impressive supercomputer heritage.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#275    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 June 2013 - 02:14 PM

I believe there was one done in 2002, on the old system, and one in 2006, on Carter.  Not sure though.  I do remember reading an article about how it was the supercomputer that determined that 11 of the main central columns had failed, I was in Florida at the time, but it could have been the 2002 report.


#276    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 June 2013 - 03:04 PM

It was the 2006 simulation, but Carter wasn't installed until 2011.
http://www.rcac.purd....cfm?newsId=504

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#277    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 June 2013 - 07:36 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 18 June 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

There are also people who write fiction, who troll, or who are just plain bat-poop crazy ... like Anders Bjorkman, to name just one (in a different field of tinfoilhattery - go on, look him up.  Wowsers - he has a degree and everything!!!)
Q knows of Anders, in fact he has used an Anders quote to back up his position:
http://www.unexplain...15#entry4466090

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#278    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,352 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:21 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 18 June 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Q knows of Anders, in fact he has used an Anders quote to back up his position:
http://www.unexplain...15#entry4466090
That's quite hilarious - I know of Bjorkman ('Heiwa') from his lunacy (pun intended) regarding his denial of Apollo (and even space exploration in general..) -  the guy is completely off his rocker and if he ever had a clue, it is long gone from his twisted fantasies about how the 'mainstream' has unfairly rejected him.

Yet there he is being rolled out as another 'expert' on 911 - a European Structural Engineer, no less!

It just shows how easy it is to:
- get a degree at some institutions (and/or just go crazy in later life)
- be believed by those with a bias and no real knowledge

Sad.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#279    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 19 June 2013 - 11:06 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 18 June 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Yep, I do have quite a bit of faith in it.  You denigrate it, yet use it and rely on it every moment of your life.

A slight overreaction there, Chrlzs. :rolleyes:  I also have “quite a bit of faith” in mainstream academia.  What I actually said and indicated is that it is not “unerring faith” like we find of many official story adherents and Yamato here.


View PostChrlzs, on 18 June 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

It's not 'our' selective criteria, it's the system by which charlatans and frauds and incompetents are relegated to the gutter in which they rightly belong.  It's the system that reveals who knows their stuff, who understands the real complexities of the real world and the whole concept of applied science and engineering.  Properly applied.

It's the system that while not absolutely perfect, is as close as we can get.  And finally it's a system that is open to correction, if the 'corrections' are actually based on sound knowledge applied wisely, and are better at explaining/describing happenings in the real world.  That's a mighty important IF.

That should all be the case but is unfortunately at the political mercy of the editor(s): -

James Gourley Published in “The Journal of Engineering Mechanics”
http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Why should I listen to you and not accept the publishing bias demonstrated by Gourley?


View PostChrlzs, on 18 June 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

... like Anders Bjorkman, to name just one (in a different field of tinfoilhattery - go on, look him up.  Wowsers - he has a degree and everything!!!

View Postflyingswan, on 18 June 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Q knows of Anders, in fact he has used an Anders quote to back up his position:
http://www.unexplain...15#entry4466090

View PostChrlzs, on 18 June 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

That's quite hilarious - I know of Bjorkman ('Heiwa') from his lunacy (pun intended) regarding his denial of Apollo (and even space exploration in general..) -  the guy is completely off his rocker and if he ever had a clue, it is long gone from his twisted fantasies about how the 'mainstream' has unfairly rejected him.

Typical official story adherent avoidance tactic: divert from what is actually said and evidence presented to talk about some element or member of the 9/11 truth movement that is admittedly easier to discredit.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#280    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,352 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 20 June 2013 - 10:52 AM

View PostQ24, on 19 June 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

A slight overreaction there, Chrlzs. :rolleyes:  I also have “quite a bit of faith” in mainstream academia.  What I actually said and indicated is that it is not “unerring faith” like we find of many official story adherents and Yamato here.
Really?  So, stop waffling and just get on with it.  But first learn physics, there's a good chap.  And try to understand that the reason that you, and all of your 911 conspiracy ilk are FAILING abysmally to enlist anyone from that mainstream that you now endorse.. is that you are biased, wrong and out of your depth.

If that's not the case, then just wake us all up when you get some mainstream traction.  At the moment, the 911 truther movement is impotent and getting worse, and you know it.

Quote

Blah.. James Gourley.. blah blah.
If you have some point to make, stop lazily linking to webpages and make your point here.  Frankly I'm sick to death of you asking everyone to accept your links blindly and/or the accompanying walls of text being posted, full of whining excuses.

Quote

Why should I listen to you..
Simple - because as I said above - you and your ilk are getting absolutely NOWHERE.  A position well deserved.

Quote

Typical official story adherent..
Typical tinfoilhat excuses and whining.

As Carl pointed out,  - Yes, they laughed at Galileo, Fulton & the Wright Brothers.  But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown...

Quote

..talk about some element or member of the 9/11 truth movement that is admittedly easier to discredit.
You said it.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#281    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 20 June 2013 - 11:54 AM

Chrlzs, much of your response doesn’t make sense, is not relevant and/or does not follow from what I actually said or discuss the evidence presented.  It seems you are getting upset in which case it might be best to take a break.  It would also lead us well off-topic, in a thread discussing ‘science’, if I were to respond to your comments.  Ok, it is keeping the thread alive that discussion has already expanded to the ‘presentation of science’ from NIST, in peer-reviewed journals and using computer simulations, but I wouldn’t want to see it stray further than that.

Therefore, the only relevant response I can find is here: -

View PostChrlzs, on 20 June 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

If you have some point to make, stop lazily linking to webpages and make your point here.  Frankly I'm sick to death of you asking everyone to accept your links blindly and/or the accompanying walls of text being posted, full of whining excuses.

I don’t like to unnecessarily regurgitate large volumes of linked text.  I have never asked anyone to blindly accept anything – I post the link to information in the hope that people read and consider it.  If you could do so and provide a sensible, relevant response to why I should be confident in the mainstream journal peer-review process, given the political bias demonstrated, then I would be interested in your views.

Here it is again: -

James Gourley Published in “The Journal of Engineering Mechanics”
http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Why should I listen to you and not accept the publishing bias demonstrated by Gourley?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#282    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 5,352 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:06 PM

So it's not worthy of elaborating on this discussion forum?  Then it's not worthy of me visiting.

I've marked my diary - I'll pop back in a year to see what traction you are getting then.  And again in a decade...

Anyone wanting to place a bet?

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#283    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 20 June 2013 - 03:17 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 20 June 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

So it's not worthy of elaborating on this discussion forum?  Then it's not worthy of me visiting.

I've marked my diary - I'll pop back in a year to see what traction you are getting then.  And again in a decade...

Anyone wanting to place a bet?

Noted you refuse to address the question.

I’m not sure my personal traction can be accurately measured but I’ll raise anything you put on the table that the professional membership of AE911T has increased in a year’s time.

Anyhow, when is aquatus going to come back to correct his model?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#284    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 20 June 2013 - 04:50 PM

the "aquamodel" cannot explain the observed 100 feet freefall speed of building 7, since any impact force would necessarily slow down the falling material.

the aquamodel assumptions of columns with zero mass favours the official narrative (since no energy would be expended in removing or bending the columns), and yet the aquamodel will not even produce the observed freefall speed. since the building fell at freefall speed it used all the gravitational energy available for that period of freefall, so therefore the energy required to overcome the building's resistance had to come from somewhere else.

thus the aquamodel shows the official narrative is incorrect.


#285    praetorian-legio XIII

praetorian-legio XIII

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola Beach

  • Beer; Now there's a temporary solution.

Posted 20 June 2013 - 06:49 PM

From what I've read a very interesting discussion, regardless, as a lay man, it sure looked like every other controlled demolition I've every seen. Lets not forget WTC 7, not a lot of damage to drop an entire building into its own footprint. Just my own observations and opinions.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users