|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
Btw, 2 technical questions for you regulars: how do you edit a post, like in typo correction,
There should be an edit button on all your posts. Looks like a pencil erasure pointed at white page with a check mark on it. You have to be logged in for this button to appear.
The button appears on top of every one of your posts along several others (usually the third icon in you post, and absent in other's posts), and looks like this:  |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/01/2006 10:06:41 |
 |
|
|
Rumpl4skn
New Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:15:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
There was a recent postulation, in which an engineer was asked to approximate the job. He claimed 10 people making 4 trips could do it.
Can you supply a link to this, please?
I'm looking for it. Btw, I was incorrect - I believe he said 10 men making 10 trips. But I don';t care if it was 50 men making 20 trips, if he's correct, it's doable. I'll keep looking for the link, it's fairly recent.
For those even mildly interested, here are some links to peruse while I'm hammering and sawing:
Scholars for Truth
www.st911.org
Along with Morgan Reynolds' site
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=home
And of course his resume
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=bio
This issue has, in the past 4 years, gone far beyond the bounds of what you may perceive as lunacy or "kook" material. So, for those who still feel the government's "conspiracy theory" is better than the Truth Movement's version:
Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm
This paper is also an important contribution to the movement of the truth
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
And this one
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
This is also a good one
9/11: Have we been lied to?
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/HaveWeBeenLiedTo.html
If you've made up your minds on this, then don't bother. I don't want 15 pre-disclaimers about how "unreliable" the material is. I don't have time or energy to provide cross-verification of every link I post up. Usually people do that for themselevs if they have a genuine interest, which is obviously in short supply here. 
|
Taking other people's signatures and switching a few words around to make it opposite in meaning doesn't make you particularly clever. Although I admit I've done it myself, and it did make me FEEL more clever. : ) |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 10:36:08 [Permalink]
|
How about instead of posting 10 links and adding 13 subjects, you could answer the very valid points which refute your financial posts. Instead of ignoring them.
Then you pick one more point of contention and we can sift through it with a fine comb. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:19:19 [Permalink]
|
I don't know why, but I almost was expecting something other than the usual out of this thread.
Rumpl, do you ever intend to answer the questions I (and others) have asked?
Because if you don't intend to do anything other than flood us with one unevidenced assertion after another (with a couple of paraniod fantasies thrown in), then what is the point of responding to you?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:24:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
If you've made up your minds on this, then don't bother. I don't want 15 pre-disclaimers about how "unreliable" the material is. I don't have time or energy to provide cross-verification of every link I post up. Usually people do that for themselevs if they have a genuine interest, which is obviously in short supply here.
Sounds like the standard boilerplate "it's not my job to prove my assertions" crappola from someone who dogmatically adheres to a position and is unwilling to question it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Rumpl4skn
New Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:50:56 [Permalink]
|
Cripes - I'm trying to answer all these issues. Keep your pants on, I'm up to my ears in sawdust here.
Don't take temporary non-response as some big indication that you got me, okay? I only have 5 hands. |
Taking other people's signatures and switching a few words around to make it opposite in meaning doesn't make you particularly clever. Although I admit I've done it myself, and it did make me FEEL more clever. : ) |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:52:24 [Permalink]
|
Rump said: quote:
This issue has, in the past 4 years, gone far beyond the bounds of what you may perceive as lunacy or "kook" material.
Far beyond, all the way to shrieking, gibbering, feces-tossing derangement.
The paranoid conspiracy movement does a profoundly offensive disservice to all who died on 9/11, mainly by distracting attention from real steps that should be taken to correct actual failings of leadership. As someone here pointed out in different words, the conspiracy buffs cause a distraction that permits real evil to go unchallenged and uncorrected.
There are bizarre real conspiracies enough surrounding 9/11.
Starting with Al Qaeda's remarkably brilliant and evil plan kill thousands of innocents and to destroy major buildings in the US, essentially using a crew of disposable fanatics armed with box-cutters.
There is the Saudi kingdom (and others, including Dubai), which long supported bin Laden.
There is the continuing Saudi support for the radical Wahhabi sect as their official, state-sponsored form of Islam.
The are the close personal and business connections between Bush and the Saudis, including the Binladen family.
There is the unfathomable escape of bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and their core cadres from Tora Bora.
There is the horribly misguided invasion of Iraq, falsely justified partly as a continuation of the war on terrorism, partly in order to stop Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction for which no real evidence existed.
There are the huge no-bid contracts given to favored businesses by Bush in Iraq.
It goes on and on. The real stuff constitutes bizarre conspiracy enough for me.
The paranoid conspiracy buffs, instead of using Occam's' Razor, seem to have invented Occam's Crazy Glue. They stick everything they can think of onto their evey-growing ball of "theories," as though the largest and most complex structure they can imagine must be the most likely.
Me, I'm angry at real conspirators: Bin Laden and Bush. For the sake of the dead of 9/11, and for the sake of we who yet survive, it is literally a life-and-death matter that we separate the real conspiracies from the imagined ones.
Yet nobody here expects you will actually see reason. You did post in the correct forum here. So BigPapaSmurf suggested: quote:
How about instead of posting 10 links and adding 13 subjects, you could answer the very valid points which refute your financial posts. Instead of ignoring them.
Then you pick one more point of contention and we can sift through it with a fine comb.
Fine idea.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/01/2006 12:15:50 |
|
|
|
Rumpl4skn
New Member
25 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 11:53:39 [Permalink]
|
Btw, just quickly, as a point of reference here: what's the overall take on the JFK assassination. Just by show of hands...
Oswald acted alone.......... Oswald was a patsy for the CIA.........The Cubans did it......... The CIA did it, and GHW Bush was a key player?
Just curious. Trying to find out what makes the Skeptic Friends tick. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:00:13 [Permalink]
|
Theres not enough evidence to say that Oswald had help, that doesnt mean he didnt.
Id say that sums up Kennedy.
Evidence is what makes us tick. Skeptical manifesto link |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:07:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Btw, just quickly, as a point of reference here: what's the overall take on the JFK assassination. Just by show of hands...
Oswald acted alone.......... Oswald was a patsy for the CIA.........The Cubans did it......... The CIA did it, and GHW Bush was a key player?
Please get it into your head that we don't all think alike here. That concept will save you much grief, take it from someone who learned this lesson first-hand.
On the JFK assassination, I believe that Oswald alone shot Kennedy. I think he was either acting on Cuban instructions, or was acting independently in a way he felt was in Cuba's interests. My opinion is based on very little evidence, and only constitutes guesswork. Others here, you will doubtless find, have much different opinions.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/01/2006 12:09:42 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:09:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn...
So, I don't know if I can assume that most here are completely uninitiated to the 9/11 Truth Movement, or if the subject has been rendered taboo for some reason.
Any comments would be welcomed.
Welcome to SFN, Rumpl4skn.
You said, "Any comments would be welcomed," so from the top, my first comment would be, when you come into a new board and open a discussion with a shitty attitude like that, you're bound to be perceived as a troll, a crackpot, or a troublemaker. You started out with two completely incorrect assumptions, one being that people here might not be aware of the many 9/11 conspiracy "theories", and/or two, that your "theory", or any subject for that matter, might be taboo here.
My second comment would be, you won't find much productive conversation here by dangling a broad subject like that in front of this group then asking what we think, particularly without articulating any of your own opinions or concerns. Such a request is a common trolling tactic, and most people here see through that nonsense. Most SFNers tend to not indulge the trolls (other than a few who provide particular entertainment possibilities such as bb and Mozina, but so far you're not nearly that entertaining).Originally posted by Rumpl4skn...
I'm not beating around any Bushes here. I'm trying to judge the overall demeanor towards the issue, which I must admit, with a few of you already seems to lie somewhere between "hostile" and "honey, get my gun."
Here are 15 points: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
If you guys are completely into denial about government evil, then perhaps I'll just slink out of here and let you discuss whatever you feel are the real issues to be skeptical about. Whatever those may be.
[...]
I have a feeling you guys are going to find my opinions a bit too, shall we say, passionate.
Let's just say that in my opinion, the "wild conspiracy theory" that our multi-trillion dollar air defense system was defeated by 19 lowlifes with boxcutters is the most ridiculous fairytale I've heard since the Warren Commission Report.
[...]
I get the feeling you here have made up your minds, and I'd be wasting my efforts.
And I think you guys want me to propse my final conclusion, because (a) you're heard it before, (b) you've rendered it lunacy or idiocy in your minds, and (c) you don't want to hear contrary information. That's fine, I don't particualrly want to discuss this with anyone who's head in comfortably in the sand. I do however, wonder what the word "skeptic" has to do with this website.
I see comment s about potentioal government evil... yet this is somehow beyond the bounds of that? If you're only explanation for anything is "that couldn't happen here", you may have a serious problem.
I feel there is enough evidence to AT LEAST warrant another, truly bi-partisan, truly independent investigation of this event. If you have actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, and done further examination of the claims of this government hoax, and STILL feel satisfied with what you've been told... then welcome to your world. I hope for your sake, that there is not another false-flag attack.
I'm out of here. Best of luck with your reality.
[...]
But no, I don't see me making a lot of headway in here, people seem to be convinced and uninterested in another look. I'm convinced the other way, and I admit that. But I don't label those on the other side as lunatics - we all believe what we believe.
[...]
The first was essentially - okay, so somebody knew about 9/11 and made some money, so what? (Btw, typo inmy post - it was $2.5 million, not $25 million. But the 9/11 Commission lists it as twice the amount, or $5 million.)
You're either being cruelly sarcastic, or you're deranged. If you're saying it doesn;t matter that someone in the U.S. trading on our stock market had prior knowledge of the attacks, I guess I can offcially ignore the rest of your posts.
The second take regarded eveidence. So, even though I was earlier chastised for posting links, I will post links.
[...]
So, to you people here who apparently fully believe the government's official story about 9/11, the link to the 9/11 Commission Report is anecdotal?????
I believe I haven't just joined a new board, I've entered an alternate universe.
Look over some of the things you've said above. Surely you don't expect to engage in a reasonable dialog when you're constantly attacking what you mistakenly perceive as our attitude, without even being willing to address the particular issues you've brought forward. Surely you don't expect to posture yourself as such a belligerent smartass and still get involved in a productive discussion here.Originally posted by Rumpl4skn...
If you've made up your minds on this, then don't bother. I don't want 15 pre-disclaimers about how "unreliable" the material is. I don't have time or energy to provide cross-verification of every link I post up. Usually people do that for themselevs if they have a genuine interest, which is obviously in short supply here.
Actually what is in short supply here is tolerance for unevidenced claims. Now if you don't have the time or energy to actually posit legitimate evidence with references, if you don't have the time or energy to articulate your own opinion, and if you don't have the time or energy to answer the valid questions posed by the members here, you'll probably find other places on the Internet far more comfortable than SFN to hang your hat.
As a reminder, here are just a few of the questions you've ignored to this point...Originally posted by HalfMooner...
Well, how about the high heat the combustion creates, for a start? It's well known that steel will burn, given enough heat and oxygen. Do you deny steel will burn?
[and]
Why not leave out these tedious attempts to disprove one of the most closely observed disasters in history, and just cut to the chase, Rumpl. Tell us who "really" did 911, if not al Qaeda in hijacked airliners?
And...Originally posted by Dude...
I'll ask you again, where is your evidence that these names have not been released to the FBI/CIA?
Why do you think you should be privelaged to potentially critical information in what is obviously an ongoing criminal investigation?
Give me a plausible reason why these names, if they even exist (you have yet to demonstrate that this "put option" trading even occured), should be publicly released by the SEC.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:33:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn
Btw, just quickly, as a point of reference here: what's the overall take on the JFK assassination. Just by show of hands...
Oswald acted alone.......... Oswald was a patsy for the CIA.........The Cubans did it......... The CIA did it, and GHW Bush was a key player?
Just curious. Trying to find out what makes the Skeptic Friends tick.
There's a lot more than just those including involking La Cosa Nostra.
My take on it is that Oswald acted. Based on the equipment he had, training he recieved, and opportunity, he is a prime suspect. There are some people attached to the mob that have claimed responsibility. Which make me question if he just was in the wrong place at the right time doing the right thing. Was there a second shooter? Possibly.
I am skeptical of the Warren Commission's final analysis, but have yet to see a plausable alternative.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:51:41 [Permalink]
|
I looked at one of your sites, 4, claiming that it is impossible for the towers to have fallen from the fire. The article states that steel melts at 2800 F and that the fire resulted in temperatures of 1700 F, (numbers from the article). The assumption is that since the steel didn't melt the fire was not responsible for the collapse.
But of course there is a huge hole in this logic.
Most structual steel will lose 50% of it's strength at 1100 F. From the article itself it was stated that the temperature was 600 F OVER this temperature. The steel didn't melt but it was weaken to the point that the tower collapsed.
This is also what the official analysis stated, as I recall. So why the guy wrote and article about the impossiblilty of the steel melting is beyond me.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 12:54:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rumpl4skn...
Btw, just quickly, as a point of reference here: what's the overall take on the JFK assassination. Just by show of hands...
Oswald acted alone.......... Oswald was a patsy for the CIA.........The Cubans did it......... The CIA did it, and GHW Bush was a key player?
Just curious. Trying to find out what makes the Skeptic Friends tick.
It's a fairly safe bet you won't get a consensus on what makes SFNers tick with a silly poll like that. In fact, you'll not likely get a consensus from these people at all. For the most part the regular participants on these boards are quite independent, clear thinking, well informed people, and are far from like-minded about almost anything. On issues where there is not enough data available to formulate a supportable scientific position, we're quick to say, "I don't know." On issues that amount to simple discussions of opinion, we're quick to acknowledge that they are just that, our opinions.
And you probably won't find our opinions or supportable positions on any particular issues indicative of what makes us tick, at least as a group. Some of us here fight like cats and dogs. But part of what makes a lot of us tick is focus, consistency, clarity, and thoroughness, none of which appear, at least so far, to be your strong suits. Now if you've abandoned your conversation about your particular flavor of 9/11 conspiracy "theory" and wish to discuss another topic, the proper thing to do is open a new thread.
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2006 : 13:23:23 [Permalink]
|
Jumping in here a little late, but...
I found the Insight Magazine article referred to by the Newsmax article (actually, I had read it long before and just had to go look it up again). It's still available in the Google cache:
www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2002/06/03/National/Not-Much.Stock.In.put.Conspiracy-251677.shtml++%22put+options%22+site:insightmag.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1" target="_blank">http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:aIpgXBhYVxYJ:www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2002/06/03/National/Not-Much.Stock.In.put.Conspiracy-251677.shtml++%22put+options%22+site:insightmag.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
One of the most relevant parts:
quote:
On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this would have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit #8212; hardly what any analyst would call a killing in the options markets. Based on historical data for both airlines, the put options just prior to Sept. 11 neither were dramatic nor unprecedented.
For example, there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11, including June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 at 1,144 puts, April 16 at 1,019 and Jan. 8 at 1,315 puts. United Airlines puts were a little more during the prior year, including Aug. 8 at 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 at 8,212 and March 13 at 8,072. Since such relatively small spikes in options occur frequently and in a random pattern, why would respected financial analysts and government investigators cry foul?
That data indicates that anyone who concludes that the trading action in the period just before 9/11 must be related to the attacks is in grave danger of falling into the cum hoc ergo propter hoc causal fallacy, unless they have some other positive evidence to corroborate that claim.
(My unscientific opinion, based on a few years of observing paranoid conspiracy theories on the 'net, is that causal fallacies are among the favorite PCT rhetorical devices, along with affirming the consequent, the argument from ignorance and the odd bit of ad hominem and well-poisoning.)
BTW, I have a good buddy back in Philly who worked for several years at the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, doing market surveillance- the gentle art of spotting and thwarting suspicious trading activity. He's been involved in busting a few brokers who were breaking exchange rules. Next time I talk to him I'll find out what he has to say about what the trading cops look out for, which might shed some light on the degree of suspiciousness of the options trades.
Now, about the WTC towers:
The entire series of NIST reports on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 can be found here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
What has always jumped out at me from these reports is the pains NIST took to validate their modeling against the available evidence, which included such steps as using FEA to predict the patterns of damage to the exterior columns of both buildings which the airplane impacts would cause and checking that in detail against post-crash photos, building a cube farm and setting it on fire to test their CFD fire models and then building another cube farm, trashing it to simulate the effects of impact and setting it on fire all over again to find out empirically what difference it would make, analyzing pieces of recovered steel to look for inaccuracies in the temperature profiles predicted by the fire modeling...
The details of computational fluid dynamics or finite element analysis are way over my head, but the idea of validating an iterative computer model against reality isn't. I've done similar things with the circuit simulation software I use, setting it to modeling passive RLC circuits which I can analyze on paper and then to modeling more complex active circuits which I could breadboard and subject to measurement, before using it with any confidence on anything I cared about. The effort NIST put into validating their models is a reasonable basis for having a fair amount of confidence in their results.
Perhaps rumpl could read these reports and tell us exactly what's wrong with them. If he thinks either the methodology or conclusions are incorrect, he can point out in detail what the mistakes are; if he believes that they're faked, he can explain how exactly one tweaks the initial conditions of such a massive model so as to obtain a predictable, desired result.
And then, perhaps rumpl can explain why it is that the ranks of conspiracy theorists who claim there's something suspicious about the collapse of these buildings are devoid of anyone with formal training and experience in the really relevant fields.
Where are the licensed structural engineers among the conspiracists?
That, it seems to me, would be a much more useful thing to do than to resort to the customary "you all believe anything the eevil eevil gummint tells you" argument, or to fall into syndromism by dragging in unrelated stuff from the PCT Catechism.
edit: fixed italics tag. I have no idea why the URL for the cached version of the article comes out so weird. |
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
| Edited by - ktesibios on 03/01/2006 18:04:50 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
