473,696 Members | 1,989 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

OT: 9/11 Anniversary: Watch 9/11 Mysteries - How the World TradeCentre was demolished by the Neocons for an excuse to go back into Iraq

.
9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871

http://www.911weknow.com

Ignore those who would go to great effort and expend much of heir time
in poo-pooing this post. See for yourself what really happened in the
3 demolished buildings in the weeks before 9/11. Since 9-11 the
American public has shown a "remarkable indifference to being
deceived" (George Soros). But this is changing. As Hugo Chavez put it:
"The world is waking up. It's waking up all over. And people are
standing up." Millions around the world are realizing that they are
being lied to - not in a small, lazy way, but in a big way. It's time
to ask hard questions, many of which 911 Mysteries helps to answer. 90
minutes of evidence and analysis, filled with eyewitness testimonials.
Point-by-point review of the official story set alongside clear
science. The question is not one of politics or nationalism or
loyalty, but one of strict and simple physics. Does steel melt in open
air fires? What caused the core to vanish in seconds? No agenda. No
finger-pointing. Just the facts and the questions.

A story of people: Willie Rodriguez's strange recollection of noises
on the 34th floor. Who was up there, bumping around? Scott Forbes'
similar story, weeks before the towers fell. Here's how shaped charges
slice through steel beams to control the way they fall.

For greater clarity, download the movie over bittorrent - or buy a DVD
online at www.911weknow.com.

Sep 11 '08
176 4934
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."

Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.

FTFY again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."

If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."

Is this clear?
That really is all you were saying. My apologies.

Sep 18 '08 #111

PV, theget, you guys (and a couple of others) are all violently
agreeing. You're just (mistakenly) thinking the other guy is in the
other camp.

I.e., "theget" was responding to a "truther" implying that because WTC7
wasn't hit by a plane, it must have been destroyed by something other
than plane damage. Theget said,

"direct plane damage can't explain the collapse."

Perhaps he SHOULD have been slightly more clear (even though I
understood what he meant in his first post) by saying it this way:

"*DIRECT* plane damage can't explain the collapse. It was INdirect
plane damage, caused by the collapse and fire of the other two buildings
and the lack of firefighting capability at the time and location of WTC
7, that caused it to collapse."
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Sep 18 '08 #112
On Sep 18, 2:47 pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.orgw rote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
were hit by planes. Therefore plane impact can't explain all the
damage."
Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage.
FTFY again.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualifier
"A word or phrase that qualifies, limits, or modifies the meaning of
another word or phrase."
If you have evidence of an airplane directly hitting WTC7 please tell
me and I will withdraw my previous correction and instead write:
"Direct plane impact can explain all the damage."
Is this clear?

That really is all you were saying. My apologies.
I thank you for your apology although I don't think it's required. And
please accept mine if I have offended you in anyway, and in advance
once you read the post that missed this one.

Theget
Sep 18 '08 #113
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."

That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?
We thought you were apolgizing for the conspiracy theorists. So maybe
saying "Impact, fire, collapse does explain all the damage". Since damage
to WTC-7 was caused directly by the collapse which was caused directly by
the plane crash and resulting fire.

It seems meaningless to seperate the causes. WTC-7 would not have fallen
if not for the plane crash. It didn't fall due to a coincidental,
unrelated fire, and a coincidental unrelated water outtage. All the things
that caused it to fall ultimately lead back to the plane crash.

Sep 18 '08 #114
PV
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <se*****@sgeinc .invalid.comwri tes:
> "*DIRECT* plane damage can't explain the collapse. It was INdirect
plane damage, caused by the collapse and fire of the other two buildings
and the lack of firefighting capability at the time and location of WTC
7, that caused it to collapse."
This is called "a difference that makes no difference." No planes, no fire,
no collapsed WT7. Of what possible significance is it that there's a chance
(not a certainty) that no pieces of plane fell on WT7?

Needless splitting of hairs is generally one of the danger signs of a kook.
I think that's borne out. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
Sep 18 '08 #115
In rec.photo.digit al Scott Dorsey <kl****@panix.c omwrote:
Don Pearce <no****@nospam. comwrote:
>>But the WWII code breakers at Bletchley Park - thousands of them -
managed to go right through the war and into the fifties without a
single leak, so much so that to this day the USA still claims to have
invented the programmable computer when in fact the Colossus at
Bletchley had them well beaten.
Sorry, the Bletchley Park machine was programmable, but it was not a full
von Neumann machine.
In fact, the Harvard Mark I was programmable, and was actually a full
von Neumann machine although it had seperate address and data space,
and predates the Colossus by a few years.
The Harvard Mk I, like many of the so-called computers of that era,
was a programmable calculator. Conceptually they were equivalent to the
Analytical Engine that Babbage designed but never built. Nor was the
Harvard Mark One the first of that kind to be built. Zuse's
German Z3 of 1941 predated it by a few years.

You minimise the critical importance of the step between the von
Neumann architecture and the earlier programmable calculators: you can
implement software tools such as a compiler in a von Neumann machine.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB
Sep 18 '08 #116
On Sep 18, 4:09 pm, Wolfspawn <cr...@bfn.orgw rote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, theget wrote:
So you want me to change my correction to Chris Malcolm's claim:
"Therefore plane impact can't explain all the damage."
from:
"Therefore direct plane impact can't explain all the damage."
to read instead:
"Therefore fire plane impact can't explain all the damage."
That doesn't sound semantically meaningful to me. Maybe you could be
more explicit about what you meant?

We
We? Uh, yeah, I know what you mean.
thought you were apolgizing for the conspiracy theorists.
Explaining why context is important. I think that was ignored. I
think that's one of the things conspiracy nuts do.
So maybe
saying "Impact, fire, collapse does explain all the damage". Since damage
to WTC-7 was caused directly by the collapse which was caused directly by
the plane crash and resulting fire.
Or perhaps just correcting Chris Malcolm's statement.

>
It seems meaningless to seperate the causes. WTC-7 would not have fallen
if not for the plane crash.
I disagree. In the context of what Chris Malcolm claimed it was
important.
It didn't fall due to a coincidental,
unrelated fire, and a coincidental unrelated water outtage. All the things
that caused it to fall ultimately lead back to the plane crash.
But not a direct impact.

I think it's important to understand the point that CM was trying to
make. Otherwise you won't be able to address the issues he fails to
understand.

I think this will lead to a more substantial failure. I suspect that
when people suggest that not all the damage can be traced back to a
plane impact you must specifically address that. Failure to do so
will only make them feel like they've made a point with some validity.
Theget


Sep 18 '08 #117
On Sep 18, 4:40 pm, pv+use...@pobox .com (PV) wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc .invalid.comwri tes:
"*DIRECT* plane damage can't explain the collapse. It was INdirect
plane damage, caused by the collapse and fire of the other two buildings
and the lack of firefighting capability at the time and location of WTC
7, that caused it to collapse."

This is called "a difference that makes no difference."
I'm sorry, but I think that this ignores the context of Chris
Malcolm's claim.

No planes, no fire,
no collapsed WT7. Of what possible significance is it that there's a chance
(not a certainty) that no pieces of plane fell on WT7?
Almost zero. But that point should be explained to someone who thinks
that not all of the damage can be attributed to planes because of
three buildings that collapsed only two were hit by planes.

It may not make a difference to you, but it might to someone who
raises issues like this.

Assuming that they're not dishonest to begin with. Some people are.

Remember, you can fool some of the people some of the time, and all of
the people some of the time, but you can't fool anyone the way you can
fool yourself. I suspect some of the conspiracy believers fall into
this category. Nothing is gained by blowing off what they say as
unimportant. It must be addressed, if not for those who raise the
issues, then for those who might be reading and wondering why what CM
said didn't get a serious retort. I'll define serious some other
time.

>
Needless splitting of hairs is generally one of the danger signs of a kook.
I think that's borne out. *
Perhaps failing to split hairs when it's important to do so or not
recognizing when it's important is a sign of something too?

Theget
Sep 18 '08 #118
Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arv ig.netwrote:
>PV wrote:
>"Mike Schilling" <ms************ *@hotmail.comwr ites:
>>>All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.wri tten are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.
Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determinin g whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from db*@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Sep 18 '08 #119
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:00:50 -0400, db*@gatekeeper. vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:
>Dennis M. Hammes <sc********@arv ig.netwrote:
>>PV wrote:
>>"Mike Schilling" <ms************ *@hotmail.comwr ites:
All of those jerks on rec.arts.sf.wri tten are exactly those kinds of idiots.
It would serve them right if you never talked to them again.

Yes, we all suck, and should only be ignored. *

Are you trying to vacuum a cat?
Never vacuum a cat.

Unless the cat enjoys it, of course.

Dave "determinin g whether your cat is of this kind is, however, fraught" DeLaney
I have this terrible feeling that this one might be well over the
line into Things Man Was Not Meant to Know territory -- but have
you ever determined a cat to be in that category?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Sep 18 '08 #120

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.