"Its not who votes that counts; its who counts the votes"
Also, the propaganda machine is a tried and true method. Thanks TV!
Printable View
"Its not who votes that counts; its who counts the votes"
Also, the propaganda machine is a tried and true method. Thanks TV!
Brenda is absolutely, 100%, unequivocally correct, the power structure can be best represented by a pyramid; with emphasis on a very condensed and sharply pointed tip. It's the main logo (Great Seal) on the all our bestowed federal reserve notes.
Truly, the greatest conspiracy of all, is the view that there are no government conspiracies.
Trish, many of your thoughts are not even YOUR OWN.
Oh my god! How did that happen!!! Oh...right...I read books.Quote:
Trish, many of your thoughts are not even YOUR OWN.
The pessimist sees the glass half empty.
The optimist sees the glass half full.
The engineer sees a glass that’s larger than it need be to serve it current function.
It’s not a question of pessimism or optimism. ( I don’t think I painted all that rosy a picture.) It’s simply a question of adherence to a definition. An oligarchy is form of government, not a form of power structure. There is a distinction. If an oligarch wants a tax break, he declares one. He doesn’t have to hire lobbyists to wine and dine lesser souls than himself, such as Congressmen and Senators. Things would be a lot simpler for our would be oligarch if he could get it written into the constitution that he and his friends have direct and absolute command over all branches of government. Then we would indeed have an oligarchy. It doesn’t matter how “pointy” the power pyramid is, as long as our would be oligarchs are compelled to woo our elected officials we’ve got a government by the people.
Tom sees the glass and says 'Right, who's buying?'
That's absurd. It's the year 2008 and we aren't some banana republic, the only sane options for revolt are the ballot box and the boycott, among other things...although Timothy McVeigh certainly agreed with your sentiments, Brenda. Lots of luck with that, though!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Is that jackass still braying, trish? SMDH...Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
No, that would be you, El Nino. You and the rest of the infowars tinfoil hat crowd are perfect examples of cult-like behavior. Jim Jones would have loved you for the same reason that Alex Jones does now. Keep drinking that kool-aid...Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
Who's the one on the kool-aid Chef?
This one is for you and Trish
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=19zyIG89piI
Oh no! Everybody's brainwashed but me!
Here are some brief remarks on your link, El Nino:
It’s not news that our beliefs are shaped by our environment which includes the society in which we live. It can easily happen that society is wrong about certain of its beliefs and that we are led by our society to believe those falsehoods. They might even be false beliefs that function to guarantee the relative comfort of a certain segment of society; e.g. we might believe that “all poverty is born of laziness.” Those who benefit by such a belief might in fact propagate it. None of this requires a conspiracy. There needn’t be a secret cabal in the recesses of government that set it all in motion. (Indeed, why is the government always the bad guy in these conspiracy scenarios, why not the pseudo-intellectual political think-tanks?) Of course our thoughts are not entirely our own. In fact it’s damn hard to come up with an original idea that’s viable in the market place of ideas. That’s simply part of the natural memetic evolution of ideas. The narrator in your linked clip is rather like the 19th century thinker who cannot imagine that evolution could’ve proceeded without gods to initiate and guide it.
and the communications engineer saysQuote:
Originally Posted by trish
http://bangengineering.com/blog/wp-c...t-engineer.gif
Spoken like someone who has never had to defend himself/herself against a"gansta" or a fucking mugger like i have.Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
loki, i think many transgender women have witnessed their share of violence ( http://www.hungangels.com/board/view...hlight=#415695 ).
Some of us just bravely handle it without waving our own guns and knives.
But just how the pessimist/optimist amusement prompted your ejaculation, I can only imagine. Maybe you could explain how the Dilbert cartoon linked by muhmuh is linked by logic to your insult. You know, you might try posting while sober sometime. I think you'll find a notable improvement in the result. (Well maybe not, but it's worth a try).
House Keeping
not everyone lives in a country where half the population is stuck in the wild westQuote:
Originally Posted by loki
and what in the name of all that is unholy does being mugged have to do with redundant glasses?
Yeah, like you know there's a cabal because you're a member.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
All joking aside. Did you think I'd be wowed by that silly piece of fluff? I offered the obvious critique and now I'm little miss knowitall? I was hoping for a more reasoned response.
You probably have to know the secret handshake, trish. But they can be easily recognized due to their jaunty tinfoil hats.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
House Keeping
With questionable levity El Nino writes
…and then he posts a link to tyrannyalert’s speculative pdf on the collapse of the twin towers.Quote:
This is pretty funny too!
The link claims to refute the conclusions of a dozen independent engineering firms and societies. Yet it contains not a single reference to any independent engineering analysis, not a single table or chart displaying the stress analysis data or dynamics. Not a single mathematical equation. In short, it fails to rigorously and quantitatively criticize the existing models of the twin tower’s collapse and offers no rigorous model or analysis of its own.
It’s just another piece of fluff posing as engineering science.
Here are a few slightly more serious links. The first is the final NIST report. It’s close to 300 pages long, so it may take a little while to download. The second’s only 8 pages long and demonstrates what a mathematic model of collapse should look like. The latter two are slide show presentations given at two different engineering conferences.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Nucl...C6/0/ps2p2.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/istgroup/ist/docu...Istanbul04.pdf
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentati...C_TMS_2002.pdf
Well yes it's true that the conspiracy crowd has no interest in actually explaining things. That automatically debunks the conspiracy usually. But I've never been fully convinced by the explanations of why the towers fell the way they did. My personal feeling, & I have absolutely no corraborating evidence nor am I an engineer, is that the towers were weakened in the '93 bombing at the base & never quite right after. A sudden shift at the bottom would explain a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But be that as it may: Shortly after the incident, I stumbled on this article & have held onto the link ever since. It calls a lot of things into question. It doesn't pose a conspiracy theory though, except that maybe there was a lot of CYA happening in the engineering punditry that was all over the idiot box following 9/11. It's an old link (Oct/Nov 2001) & most of the hyperlinked graphics no longer work. Perhaps there are credible explanations for some of the questions by now. But it's still an interesting read.
http://web.archive.org/web/200210021...wot/mslp_i.htm
Hi hippiefried.
Unfortunately your linked site has a lot of broken images these days. But that’s all right, I’m not an engineer either and I don’t want to get into a discussion of the dynamics of the twin tower collapse. A physicist, or a chemist or anybody else with sufficient background to concoct a rigorous model can of course propose their own explanation for testing and review. But those best equipped to judge the model’s veracity are architectural engineers. I’m not buying any theory that doesn’t pass muster with at least one recognized society of engineers.
The discussion over the last several pages which led to El Nino’s introduction of this topic concerns the question of whether the U.S. is an oligarchy or not. Of course it isn’t. What El Nino really defends is the existence of a secret cabal within the U.S. government which conspires to manipulate the media, manipulate what we think and evidently also conspired to destroy lives and real estate in lower Manhattan (presumably to convince the American public, whose minds they already manipulate and control, that we should wage a war in Iraq).
My point is that the various factions of society manipulate the media quite openly. People watch, listen, read, talk persuade and are persuaded. The evolution and propagation of ideas within a media driven society doesn’t require gods or cabals to set it in motion nor to guide it. Now just apply Occam’s razor.
The collapse of the twin towers does require one to believe there were handful of malicious, fanatic, murderous, suicidal, Saudi born (not Iraqi) members of Al Qaeda who crashed hijacked, freshly fueled, commercial airliners into the upper stories of the towers. That part, incredible as it is, is easy to believe. It’s was witnessed first hand and recorded by hundreds of independent sources. Perhaps the buildings were previously damaged by earlier attempts to bring them down, perhaps not. The consensus of the architectural engineers who’ve made a serious study of the collapses is that the evolving consequences of the initial trauma were sufficient to eventually bring on the collapses. No further detonations of cleverly synchronized explosives were required. Indeed there is no evidence that there were such detonations. Again we are in a position to apply Occam’s razor. The explanation with the simplest ontology is the least sexy hypothesis, but the one more likely to be true.
House Keeping
House Keeping
Let’s do our own little back of the envelop calculation. The time it takes an object to free-fall from a height H to ground level
t = sqrt(2H/g).
Here g is the acceleration of the falling object due to gravity and sqrt is the abbreviation for square root (since the text here doesn’t seem to support mathematical notation).
Now imagine the pancaking collapse of a stack of floors from the top town. The collapse will not proceed at a constant rate all the way down as suggested by tyrannyalert. Rather the collapse will accelerate impulsively. The time between the failure of each successive floor increases. Hence effectively the building will acquire an effective acceleration. Notice that by varying t and g in the above equation we can approximate the dependence of the variation in fall time (usually denoted by a lower case Greek delta in front of t, but here we shall denote it by dt) on the variation in g. Namely
dt = - sqrt(H/2g^3) dg.
Here g^3 is the cube of g and dg is the variation of g. Substituting the rough height of the World Trade Center H= 1350 ft and the acceleration of gravity g = 32ft/s^2, we find that
dt = (-.14 /(ft/s^2)) dg
This means that the acceleration of the fall can be slowed by as much as 1 ft/s^2 and the time of fall will only be 0.14 seconds longer than the time of free-fall. If the acceleration of the fall were slowed by nearly 7 ft/s^2, this would only add one second to the time of fall. Hence on first glance, the pancake theory cannot be eliminated without rigorous, quantitative analysis.
House Keeping
House Keeping
[Edit: El Nino writes...]"Ummmm
Let's start with temperatures "
Let's not. I'm not an engineer and neither are you. Let's stick to the subject at hand. So I'll repeat:
A physicist, or a chemist or anybody else with sufficient background to concoct a rigorous model can of course propose their own explanation for testing and review. But those best equipped to judge the model’s veracity are architectural engineers. I’m not buying any theory that doesn’t pass muster with at least one recognized society of engineers.
The discussion over the last several pages which led to El Nino’s introduction of this topic concerns the question of whether the U.S. is an oligarchy or not. Of course it isn’t. What El Nino really defends is the existence of a secret cabal within the U.S. government which conspires to manipulate the media, manipulate what we think and evidently also conspired to destroy lives and real estate in lower Manhattan (presumably to convince the American public, whose minds they already manipulate and control, that we should wage a war in Iraq).
My point is that the various factions of society manipulate the media quite openly. People watch, listen, read, talk persuade and are persuaded. The evolution and propagation of ideas within a media driven society doesn’t require gods or cabals to set it in motion nor to guide it. Now just apply Occam’s razor.
The collapse of the twin towers does require one to believe there were handful of malicious, fanatic, murderous, suicidal, Saudi born (not Iraqi) members of Al Qaeda who crashed hijacked, freshly fueled, commercial airliners into the upper stories of the towers. That part, incredible as it is, is easy to believe. It’s was witnessed first hand and recorded by hundreds of independent sources. Perhaps the buildings were previously damaged by earlier attempts to bring them down, perhaps not. The consensus of the architectural engineers who’ve made a serious study of the collapses is that the evolving consequences of the initial trauma were sufficient to eventually bring on the collapses. No further detonations of cleverly synchronized explosives were required. Indeed there is no evidence that there were such detonations. Again we are in a position to apply Occam’s razor. The explanation with the simplest ontology is the least sexy hypothesis, but the one more likely to be true.
House Keeping
House Keeping
I've read that shit and it's not scientific. Why is it published on website called tyrannyalert and blueprint for truth and not in independent refereed journals of science and engineering? Because it can't get passed the referees. Oh that's right, they're part of the cabal.
okay, use your common sense to calculate the time of fall.Quote:
All you need is common sense, not a Ph.D. in physics to comprehend fundamentals of physical properties.
House Keeping
House Keeping
The paper you cite is indeed published in the very new (vol 2. issue 1) The Open Civil Engineering Journal. You will have noticed, however, it does not offer a primary analysis. For example, why do the authors dismiss the pancake model? The paper doesn’t say. The authors merely remark that on this point they are in agreement with NIST. Another example: why do the authors think initial impacts alone were insufficient to topple the towers? Again the paper doesn’t really say. The authors cite their agreement with NIST and others on this point, but they never say what they find agreeable in the arguments of others. The whole paper is a survey of opinion and lacks argument. Now there’s nothing wrong with this. A lot of professional papers are of this variety. But my contention is this. If you were convinced by this paper without looking up and understanding the actual arguments that were presumably presented in the twenty seven referenced articles, then your belief is based on airy nothingness. You believe because you want to believe.
Personally I’ve got better things to do than to attempt to read the technical arguments presented in twenty seven references. I may pay closer attention if the authors ever get the attention of their professional community.
So far, [edit] no society of architectural engineers endorses the theory that the buildings were brought down by synchronized detonations. No explosives were found. True enough, no one looked for them. Nevertheless, lack of evidence for existence is indeed evidence for lack of existence, for that is the essence of Occam’s razor.
This is getting rather far a field of the 2nd amendment. Cabals were far enough a field…but I could see at least a remote connection. [But] sabotage, after all, would not constitute evidence of a [mind controlling, ruling] cabal. I’m no longer going to address questions on the fall of the WTC in this thread. Start a new one if you wish.
House Keeping
House Keeping
Dr. Steven Jones doesn't sound like a society of architectural engineers. If he is, he's a society of one.
House Keeping
House Keeping