- Status
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well... let's see...
I don't think I'd want confusion to reign if I was Bush. I'd want, as much as could be fairly done, the story to reflect one solid and consistent theory. I have to assume Bush wanted to effect his Agenda in the ME and the terrorists gave him an opportunity that he'd not want dissolved into a group of theories that would disrupt that Agenda. Bush like anyone plays the cards he is dealt. This event was a Ace to a pair he held... I think.. but I don't think he could of had anything to do with the cause of it. So to me the evidence was probably filtered and the story told was massaged to eliminate any recognition to anything not supporting the major theme in which I generally agree..
I read the actual quotes of the Fire Chiefs on the scene of WTC 7 and they are compelling. They indicate that using transits they determined '7' was going to probably fall. They estimated, based on the rate of bowing and creeks and noises they understood and the like, as early as 5 pm.
These kinds of witnesses are not even remotely likely to allow some political person to use them.. These are New Yorkers who'd rather burn an entire government than a building...
I know how they think.... I really do. Besides most of them are Democrats as well.. hehehe
BTW, it was them who ordered all personnel to pull back out of WTC 7 at around 2 PM to what they referred to as out of the drop zone...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
What he claims to be truth is his claim to deal with. Your claim is that you didn't do what he claimed. I searched for the claim and couldn't find it. That is my claim!
IF he claims it a million times will it make it more true or less false?
I posted what to me defines a lie is and also said I'd not make a claim that another is lying because I don't know what is in their heart... I don't know and never will know no matter what you or they say... ergo, I'll never call another person a liar. I will present evidence or the lack of evidence but that is as far as I go....
Except in the case of Presidents... They always lie...
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I have no idea if Kyle knows the math or not... I've seen some Algebra that was applicable to the subject that was his or it seemed so... but I did not see the alleged cut and paste AND claim that it was his math... What I saw was a post that in context seemed quite a normal discouse between R. Mackay and Kyle... Kyle referenced Mackay's white paper thingi... a line in it.. to Mackay.. (I think that is his name.. Ryan M....)
EDIT: I posted what was on that Randi site that Shira posted but his post in this forum differed from what was on the Randi site in the post he linked. So I don't know what that means at all.. other than it was not the same.
Can we get back to the WTC 7 issue and perhaps Why it is impossible for the building to have fallen like NIST said... That is the OP allegation... maybe restated it might lend itself to some math.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
When I entered this thread I said the only thing I could not accept about 9/11 was the building 7 thing...
I felt the information I had gathered back when was enough to allow that thought... then the Thermite stuff came along a few years ago, but I never revisited the issue but sure did see alot of how. Since the start of the thread I'm not sure about Thermate even being there... but still the building fell and it don't make sense to me how...
The 'why' presupposes, as is obvious, an act other than the terrorist acts... I'd have tried to start there but will try to deal with the falling bit first... and if I can see to my satisfaction it didn't fall as per NIST then no amount of anything will get that belief changed unless a fundamental revelation occurs that provides for that..
Things what seemed evidence a month ago seem much less so today but other stuff has cropped up too...
I'm not asking you to agree with my vision or even to keep the thread open... This whole issue is personal to me... very much so. I've not mentioned it to Moonbeam in all the discussions we've had... That might or might not seem important to you but to me it shows that I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. People died at that 9/11 site... and I'll leave it at that. I'll plod on in any event and probably let it die when I am out of things to look at in an un-biased manner...
Authors like Griffin... I won't even listen again to him.. cuz he is so biased and selective his words are meaningless... So are a whole lot of other folks who pick and choose what they present as evidence... to me the entire place is the evidence and especially the videos.
I felt the information I had gathered back when was enough to allow that thought... then the Thermite stuff came along a few years ago, but I never revisited the issue but sure did see alot of how. Since the start of the thread I'm not sure about Thermate even being there... but still the building fell and it don't make sense to me how...
The 'why' presupposes, as is obvious, an act other than the terrorist acts... I'd have tried to start there but will try to deal with the falling bit first... and if I can see to my satisfaction it didn't fall as per NIST then no amount of anything will get that belief changed unless a fundamental revelation occurs that provides for that..
Things what seemed evidence a month ago seem much less so today but other stuff has cropped up too...
I'm not asking you to agree with my vision or even to keep the thread open... This whole issue is personal to me... very much so. I've not mentioned it to Moonbeam in all the discussions we've had... That might or might not seem important to you but to me it shows that I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. People died at that 9/11 site... and I'll leave it at that. I'll plod on in any event and probably let it die when I am out of things to look at in an un-biased manner...
Authors like Griffin... I won't even listen again to him.. cuz he is so biased and selective his words are meaningless... So are a whole lot of other folks who pick and choose what they present as evidence... to me the entire place is the evidence and especially the videos.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I already did prove otherwise. Your problem is assuming that using the math that someone else provided and doing simple 8th grade substitution qualifies it as your own math. Being able to perform simple substitution does not make it your own math. The hard part is knowing what math applies in the first place and you do not, which is why you have not, and continually refuse, to bring any of your own "math" into this thread. You'd get severely owned if you even tried because you've already clearly demonstrated how ignorant you are of even basic principles regarding both math and physics. So drop the pretenses already. You haven't fooled anyone but yourself in here.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
You don't need to so desperately appeal to LR for validation to prove me wrong. All you have to do is bring your own "math" into this thread.
So bring it. If you know as much as you have vehemently exclaimed it should be simple for you to do. You should be able to own us all with your mathematical and physics brilliance. C'mon. Dazzle us.
But the fact that you don't speaks volumes and even LR can't ignore that, as much as he tries to humor your idiotic behavior and delusions of grandeur. It seems that not only does math and physics pass well over your head, but the intricacies and nuances of social commentary exceed your grasp as well.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I will state for about the fifth time that I could not find what he claimed to be your copying and pasting of another persons work and therefrom claiming that work to be your own by overt or implied statements.
I read the entire Randi thread looking and found what I referenced before. And that is: During a debate with a Ryan Mackay reference was made to his use of a calculation which you linked from his white paper as the backup to the question you asked related to that.. He replied to your question and on the debate went.. I saw the other post from someone Jay something that you linked and attributed and from which you extrapolated to some "-F approx 0" I think it is.. I think I recall seeing reference to that more than once in there...
Now, while I think it not relevant, I'll repeat that the Randi place has many posts even toward the end by folks stating you did not present any math let alone attempt to copy and paste the very person you were debating and claim his work as yours.
I advise you simply let it drop... trying to nail someone gets you no where. Keep turning the other cheek until they are tired of swinging... For: When one seeks revenge they should dig two holes.... In your own heart is where your Truth and Honor lives! No one can dislodge that but you...
What I find interesting about this thread is what more I've learned I don't know. The plane taking off on a tread mill was a gas and the Dr Pizza bridge thingi was interesting too. I don't know how to solve it and this thread is so long I don't even know on which of the 17 pages I see it's on, but it makes me want to learn how to do those kinds of problems. It is amazing how many things people have figured out. That one, as I remember it, seems to call for vectors and trig and knowing some formulas. We also had a bridge construction game linked here a long time ago that was fun. I think I can tell what members are under compression and which under tension sort of by feel.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
"So, I present to you an elementary mechanics of materials problem for you to solve. Find the force in each member, and indicate whether each member is under compression or tension. thing.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/drpizza/thing.jpg[L=thyang]"
the link works after 4 tries.. but it ain't like correct and all that but you get to the thing.
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I'm just looking for a yes or a no here.
I ignored him for days at time, but he keeps making inaccurate and false statements, and others keep humoring them, which makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion of facts. So, is there any chance you could give your advice to the person who keeps making inaccurate and false statements, seeing as how he is the going to keep doing it as long as he can get away with it?
I have no interest in vengeance, I'm just looking for honesty. Surely that is not too much to ask?
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
k: I'm just looking for a yes or a no here.
M: It isn't a matter, I don't think, of how you represent what you are looking for to yourself. It is a matter of how LR sees your need for an answer that determines how he answers you.
I think he advised you simply let it drop because he sees in you a need he himself does not have. He has no need to give his advise to the person who keeps making inaccurate and false statements, seeing as how he is the going to keep doing it as long as he can get away with it, because he does no need to. He doesn't care what somebody else think. He is only interested in the truth that he can find that satisfies him. TLC does not have to agree with him. Nothing that TLC thinks matters. LR is self contained and needs only his own self respect and self honesty to make him happy. He is not in a contest.
LR: ...trying to nail someone gets you no where. Keep turning the other cheek until they are tired of swinging... For: When one seeks revenge they should dig two holes.... In your own heart is where your Truth and Honor lives! No one can dislodge that but you...[/quote]
I have no interest in vengeance, I'm just looking for honesty. Surely that is not too much to ask?
But you are looking for honesty from the wrong person. You want it from TLC who has a different idea about what is honest in this debate. You are not being honest as long as you think you need TLC to agree with you.
Vengeance is one word for wanting somebody else's concept of honesty silenced in favor of your own, and honesty, your choice of a word, is another. The key, I think, and why LR has different advise than you had wanted, is in the area of emotional need. You have it and he does not. You have your self esteem externalized and he is self contained. And if, or should I say, since you are unconscious of that need you will be driven by it unconsciously and your self representation of that need can come out as a need for honesty, but to others it will still look like a need for vengeance, etc.
M: It isn't a matter, I don't think, of how you represent what you are looking for to yourself. It is a matter of how LR sees your need for an answer that determines how he answers you.
I think he advised you simply let it drop because he sees in you a need he himself does not have. He has no need to give his advise to the person who keeps making inaccurate and false statements, seeing as how he is the going to keep doing it as long as he can get away with it, because he does no need to. He doesn't care what somebody else think. He is only interested in the truth that he can find that satisfies him. TLC does not have to agree with him. Nothing that TLC thinks matters. LR is self contained and needs only his own self respect and self honesty to make him happy. He is not in a contest.
LR: ...trying to nail someone gets you no where. Keep turning the other cheek until they are tired of swinging... For: When one seeks revenge they should dig two holes.... In your own heart is where your Truth and Honor lives! No one can dislodge that but you...[/quote]
I have no interest in vengeance, I'm just looking for honesty. Surely that is not too much to ask?
But you are looking for honesty from the wrong person. You want it from TLC who has a different idea about what is honest in this debate. You are not being honest as long as you think you need TLC to agree with you.
Vengeance is one word for wanting somebody else's concept of honesty silenced in favor of your own, and honesty, your choice of a word, is another. The key, I think, and why LR has different advise than you had wanted, is in the area of emotional need. You have it and he does not. You have your self esteem externalized and he is self contained. And if, or should I say, since you are unconscious of that need you will be driven by it unconsciously and your self representation of that need can come out as a need for honesty, but to others it will still look like a need for vengeance, etc.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Kyle, who has a hold of your honesty if it is not you? I'll presume you like all of us expect everyone to be honest in our interactions. But what does that have to do with your own honesty? The only person you can expect anything from is yourself. You control only you! Honesty and Truth are sisters. They are within you and not subject to the external whims and fancies of anyone else! Nothing anyone says can make you more or less than you are. You are who and what you are by virtue of your actions not theirs.
To the allegations are tied the evidence. Which, in and of itself, ought to support or deny the allegations to the extent no evidence is omitted. The evidence may or may not produce facts but to the extent they do you should find your plea sustained or the allegations sustained. You don't need me to interpret the evidence to do that. I'm nothing more than a me. I'm not special and have no more potential or propensity to grasp the truth than the next person. Do the facts not speak for themselves? I think they do and I for one suggest letting them speak or whisper or what ever they do. If they do speak to sustain your plea what more do you need if not revenge for the pain you suffer(ed)? Do you not seek vengeance when you point to another? Or worse yet, ask another to do it for you? I've said already that I'll not look in another's eyes for what might be there cuz I'm not their judge and neither are you... I have a mirror if I want judging someone...
If you do not seek vengeance then you have found the truth already. So let it drop! But always remember, IF truth was always within you then confirmation of that truth comes from within...! And, if your truth is the result of what others said is your truth - external to you, are you any more truthful when someone says so and any less so if they don't?
The above, I think, is universal but accept it may be unique to only me... but, to that extent, it is what I believe and I don't know how to rationalize it differently.
Moonbeam sees well! The hardest target to hit is the one that is not there!
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Oh... the irony!
[The incongruity between the expectations and occurrences] Yes, I'm speaking to my differential analysis into how the facade of WTC7 could symmetrically fall as a block... What I've not been able to rule out is that on the same floor all of the exterior columns failed and bent in toward the perpendicular allowing the building to come straight down with out noticeable defect to any floors. The columns did this ' > ' for a distance of at least 105' between the left top and left bottom of my >.
I have ruled out anything else I could think of to enable that building to do what I observed. For the exterior columns to do this they had to be heated and weakened and jerked in toward the interior perhaps by the connections to the interior column failures at the same time at that point.
Anyone agree, disagree?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
All of the peripheral columns did not have to fail for for the WTC 7 facade to fall as a block. Once a few failed the rest would come down quickly because the load placed on them exceeded the structural integrity of the remaining members. Nor did the building actually come down as a block, as numerous videos attest to. The east penthouse fell first, followed by the west penthouse, then everything else went. That was a clear indictation that the internal column structure had failed already. The internal column structure was responsible for the gravity load in WTC 7.
The peripheral columns wouldn't tolerate much a gravity load because they weren't designed to do so in the first place. Once a few went the rest would very quickly follow, quicker than any grainy videos can document.
I'm not sure why you keep doting on this problem. Possibly you should contact your structural engineering friends and get a better explanation from them? Maybe they can explain more fully to you that which you are not currently grasping? imo, you have some erroneous impressions concerning what should and what should not happen in such a scenario.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter