Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ElCid said:
That is your prerogative, ingnore the truth of RT3000 (w/sp1) at your own peril!
Click to expand...

A recall has been issued for all RT3000 models: The major malfunction found within this particular model is that it bypasses evidence and transmits speculation.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
You should have been here in the Max Photon days. His leg-pulling/trolling posts were works of art. This latest contender is but an imp to Max's troll.
Click to expand...

oh Hok, those were the days weren't they? The latest round simply doesn't understand the vernacular like they did back in the day. The third person narrative is all but a memory. Gawd I miss those days. I bet "Net Force = 0" boy has kids of his own by now. I bet they have regular play dates with Swing Dangler's progeny. Ol' Swingy as we used to call him. Man, those were some good times.
 
Hokulele said:
You should have been here in the Max Photon days. His leg-pulling/trolling posts were works of art. This latest contender is but an imp to Max's troll.
Click to expand...

Max certainly had a good sense of humor and was very clever. I agree this latest contender doesn't even hold a candle to 'ol Max.
 
3bodyproblem said:
oh Hok, those were the days weren't they?
Click to expand...

MIKILLINI said:
Max certainly had a good sense of humor and was very clever. I agree this latest contender doesn't even hold a candle to 'ol Max.
Click to expand...


I was never entirely sure if any of Max's comments were serious, or whether it was all some sort of performance art.

:bananalama:
 
Hey mac...

When you were in there did you find HI's missing sock? Or was it P'dohs?

I'm sure that is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Robotron3000 said:
Have not met a basic expectation of the scientific method to “..share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing others researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them."
Click to expand...

Since NIST have published their data and explained their methodology, this seems a little difficult to substantiate. On further investigation, it appears that the Robotron3000's specific objection is:

Robotron3000 said:
NIST did not fully disclose computer simulation methodology
Click to expand...

This would equate to a claim that NIST did not make their specific computer models available to the public, itself a dubious claim. However, I would expect a computer to understand the distinctions between the methodology, the algorithms used, and the specific program used to evaluate those algorithms. To draw an analogy from chemistry, if a researcher publishes a paper on the synthesis of a novel compound, I would expect to see the identities of the reagents, the reaction conditions, and the reaction times; I would hope, but not always expect, to see details of the specific equipment used for the synthesis; but I would not expect the researchers to mail me a bunsen burner and a flask so I could do the experiment myself. There is a reasonable expectation of a well-found laboratory with the capability to repeat the experiments, and what the Robotron3000 claims to expect is well beyond what would be required given such a reasonable expectation. And this is clear from the fact that many other groups have carried out similar investigations and found similar results. If you irritate BigAl enough, he'll post a list.

But let's imagine that NIST did release their complete model, in a form that allowed truthers to try to replicate their work. What would we see then? We'd see two groups of truthers, one claiming that the software was deliberately written to ensure that the output demonstrated that collapse was inevitable, and the other putting unrealistic starting values into the program, finding solutions where (for example) setting the maximum temperature in a building fire to 25ºC resulted in no collapse, and then claiming that this refuted NIST's conclusions. And the hilarous bit would be that the broader and more ignorant majority of truthers would cite both of these groups in the sincere belief that their comments somehow did not completely contradict each other.

And finally, let's imagine we lived in a world where Robotron3000's criticisms were valid. What would that prove? It would prove that we couldn't have 100% confidence in the findings of NIST as to the specific cause of collapse initiation. We'd still have Ove Arup, Cambridge, and all the other studies on BigAl's list. And, most importantly, we still would have no physically resonable scenario in which collapse was initiated by anything other than structural damage and thermal deformation due to contents fires.

Robotron3000 said:
What do 60 of the world's most influential scientists* have in common?
They all agree that the Bush administration has systematically distorted scientific fact to meet its political goals on issues ranging from military intelligence to health to the environment and more.
* Including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science and two former Republican presidential advisors.

According to these scientists, President Bush and his administration have:
deliberately stacked advisory panels with political appointees
censored and disregarded government scientists and reports when they conflict with the administration's political goals
disbanded scientific panels whose advice conflicted with Bush administration policies.
Click to expand...

Robotron3000 should now analyse the input that the vast majority of those who agree wholeheartedly with this consensus, nevertheless also agree that the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is utterly laughable, including a large number of posters on this forum. This may require accessing the argumentum ad hominem and non sequitur recognition subroutines, which appear not to have been enabled.

Dave
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Hey mac...

When you were in there did you find HI's missing sock? Or was it P'dohs?

I'm sure that is the problem.
Click to expand...

I found someone's sock..phew! It was nasty! And you should see truther wiring! There was like 20 completely unnecessary chips all wired together in a huge "bird's nest"...funny thing...they weren't connected to anything!

No wonder he gets such bizaare output.

:)
 
Fiddling around on the FM dial, I just wound up on some college radio station on the left of the dial.

There was Richard Gage, live, on the station. Right after Noam Chomsky and promoted by Howard Zinn.

He was promoting his talk in Cambridge today.

IIRC, He claims that 200 people will show up, with perhaps 50 people initially supporting the 'official story', and almost everyone converted by the end.

The way he told it, almost all the architects in his firm were converted by his presentation and eagerly joined Architects for Truth.

His talking points on the radio:

-WTC7 fell at free-fall speed, in its own footprint. People heard explosions.

-There were tons of molten iron found in WTC7. Iron only melts at x, office fires only produce some fraction of x.

-Microscopic particles that must be nano-thermite have been found.


-WTC7 was a high-security building with the IRS, the CIA, and other important government agencies occupying it, so this demolition is highly, um, troubling.


I've heard all these points debunked. That was easy.

(But I lack the knowledge to assess Chomsky.)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
question for the pilots of the board

Off topic question that didn't deserve a new thead:

Many in the TM propose that the events of the WTC were a CD. This would mean the planes that struck the towers, were not flown by terrorists, but by either suicidal agents of the NWO, or by remote control.

This would require the pilots to target a specific area of the building where the pre-planted charges had been previously dispatched.

What I wanted to know, is how accurate is a 767's altimeter at less that 1000 feet altitude? I would think it would have to be pretty accurate to accommodate landings. If you were using the altimeter to target a specific floor of the WTC, how accurate could you be?

I'm sorry, it's kinda gory...just curious.
 
Last edited:
Truthstorm911 (39 minutes ago) Show Hide
xAnacondax,

Are you afraid to tell me where you go to school perhaps because I might just know someone at the school, perhaps even your instructors? Well it just so happens I know a great many architects and engineers so if you are lying about your limited education, which I strongly suspect you are, you had better pick the right school where I don't happen to know your instructor. Refusal to answer what school you attend will confirm your dishonesty.
Click to expand...

xAnacondax said:
Interesting... not only are you threatening me with black mail but you'd rather focus on my degreed process than the references I use. If you find out my school... go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Heh this type of crap reinforces my view on some of these people... I was kind enough to provide him all of my book references so he could use google books to look up the relevant material and the only thing he could think about doing was blackmailing for not telling him where I go to school.
 
Last edited:
The end of CIT?

On a stundie hunt, I noticed that CIT's forum had all of 2 (yes two) messages posted yesterday. One from a brand new poster the other a one liner from Ranke in reply.


Methinks the CIT juggernought is stopping at obscurity central.



Compus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom