TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace
- Thread starter jaydeehess
- Start date
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
How long did that last?
NoahFence
Banned
QUOTE=AJM8125;7258252]Speaking of failure:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7258225#post7258225[/QUOTE]
I thought I felt the collective IQ raise a bit.....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7258225#post7258225[/QUOTE]
I thought I felt the collective IQ raise a bit.....
He found a pilot who can't crash into building in the safety of a simulator.
cicorp, truthmakespeace, does he know all this stuff is copied, stored and will be played during his future campaigns?
Why would a pilot say he can't fly and hit a building. I am not saying hitting a building needs to be a skill of pilots, but being able to fly to a point precisely is our business, I can't believe he found another failed pilot. That being said, simulators may not have the fidelity at high speeds to let you control the plane, whereas for Boeing it is best if their planes operate with wide margins, past Vmo, close to the maximum MACH without breakup, it will save lives in an upset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XEaQbDJEts
When will he erase his videos?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
I don't see any professional groups joining together to support your and the government's position on 9/11. All I see are posters, many with obviously aggrandized personal credentials, who redefine science on the fly when it suits them.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why would they? Do you see groups banding together to support the notion the earth is a sphere?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Like DGM said, why would they need to? To satisfy you? Who the hell are you? I also don't see them joining together to support your position, though. I wonder why that is.
Maybe the world's astronomers should join together and come out in support of the Earth revolving around the sun. Since they don't, can we conclude there's a chance it doesn't?
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
non sequitur, what does your reply have to do with beachnuts post? Why would logic and facts for the generally accepted events of the day need a support group? Only agenda driven fantasy conspiracy fan boys like you need a support group. We redefine science? Show us where. Want to see science redefined? Go visit Cicorps little pot meet stove video. That is a perfect example of cargo cult junk science. I really believe you are a troll, because no one can seriously be as ignorant as the stuttering dolt you portray yourself to be.
? Please be specific, what science was redefine. List and explain as it pertains to the Pentagon.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Groups joining together? What, Arup and the University of Edinburgh should get together with the Worcester Polytechnic team, the Purdue simulation team, the UC Davis Delta group, etc. and agree on things?
Oh, wait, in a very real way, they did. It's called "publishing". In professional journals (not poorly managed vanity publications like Bentham).
Funny that. There's already a procedure for professionals to legitimately influence, add to, and change knowledge. And more funny that: No truther's successfully managed to go that route. Hmmm, wonder why?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
You know, I just realized something. Despite my admittedly snarky post, there have been times - one past, and one ongoing - where professionals have indeed assembled in order to provide support for the government narrative. Or to be more specific, in order to demonstrate acceptance of the NIST findings:
The first would have been the NIST request for comments meeting (meetings?). Yes, I know it's weird to consider something specifically held to critique NIST's draft reports to be an event supporting the dominant narrative, but think about it: The legitimate, professional organizations (like Arup, for example; they had representatives there) and individuals (like James Quintiere) had critiques that accepted the broad strokes of the NIST narrative, even though they differed with the finer detail. Hell, part of Quintiere's critique was that NIST didn't go far enough with some of their stuff. And the other is that different parts of the structure would've failed first. Both those accept the broad strokes narrative of jet impacts causing damage and fires. At any rate, those commenters may have been critiquing the NIST findings, but they weren't doing so in a way to invalidate them. Rather, they were challenging NIST to improve their report. A report that they agreed with in general, just differed with in specifics.
If those professionals didn't agree, they would have been calling for a redo themselves, and wouldn't just be critiquing individual points.
The second: The ICC meetings. That's a group of professionals who meet regularly (Every other year? Every 3? Something like that?) to consider proposed code modifications. Remember: The whole point behind the NIST investigation was to see if there was any way to prevent collapses like the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade. Specifically, they were studying the collapse in order to see if there were any modifications to practices necessary to prevent future tragedies. Practices which would be constrained and influenced by building regulations, which in turn are influenced by construction codes. The ICC meetings would be judging whether to add those modifications to code (and indeed, some of the minor recomendations have already been accepted), but they would be starting from the point of accepting that NIST's findings are legitimate enough to consider. So no, that's not overt advocacy of those findings, but it is support in a way because it's acceptance.
So in sum: Were there any professional groups that got together out of a sense of activism (like AE911T, for example) in order to support the NIST narrative? No, of course not. That would be not only be silly, it would be unnecessary because they have professional channels to express either support or dissent through. But have there been cases where those channels were used by groups of professionals to express support of NIST's basic findings, either via commentary on their report or consideration of applying them to practices? You bet.
The first would have been the NIST request for comments meeting (meetings?). Yes, I know it's weird to consider something specifically held to critique NIST's draft reports to be an event supporting the dominant narrative, but think about it: The legitimate, professional organizations (like Arup, for example; they had representatives there) and individuals (like James Quintiere) had critiques that accepted the broad strokes of the NIST narrative, even though they differed with the finer detail. Hell, part of Quintiere's critique was that NIST didn't go far enough with some of their stuff. And the other is that different parts of the structure would've failed first. Both those accept the broad strokes narrative of jet impacts causing damage and fires. At any rate, those commenters may have been critiquing the NIST findings, but they weren't doing so in a way to invalidate them. Rather, they were challenging NIST to improve their report. A report that they agreed with in general, just differed with in specifics.
If those professionals didn't agree, they would have been calling for a redo themselves, and wouldn't just be critiquing individual points.
The second: The ICC meetings. That's a group of professionals who meet regularly (Every other year? Every 3? Something like that?) to consider proposed code modifications. Remember: The whole point behind the NIST investigation was to see if there was any way to prevent collapses like the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade. Specifically, they were studying the collapse in order to see if there were any modifications to practices necessary to prevent future tragedies. Practices which would be constrained and influenced by building regulations, which in turn are influenced by construction codes. The ICC meetings would be judging whether to add those modifications to code (and indeed, some of the minor recomendations have already been accepted), but they would be starting from the point of accepting that NIST's findings are legitimate enough to consider. So no, that's not overt advocacy of those findings, but it is support in a way because it's acceptance.
So in sum: Were there any professional groups that got together out of a sense of activism (like AE911T, for example) in order to support the NIST narrative? No, of course not. That would be not only be silly, it would be unnecessary because they have professional channels to express either support or dissent through. But have there been cases where those channels were used by groups of professionals to express support of NIST's basic findings, either via commentary on their report or consideration of applying them to practices? You bet.
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
"Yes", provided your definition of "levitation" is to snap a quick pic of a person bouncing on a trampoline in lotus position, right at the top of a bounce. That's all the movie has - fuzzy stills of lotus sitters right at the peak of a bounce. Funny, in a pathetic sort of way.
Butt-thumpers, indeed.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
Randi mentioned this claim back in 1982 in his book Flim Flam. Believe it or not, the Natural Law Party (the political branch of TM) promoted "Yogic Flying" as a campaign promise when they ran a candidate for parliament in the 1994 UK general election.
Here's 42 seconds of "Yogic Flying" (actually the same short clip repeated numeral times).
| Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. |
| I AGREE |
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
FTFY (broken video link)
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
What are your credentials?
And how old are you?
And all the other questions you never ever answer because you can't...
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Same thing happened in the German general elections back in 1994 and 1998.
Their "natural law" can be understood via Transcendental Meditation (TM)
Animal
Master Poster
Professionals shun the kooks in the profession, hoping the kooks will go quietly into the night instead of directly opposing or confronting them. Doing that just gives the kooks the attention they thrive on. (That and we are to busy trying to earn a living instead of hustling books and DVDs to the gullible)
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Hi all,
WOWZERS!
I see that others have done some research on old TMP who it seems cannot keep his mouth shut.
If TMP/cicorp had just quietly shut up about all of this it would eventually have cleared up in his favour. Had he simply stopped posting here at all it would have sped up the process. He COULD have then been the author of correcting his own mistake.
Well, gotta go, be back in another week or so. Have a live TV show to set up and get to air(in the rain ,,, wheeee!)
WOWZERS!
I see that others have done some research on old TMP who it seems cannot keep his mouth shut.
If TMP/cicorp had just quietly shut up about all of this it would eventually have cleared up in his favour. Had he simply stopped posting here at all it would have sped up the process. He COULD have then been the author of correcting his own mistake.
Well, gotta go, be back in another week or so. Have a live TV show to set up and get to air(in the rain ,,, wheeee!)
Oz1976
Muse
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 720
Or maybe whether you should contact the militaryand other government entities doing business with his and suggest that he may be a security risk to government computer networks? They might want to cancel a contract or two and look for another outfit to handle their sites.
Indeed... (starts prepping a business plan...)