Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:06am PT
|
Similarly, before Hiroshima there was never an instance of a single bomb killing 100,000 people and leveling an entire city. I think I just found another conspiracy--we've all been had for over 60 years!!!! Dammit.
Curt
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 15, 2009 - 02:34am PT
|
Who among you is going to call all of these Patriots who are government, military, scientists, professors, engineers, architects, 9-11 survivors, family members etc. who question the OCT of 9-11 nuts?
Who among you is going to be the first one to throw that stone?
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I gladly associate with them and question the OCT of 9-11.
By the way, we also have "the Big Guy upstairs" on our side. I'm very confident with God's support.
Ed,
Hasn't it been said that it can be proven by physics that Bees cannot fly? Yet Bees fly. Now I know, the physics of that orginal statement was not really saying that, it has been misused, but you get the point.
Professor Rips et al., has good arguements against their rebuttal to their original work. They, the scientists doing the rebuttal to the original work and report, made assumptions that were not valid and Rabi et al., and claimed they misrespresented the study on purpose and lied. Does that ever happen in science? It sure does. The greatest sin a scientist can commit is to falsify their results. Scientists are human and fallible.
"Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings."13 They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.” David Weatherall, "Conduct Unbecoming," American Scientist (vol. 93, January-February 2005), p. 73.
Bible Code is well beyond where it was in 90s when it was first discovered and publically revealed. You might say that the cat is out of the bag now. They are now finding full sentences, not just related clusters of meaningful words (that is beyond statistical probability, or chance even then). Many people are involved in searching Bible Code now all over the world and finding a great deal.
A bee flys, and God placed within his word a Code we can now decipher and determine with his help. He said to seal the words until the end, a period of time when people would go to and fro and knowledge would be increased. We are living in that time.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:45am PT
|
Klimmer, don't know where you got that from... about the bees... it is an active area of research, here is a report in the last issue of The Physical Review Letters
APS » Journals » Physical Review Letters » Covers » Vol. 103, Iss. 11
Vorticity field near wing reversal of a moving wing (white: wing; blue: counter clockwise fluid rotation; red: clockwise fluid rotation). Optimized flapping motion can be more efficient than classical airfoil wing motion.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 118102 (2009) [4 pages]
Flapping Wing Flight Can Save Aerodynamic Power Compared to Steady Flight
Umberto Pesavento and Z. Jane Wang
Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
Received 6 April 2009; published 11 September 2009
Flapping flight is more maneuverable than steady flight. It is debated whether this advantage is necessarily accompanied by a trade-off in the flight efficiency. Here we ask if any flapping motion exists that is aerodynamically more efficient than the optimal steady motion. We solve the Navier-Stokes equation governing the fluid dynamics around a 2D flapping wing, and determine the minimal aerodynamic power needed to support a specified weight. While most flapping wing motions are more costly than the optimal steady wing motion, we find that optimized flapping wing motions can save up to 27% of the aerodynamic power required by the optimal steady flight. We explain the cause of this energetic advantage.
©2009 The American Physical Society
And as an added benefit, I believe I've climbed with Jane Wang in the 'Gunks a while back with a mutual physicist friend...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:53am PT
|
"There is no valid parallel whatsoever in that to the level of multi-agency orchestration and choreography that would be required to execute on a domestic version of 9/11."
The parallel is that a traitorous government conspiracy was concocted that resulted in tons of death. It is instructive to know that even a now-obvious deadly conspiracy brings no investigation or prosecution in this country. Go for that instead of 9-11.
But you bring too many assumptions to the table. The Gov could merely have discovered 9-11 was being planned (or suggested it via a mole like ex CIA bin Laden who has conveniently never been captured) and then kept it from being twarted by having those war game exercises put false blips on radar screens and diverting fighters away from NY and DC. Only a couple people would need to know.
Peace
karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 02:55am PT
|
Klimmer, you didn't read the rebuttal article, it presents a series of "tests." These tests are designed to be reproducible, any scientist can reproduce them... and the tests show that the original article does not demonstrate the claims that it makes.
This is a mathematical argument, not a personal argument.
No one is accusing anyone of lying in that article, they are saying, "if what you say is true, then these other tests must also be true" and then, performing the tests, find that the technique fails.
Therefore, there is not mathematical or statistical support for the initial article's claims.
You can choose to believe the claims, but you cannot justify that belief on a scientific argument. Such an argument does not exist.
I do not question your belief, but I will question your use of erroneous scientific results to support your belief.
Why do you persist in marshaling such "facts" when, in the end, you will only accept a single answer. Isn't your faith enough for you?
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 15, 2009 - 02:59am PT
|
It has only been said, and it was a misrepresentation of original work way back when . . .
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=bees+can%27t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GPEA_enUS301US303&q=bees+can%27t+fly
http://www.paghat.com/beeflight.html
'The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.'
Yes, I know a bee can fly and the physics actually do prove it. It is just a saying, is all I'm saying. Perhaps not the best arguement or saying to use or continue to propigate.
It is just a saying . . .
Edit:
I will have to find Professor Rips rebuttal to the defense of his original work where he goes after those attempting to refute it. Where did that link go??? I'll get back to you.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:01am PT
|
Klimmer-
I agree with Ed.
"Isn't your faith enough for you"?
And didn't Jesus say, "My Kingdom is Not of This World?
Why then are you trying to drag religion into 9/11?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:09am PT
|
Klimmer, the point is that a scientific argument is based on much more than "just a saying." These are precise arguments with logical structure which can be tested and falsified. The original authors made a precise statistical statement regarding the occurrence of non-random word group coincidences in the Bible (actually the Tora).
This statement can be examined and tested, it can be falsified.
It turns out to be false. The word groups are consistent with random coincidence. Isn't it important to know that this "code" is not a code at all, and that you should stop trying to extract meaning from something that is meaningless?
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:24am PT
|
Every large military has black ops teams. They are inherent to military thinking (or military non-thinking).
Every military officer is taught the obvious, that the best military maintains ongoing real war operations, because the difference between training and war is metaphorically night and day.
The US is currently the world's most advanced and active military. It spends the most. It maintains the most real war activities. It constantly tests the most effective new killing toys.
How did you think that happened?
To suggest that US military black ops teams have not been at the start and center of every US war, US foreign assassination, US interest terrorist act, and more, is to amuse military officers.
The US trained, equipped and financed Osama bin Laden and his personnel for years, during the Soviet Afghan war, naturally kept secret and routinely denied because it was a proxy war with the Soviets.
The US military personnel with close ties to Osama were black ops personnel.
Black ops extend way, way beyond your first guess, with many long range connections that are well protected for the next war. Those whom you are told are enemies, are not enemies.
To suggest that the US military, with its extensive black ops connections, intended to catch Osama, and could not do so, is to leave US military officers rolling on the floor, clutching their aching sides, kicking and pounding, gasping for breath, tears of howling laughter streaming from their eyes.
To suggest that the World Trade Tower bombing, hastily ascribed to Osama for the news fodder, was not prior known (initiated and used) by US military black ops personnel, would leave the above-mentioned officers recovering only to give themselves medals for keeping such a person as clueless as the superlatively clueless elected government dolts and certain SuperTopo government worshippers.
I got tired of moving around last year's moose antlers in the old shed, so today I put them up on the shed roof edge, where the squirrels will gnaw on them for a calcium supplement. Only a year on the list of things to do. Cool.
Carry on....
DougBuchanan.com
|
|
S.Powers
Boulder climber
Joshua Tree, CA
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:28am PT
|
^ wait, you didn't bash the NPS, you had better edit your last post Dougie!
Carry on....
stevenpowers.com
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 03:55am PT
|
Pedantic, masturbatory pratter.
Over the course of my second year in the military I was privy to the highest level of intelligence from the CIA and all the defense Intel agencies. Yes, they do occasionally manage to pull off small, well-bounded, and discrete 'black ops', but "small" and "well-bounded" are the keys in that statement. Most, however, are simply called-off as unworkable at one stage of their lifecycle or another and most that do actually launch are a clusterf*#k or disaster of one proportion of another.
Again, you assign way more credibility and competence than exists in any reality outside of your mind.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 15, 2009 - 04:03am PT
|
I'm not trying to drag religion into 9-11, just that I do believe in Bible Code and that Bible Code does talk about 9-11. Someone asked and I took the bait.
My faith does not hindge on 9-11 truth or Bible Code. I believed and had faith long before either happened. Bible code to me does show God's handiwork and stamp of approval in his word. He does provide evidence to "doubting Thomases." It does strenghten our faith. It does mine. You probably can not relate one bit, you don't believe I am assuming?
To say that related word clusters on all kinds of diverse topics and then when these messages are proven true, is just coincidence and chance, is really disegenious. It is way, way beyond chance and that is what Professor Rips et al., their original study proved statistically. Another study comes along and says no it is meaningless and just pure chance. I'm not convinced. There is more phenomenon to test and study that is even more convincing. They would have to do statistical study after statistical since incredibly revealing Bible Codes keep getting discovered over time, again and again and again. At this point the evidence is overwhelming.
Now in Bible Code they are finding full sentence messages that are very meaningful and true. The stats for this are off the charts. It isn't an accident. It isn't a random chance. It proves design.
I'm saying if Bible Code is real, I believe it is. And it tells us things about our time and gives us insight and understanding into things and historical events of our day, I believe it does, then we can learn a great deal about many things that we never knew before. Even solving incredibly evil crimes against humanity, such as 9-11.
You obviously dissagree with all of this, no doubt.
Ed,
Do you think it is possible to do science and to be a good scientist and abide by the rules of the scientific method and make discoveries, and contribute to our knowledge base, and still believe in God and have faith in something that cannot be seen or proven? Do you think people, scientists, are capable of doing both human endeavors and perhaps have suceess in both?
To repeat, is it possible to do science and contribute, and in another unrelated aspect of one's life to have faith in God, to have faith in something that is not possible to prove?
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:14am PT
|
I laughed robustly.
"I was privy to the highest level of intelligence from the CIA and all..."
This suggests that one person, a climber colleague of ours, was knowledgeable of all the US military black ops, and if possible, then other such "privy" bureaucrats in the system would be so knowledgeable, which defies the concept and practice of black ops.
Yet again we see that a person privy to the highest level of government intelligence openly displays the void of intelligence that defines government.
Healyje, I trust you are still being paid well to deny any effective black ops, on cue.
Every day fewer people are believing the lies. The government told too many too often.
Not even your government colleagues are dumb enough to believe your government-canned denial of actual black ops.
But be careful, that might just be pedantic, masturbatory pratter, and a bit of snickering.
DougBuchanan.com
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:15am PT
|
"...the entire building fell in a total single unit, in a minimum free fall time,"
This is factually incorrect - the wtc7 collapse was both asynchronous and asymmetric.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:17am PT
|
"This suggests that one person, a climber colleague of ours, was knowledgeable of all the US military black ops..."
That year I prepared the daily intel staff briefs for a group of senior Generals and Admirals who were and I saw everything they saw, and before they saw it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:18am PT
|
"That is not what the videos show happening..."
That is in fact exactly what the roof-level video recorded.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 04:56am PT
|
The 'free fall' issue is largely irrelevant. The video in your first link clearly shows an asynchronous and asymmetic collapse. And wtc7 was a structural monstrosity such that you would have had to have done extensive modeling to even begin to understand how to bring it down with explosives. Then, where it really gets inane is in the planting of the requisite explosives in any of the three buildings without anyone knowing about it. Demo crews all but gut buildings to set and wire their charges. Setting and wiring the charges without janitorial and IT staffs of multiple entitities was and is wholly impossible.
|
|
BrentA
Gym climber
Roca Rojo
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 05:23am PT
|
I don't find Doug pedantic.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2009 - 05:37am PT
|
Well, there you go, I find his I'm-so-clever butchering of the written word self-illuminating, dreary, and pedantic. The net effect on a page is tedious and boring. What he believes is a precise and exacting use of language is actually just the opposite - it's a sad obfusticaton of intent and message - sort of like playing Sherlock Holmes to an inner Dr. Watson who, like most everyone else, really isn't listening.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Salomon Smith Barney
Let us know!