|
Post by gezalenko on May 27, 2008 19:42:28 GMT -4
OK. I've decided that we did. How do we resolve that ?
and then again, perhaps it was not beyond the technology of the time.
Who's "We" ? Do you have any evidence at all for this ?
Maybe. But would it not also have been horrible to risk being found out faking it ?
Yes probably, but those weren't the only two options.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Mar 23, 2006 10:16:53 GMT -4
Truthseeker said "scientists agree where there is water there is normally life".
No, I think that's not quite right. Scientists have found that wherever there is water on earth, there is normally life. In other words, evolution has created a fantastic diversity of lifeforms that can exploit a huge range of watery environments - very hot, very cold, very wet, very dry, and everything inbetween. I think they also agree that water seems to be necessary for life as we know it. But that does not mean that wherever we find water away from earth, we will find life there too. We MAY do, and it would be fantastic if we do, but there is no hard evidence yet that life exists anywhere else away from the earth.
Truthseeker said "the desire of life to get started in the harshest of conditions"
As a figure of speech, I know what you mean, but in reality I don't think such a thing exists. After all, we only know FOR CERTAIN that life has started once, on earth. What we also know is that, once life has begun, evolutionary processes can be very good at enabling life to exploit hostile environments.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jan 25, 2006 9:39:45 GMT -4
Just to play devil's advocate, in response to Peter B, I think there is a third option, or perhaps it's an expansion of one of the first two.
Option 1 - humans living today have souls, all our ancestors also had souls, and all our ancestors' other descendants (who have evolved into chimpanzees, dogs, turtles, bacteria, whatever) also now have souls.
Option 2 - humans living today have souls, but tracing our ancestors back far enough, you would come to one who didn't have a soul. Which raises the question of where did souls first appear ? at the time homo sapiens emerged ? at the time mammals appeared ? some other point in time ?
My third option is - perhaps souls evolved at some point, and have gone from primitive beginnings to their current level (whatever that is). Just as we now have eyes, but we are descended from ancestors who did not have eyes, and we now have (distant) relatives who do not have eyes, maybe souls evolved in a similar way.
I have to say I think this is extremely unlikely - what evolutionay advantage would having a soul provide ? How would nature select individuals who had souls, or who had "better" souls ? And does this imply we should be able to find markers for the soul in DNA ?
It all sounds preposterous to me, and forces me to vote for "worm food". But an interesting thought experiment.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 8, 2005 10:22:19 GMT -4
Hi there. If you Google "crop circles" one of the very first results is this site www.circlemakers.org/about crop circles in the UK. If you look into that, I think it confirms that certainly most - and probably all - crop circles in the UK are man made.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Apr 27, 2007 8:44:04 GMT -4
What does this even mean ? I'm not familiar with Washington DC, but on Google Maps it looks as if any plane using Reagan National Airport would pass within about a mile of the Pentagon. Does Cheney get warned about [italic] every [/italic] plane that is headed that way ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Feb 8, 2007 9:06:25 GMT -4
Quote Rocky / David -
None of you are fit to discuss whether 9/11 was an inside job, or whether Apollo was a hoax (except turbonium of course).
Can I just say that I think I am fit to discuss both of these. I have no special education or training in the relevant fields, and have never been employed in the relevant fields either. But I have an interest in them, am willing to debate them properly, and resent Rocky/David's attempt to decide who is fit to take part in the debate and who isn't. Seems like he only wants to debate with people who agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Sept 29, 2006 12:42:36 GMT -4
I'm no expert on fire trucks but it seem to me as if all 6 photos could be showing the firetruck in one single location. As one of the other people in the original thread points out, Jack White seems not to understand parralax. He draws the green line through the tree, and then seems to be arguing that because the truck appears on the left of the green line in one shot, and on the right in another, that the truck must be in different locations in each shot. But the truth is far more simple - the truck hasn't moved, the photographer(s) has(have )moved. This is obvious in some of the shots - you get a front view of the truck in one shot (eg picture 3) and a three quarter (is that what they are called?) view in another (eg picture 4). JW seems to have no clue about how the appearance of objects changes as the viewer's location changes. The people who devote their time on the education forum to debunking this rubbish are heroes.
As for the fire supposedly disabling the truck's water pumping capability, I don't know if that is the case - seems like it might well do that, but is it possible that there's some separate piece of equipment - e.g. a guy on foot with a firehose - standing next to the truck, so that it appears to be behind the truck in picture 5 ? Or, is it possible that that shot was taken not in the sequence that JW suggests, but that it was actually one of the earliest, and the truck became disabled later ?
Oh and hang on a minute, why the heck would they move a burnt out firetruck to some other location, and then move it back to its first location ? And even if they did, how is that evidence of a conspiracy ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jun 16, 2006 11:35:49 GMT -4
If that's my shouting you're talking about, I APOLOGISE ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jun 16, 2006 7:23:56 GMT -4
Like I said, the more you think about this theory, the crazier it gets.
Turbonium, you yourself said in post #25 "the building was allowed to burn for hours without intervention." Let's accept that as fact. Why would the conspirators do that ? Phantomwolf has already made this point. If they had it in their power to demolish the building in a controlled way, why would they NOT do it as soon as possible ? Surely they must have been worried that uncontrolled fires might have damaged their carefully prepared explosives and detonators etc. If I was them, I would have done it as soon as the firefighters had withdrawn, or maybe even before, if I was that evil. So WHY did they let it burn for hours, and risk not being able to complete the controlled demolition ? And IF they had some motive for demolishing the building, why not just let it burn down by itself, and destroy the evidence of their demolition preparations ?
If we consider the three options they "could" have had - 1) Controlled demolition as early as possible - achieves complete demolition, but possibly risks being identified as controlled demolition 2) Abandoning the building to be destroyed by fire - destroys evidence of demolition preparations, probably achieves complete demolition but maybe some risk of incomplete demolition 3) Leaving the building to burn for hours, then blowing it up - risks failing to achieve demolition if fire damages detonating equipment, risks leaving evidence if explosions happen incorrectly or fire damages detonating equipment
then option 3 seems the unlikeliest, to me, but this is the one that you claim happened.
In reply #33, you claimed to have resolved this issue in reply #31, but you didn't. You said that fire may cause explosives to fail to detonate properly - fair enough. But you didn't address how fire could disrupt the preparations - by destroying detonators and other equipment - other than by speculating about more and more explosives and detonation sequences being prepared. However much explosives were planted, however many detonation circuits were set up, there must have been a POSSIBILITY that fire would damage them and compromise the demolition effort. Therefore the logical response would have been to detonate as early as possible, while the detonation equipment was least likely to be damaged.
Now, back to the Silverstein conversation. Again, you are playing with words in reply #96, assuming that the words used MUST have had one specific meaning, and one only. Why WOULDN'T Silverstein make a suggestion like that, to withdraw the firefighting effort ? Just because he made that suggestion, does not mean that the Fire Chief had not already made that decision several hours earlier.
Imagine a scenario in which your own house is burning down, and firefighters are on the scene. As long as your family and possessions are inside (or you think they are) then you will be begging the firemen to do everything they can to put out the fire. On the other hand if you know there's no-one else in the house, and there's no risk of the fire spreading, but maybe a risk to firefighters if they keep working, I can quite imagine you might say something along the lines of "Oh to heck with it, we're insured, everybody who can be saved has been saved, there's no point in the firefighters killing themselves to put the fire out now, let's just let it burn". And the fire chief might well agree with you, regardless of what he actually plans to do. This is how I see Silverstein's quote.
Turbonium, in reply #96, you came up with a variant of Occam's razor - "that would be too outrageous to even think about, so we can discount that possibility". How about applying that logic to the Controlled Demolition theory ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jun 12, 2006 9:05:28 GMT -4
And there's another thing about this "pull" comment, which I think SpitfireIX (and maybe others) has touched on already -
Quote "and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' "
So the word "pull" appears not in some transcript of a telephone conversation, but in the guy's own recollection of what he said, a recollection made some time after the event.
Perhaps he did use exactly those words.
But it's also possible that the actual words used were quite different, but still carrying the same general meaning. Perhaps he actually said - ". . . maybe we should withdraw the firefighting effort". Or perhaps he actually said - ". . . maybe we should initiate the demolition process."
If the latter - Turbonium, you've got a case !
But surely the relevant questions are what did he actually say, and most importantly, what did he mean (and what did the people he was talking to, understand him to mean) ?
It seems to me that - 1) He MAY have used the word "pull" in the original conversation (but he MIGHT not have). 2) The word "pull" MAY be used in the context of controlled demolition, although apparently not usually in quite the detailed context Turbonium needs for his theory to be rock solid. 3) IF he actually used the word "pull" in the original conversation, he MAY have been using it in the context of controlled demolition, but he MAY also have been using it in several other contexts, at least one of which would make more sense than the controlled demolition scenario. He may also have misspoken and simply chosen a word that didn't quite match his intended meaning, because he couldn't bring to mind a better word or phrase in the heat of the moment.
Therefore WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.
This gets more and more crazy the more you think about it !
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jun 9, 2006 10:39:11 GMT -4
I'm reluctant to step into this CT nonsense, but I dispute Turbonium's examples of the word "pull" being used to describe controlled demolition of buildings.
In most of the examples Turbonium cites, I think the word "pull" is not actually used to describe the demolition process itself, but a particular feature of the demolition process.
Quote 1 "Gradually they began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction"
In this case, we can think of the motion of the collapsing building as having essentially two components - a vertical one driven by gravity, and some kind of horizontal component, driven by the pulling techniques employed - cables, precutting of selected beams, or whatever. The engineers presumably do this because, if they don't, then they only get the vertically downward component, and the building ends up somewhere where they don't want it. So they add a horizontal component, to make the building end up somewhere else, and the "pull" refers to the methods they use to add that horizontal component, not to the entire demolition process.
Quote 2 "To pull the walls in and properly direct the collapse during implosion, 98 steel cables were used." Same thing again - the word "pull" applies only to the job done by the cables to pull the walls inwards, and not to the entire demolition. They didn't pull the building, they pulled the walls.
Quote 3 "Crews said there will be cables rigged to pull the walls back into the center of the building." Same thing again - the pull refers to pulling the walls inwards, not to demolishing the whole building.
If I'm right, and if Silverstein was using the word in the context of controlled demolition (which he almost certainly was not) then IF he was using the word correctly, he must have been referring not simply to controlled demolition, but to a very precisely controlled demolition, to direct the fall of the building in a particular way (as opposed to simply blowing it up and letting it fall wherever, which would presumably have satisfied the motives ascribed by the CTers).
You can argue that all of this is trivial semantics, and you might be right, but that's what much of this debate boils down to - someone used the word "pull" in a possibly ambiguous way, therefore WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.
Turbonium - your argument is nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Jun 22, 2006 9:58:30 GMT -4
Wise words Jason Thompson !
Like Lenbrazil, I like to think that if I'd been in von Braun's shoes I'd have behaved differently, but I wasn't even born then, and I've never experienced anything like that directly, so that doesn't count for much.
Bear in mind also that for many Germans, even if they knew exactly how evil Hitler and the Nazis were, they still wanted Germany to win the war. With the RAF and USAAF bombing their cities to pieces, and ground forces invading Germany from both sides, it was a natural reaction for many to want to fight back against the allies, even if they disagreed with Hitler. Von Braun's record should also be viewed in this light.
|
|
|
Rex 84
Sept 2, 2005 5:54:22 GMT -4
Post by gezalenko on Sept 2, 2005 5:54:22 GMT -4
In an attempt to steer this thread back onto its original topic, does the current awful situation in New Orleans shed any light on the US Government's ability to round up masses of people against their will ?
|
|
|
Rex 84
Aug 30, 2005 4:44:19 GMT -4
Post by gezalenko on Aug 30, 2005 4:44:19 GMT -4
Yeah me neither.
I Googled Rex 84 and had a look at some of the top sites, some of which repeat the same text. So I'm basing this on what I read there - I don't know how reliable they are.
First, what is being suggested here is concentration camps as in large detention centres, not concentration camps as in Nazi extermination camps. In other words, detaining people, not killing them. Second, these sites themselves suggest some possible scenarios in which they might be used - (1) mass incursions into the US by illegal immigrants, and (2) following mass urban unrest within the US. Third, the programme seems to have been in place for more than 20 years, but not actually used yet. Is anyone suggesting their use is imminent ? If so, is there any evidence for that or is it just speculation? Finally, one of the largest sites is said to be in Alaska. How practical is that for mass detention of US citizens ?
|
|
|
Post by gezalenko on Aug 22, 2005 6:29:02 GMT -4
Twinstead wrote "This thread should be required reading for those who suspect the WTC was brought down by nefarious means " en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nefariousI think the plane hijackers were pretty nefarious ;-)
|
|