|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
Yeah, and some old men living in a cave on the other side of the world led by another old man on dialysis managed to defeat the greatest military ever put together in human history.
Okay. |
Remember when the soviets invaded Afghanistan? They've had a history of defeating more powerful, advanced opponents in the past. |
MAYBE if you take the fight to their cave, obviously they will know their terrain better than any invader. But to do that halfway around the world? No. |
They did it, cope with it, it's called assymetrical warfare. 9/11 conspiracy theories are just a particularly paranoid way of assuaging American pride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
Yeah, and some old men living in a cave on the other side of the world led by another old man on dialysis managed to defeat the greatest military ever put together in human history.
Okay. |
Remember when the soviets invaded Afghanistan? They've had a history of defeating more powerful, advanced opponents in the past. |
MAYBE if you take the fight to their cave, obviously they will know their terrain better than any invader. But to do that halfway around the world? No. |
They did it, cope with it, it's called assymetrical warfare. 9/11 conspiracy theories are just a particularly paranoid way of assuaging American pride. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
Yeah, and some old men living in a cave on the other side of the world led by another old man on dialysis managed to defeat the greatest military ever put together in human history.
Okay. |
Remember when the soviets invaded Afghanistan? They've had a history of defeating more powerful, advanced opponents in the past. |
MAYBE if you take the fight to their cave, obviously they will know their terrain better than any invader. But to do that halfway around the world? No. |
They did it, cope with it, it's called assymetrical warfare. 9/11 conspiracy theories are just a particularly paranoid way of assuaging American pride. |
|
I'm half-and-half on the rolly-eyes. There may be an element of wounded self-image at play for some, but that hardly explains away the mountain of (what I would call legitimate) points of controversy.
If the gov't has reasonable explanations for the whirlwind of "bizarre coincidences" that occurred that day then they've surely done a piss-poor job of communicating them to the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn't there a sticky devoted to this topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Isn't there a sticky devoted to this topic? |
Yes, there certainly is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fat_Elvis
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: In the ghetto
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
Yeah, and some old men living in a cave on the other side of the world led by another old man on dialysis managed to defeat the greatest military ever put together in human history.
Okay. |
Remember when the soviets invaded Afghanistan? They've had a history of defeating more powerful, advanced opponents in the past. |
MAYBE if you take the fight to their cave, obviously they will know their terrain better than any invader. But to do that halfway around the world? No. |
They did it, cope with it, it's called assymetrical warfare. 9/11 conspiracy theories are just a particularly paranoid way of assuaging American pride. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| Fat_Elvis wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
Yeah, and some old men living in a cave on the other side of the world led by another old man on dialysis managed to defeat the greatest military ever put together in human history.
Okay. |
Remember when the soviets invaded Afghanistan? They've had a history of defeating more powerful, advanced opponents in the past. |
MAYBE if you take the fight to their cave, obviously they will know their terrain better than any invader. But to do that halfway around the world? No. |
They did it, cope with it, it's called assymetrical warfare. 9/11 conspiracy theories are just a particularly paranoid way of assuaging American pride. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor |
What laziness. There's nothing 'elaborate' about the idea of our government being a pack of treasonous criminals. The evidence is overwealming - in fact it's conclusive. False flags are par for the course (and past ones such as Operation Northwoods have been even declassified). All it takes is a bit of effort on your part to do the research.
The idea of 9/11 being an inside job is far less absurd than the official BS version (ie. the one you naively subscribe to), which is full of backtracking, contradictions, impossibilities, and outright lies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You forgot to mention Science. You know, the very thing the "truthers" ignore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| You forgot to mention Science. You know, the very thing the "truthers" ignore. |
Oh, you mean like these 1388 (and counting) professional architects and engineers (ie. experts who understand the science involved, and reject the official account of 9/11), for example? http://www.ae911truth.org/
But I guess you're the expert on science since you probably tune into cable TV everyday and believe whatever the liberal crackpot media tells you. But hey, if Stephen Colbert is cracking jokes about it, then it can't possibly be worth seriously looking into, can it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| You forgot to mention Science. You know, the very thing the "truthers" ignore. |
Oh, you mean like these 1388 (and counting) professional architects and engineers (ie. experts who understand the science involved, and reject the official account of 9/11), for example? http://www.ae911truth.org/
But I guess you're the expert on science since you probably tune into cable TV everyday and believe whatever the liberal crackpot media tells you. But hey, if Stephen Colbert is cracking jokes about it, then it can't possibly be worth seriously looking into, can it? |
Only structural engineers and civil engineers have enough training to be considered experts in this area. Architects, chemical engineers, electrical engineers etc do not have the expertise to understand why these structures fell. It is especially silly that landscape architects are included on the list of "experts."
There are actually fewer than 50 individuals on the list of 1388 who have even the paper qualifications to possibly be experts. Then, given the great differences between the "C" students and "A" students, I'd still want to see transcripts, grades and some work experience that would make any of this handful actually qualified. "C" students are not qualified and are generally never allowed to design significant structures.
The actual truth comes down to this: the twin towers fell because they were hit by airplanes that exceeded the design capacity of what the buildings were able to survive in a major catastrophic event. They were doomed to collapse once they were struck at the heights and with the forces applied. The fires did not matter. The 2nd building attacked was hit lower down so it had to fall first. Had they been hit near the base, they would have likely survived as the base was stronger and more able to withstand the impact. Likewise, had they been much hit higher up, there would not have been enough weight pushing down to precipate a cascade failure.
Bin Laden is an engineer and he knows that there is an area of weakness in these highrise structures where you can precipitate such a cascade failure. He didn't have the exact design specs, so the pilots were instructed where to hit the buildings so as to have the best chance of destruction. They chose two different heights of attack in order to ensure that at least one of the buildings would fall. Had the first building been hit a bit higher up it wouldn't have fallen.
The twin towers were never designed with the ability to withstand the kind of forces they were subjected to that day. The PR hype about their design was not the reality. They were built in the days of sliderule computations and no one has ever done the structural analysis required to determine if they could withstand a 707 airliner impact. They didn't have the computing power or manpower to do such an analysis.
Building 7 was such an obviously flawed structure that it should have never been built. In the design schematics it is clear that only three members supported the whole structure and that if any one of them failed the whole building would fall. The centermost support member was directly below the fuel storage tanks which burned hot enough and long enough to weaken this single member. It was no longer able to support its load and the whole building fell.
The new building 7, which has already been built, has a completely different and more conventional structural support system and the designers specifically rejected using anything like the original design because it was obviously faulty. The original designers of this building are lucky not to be sued for such grossly incompetent work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| You forgot to mention Science. You know, the very thing the "truthers" ignore. |
Oh, you mean like these 1388 (and counting) professional architects and engineers (ie. experts who understand the science involved, and reject the official account of 9/11), for example? http://www.ae911truth.org/
But I guess you're the expert on science since you probably tune into cable TV everyday and believe whatever the liberal crackpot media tells you. But hey, if Stephen Colbert is cracking jokes about it, then it can't possibly be worth seriously looking into, can it? |
Only structural engineers and civil engineers have enough training to be considered experts in this area. Architects, chemical engineers, electrical engineers etc do not have the expertise to understand why these structures fell. It is especially silly that landscape architects are included on the list of "experts."
There are actually fewer than 50 individuals on the list of 1388 who have even the paper qualifications to possibly be experts. Then, given the great differences between the "C" students and "A" students, I'd still want to see transcripts, grades and some work experience that would make any of this handful actually qualified. "C" students are not qualified and are generally never allowed to design significant structures. |
Fifty highly qualified experts in the field questioning the official fiction is certainly significant. The signers, for the most part, are experienced professionals and not students so why you are interested in school grades is beyond me because as you well know, significance of grades quickly pales in the face of field experience.
| Quote: |
The actual truth comes down to this: the twin towers fell because they were hit by airplanes that exceeded the design capacity of what the buildings were able to survive in a major catastrophic event. They were doomed to collapse once they were struck at the heights and with the forces applied. The fires did not matter. The 2nd building attacked was hit lower down so it had to fall first. Had they been hit near the base, they would have likely survived as the base was stronger and more able to withstand the impact. Likewise, had they been much hit higher up, there would not have been enough weight pushing down to precipate a cascade failure.
Bin Laden is an engineer and he knows that there is an area of weakness in these highrise structures where you can precipitate such a cascade failure. He didn't have the exact design specs, so the pilots were instructed where to hit the buildings so as to have the best chance of destruction. They chose two different heights of attack in order to ensure that at least one of the buildings would fall. Had the first building been hit a bit higher up it wouldn't have fallen.
The twin towers were never designed with the ability to withstand the kind of forces they were subjected to that day. The PR hype about their design was not the reality. They were built in the days of sliderule computations and no one has ever done the structural analysis required to determine if they could withstand a 707 airliner impact. They didn't have the computing power or manpower to do such an analysis.
Building 7 was such an obviously flawed structure that it should have never been built. In the design schematics it is clear that only three members supported the whole structure and that if any one of them failed the whole building would fall. The centermost support member was directly below the fuel storage tanks which burned hot enough and long enough to weaken this single member. It was no longer able to support its load and the whole building fell. |
So what do you make of the military-grade nanothermite found in the remains at Ground Zero, as reported in a professional, peer-reviewed journal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
School grades matter.
"C" students are allowed to graduate with engineering degrees but are generally never considered qualified or allowed to design anything.
The thermite nonsense has only been promoted by one discredited incompetent old fool who was fired as a physics prof, as far as I've seen, and published in a fake peer reviewed journal. Even the 1388 did not sign on to support his nuttyness.
However, a complete investigation of the original designs, the specs, and a modern computerized analysis of the ability of the twin towers to withstand a collision of the type seen would be valuable, as well as the forces involved following the loss of numerous key structural componenets that led to the final catastrophic cascade failure that followed the impact.
We should also investigate the likelyhood that organized crime control of union contracts as well as certain materials contractors, especially concrete, could have seriously reduced the actual structural integrity of the design by substitution of inferior quality materials and labor as this was a major problem at the time of construction in most New York City projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| You forgot to mention Science. You know, the very thing the "truthers" ignore. |
Oh, you mean like these 1388 (and counting) professional architects and engineers (ie. experts who understand the science involved, and reject the official account of 9/11), for example? http://www.ae911truth.org/
But I guess you're the expert on science since you probably tune into cable TV everyday and believe whatever the liberal crackpot media tells you. But hey, if Stephen Colbert is cracking jokes about it, then it can't possibly be worth seriously looking into, can it? |
Only structural engineers and civil engineers have enough training to be considered experts in this area. Architects, chemical engineers, electrical engineers etc do not have the expertise to understand why these structures fell. It is especially silly that landscape architects are included on the list of "experts."
There are actually fewer than 50 individuals on the list of 1388 who have even the paper qualifications to possibly be experts. Then, given the great differences between the "C" students and "A" students, I'd still want to see transcripts, grades and some work experience that would make any of this handful actually qualified. "C" students are not qualified and are generally never allowed to design significant structures. |
Or it could be that these highly educated (in related fields) people know enough to conclude that the official story is bogus. If I turn the flimsy line of reasoning you've presented (that only credentials matter) on its head, then you yourself are not qualified to present an opinion on the matter, since you're not a structural engineer... surely the 1000+ experts in related fields who took the time to sign the petition read the actual 9/11 commission report (and the lies and contradictions contained therein) before signing. Either way, they are more credible than you. Also, not sure where you got the number that only 50 of them are structural engineers (did you count)?
But anyway, I don't actually believe you need to be an expert to see how utterly phony the official report is. Common sense is more than enough.
| Quote: |
The actual truth comes down to this: the twin towers fell because they were hit by airplanes that exceeded the design capacity of what the buildings were able to survive in a major catastrophic event. They were doomed to collapse once they were struck at the heights and with the forces applied. The fires did not matter. The 2nd building attacked was hit lower down so it had to fall first. Had they been hit near the base, they would have likely survived as the base was stronger and more able to withstand the impact. Likewise, had they been much hit higher up, there would not have been enough weight pushing down to precipate a cascade failure.
Bin Laden is an engineer and he knows that there is an area of weakness in these highrise structures where you can precipitate such a cascade failure. He didn't have the exact design specs, so the pilots were instructed where to hit the buildings so as to have the best chance of destruction. They chose two different heights of attack in order to ensure that at least one of the buildings would fall. Had the first building been hit a bit higher up it wouldn't have fallen.
The twin towers were never designed with the ability to withstand the kind of forces they were subjected to that day. The PR hype about their design was not the reality. They were built in the days of sliderule computations and no one has ever done the structural analysis required to determine if they could withstand a 707 airliner impact. They didn't have the computing power or manpower to do such an analysis.
Building 7 was such an obviously flawed structure that it should have never been built. In the design schematics it is clear that only three members supported the whole structure and that if any one of them failed the whole building would fall. The centermost support member was directly below the fuel storage tanks which burned hot enough and long enough to weaken this single member. It was no longer able to support its load and the whole building fell.
The new building 7, which has already been built, has a completely different and more conventional structural support system and the designers specifically rejected using anything like the original design because it was obviously faulty. The original designers of this building are lucky not to be sued for such grossly incompetent work. |
Total speculation on your part. Not an ounce of fact (or common sense for that matter). In the first place, the twin towers absolutely were designed to withstand such an impact. The were built in the 1970s for crying out loud with space age technology, we're not talking about some old school towers from the the 1920's... And your assertion that tower 7 was faulty to the degree that it just vaporized into thin air on its own is asinine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a no brainer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
