3 of 5
3
Jonathan Kay - Among the Truthers
Posted: 29 May 2011 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

Wow, what a show. Jonathan Kay spoke of a kind of ‘standing up’ against people who think they know the truth or are skeptical of particular or ‘official’ story lines, right? Well, what does that mean? He went on to say that he can’t win an argument w/ them(us!). This is funny to me…as if it were a warning to others to be weary of those who are ‘very intelligent and think they know everything’, he said this. Hmmm, that seems a bit redundant but w/ a pinch of sophism. I have to say that I don’t go to MSM for any information in the least, and I use the internet almost exclusively. Mr. Kay seemed to be speaking against this. The irony is that I would not have been able to hear what he had to say w/out the internet, you see? I can’t fit his stance w/in a framework of seeking truth, which probably sounds incoherent—its hard to articulate maybe what I am saying but he comes across as a sophist. In the past people have called me a conspiracy theorist w/ my questioning things like ‘Executive Privilege’ which simply seems to be an oxymoron w/ no real meaning and is used to undermine the ‘sovereign state’; an executor can’t have privileges, it isn’t possible—yet it is law of the land. But these same people ascribe to ‘one of the biggest problems in America are ‘civil liberties’ ‘, or, ‘libraries tell lies!’ This is funny, right? I mean, you can’t debate someone who doesn’t believe in the free flow of information, it is impossible. The issue wouldn’t be whether or not ‘I’ had a point but how I got the information in the first place, which btw is ad hominem. I can’t be preached to on the one hand and have my public library defunded w/ the other, that is groundless, that is plunder—for nothing and will only lead to further ‘breaking’. But Jonathan Kay says be weary of my kind of ‘truth seeking’, WOW! LOL
Nice.

 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2011 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

About Jonathan Kay, I’d hope that he would be able to speak on others issues that concern conspiracy theorists like America being the windiest place on the planet while having the greatest need for the finite energy resource, crude and subsidizing the industry at the same time. That is groundless and will only lead to further ‘breaking’. Where would he be on this?

[ Edited: 29 May 2011 12:24 PM by neolib=plndr ]
 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 12:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2011-05-11

One thing I noticed was a little bit of an attempt to show an equivalence between Truthers and Birthers. While they may come at it with some of the same impulses, I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”. To pull off the 911 Conspiracy would have taken thousands of people and would have been virtually impossible to keep secret. It requires utterly perfect control of everyone involved.

By contrast, covering up a birthplace would have been far less involved, and there are agencies who create new identities all the time (intelligence and witness-protection, to name a couple). It ‘s not such a stretch that a well-connected person could pull that off.
But with only a bit of checking, it’s pretty obvious that it did not happen. In my mind, that fact that Hilary Clinton’s opposition research people didn’t find any proof of it closed the case in my mind.  But I don’t think it’s nutty to have wondered about that in the same way I do think it’s nutty to think 911 was an inside job. One is far more feasible than the other. It’s like saying that “John Edwards is covering up an affair” is a conspiracy just as likely as “the govt is hiding alien spacecraft and bodies at Area 51”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 08:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
Jansob - 01 June 2011 12:42 AM

I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”.

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less.  And why don’t you provide a diagram of the horizontal beams in the core of WTC1 while you are at it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics much less psychological bullshit. 

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

That POI was pretty tough on a lot of people, I think.  They really took jabs at many, and dismissed them all.  It was harsh.  Certainly not the good Joe Nickel tactful open-minded approach. downer

I think that doubt is a good thing, basically.  I just think that it can lead people astray if they take it to extremes of doubting every shred of information that isn’t tailored to their favorite slant, dismissing all experts in the field for a self appointed messiah who claims to know all but is standing nowhere near the action.  I see those messiahs sometimes saying speculative things like “It could be true that A is not equal to A.”  And then making that crucial step, that leap of logic, that leap so large that it has to be called a leap of faith, that leap from a “could” to an “is”.  Where the idea becomes, “It is true that A is not equal to A.”  If one is not involved in the applicable field, then they are an amateur, and its easy to make many amateur mistakes.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  7
Joined  2011-05-11
psikeyhackr - 01 June 2011 08:04 AM
Jansob - 01 June 2011 12:42 AM

I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”.

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less.  And why don’t you provide a diagram of the horizontal beams in the core of WTC1 while you are at it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics much less psychological bullshit. 

psik

No offense, but I’ll go with the mechanical engineers on this one.
and I’ll upgrade that to WAAAY more out there.
I think this comment thread is about done for. Head on back to infowars and prisonplanet, guys, you won’t get far here.

[ Edited: 01 June 2011 04:21 PM by Jansob ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2011 10:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
Jansob - 01 June 2011 03:53 PM
psikeyhackr - 01 June 2011 08:04 AM
Jansob - 01 June 2011 12:42 AM

I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”.

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less.  And why don’t you provide a diagram of the horizontal beams in the core of WTC1 while you are at it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics much less psychological bullshit. 

psik

No offense, but I’ll go with the mechanical engineers on this one.
and I’ll upgrade that to WAAAY more out there.
I think this comment thread is about done for. Head on back to infowars and prisonplanet, guys, you won’t get far here.

WON’T GET FAR?  LOL  Notice Doug didn’t provide links to where he claimed I was demolished.  I supplied them.

I don’t give a damn about infowars or prisonplanet.  Try to offend me all you want, I don’t give a damn about that either.  I have been banned from forums for saying what I really think of people that don’t demand to know the distributions of steel in skyscrapers.  Notice that neither Richard Gage nor Steven Jones talk about that.  Gage got a surprised look on his face when I asked him about it in 2008.  He gave me the lame excuse of the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints.

Which mechanical engineer has told you the distributions of steel and concrete in WTC1 & 2?  I concluded in two weeks that airliners could not destroy those buildings.  It never occurred to me this brainless insanity could drag on this long.  The size of the buildings dictated that they had to have too much mass therefore they had to be too strong to be totally destroyed by planes less than 1/2000th their mass with 34 tons of fuel.  So why can’t the mechanical engineers do the collapse time calculations strictly on the basis of the conservation of momentum?

By the way, haven’t you noticed that the vast majority of mechanical engineers are actually saying NOTHING WHATSOEVER?  People just keep implying that all of the engineers are in agreement with the official story.  But this physics is so simple that if the official story was true then they should ALL be agreeing and explaining how simple it is.  But instead all of them have to pretend that the distribution of steel is not important by not talking about it.

LOL

Duh, how do skyscrapers hold themselves up?  The Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year.  What kind of computers did they use to determine how to distribute the steel back then?  That certainly makes this TEN YEAR charade ludicrous.

So if the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion of the building in less than 15 seconds then why can’t physicists build a physical model of the phenomenon in NINE YEARS?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2011 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2010-09-08

Since you said the lower part of the tower was “destroyed in less than 15 seconds”, if you’re trying to say the momentum of the collapse couldn’t do it, then you could only be arguing for explosives to do it that quickly…

Just a tiny problem with that: #wherearethebooms

We have plenty of footage of the collapses on 9/11 and absent in all of them are the unmistakable BOOMS that occur when a building is being explosively detonated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2011 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
kennykjc - 03 June 2011 12:03 PM

We have plenty of footage of the collapses on 9/11 and absent in all of them are the unmistakable BOOMS that occur when a building is being explosively detonated.

There is no footage of the core whatsoever.

The NIST report says the core supported 53% of the weight of the tower.

If you watch the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact you will see that there were horizontal beams connecting the 47 core columns.  Since each level was 12 feet high there were 564 feet of vertical steel on each level.  But because of the dimensions of the core there had to be more than twice as many feet of horizontal steel.  So how many tons of steel were on each level of the core?  Why don’t we have that information after NINE YEARS?

Why hasn’t it occurred to you to ask?

The belief that what happened can be understood by watching videos is absurd.  If we had accurate data on the distribution of mass then the degree to which just the conservation of momentum alone would slow any supposed collapse could be accurately calculated but even simple assumptions demonstrate that the buildings came down to fast.

Here is a computer program based only on the conservation of momentum.  You can run it yourself.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post10572.html#p10572

So let’s see you build a physical model that can completely collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2011 07:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2010-09-08

The belief that what happened can be understood by watching videos is absurd.

Don’t dodge my question.

Why are no BOOMS heard on any of the dozens of videos from 9/11? If explosives were used they would be heard just as they are on the countless other videos of ACTUAL demolitions.

It’s not that explosives in demolitions are difficult to hear over the background of collapsing debris. They can be heard for miles as I found out in 2007 when a bridge 2 miles from my home was demolished and I heard the booms.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2011 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
kennykjc - 03 June 2011 07:02 PM

The belief that what happened can be understood by watching videos is absurd.

Don’t dodge my question.

Why are no BOOMS heard on any of the dozens of videos from 9/11? If explosives were used they would be heard just as they are on the countless other videos of ACTUAL demolitions.

It’s not that explosives in demolitions are difficult to hear over the background of collapsing debris. They can be heard for miles as I found out in 2007 when a bridge 2 miles from my home was demolished and I heard the booms.

I considered that too DUMB to even pay attention to.

I am not responsible for the degree to which you do not investigate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP—wz0

If you can’t comprehend the grade school physics of skyscrapers that is your problem also.  And I am not making any claims about controlled demolitions or any other explanation of what brought the buildings down.  Why don’t we have accurate data about what it took to hold the buildings up for 28 years?  Can’t our EXPERTS handle that?

psik

[ Edited: 03 June 2011 08:08 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2011 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2010-09-08

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2011 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22
kennykjc - 03 June 2011 09:47 PM

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

We’ve had this conversation with him before. In general, he’s quite rational - except, apparently, on this particular subject.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2011 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
TromboneAndrew - 04 June 2011 04:09 AM
kennykjc - 03 June 2011 09:47 PM

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

We’ve had this conversation with him before. In general, he’s quite rational - except, apparently, on this particular subject.

Oh really?

Let’s see you name ONE physics Nobel winner that has confirmed that an airliner could destroy one of the towers.  Provide a link.

Have you ever heard of POTENTIAL ENERGY?

Isn’t that weight times height?

So how can you accurately compute the potential energy of WTC 1 or 2 without knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level of the towers?  Is that physics too difficult for RATIONAL atheists?  LOL

I did not say it was or was not a controlled demolition.  I was talking about the physics of skysccrapers and what information was needed to analyze the supposed destruction by an airliner.  Your supposed pseudo-logic is that if it can’t be proven that something other than airliners did it then airliners must have done it.  I am saying if airliners did it then why don’t we have accurate data on the buildings so we can analyze the event.  Are you saying that wanting accurate data is irrational?

But we are supposed to put up with the RATIONAL psychological BS of Jonathan Kay with his flying saucer and WTC towers on the cover of his book.  A guilt by association psychological game.

[1439]
psik

[ Edited: 04 June 2011 09:57 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2011 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7665
Joined  2008-04-11
TromboneAndrew - 04 June 2011 04:09 AM
kennykjc - 03 June 2011 09:47 PM

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

We’ve had this conversation with him before. In general, he’s quite rational - except, apparently, on this particular subject.

...ad nauseum…I don’t even address it anymore…no sense in raising MY perfectly normal blood pressure..

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3