Page 20 of 67
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:24 pm
by solanoid
No,
Biblical fiction is not of importance (in my opinion)
I love the besslerwheel mystery especially, I will someday solve it.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:30 pm
by Mr. Flibble
solanoid wrote:No,
Biblical fiction is not of importance (in my opinion)
I love the besslerwheel mystery especially, I will someday solve it.
I always found issue with the Bessler Wheel given the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_ ... modynamics
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:34 pm
by konadog
solanoid wrote:No,
Biblical fiction is not of importance (in my opinion)
Not of importance how? It's the foundation of Western culture and informs the bulk of our most important literature and mythology and has directed people's actions for a couple of millennia. Or do you mean it's not of interest to you?
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:10 pm
by FalcoColumbarius
With the advent of 11 September '01, I was suspicious. I remember that day quite well, it was shocking to say the least. I remember the CBC report of the fifth plane being shot down by the American fighter jets. I remember the report of a missile hitting the Pentagon. I remember watching the guy on TV that evening pacing back and forth in front of a screen that repeatedly played different views of the second plane hitting the south tower, as he explained to the viewers exactly what this meant, and what America had to do as a result ~ and it occurred to me: What information is this guy working from? As far as we knew by the end of that day, four, possibly five aeroplanes had been used as weapons of considerable destruction ~ and yet this guy had his finger on the pulse of the agenda?
- Much of this didn't make sense to me. I decided to look further.
I started watching films purporting that the official story was not altogether accurate. Some of them were sensational. Some of them made good points but were inconclusive. "Loose Change" and "Confronting The Evidence" had compelling arguments but would not stand up in court, as it were. Not enough reputable sources to back up the evidence. Then I saw a film that scared the bejesus out of me. It is an argument that comes with sources. It is a two hour argumentative documentary called Zeitgeist. This one is worth viewing, it backs up the evidence and has influenced many other groups such as Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth.
- "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".
The idea that a sixty tonne, multi-engine aircraft could slam into the ground, "vaporize" and leave a hole that is thirty feet long, fifteen feet wide and ten feet deep is quite frankly an absurdity and an insult on the overall intelligence of humanity. Same with the Pentagon. A 128,730lb (empty) 757 does not leave a little hole in the side of the building. It's a rather large plane.
By the way, I think it was in 2003 that American Airlines introduced a new deal where through the aircraft's communication systems one could place a cel phone call to the ground whilst cruising at 35,000 feet. That year I was flying from Vancouver to Dallas/Fort Worth and I had absolutely no cel phone coverage from inside the plane at 35,000 feet. Perhaps if I walked out onto the wing..... 
Mr. Flibble wrote:It is not the case that the WTC buildings were the only steel buildings to collapse due to fire. In fact, there is video evidence of even smaller buildings collapsing due to fire and steel structural failure.
I need to see that evidence. There are a lot of claims of all sorts of steel structures that collapse if you hold a match to them but I have yet to see one. In Shanghai a few months ago there was a massive fire that turned a complete steel structured building into a beacon that killed many people. The frame was still standing after the fire had burned itself out
Courtesy of the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11759276)
Mr. Flibble wrote:Now the steel in the building got hotter and hoter from the fire, and it began to bend, once it bent too far, it was no longer structurally sound and it failed.
I believe the official line was the "Pancake Theory", where one floor buckles under the duress of the weight and lets go of the core column structure and falls onto the next floor down, thus creating a chain reaction. There are two things wrong with the picture that immediately stand out:- The core column structure should still be standing and not laying on the ground in individual 56 foot lengths.
- Both buildings fell at free fall speeds. Pancaking would take much longer.
Mr. Flibble wrote:The reason your Delica engine does not melt and collapse is first of course, it has cooling. But second, and most importantly your deli engine does not have tons upon tons of building on top of it. Steel is very strong - until it begins to get hot - then it becomes malleable.
Good point about the cooling system.
So now I see two more things wrong with this picture:- When the second plane hit the south tower, it was accompanied by a massive fireball shooting out the other side ~ I suggest that is the majority of your diesel.
- The top part of the tower slid off of the structure (removing the weight), which is how Building 5 was destroyed below it.
And then there are all the squibs going off, constantly just ahead of the crush. Much of the evidence was trucked away before an investigation was arranged? What's with that? There comes a point where the original story just doesn't make sense any more.
Falco.
By the way, what I heard on the CBC in late 2001 was that our troupes were going into Afghanistan to find and bring to justice one Osama Bin Laden, as we were told that he was operating from there.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:36 pm
by solanoid
Yes, Mythology,
Attempting to prove any mysteries out of the bible is futile, the shroud, the holy ghost, coming back from the dead....no thanks.
I do not wish to discuss this subject any further because I want to maintain a positive relationship with ALL members of this forum. If people get worked up iver h1n1, having Jesus talk will be a nightmare.
Lets cover the piri piri map, now that is a real mystery!
When do you think the dawn of civilization was 0001 a.d.?.....HA!
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:42 pm
by solanoid
Falco,
Nice presentation, full marks.
People,
There is a saying in the oil patch;
Give your head a shake, and it falls off, give it a kick.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:55 pm
by konadog
solanoid wrote:
When do you think the dawn of civilization was 0001 a.d.?.....HA!
That likely started in the Fertile Crescent about 10,000 y.o. with the development of agriculture and consequent stratification and specialization of society.
I'm not defending the stories in the bible as true, nor do I have Christian axe to grind - but just because I'm a atheist doesn't mean I'm willing to ignore or dismiss the influence of Christianity and the Bible / scripture on Western culture.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:00 pm
by solanoid
Kona,
Of course,
you can not deny the churches power and influence on all nearly aspects of our society.
When I said that its not of importance, I was alluding to the fact that attempting to solve biblical mysteries is futile.
Agreed?
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:10 pm
by konadog
solanoid wrote:
When I said that its not of importance, I was alluding to the fact that attempting to solve biblical mysteries is futile.
Agreed?
Yup, agreed. In fact I think trying to prove myth and allegory to be true in fact robs them of their real meaning. Trying to place Biblical stories in historical context isn't really the same thing though - Like suggesting that Noah's flood story may be connected to a natural damn break on the Black Sea for example. The stories came from somewhere, and looking for their roots is a reasonable and interesting pursuit.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:20 pm
by solanoid
Yes,
I feel that there is much to be learned from all ancient scripts, unfortuneatly many people fail to realize that much of the bible (and other scriptures) are to be interpreted as metaphors.
One way or another, one must wonder how much truth lies in such books.
For instance, your comment on noahs arc, it seems far retched but I do beleive that the techtonic plates have the ability to travel vast distances in short times. Atlantis=Antarctica, it may be true that many animals were transported during the division of Pangea. Although the bible has been altered many times there may be some underlying truth therein.
But trying to prove those things is probably impossible.
Do you know the piri piri map? check it out, there is a great site that contains so many cool things
WORLD-MYSTERIES.COM
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:42 pm
by Mr. Flibble
FalcoColumbarius wrote:
- Much of this didn't make sense to me. I decided to look further.
I started watching films purporting that the official story was not altogether accurate. Some of them were sensational. Some of them made good points but were inconclusive. "Loose Change" and "Confronting The Evidence" had compelling arguments but would not stand up in court, as it were. Not enough reputable sources to back up the evidence. Then I saw a film that scared the bejesus out of me. It is an argument that comes with sources. It is a two hour argumentative documentary called Zeitgeist. This one is worth viewing, it backs up the evidence and has influenced many other groups such as Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth.
You might want to take a look at another point of view: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842 That article takes all the popular "conspiracy" ideals and debunks them.
I am not a fan of the Zeitgeist stuff as my scientific background screams at me for the basic rules of science that violates. It cites sources, but the sources themselves are quesitonable.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:52 pm
by solanoid
Common sense aint so common
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:02 pm
by Mr. Flibble
solanoid wrote:Common sense aint so common
And by that you mean what?
I prefer to use the common sense that has been dictated by a set of time tested rules since the time of the Greeks and early philosophers. This is known as the Scientific Method.
It is the single most reliable method that we have today to determine fact from fiction, true from false.
I am genuinely disturbed how people are unaware of both how simple and how powerful that idea is.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:07 pm
by FalcoColumbarius
Mr. Flibble wrote:You might want to take a look at another point of view:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842 That article takes all the popular "conspiracy" ideals and debunks them.
I am not a fan of the Zeitgeist stuff as my scientific background screams at me for the basic rules of science that violates. It cites sources, but the sources themselves are quesitonable.
I seldom throw out books. That book was handed to me so I started reading it. It made comments that were stretching things, comments that were pretty much tantamount to <we know this is true because the government has told us so>. I went from reading to scanning. Eventually I threw the book out. Even the first line (under the picture) in the link that you posted:
- "False Witness: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation."
Although I am sure they could find a person who feels that way about the photo in question, the line in itself is very misleading.
As far as questionable sources are concerned, many of those sources are from the government, which I find ironic.
Falco.
Re: Welcome to the "Last Word Café".
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:18 pm
by Mr. Flibble
FalcoColumbarius wrote:Mr. Flibble wrote:You might want to take a look at another point of view:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842 That article takes all the popular "conspiracy" ideals and debunks them.
I am not a fan of the Zeitgeist stuff as my scientific background screams at me for the basic rules of science that violates. It cites sources, but the sources themselves are quesitonable.
I seldom throw out books. That book was handed to me so I started reading it. It made comments that were stretching things, comments that were pretty much tantamount to <we know this is true because the government has told us so>. I went from reading to scanning. Eventually I threw the book out. Even the first line (under the picture) in the link that you posted:
- "False Witness: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation."
Although I am sure they could find a person who feels that way about the photo in question, the line in itself is very misleading.
As far as questionable sources are concerned, many of those sources are from the government, which I find ironic.
Falco.
Some are from the government, some not. But at some point you have to have a good understanding of physics to understand the arguments involved. The main issue with conspiracy theorists is that they cite a large number of things that don't add up in the Baloney Detection Kit I mentioned earlier, and they generally don't agree with Physics either.
The problem is that yes, some engineers say they want more investigations - but most dont.
To outright write off the website because some of the content is goverment based is to do a disservice to the facts or checking both sides of the arguments.
Regardless if the information comes from the government or from some other source, if the idea supported for a conspiracy ideal is debunked, then it is debunked. If it is debunked you can no longer use it as a point in your argument. If the majority of your points in your argument are debunked, then your argument has a serious problem and the foundations upon which it lies must be questioned.
The logic of an argument must follow a pattern. The problem I have with most conspiracy theories is that they say "Well X happened" - Then when X is proven to be unlikely/impossible/improbable, then the conspiracy theorists move on to: "Well, what about Y, Y still proves my point!" Then Y is debunked, Then Z, then the whole alphabet starts again...
Again, if the majority of arguments in your chain of logic are proven faulty then you must begin to question your premise as a whole. As it stands, modern science has poked multiple holes in the 9/11 conspiracy idea. Unfortunately, you do need a grounding in basic physics to get some of the arguments.
As it is, some of the links out there use all the math for physics, so if you know newtonian physics, you can work the math for yourself and prove the outcomes are true.