| View previous topic :: View next topic |
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
 |
|
| one of the characteristics of Conspiracy Theorists is that they take pride in not having an added twist, ie NOT being original. After all, they are imagining the whole thing |
Firstly, let it be noted on the record that I have not yet proposed any conspiracy theory with regard to WTC. By jumping into the standard anti-conspiracy theory rhetoric, certain contributors are jumping ahead of the argument, and clouding the issue with distraction techniques.
The issue of the knowledge that key members of the British government had of Iraq's lack of any weapons that could be a threat to the UK is a completely different matter, that may be dealt with in due course.
As are conspiracy theories in general!
So I shall repeat my original contention - the observed physical reality of the disintegration of the towers does not correspond to what would happen to said towers solely due to the impact of the aircraft that hit them, and subsequent fires. And I am sure Mick that I did not imagine the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation!
This is something I shall clearly demonstrate at the utmost brevity (please be patient, I have to work, and have no internet in the evenings!)
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
| We've now had four judicial enquiries on this subject and each one showed reasonably conclusively that HMG weren't aware. |
I'm being tempted off topic again, but let's just consider - who pays the judiciary's salary?
Is this the same judiciary who advised a jury that they could NOT give a verdict of Unlawful Killing over the case of a man who after having exhibited no suspicious behaviour at all, and without having been challenged verbally by armed police, was shot seven times in the head at near point blank range?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | So I shall repeat my original contention... |
We are already bored with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | ...the observed physical reality of the disintegration of the towers does not correspond to what would happen to said towers solely due to the impact of the aircraft that hit them, and subsequent fires. And I am sure Mick that I did not imagine the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation! |
Seriously. Make it stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Mick wrote:
| You clearly have no idea of our understanding of physics if you think predicting the effect of planes being deliberately crashed into skyscrapers is within our understanding of physics |
We have had a fine understanding of the Laws of Motion since Newton first penned them a good 300 years ago. We also have a good understanding of the properties of steel, concrete and glass, and their behaviour when exposed to impacts and heat. We also know the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, and that falling bodies will follow the path of least resistance. Combining this knowledge, we have a good understanding of what are the most likely outcomes of a plane crashing into a skyscraper, and what constitutes an 'implausible' outcome. Virtual total disintegration of said buildings and symmetrical collapse are both highly implausible outcomes following said, well-established, priciples of physics, as will be shown in detail later on.
Ishmael wrote: | Even Galileo didn't know how rapidly the cat would hit the ground until he tossed it out a window of the tower of Pisa -- yet somehow you know how a building should fall under these circumstances? Breathtaking. |
Hmmm - Could you give evidence to back up your serious allegations against Signore Galilei of cruelty to animals? As far as I know legend tells that he dropped two balls of very different weight and size. This is probably apocryphal, as the ratio of air resistance/gravitational force acting on the body on the way down would have meant that his heavier (cannon) ball actually would have hit the ground slightly before the other one!
Of course whatever methodology he did use, he carried out his experiment because he knew of nobody who had done it before. Fortunately, in the intervening 400 years, thousands of people have done a lot more research on these issues, and recorded their results for posterity (us!), meaning that we now have an excellent understanding of the effects of gravity on standing, toppling, collapsing and falling objects and structures!
Ishmael wrote:
mexkris wrote:
Well, my point is really that a building of that height is more likely to topple to one side than collapse neatly in on itself....
You base this conclusion on what evidence? |
It's called the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote:
Afraid your preconceptions might be challenged by hard, physical reality Ishy old chap?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
My patience has run out with this. Our site makes promises to entertain serious ideas. You are not a serious man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| mexkris wrote: | | And I am sure Mick that I did not imagine the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation! |
| It's called the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum |
Mexie me old fruit... I hope you have a good working knowledge and understanding of these physical laws (and their application to civil engineering dynamics) rather than just voicing the opinions of others who claim to understand such things... otherwise you're on a hiding to nothing.
There are several contributors to this site (as I'm sure you will discover) who have an astonishing grasp of these laws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Mick wrote:
| If you can tell us one conspiracy theory that has turned out to be true (yes, that's right, it's the usual M J Harper Challenge, just one will suffice) then your position is at least tenable. |
The Dreyfus affair
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Somebody sold some secrets to the Germans. We still don't know who even though Dreyfusards--yes, first lesson of AE, there are no heroes only partisans--pretend they know. (Because if they know, everyone must know, so claiming not to know is itself an act of conspiracy.)
Dreyfus was accused and found guilty under the normal judicial procedures. It is important to remember that The Truth is not the object of normal judicial procedures. The administration of justice is the object of normal judicial procedures. Getting to the truth usually helps but it is not the object.
As with many miscarriagesof justice, it was immediately suspected that a miscarriage had occurred. There now followed a struggle between (and this too is familiar to us all) those who were upset at one person's (probably unjustified) misery and the Forces of Order who actually have to run a system in which the administration of justice requires there be a few individuals who suffer in this way. It cannot be other because when certainty is unavailable to save those individuals everybody would have to be let off and society would break down.
I cannot see where this becomes a Conspiracy Theory. Yes, it is true that the forces of the state were alleged to have conspired to keep Dreyfus in prison but as far as I know nothing concrete has ever been proved. And yes, I suppose if it were so proved one would have to say that a small scale conspiracy was both run and found out (and the MJH Challenge passed) but until you can do this we are merely left with the usual spectacle of the State keeping somebody in prison long after most fair-minded people would let them out. These are the staple of Televison Series, I cannot see they are the stuff of Conspiracy Theories.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Dear Mexkris, let me try to flesh out Ishmael's correct accusation that you are not a serious person (for us).
| We have had a fine understanding of the Laws of Motion since Newton first penned them a good 300 years ago. We also have a good understanding of the properties of steel, concrete and glass, and their behaviour when exposed to impacts and heat |
When writing this kind of thing always ask yourself, "Is there anybody on this site who doesn't know we have a fine understanding of the Laws of Motion since Newton? Is there anybody here who doesn't know we have a good understanding of the properties of steel etc?" If the answer is 'Probably no', then it is not worth the writing (and certainly it is tedious for us to have to read it).
A six-year-old knows that there is a difference between understanding properties, physical laws and so forth on the one hand and being able to predict how all these things would interbehave on the kind of grand scale that we could never replicate under reasonably observable conditions. Only somebody defending somebody else's theory would even think of using such a lame argument. That is why we don't really like people defending other people's theories. It always leads to what is technically called BernieGreenSyndrome. You will be amazed at how swiftly your rhetorical skills will develop once it is your own theories you are defending, rather than other people's.
Ditto with Conspiracy Theories. There are thousands of websites out there who delight in telling one another these things but we are not one of them. [We did discuss an Al-Quaida one at length but I decided at the time, because I hadn't personally heard of it, that it might be somewhat original. I was probably wrong in that respect and I would quite like some -- non-infantile -- feedback from the participants.] If you produce your own CT or even a genuinely new wrinkle to an old one or if you have supra-comments about Conspiracy Theories in general you can post but you cannot just blah-blah-blah with this kind of thing....
| I'm being tempted off topic again, but let's just consider - who pays the judiciary's salary? |
It is unlikely that anybody who believes in any conspiracies theories (and you clearly do, despite your anguished claims of agnostacy) will flourish here. It is rather like believing in Christianity or Father Christmas or the Supernatural or Flying Saucers or Crop Circles -- it is prime facie evidence that you are a moronic cretin.
We do have a limited room for moronic cretins. Some people are moronic cretins about some things but quite sensible in other matters, and their overall contribution is judged acceptable. But people such as yourself, ie congenital moronic cretins, have to be constantly on their best behaviour and occasionally demonstrate a capacity for long-term improvement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Nemesis, let us know the Creative Process since this might well be an excellent example of the true origin of all Conspiracy Theories: that if enough reasonably creative people are juggling enough reasonably elastic facts, suspicious patterns will always emerge. Always. |
Making the connections is easy. Isn't it?
The question in writing a good CT seems to me really what to leave out.
Of course I thought about stating the locations would make them perfect for a political assassination, but by hinting at this ..."walking" "remote" "ministry of defence" etc. ... I asked the reader to "connect the dots" with the hope that they then would be more likely to become joint owner/author of this "sinister" picture.
By deliberately leaving out John Smith the reader was again invited to contribute.
Of course if you then throw in something that is clearly bizarre. The reader hopefully will get a sense of superiority, suddenly he has gone from joint author to leading expert. He now knows more than the author.
The story will of course grow as readers add more patterns, make corrections e.t.c
Readers want to actively contribute, they want to buy in, to a good conspiracy..... Why not let them.....?
Beside which my CT could be true.... After all when Nasruddin starting the rumour about the half priced cakes.. he then needed to check it out ...it was an offer so good he could not afford to miss it, if was true after all......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The process works the other way too. Once the intelligence agencies of the world are unleashed in finding dots that join up, they can be relied on to do so. This is what seems to have happened with the Lockerbie Bombing and the conviction of Al Meghrabi. Once you have sufficient dots, just enough of them will always line up to produce a reasonably convincing conviction.
One aspect revealed by Bliargate is the (re?)emergence of partisan politics. In the good old days of the Kennedy Assassination it was just a bunch of disinterested dudes looking for the truth, but now that the technique is known, the forces of the Left (ie those opposed on other grounds to the invasion of Iraq) simply assume a conspiracy exists because it helps in a general way with the left wing cause. A good recent example of the other way about was Clinton and the Whitewater Affair.
Dreyfus itself is the grand-daddy since your position re The Affair pretty much became the touchstone of your politics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I'm being tempted off topic again, but let's just consider - who pays the judiciary's salary? |
What is particularly amusing is that people assume the judges are ipso facto corrupt when they disagree with the verdict and hail them as Solomonic geniuses when they agree. This week's Bloody Sunday report is a wondrous example. In 1972 Justice Widgery did a similar report and came out on the British Government's side, this week Justice Saville has come out on the protestors' side. Both reports are just what the British Government desired for contemporaneous political reasons but of course everybody thinks Widgery was 'got at' and Saville wasn't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mexkris
In: Libya
|
|
|
|
Mick wrote:
Dear Mexkris, let me try to flesh out Ishmael's correct accusation that you are not a serious person (for us).
We have had a fine understanding of the Laws of Motion since Newton first penned them a good 300 years ago. We also have a good understanding of the properties of steel, concrete and glass, and their behaviour when exposed to impacts and heat.
When writing this kind of thing always ask yourself, "Is there anybody on this site who doesn't know we have a fine understanding of the Laws of Motion since Newton? Is there anybody here who doesn't know we have a good understanding of the properties of steel etc?" |
One would hope that contributors to this site would all be aware of such things, and have at least a basic understanding of such things themselves, but when faced with comments like:
| Even Galileo didn't know how rapidly the cat would hit the ground until he tossed it out a window of the tower of Pisa -- yet somehow you know how a building should fall under these circumstances? Breathtaking. |
one is lead to suspect that at least one person on this site doesn't know we have a fine understanding of the Laws of Motion, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
