Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Linux Kernel Prepares To Be Further Locked Down When Under UEFI Secure Boot

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    again, you guys make it up as you go, just saying random things without actually saying anything scientific, factual, or evidence-based. as far as nist's 911 report goes, have you actually read it? even if you havent read it word for word, are you at all familiar with it? it stops at the point of "initiation of collapse," that is to say, it does not investigate or even try to offer any explanations for the actual destruction of the buildings. it focuses solely on the events leading up to the "initiation of collapse," whereas the series of events in question is the actual collapses themselves. furthermore, the data they used to build their computer models of these events they refuse to make available for peer review. people even tried to submit FOIA requests for their data and were denied on the grounds of "national security." i would remind you that science is not something done by authority figures in secret behind closed doors. science is done in the open and made available for peer review. that part is not optional, else it is not science. when it is kept secret, the "conclusion" is told to you by authority figures, and you are shamed into toeing the line and not asking questions else you get smeared as unpatriotic and/or a crazy person, there are terms for what that is, and science is most assuredly not one of them.

    as far as the "pancake collapse" or "house of cards" sort of theories go, again, when you apply just a little bit of critical thought and real physical principles here, it becomes immediately obvious that these theories cannot possibly be applied to the way those three buildings were actually destroyed. when a house of 110 cards collapses, you are left with a pile of 110 cards. the cards do not - cannot in fact pulverize themselves into a pile of dust. same with the pancake theory of one floor dislodging the next in a domino effect of cascading pancakes. you would be left with a whole lot of pancakes. there would be some destruction sure, but there would not and could not be such a complete pulverization of all the material involved. in order for that to happen, in order for what actually happened to happen, there would have to be far more energy involved in that system than what is allowed for in such a system as a pancake or house of cards collapse.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
      again, you guys make it up as you go, just saying random things without actually saying anything scientific, factual, or evidence-based. as far as nist's 911 report goes, have you actually read it? even if you havent read it word for word, are you at all familiar with it? it stops at the point of "initiation of collapse," that is to say, it does not investigate or even try to offer any explanations for the actual destruction of the buildings. it focuses solely on the events leading up to the "initiation of collapse," whereas the series of events in question is the actual collapses themselves. furthermore, the data they used to build their computer models of these events they refuse to make available for peer review. people even tried to submit FOIA requests for their data and were denied on the grounds of "national security." i would remind you that science is not something done by authority figures in secret behind closed doors. science is done in the open and made available for peer review. that part is not optional, else it is not science. when it is kept secret, the "conclusion" is told to you by authority figures, and you are shamed into toeing the line and not asking questions else you get smeared as unpatriotic and/or a crazy person, there are terms for what that is, and science is most assuredly not one of them.

      as far as the "pancake collapse" or "house of cards" sort of theories go, again, when you apply just a little bit of critical thought and real physical principles here, it becomes immediately obvious that these theories cannot possibly be applied to the way those three buildings were actually destroyed. when a house of 110 cards collapses, you are left with a pile of 110 cards. the cards do not - cannot in fact pulverize themselves into a pile of dust. same with the pancake theory of one floor dislodging the next in a domino effect of cascading pancakes. you would be left with a whole lot of pancakes. there would be some destruction sure, but there would not and could not be such a complete pulverization of all the material involved. in order for that to happen, in order for what actually happened to happen, there would have to be far more energy involved in that system than what is allowed for in such a system as a pancake or house of cards collapse.
      And yet despite your critical thinking those buildings did in fact fall. Your critical thinking is telling you that those buildings should still be standing and yet they aren't. So you now need to consider that it's your own critical thinking that is flawed.Here's what it is whether you like it or not, those buildings fell. It hapenned. Get used to it. 17 years too late is better than never at all.
      Last edited by duby229; 12 March 2018, 02:02 PM.

      Comment


      • #53
        sorry, i think perhaps there is a language barrier here. is english a second language for you? nobody is saying the buildings didnt fall.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
          again, you guys make it up as you go, just saying random things without actually saying anything scientific, factual, or evidence-based. as far as nist's 911 report goes, have you actually read it? even if you havent read it word for word, are you at all familiar with it? it stops at the point of "initiation of collapse," that is to say, it does not investigate or even try to offer any explanations for the actual destruction of the buildings. it focuses solely on the events leading up to the "initiation of collapse,"
          I don't know who told you that but I'm sorry to say that they lied to you and you simply swallowed that lie, strange that you accuse us of not reading it while you keep saying stuff about the NIST report that are so easily refutable by simply going to the NIST website of the final reports: https://www.nist.gov/engineering-lab...-investigation , or is that the issue? That the thruthers made you believe that there where a single report when NIST released several ones due to the huge amount of data?

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
            as far as the "pancake collapse" or "house of cards" sort of theories go, again, when you apply just a little bit of critical thought and real physical principles here, it becomes immediately obvious that these theories cannot possibly be applied to the way those three buildings were actually destroyed. when a house of 110 cards collapses, you are left with a pile of 110 cards. the cards do not - cannot in fact pulverize themselves into a pile of dust. same with the pancake theory of one floor dislodging the next in a domino effect of cascading pancakes. you would be left with a whole lot of pancakes. there would be some destruction sure, but there would not and could not be such a complete pulverization of all the material involved. in order for that to happen, in order for what actually happened to happen, there would have to be far more energy involved in that system than what is allowed for in such a system as a pancake or house of cards collapse.
            Or more simply, you are suffering from Dunning-Kruger here. Do note that every single structural engineer society on earth think that WTC7 fell the way the official report says it did and they all think that the truther theories with controlled demolition is hog-wash. So can you honestly say that you and your friends that have no degree in structural engineering what so ever know better than every expert in the field? Or are they all bought by the Bush administration?

            Comment


            • #56
              again, you just say random things as you go that have no basis in reality. if an investigation and analysis of the actual destruction of the three buildings has been performed it would be the first thing you would point to, yet you cannot because it does not exist. you provide a link to their website but where are the results of this investigation that you think happened? where is the link to the analysis of how those buildings were actually destroyed? i challenge you to point to the investigation and analysis of the actual destruction of the buildings. where is it?

              as far as what every engineer on earth thinks, again you are just saying random things as you go. and what a silly thing to say, what every engineer on earth "thinks." where is the scientific peer review of the actual investigation and the actual report? again, it does not exist. or if it does, i again challenge you to point to it now.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by quaz0r View Post
                where is the link to the analysis of how those buildings were actually destroyed? i challenge you to point to the investigation and analysis of the actual destruction of the buildings. where is it?
                On the site of the NIST maybe?

                Report for most of the buildings: https://www.nist.gov/publications/co...nd-fire-safety

                And this is for building 7 (that was not included i the above) https://www.nist.gov/publications/fi...fire-safety-0#

                there is a shitton of others about the topic if you search their paper database.
                https://www.nist.gov/fusion-search?s...ade+Center&op=

                as far as the "pancake collapse" or "house of cards" sort of theories go, again, when you apply just a little bit of critical thought and real physical principles here, it becomes immediately obvious that these theories cannot possibly be applied to the way those three buildings were actually destroyed. when a house of 110 cards collapses, you are left with a pile of 110 cards. the cards do not - cannot in fact pulverize themselves into a pile of dust.
                The pile of 110 cards is pretty much flat to the table though, and has a height that is a fraction of a card's length/height, even if you pile them all on top of each other they can't reach the height of a single "floor" of your house of cards either.
                This probably gives the impression that the building disappeared, to people that lack the feeling for volumes and masses. #HouseOfCardsCollapseIsAHoax

                This is more or less what happened in reality (and can be seen in the links I provided above about other buildings that collapsed for other reasons). Modern buildings have relatively thin structural elements and floors because they use stronger materials, most of their internal space is empty (habitable by humans).

                Your (and many skeptics) mistake here is thinking skyscrapers are built like middle age castles, with meter-thick walls and very heavy stone structure that even if collapsed still occupies a big amount of space.
                Last edited by starshipeleven; 13 March 2018, 04:43 AM.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  On the site of the NIST maybe?
                  yes, when i ask where the investigation and analysis of how the buildings were actually destroyed is at, it is a rhetorical question, as anyone who cites the nist report in response to that question clearly has not in fact read the nist material or even familiarized themselves with their content to even a rudimentary degree. if you and F.Ultra followed your own links, you would see in both the report for the towers and the report for builing 7 that there was in fact no investigation into the actual collapse of either the towers or building 7. the closest they come to addressing the actual collapses of the buildings are in the sections of those papers where they address "the probable collapse sequence," which is in fact the terminology they chose (oddly enough) to refer not to the actual collapses of the buildings, but to the "probable" series of events leading up to the "initiation of collapse," and even then, by their own wording and admission, it is not any sort of actual investigation, but "this is how it might have happened i guess it seems probably."

                  take for instance the first sentence in section 2.4 of the building 7 report, which itself is titled "THE PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE":

                  Originally posted by NIST
                  The following is the NIST account of how the fires in WTC 7 most likely led to the building's collapse.
                  in other words, no investigation of the actual crime scene or the actual physical evidence from that crime scene, no analysis of the actual collapses of the buildings of which there is also ample video evidence, just "this is what might have happened...prior to collapse." they do try a little harder at least in their this-is-how-it-might-have-happened efforts in the building 7 report compared to the report for the towers by building a computer model of...how it might have happened. sadly though they have refused to make their input data for this computer model available for peer review (remember how this part is not optional when it comes to legitimate science) even when attempts were made to force their hand via FOIA requests, which were denied on the grounds that "it might jeopardize public safety."

                  Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                  The pile of 110 cards is pretty much flat to the table though, and has a height that is a fraction of a card's length/height, even if you pile them all on top of each other they can't reach the height of a single "floor" of your house of cards either.
                  This probably gives the impression that the building disappeared, to people that lack the feeling for volumes and masses. #HouseOfCardsCollapseIsAHoax

                  This is more or less what happened in reality (and can be seen in the links I provided above about other buildings that collapsed for other reasons). Modern buildings have relatively thin structural elements and floors because they use stronger materials, most of their internal space is empty (habitable by humans).

                  Your (and many skeptics) mistake here is thinking skyscrapers are built like middle age castles, with meter-thick walls and very heavy stone structure that even if collapsed still occupies a big amount of space.
                  and when we're done citing investigations that never happened and analyses that dont exist, now we are back to just saying random things as we go that have no basis in anything. clearly those buildings were not literal houses of cards, and clearly you are either unfamiliar with or misrepresenting the actual construction of the buildings.

                  of course far more pertinent than the exact mass of the buildings is the extreme degree of destruction performed on that mass. as i have already noted, that mass could not have destroyed itself so completely in the way that it did by way of a simple gravitational collapse. the actual physics of the actual real world just simply do not work that way. it is physically impossible for those buildings to have accelerated straight down through themselves, all the while pulverizing themselves nearly completely to dust, without more energy being applied than would have been available in a gravitational collapse.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by quaz0r View Post

                    yes, when i ask where the investigation and analysis of how the buildings were actually destroyed is at, it is a rhetorical question, as anyone who cites the nist report in response to that question clearly has not in fact read the nist material or even familiarized themselves with their content to even a rudimentary degree. if you and F.Ultra followed your own links, you would see in both the report for the towers and the report for builing 7 that there was in fact no investigation into the actual collapse of either the towers or building 7. the closest they come to addressing the actual collapses of the buildings are in the sections of those papers where they address "the probable collapse sequence," which is in fact the terminology they chose (oddly enough) to refer not to the actual collapses of the buildings, but to the "probable" series of events leading up to the "initiation of collapse," and even then, by their own wording and admission, it is not any sort of actual investigation, but "this is how it might have happened i guess it seems probably."

                    take for instance the first sentence in section 2.4 of the building 7 report, which itself is titled "THE PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE":



                    in other words, no investigation of the actual crime scene or the actual physical evidence from that crime scene, no analysis of the actual collapses of the buildings of which there is also ample video evidence, just "this is what might have happened...prior to collapse." they do try a little harder at least in their this-is-how-it-might-have-happened efforts in the building 7 report compared to the report for the towers by building a computer model of...how it might have happened. sadly though they have refused to make their input data for this computer model available for peer review (remember how this part is not optional when it comes to legitimate science) even when attempts were made to force their hand via FOIA requests, which were denied on the grounds that "it might jeopardize public safety."



                    and when we're done citing investigations that never happened and analyses that dont exist, now we are back to just saying random things as we go that have no basis in anything. clearly those buildings were not literal houses of cards, and clearly you are either unfamiliar with or misrepresenting the actual construction of the buildings.

                    of course far more pertinent than the exact mass of the buildings is the extreme degree of destruction performed on that mass. as i have already noted, that mass could not have destroyed itself so completely in the way that it did by way of a simple gravitational collapse. the actual physics of the actual real world just simply do not work that way. it is physically impossible for those buildings to have accelerated straight down through themselves, all the while pulverizing themselves nearly completely to dust, without more energy being applied than would have been available in a gravitational collapse.
                    And that is your problem right there, you don't believe that 2+2=4. In fact 2+2 does equal 4. We know enough about the physical properties of those buildings. They were designed and built, they were not magically manifested. It's not as if the structures had to be reverse engineered to understand what happened. We -know- how they were designed.
                    Last edited by duby229; 13 March 2018, 12:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      you are of course just trolling, but i'll respond anyway. knowing how something was designed and knowing how something was destroyed are in fact two entirely separate things. regardless, even when you think you know something about an event, like "person A shot person B in the face" or "the terrorists blew up the plane," a thorough investigation is still always performed.



                      what are they doing in this photograph, meticulously reassembling this plane? have they never seen a plane before? surely it is known how planes are designed?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X