Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
editor said:
I didn't ask you to "break down the exact location of every single drop of fuel." I asked you to clarify your earlier answer which is somewhat ambiguous and unclear. The reason I ask is because there appears to be a huge contradiction between the event depicted in the NIST tower 2 attack simulation and the actual reality which was multiply captured on film in real time and space as it happened. Take a look at this piece of video footage. If you manipulate it one frame at a time you will be able to see the aircraft wreckage and kerosine fireball exploding out through the east face of the tower.
http://www.wagkingdom.com/wag/the_split_second_error.htm
Now take another look at the NIST simulation (Real Player download)
http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/...ne_segment_2.rm
So, do you believe that the NIST computer simulation of the tower 2 attack accurately describes the trajectory and angle of the aircraft as it impacted and passed through the building... Yes or No?
fela fan said:
I've seen it. I'm not forgetful.
I remember not agreeing with any of it.
What now?
BF could you check the address on the real player file?
Thanks for the reply, freke.freke said:
What I mean is that in the post I quoted you impugned the "Propaganda model” put forward by Chomsky and Herman (mostly Herman, actually)- implying that it was conspiratorial in essence:
freke said:
Now, this, as I said, is plain wrong. The model does nothing of the sort- in fact it explicitly does the opposite. It treats the media systems in a free-market way, and illustrates a mechanism that selects for certain opinions and perspectives. It then goes on to show this with carefully chosen paired examples of similar events occurring around the same time, drawing out how the systems responded to each.
Now, I called you on this, and you haven't responded to it. I asked you to “defend” (you know what I mean) the statement you made above. I don't see how it applies to the propaganda model.
editor
hiraethified
Do you view the 'wagkingdom.com' as having serious and credible journalistic practices, then?bigfish said:
Linked from every page on that site:
"TreeIncarnation - The Science of Meaning
The Future is Mind.
The Past is Matter.
Creation started within the
Mirror Plane and extended
away on both sides. "
" Comet Side-Effects May Hit Earth Soon
Then in the early hours of Thursday morning around 6:30am the comet discussion board inexplicably went offline about thirty minutes after participants discovered that NASA had been faking webimages of the comet's passage past the sun on the morning of the 18th February......
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/gulu/future/neat_flyby1.htm
"A Cubed IO-Sphere Creates the World - Breakthrough discovery of an Inside-Out Universe!"
http://www.treeincarnation.com/inside-out-universe.htm
.. and lots more of the usual bonkers, barking sci-fi, UFO, deluded drivel from fucking certifiable conspiraloons.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
What would be the point of my replying if it wouldn't make any difference?bigfish said:
Do you honestly care what I think? Would you honestly take it into consideration in terms of your own worldview if I said "no, I think this, which is not what you seem to"? Because that's not the impression that I get, I'm afraid, certainly not from your posts accusing me of just accepting whatever the USG says etc. If that's your opinion and perception I really can't see why I should bother.
If you wouldn't be affected by what I say, why would we waste each others' time here? I don't have any problem with agreeing to disagree; I know that I agree with you on several other points, I take these things as they come.
rorymac said:You are a simpleton ?
And you are beginning to be tiresome, rory.
Bugger off, there's a good chap.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There was a full moon last night.
Raisin D'etre said:
It looks as though the link address has been changed to: http://realex.nist.gov:8080/ramgen/wtc_plane_segment_2.rm
Here's the video segment again:
http://www.kathymcmahon.utvinternet.com/wag/images/wag/cnn2ndplane_clip[2].mpeg
Could you (and anyone else who is interested) take a look and compare the simulation with the video footage and inform the forum of anything you might find unusual or contradictory?
editor
hiraethified
If you're not too busy with TreeIncarnation, checking out world-creating Cubed IO-Sphere and looking out for the comet side-effects that may be hitting the earth, perhaps you might finally answer my question and get to the point and tell me what you think really happened?bigfish said:
I don't see why you should expect people to start "manipulating frames" without telling them the significance of what it is they're supposed to be seeing and what your opinion is on the subject.
OK. In the video - the plane slams into the tower at an angle - it clearly looks like it crashes through several floors at this angle; secondly, there's a huge explosion - one out of the face of the building that the plane enters and another massive fireball explodes out of the right side of the building.
In the simulation, the plane's entry to the building appears level; it also shows the fuel being dispersed throughout the interior of tower however most of the fuel is dispersed in the wake of the plane, i.e. through the face of the building the plane has just entered, with some going through the opposite wall. No fuel is depicted as exiting on the right-hand side of the building.
This simulation does not match the actual event. So, what now?
In the simulation, the plane's entry to the building appears level; it also shows the fuel being dispersed throughout the interior of tower however most of the fuel is dispersed in the wake of the plane, i.e. through the face of the building the plane has just entered, with some going through the opposite wall. No fuel is depicted as exiting on the right-hand side of the building.
This simulation does not match the actual event. So, what now?
So they didn't plot the angles exactly right; most probably for reasons of complexity (nobody thought a huge fuel-laden airliner would be hitting the WTC at high speed when they designed it.)Raisin D'etre said:
The angle may have had some impact. But so insignificant, given the huge forward momentum, that it was too little to even bother about.
If so much aviation fuel exploded outside the building, it's reasonable to assume a fairly large amount ignited deep within, given the speed the planes hit the WTC.
editor said:
Compared to your own "journalistic practices" wagkingdom's appear superior, in my opinion.
Ah, I see you have decided to deploy your trusty old 'discredit the site tactic' again. But what about the actual video segment editor? Do you agree that the CNN footage I have provided accurately reflects the tower 2 event or don't you? Do you think the segment is a forgery? Yes or No? If yes, then the only really credible way for you to demonstrate this is for you to produce comparative footage of the same incident taken from a source that you do deem reliable (a source like the BBC for example). Then, one by one, you can point out the obvious differences between them in proper concrete terms, rather than simply arguing as you have by way of ambiguous abstract statements. Can you do that?
editor
hiraethified
Bwahaha! That site's a fucking fruitloop haven for terminally deluded conspiraloons and only a complete nutjob would find anything of worth in bonkers yarns of World Creating Cubed IO-Spheres and "TreeIncarnations" (wha'?!)!bigfish said:
How much longer are you going to continue wriggling about in an attempt to avoid actually giving your opinion of what happened?bigfish said:
Why are you unable to get to the point and tell me what you think really happened so I could have some clue of what you're waffling on about?
Science Daily (sorry for long c&p). But it proves the point that these huge planes hit the buildings at such high speed (well over 500 mph) that the devastation was on a scale no planner could have imagined.
Loki said:
I'm not sure you can say it 'proves the point'. According to the report it does, but that is not necessarily 'proof'. But that's not my main point. Which is:
What then brought WTC7 down loki? Certainly no huge plane, no huge force flying into it, no fire to melt its steel. Perhaps it was windy that day? I've heard it said on here that it went down in sympathy for its two cousin buildings, ie coz of the huge force that hit the other buildings several hundred feet in the air, this caused the foundations of the two towers to rock sufficiently to bring down a third building, the WTC7. But not any other buildings nearby, only the other WTC building.
We are being asked to believe that WTC7 fell down due to ground movements from the plane collisions on other towers. We are being asked to understand that only that building could fall down like this, and not one other building near the two towers that were flown into could fall down.
I don't believe this, yet you and others on this forum do. It would be intersting to hear you try and persuade me to believe it could have happened this way, ie the way the USG told us it happened.
Perhaps editor could even drum up some evidence to back up the theory of how WTC7 collapsed...
the last one on Chomsky ... honest
Kropotkin, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse and just wish to repeat Chomsky theories, but I have repeatedly said that I am not going to "defend" my views on Chomsky to nth degree.
I used to read a lot of his stuff and then I started to check his use of sources and found he manipulated a lot of them, so I stopped believing in what he said and moved on to better authors that did not.
However, if you find his media model persuasive, that's cool, and I may well have misrepresented it (something I also have stated repeatedly over the last couple of pages), but for me everything that Chomsky does is tainted by his fixed ideological position and his frequent disregard for fair reporting.
Often one finds events are selected and reported by him to fit his own (incredibly successful) propaganda model, which suggests that either he is too stupid to realise that he misrepresents the facts; or believes that his polemics re-balance the debate, so he can overstate his position; or is consciously trying to create an entire alternative meta-narrative, one which is based explicitly on rejecting every single component of existing narratives.
Putting that to one side, for me, if there's a diamond in the rough, in the sense that his media model 'works', that's interesting, but for me that's not enough to wade though his books again. There really are better people out there.
Kropotkin, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse and just wish to repeat Chomsky theories, but I have repeatedly said that I am not going to "defend" my views on Chomsky to nth degree.
I used to read a lot of his stuff and then I started to check his use of sources and found he manipulated a lot of them, so I stopped believing in what he said and moved on to better authors that did not.
However, if you find his media model persuasive, that's cool, and I may well have misrepresented it (something I also have stated repeatedly over the last couple of pages), but for me everything that Chomsky does is tainted by his fixed ideological position and his frequent disregard for fair reporting.
Often one finds events are selected and reported by him to fit his own (incredibly successful) propaganda model, which suggests that either he is too stupid to realise that he misrepresents the facts; or believes that his polemics re-balance the debate, so he can overstate his position; or is consciously trying to create an entire alternative meta-narrative, one which is based explicitly on rejecting every single component of existing narratives.
Putting that to one side, for me, if there's a diamond in the rough, in the sense that his media model 'works', that's interesting, but for me that's not enough to wade though his books again. There really are better people out there.
I'm not being obtuse, you have said something that appears to me to be based on a very ideological rejection of Chomsky, but more importantly have said something unsupportable about the Herman-Chomsky media propaganda model. I have asked you what leads you to reject it, and what lead you to interpret it as relying on conspiracies by "the elite", and you have evaded the question. To have been so thoroughly convinced of this I would have thought you had at least had the intellectual honesty to acquaint yourself with what you are dismissing, but it would appear that you are bluffing. I'm not being obtuse, I just can't reach any other conclusion from what you have written. If not, perhaps you can provide me with some reasoning?
You have just repeated something 4 times now, despite me clarifying exactly what I am asking you. Nowhere have I referred to his analysis of events, just to the media model. On his analysis of events: I have often looked for decent critiques of him, and have thus far only seen things like what you have done- repeating slurs against him, never giving any decent concrete examples that show his entire methodology and interpretation to be incorrect, occassionally picking up on an incorrect figure or statistic, magnifying it out of all proportion to it's importance to his writings as if it discredits everything...
You haven't said anything of substance on this yet.
You have just repeated something 4 times now, despite me clarifying exactly what I am asking you. Nowhere have I referred to his analysis of events, just to the media model. On his analysis of events: I have often looked for decent critiques of him, and have thus far only seen things like what you have done- repeating slurs against him, never giving any decent concrete examples that show his entire methodology and interpretation to be incorrect, occassionally picking up on an incorrect figure or statistic, magnifying it out of all proportion to it's importance to his writings as if it discredits everything...
You haven't said anything of substance on this yet.
pphhhttt....thats rich coming from you kipper.....bigfish said:
I don't think you have even given us your version of what you think happened yet have you?....
Why should he FF?...he's not the one making claims at to what happened...
If you were asking me, I'd say, I don't know what happened, because I haven't studied any of the Engineer reports, or talked to eye witness's etc... and until I see any conclusive proof to show otherwise I either have to a) assume the engineers were telling the truth (unless they are in on the conspiracy as well, which is why I said what I said on the previous page) or b) just say well, I don't know what happened and will make up my mind definitely if and when I see something that enables me to do so...
...which means that I'm definetly not going to accept some pathetic dodgy crap from a nobody off the internet.
Wess said:
Why should he? Well, editor will know why i said that. To let you also know, i'm throwing back at editor one of his tactics over the last two years or so: constantly demand evidence. But whenever i ask for any evidence to support the conspiracy theory presented us by the USG, then none is put forward.
Except to say that there's no way the USG would kill their own, which of course is nothing to do with evidence. In fact that's what the whole bloody argument in favour of the USG version of evensts stands on. Very feeble indeed.
Have you seen any evidence to back up the USG version of events? Do you accept their version, which basically comes down to (gross) incompetence?
And if you do, are you calling for bush and others to be tried in court over their extreme negligence while at the helm of the country? Coz that's what happens in all other walks of life.
Wess said:
And who on this forum do you suggest does? Coz anyone who does that would have a very short supply of intelligence, and i can't remember seeing anyone round these parts so lacking in the brain cells.
So exactly what do you mean by claiming you won't do such an idiotic thing? No-one here does it.
And everybody is a somebody, they can never be a nobody, or else they simply don't exist.
kropotkin, it seems terribly difficult for you to comprehend what I am saying, but I guess our conversation only confirms to me why there's no point discussing Chomsky.
I have not made an "ideological rejection of Chomsky", instead I have found that using his books for my own work (academic and professional) is of limited efficacy because of his approach towards his source material. To be as kind to the man as I possibly can, let's say that he and I have a different approach towards sources, and how one uses them to build an political viewpoint.
I have not "evaded the question" on this, but it seems you want to impose upon me a perspective that I do not have, namely that I am rejecting his books on ideological grounds.
I am not "bluffing" or being "intellectually dishonest", instead I am being very honest in admitting that though I probably have read around six or seven of his books, and written a number of essays and articles based upon his work, I have not touched his stuff for at least five years, which means that while I have a good idea of what his approach is, I can be faulted by those with a more detailed and up-to-date knowledge of his books. And any such misrepresentations I am happy to admit.
You ask me - again! - why I reject his media model, and I reply - again! - that I am not rejecting it, in fact I admit it might be totally and utterly true, but because of the author's use of source material I frankly can't be bothered to wade through his work all over again to find out.
I know to many people Chomsky is the hub around which all political analysis revolves, but that is not my approach. What Chomsky does or says is of little interest to me today; maybe this is a mistake of mine, maybe not. But, as I say, I think there are better, more interesting writers out there, so I read them instead. I do feel it a little sad that so many of my peers do treat his work in such a referential way, and do not read much that challenges their viewpoints, but that is how it works I guess: politics is a tribal game for most.
I am not going to 'prove' to you that Chomsky misuses his source material, instead I assume that any serious political analyst will do this work for themselves, as they should for any piece of writing they read. I made my conclusions, it is up to you to make yours.
I have not made an "ideological rejection of Chomsky", instead I have found that using his books for my own work (academic and professional) is of limited efficacy because of his approach towards his source material. To be as kind to the man as I possibly can, let's say that he and I have a different approach towards sources, and how one uses them to build an political viewpoint.
I have not "evaded the question" on this, but it seems you want to impose upon me a perspective that I do not have, namely that I am rejecting his books on ideological grounds.
I am not "bluffing" or being "intellectually dishonest", instead I am being very honest in admitting that though I probably have read around six or seven of his books, and written a number of essays and articles based upon his work, I have not touched his stuff for at least five years, which means that while I have a good idea of what his approach is, I can be faulted by those with a more detailed and up-to-date knowledge of his books. And any such misrepresentations I am happy to admit.
You ask me - again! - why I reject his media model, and I reply - again! - that I am not rejecting it, in fact I admit it might be totally and utterly true, but because of the author's use of source material I frankly can't be bothered to wade through his work all over again to find out.
I know to many people Chomsky is the hub around which all political analysis revolves, but that is not my approach. What Chomsky does or says is of little interest to me today; maybe this is a mistake of mine, maybe not. But, as I say, I think there are better, more interesting writers out there, so I read them instead. I do feel it a little sad that so many of my peers do treat his work in such a referential way, and do not read much that challenges their viewpoints, but that is how it works I guess: politics is a tribal game for most.
I am not going to 'prove' to you that Chomsky misuses his source material, instead I assume that any serious political analyst will do this work for themselves, as they should for any piece of writing they read. I made my conclusions, it is up to you to make yours.
thanks for adressing what i wanted you to- I was specifically asking about the media model which you said relied on conspiracies within the elite- you have admitted that you were as good as making it up as you went along. Fine.
I find his other work dull and repetative, but haven't found any decent critiques of it yet- it seems that he comes to unpalatable conclusions and is rejected on that basis (If you think otherwise, can you direct me to any convincing critiques of something substantial of his?).
I don't base anything on him- I find him implicitly statist to be honest.
I find his other work dull and repetative, but haven't found any decent critiques of it yet- it seems that he comes to unpalatable conclusions and is rejected on that basis (If you think otherwise, can you direct me to any convincing critiques of something substantial of his?).
I don't base anything on him- I find him implicitly statist to be honest.
Similar threads
- Locked