Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - mahogany

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
1
Wanted to understand from Flat Earth Space Travel Conspiracy theorists what they believe in the following in terms of how the space travel conspiracy is managed by NASA and other space agencies or companies like Boeing:

1. How far up the employee chain of command (within NASA, SpaceX, or any other space agency) is one aware of (or notified of) the space travel "lie" and hiding the truth? Is it all employees or just senior level employees beyond a certain management pay grade or management level? What level do you believe it starts at?

2. What do you believe is Boeing's motivation for faking vent leak issues on their Starliner capsule during fake orbit in space and during fake space docking of the crew capsule to the ISS? Boeing has recently developed a kind of poor reputation as it pertains to recent Quality issues from their airliners (i.e. door hinges not being bolted on all the way and coming off during flight). What would be their motivation to faking things like vent leak issues on their Starliner capsule if it's only going to continue to negatively impact their quality reputation?

3. In the attached video, how do each of these astronauts appear to be weightless; if on strings how are they moving about, tumbling about, and rotating about without each of their strings getting tangled up? If they are in an airplane that is doing a parabolic maneuver to simulate weightlessness, at what altitude does the airplane need to be at to be able to simulate continuous weightlessness?   

4. In the attached video, do you believe the female astronaut's are using some kind of hairspray to get their hair to behave in the manner it is or is the hair CGI or an AI simulation to fake space travel weightlessness? Or, do you believe they are wearing wigs?




2
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: June 01, 2024, 04:21:52 PM »
I think this is the right place for this.
Are you aware of The Final Experiment?

https://www.the-final-experiment.com/

The aim is to send one globe earther and one flat earther to Antarctica to observe the 24 hour sun - which would be an issue for the monopole model. Or, if it doesn't occur would be an issue for the globe.

They have invited high profile people from both sides to participate - I didn't actually see anyone from here on the list, I think they're mostly going for YouTubers.
They say they're going to provide the funding for one person from each side, but others can join at their own expense - it was something like $30,000, so not cheap.

Any thoughts on this? Would any of you have liked to be invited or would be interested in going? Do you think this is a good experiment? If you observed the 24 hour sun in Antarctica would that change your mind about FE or would it just steer you towards a different FE model like the bi-polar one?


Have you not learned anything?

Do you really think that an observational experiment in Antarctica (24 hours sunlight) is going to end up moving the needle or changing anyone's mind either way (for those that are globe earth believers vs. those that are flat earth believers?)

The TFES wiki already provides a possible explanation for 24 hours sunlight in Antarctica via possible light patterns as demonstrated by the YouTube video showing the desktop experiment. If 24 hours is reported back, this may likely be (one of) the possible explanations you will receive.
 

3
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.


We may be crossing wires and apologize if it's coming across as trying to obfuscate.

I have been referring to the Model Setup as being "highly inaccurate".
I noticed that you are questioning me about the Depiction as being "highly inaccurate".

It could very well be that light patterns do behave as Depicted in the YouTube video. Regardless, I was only referring to the need for a better model setup, where Earth's atmosphere is not represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and the Sun was more accurately represented in scale as per FET.
 
In my own example, it could very well be that rocket engines perform and "push" in a vacuum. I would also be referring to the need for a better model setup, if someone were to try and represent the vacuum of space using air (i.e. launching a model rocket in their backyard).

This site has been better than most all of the nonsense Facebook sites I've seen where debate doesn't even seem to occur; I don't want to get kicked off of TFES. Am only trying to understand and have good spirited debate. 


4
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.
What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.
Ah, right...

Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.


As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane. My question to Tom was what would his prediction be regarding light patterns if the Earth's atmosphere was not incorrectly represented as a solid piece of magnifying glass (because the Earth's atmosphere is not solid glass) and the spotlight Sun was not incorrectly represented as 1:1 scale the size of the flat Earth plane (because FET does not have the local Sun this large in scale).

In terms of my comment about there not being a unified FE model, I am only referencing what is stated in the FES Wiki. The Wiki states "here is a picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, Flat Earth. Other maps representing various Flat Earth models can be found on our Flat Earth Maps page." The Layout of Continents section further goes on to describe the main point of contention among Flat Earthers regarding the several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica. Images of various different Flat Earth geographic models are then shown. This leads me to conclude that there is not a unifying FE model. 
       

5
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.
In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.


The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model. Some FE models have firmament domes and some models do not; some FE models are represented as an infinite plane and other models are not; some FE models are represented as mono-pole and other models are not; some models are represented with Antarctica being a ring of ice around the perimeter of the flat earth plane with the North Pole in the center, while other models are not, etc.       
                         

6
It does not matter that the model is made out of glass or if it is made out of mathematical equations for how the light behaves. It's a model - a representation of a scheme. If it were a mathematical equation, would you be asking where the equations are in the universe? That would obviously be very silly to do that. Hence, it does not matter if it is made of glass or not.


Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.


7
Quote
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.


"More accurately represented" simply means not using solid magnifying glass to simulate our atmosphere and updating the scale of the small spotlight Sun to be consistent with FET and not be a large spotlight Sun that is 1:1 scale to the flat Earth plane.

If there is an opportunity to have a better model... than such opportunities to pursue and use a better model should be done. I think you and I would both agree on this.

In terms of how light from celestial bodies behaves, I haven't made any assumptions... my question to you was: if the model was updated to be consistent with a small spotlight Sun (as per FET) and an atmosphere that is not made of solid magnifying glass material (as you and I both agree on) than what would be your prediction in terms of light patterns?
       

8
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.

Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. No one has studied large area light paths in a controlled setting (except for arguably Samuel Rowbotham). The interest here is that there is a configuration of light bending that can explain this. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it.


Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

Do you think the updated model would show the same patterns of light?
   

9
The above YouTube video re-posted by Tom (and within the Wiki) is a highly inaccurate model to reference as any kind of mechanism or basis for atmospheric phenomena:

- The model uses a solid glass dome magnifying lens; Earth's atmosphere does not consist of solid magnifying glass material.

- The local spotlight Sun is being represented by a flashlight whose diameter is about 1:1 scale the size of the Earth. If the flat Earth plane is let's say 8,000 miles in diameter and the size of the local Sun is 30 miles in diameter, than the scale of the small spotlight Sun to the flat Earth plane should be 1:266.


10
A great tragedy has occurred as the true killers of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman will now go scot-free.

I'm a little confused about what this is meant to imply. Having already been acquitted once, O. J. was already guaranteed to never face criminal punishment for his murders no matter how long he lived. The only tragedy here is that O. J. didn't die a long time ago.

Also, everyone has the right to a vigorous and effective legal defense, even the obviously guilty. Blame the police and prosecution for bungling the case, blame the jury for arguably making a dumb decision, but don't blame the defense for being good at their jobs.


I think Action80 is just saying that O.J. Simpson died without ever facing ANY consequences of what he did. I believe he did lose a civil trial and was found guilty which is kind of a consolation but didn't really put O.J. behind bars.

O.J. used to say something along the lines of how he was going to dedicate his life to finding the true killer(s). He really never lived up to that, instead playing golf the rest of his years.

It's true that O.J. had a right to a legal defense but in this case I think we all know who the killer was. He truly was a POS.

11
Based on this past Monday's eclipse, I wanted to inquire about a flat earth model that could show how that particular Apr. 8 eclipse worked.

- In the TFES animation model, the Sun and Moon rotate above the flat earth plane in a circular clock-wise motion (sun "rising" east and setting in the "west" / moon moving in the same circular "east" to "west" general path).

- But, the narrow path of the Apr. 8 total eclipse took an opposite direction (southwest to northeast) path over the United States.

Is there a flat earth animation model that shows how the Sun and Moon moving in a Clockwise ("east" to "west") direction produces an eclipse whose path moves in a southwest (Texas) to northeast (Maine) direction over the US?

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 11:30:37 PM »
The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.

He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.


It appears that what was said in the Angry Ranting section turns out to be correct... that I am debating our lowest tier debate poster and a large rock while sadly losing an uphill battle against conspiracy theory circular logic.

You have my permission to have the last word.



 

13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:25:17 PM »
From A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center-7:

"• Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building, as asserted by
NIST. In order to allow for the observed collapse of the east penthouse approximately 7
seconds prior to the collapse of the rest of the structure, these columns needed to have
failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no
documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns
79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse (Section 4.3).
•The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core
columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore,
the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column
79 could trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse
of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event (Section
4.5).

"According to Appendix C of FEMA’s May 2002 report, a steel member recovered from
WTC 7 was found to have experienced corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and
sulfidation at 1,000°C, resulting in the formation of a liquid eutectic (see Figure 1.8).
Researchers have hypothesized that the presence of thermate, which is a form of thermite
incendiary that includes sulfur, would explain the sulfidation and formation of a liquid
eutectic (Jones, 2006 and 2007)."


Why don't you stick to the video.
 

14
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:24:40 PM »
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
             
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?


Where does he say that they weren't utilized?
Wait a minute. You are claiming they were utilized?

Why don't you stick to the video.


I am not claiming they were utilized.

I am claiming that he didn't say that they were not utilized.

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 07:56:03 PM »
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
             
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?


Where does he say that they weren't utilized?

16
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 06:41:35 PM »
If you believe WTC 7 was an inside demolition job, please provide the following so that we can have a good debate around it. These are my initial questions:

- based on your own research, what specific floors and what specific beams or support points were the pyrotechnic explosives placed?
- from the above question, what were the total number of pyrotechnic explosions placed and triggered?
- approximately how much pyrotechnic material (in pounds) was placed at each placement location?
- when do you believe all of these pyrotechnic explosives were placed and how long do you think it would have taken to place all of them?
- why didn't the "government" plant or place the pyrotechnic explosives so that the building fell in a more sideways manner. If they wanted to hide what they were doing, why wouldn't they have done so?
         
LOL! "Pyrotechnic..."

Once again, the thread is about the paper and accompanying models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey.

If you want to address his paper and findings, great.


The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
               

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 01:08:04 AM »
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.

You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.

So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.

Case closed.


You seem to continue to trip over yourself.

Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.

What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."

All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.

You are joking, right?

Or just lying.

Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."

I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.

You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.

Pathetic crap.

Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.

And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...


You've got to stop watching video feeds that are steeped with conspiracy theory content. I believe it's turned you paranoid and has perhaps taken away your ability to apply good rationale critical thought.
"Conspiracy theory content" has nothing to do with it, yet, rather hypocritically, you choose to side with the CONSPIRACY THEORY (and that is exactly what it is, for the mainstream media and all government officials that day plainly stated the Arabs...CONSPIRED) that somehow, someway, Arabs with little to no flight training, were able to commandeer four US domestic airliners, armed with nothing more than boxcutters, and manage to achieve what has never before happened in all of human history; that is, manage to successfully bring down three buildings in a controlled demolition in New York, NY, punch a near perfect hole in the Pentagon through to the inner ring with an aluminum framed jet, and nose dive another into a field in PA, leaving hardly any scarred area on the ground.

Sorry, you should take your own advice and stop peddling clear, utter tripe on these boards.

I watched the video and provided a list of my observations with some critical thought questions as well; you kind of ignored it and continue to shout "liar."

My observation of you is that it seems like you watch said conspiracy video content and then kind of repeat what the people in the video are saying. For example -- in the Jimmy Dore video you uploaded, he says stuff about labelling people who were questioning events as "truthers". You watched his video and are simply repeating exactly what he said.

My other observation of you is that you set a very low bar or low standard of evidence for anything you believe in and set an impossibly high bar of evidence for anything that doesn't align to your world view. For example, in a previous thread you will say things like (paraphrasing): whenever I have looked around / wherever I have looked around the earth looks flat to me, therefore I conclude it must be flat. You say this as a declaration and then kind of close the books. But then, your expectation from "the other side" is impossibly high to such a degree that you resort to calling people liars if, for example, they forget to add units of measure to a sentence.           
You offered absolutely nothing regarding the models presented by Dr. Hulsey, because you have nothing to counter what they demonstrate. The official story regarding the collapse of WTC - 7 on 9/11 is bullshit, plain, pure, and simple. And you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists need to stop pushing your unfounded conspiracy theories. They are lies and when you push them, that makes you a liar.

I repeated what Jimmy Dore said because it is true. The ones pushing the "official story," which is in reality, "a conspiracy theory," are the ones who wanted to mock the people questioning those events as "truthers." Turning a quest for truth about that day into some sort of insult.

Ain't gonna happen here.

I cannot help it if you are unable to post coherent sentences here on the forum. If you do not enjoy having that inability pointed out, perhaps you need to find another sandbox.



If you believe WTC 7 was an inside demolition job, please provide the following so that we can have a good debate around it. These are my initial questions:

- based on your own research, what specific floors and what specific beams or support points were the pyrotechnic explosives placed?
- from the above question, what were the total number of pyrotechnic explosions placed and triggered?
- approximately how much pyrotechnic material (in pounds) was placed at each placement location?
- when do you believe all of these pyrotechnic explosives were placed and how long do you think it would have taken to place all of them?
- why didn't the "government" plant or place the pyrotechnic explosives so that the building fell in a more sideways manner. If they wanted to hide what they were doing, why wouldn't they have done so?
           

18
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 22, 2024, 10:44:52 AM »
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.

You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.

So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.

Case closed.


You seem to continue to trip over yourself.

Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.

What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."

All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.

You are joking, right?

Or just lying.

Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."

I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.

You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.

Pathetic crap.

Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.

And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...


You've got to stop watching video feeds that are steeped with conspiracy theory content. I believe it's turned you paranoid and has perhaps taken away your ability to apply good rationale critical thought.

I watched the video and provided a list of my observations with some critical thought questions as well; you kind of ignored it and continue to shout "liar."

My observation of you is that it seems like you watch said conspiracy video content and then kind of repeat what the people in the video are saying. For example -- in the Jimmy Dore video you uploaded, he says stuff about labelling people who were questioning events as "truthers". You watched his video and are simply repeating exactly what he said.

My other observation of you is that you set a very low bar or low standard of evidence for anything you believe in and set an impossibly high bar of evidence for anything that doesn't align to your world view. For example, in a previous thread you will say things like (paraphrasing): whenever I have looked around / wherever I have looked around the earth looks flat to me, therefore I conclude it must be flat. You say this as a declaration and then kind of close the books. But then, your expectation from "the other side" is impossibly high to such a degree that you resort to calling people liars if, for example, they forget to add units of measure to a sentence.           

19
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 22, 2024, 01:40:15 AM »
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.

You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.

So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.

Case closed.


You seem to continue to trip over yourself.

Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.

What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."

All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.

Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."

I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.

20
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 21, 2024, 04:00:05 AM »

Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."


So, "62,000 lb ........ that is less than 10,000".  Please explain.  Are you introducing gallons into this debate, when jet fuel is measured by mass, just to maintain your assertion that Mahogany is a liar?
It seems jet fuel is measured by more than just mass.

"The cost of fueling your private jet can vary significantly. For example, on May 11, 2022, the IATA per gallon price was $4.82 in North America, $4.01 in Europe, and $3.55 in Asia. At Boston's Hanscomb Field Jet A was selling between $9.79 and $13.38 per gallon. In Oklahoma City it was as low as $7.05 per gallon."

But no. mahogany clarified he meant pounds.

So, if he meant pounds, he meant pounds. He didn't write that.

He also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling.

So, three things.

1. In an earlier post, you conflated my accidentally not adding units of measure (pounds) to my "tens of thousands of kerosene jet fuel" comment as being a lie. I think you know that it was an honest miss on my part (that I forgot to add pounds) and yet you feel the need to inject emotion into the debate by then calling me a liar. Everyone makes typo's and written errors -- just because I accidentally omitted the word gallons from a sentence doesn't mean I am hiding some deep truth or dark sinister secret. If you want to have decent spirited debate, you need to try and leave your emotions at the door. You could have just asked me something like: I think you may have forgotten to add a unit of measure. Can you clarify what that may have been... and then move on. 

2. You then say in your above post that "He (I) also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling." From this statement, you act as though I work at NIST and I performed the computer modeling at NIST. If you want answers about NIST's model, go ask them, I don't work there. I also didn't work on Dr. Hulsey's computer model either and so I can't speak for his model either (although you can ask Dr. Hulsey and the two Chinese PhD students that he did mention worked on it).     

3. I watched the entre video that you posted. Here are my own takeaways.
- Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist. The discussion is already going to have the flavor of conspiracy-ism. No surprise.
- I was happy to see Dr. Hulsey stick to talking about his model at the beginning of the video, but then I became disheartened when he too started pushing conspiracy theories vs. sticking to just the data. He was also asked some direct questions but his answers were very weak. Here are some examples:
        > (JD - Jimmy Dore): "wasn't fuel to the fire aided by office furniture?" (DH - Dr. Hulsey): "not so much".
        > (DH): conspiracy theory of "no people in the planes, done by remote"
        > (DH): conspiracy theory about the Oklahoma City bombing having another bomber
        > (JD): talks about the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being a pretext to war. (DH continuously shaking his head in agreement).
        > (DH): waning and waxing about the fact that hopefully nothing happens to him since he did the simulation and goes on that Dick Cheney is aware he did the simulation. He then says hopefully nothing happens to him and it was all for the people and that he is a Christian. Me - on the show I think he's just enjoying the moment and feels compelled to talk in a sanctimonious kind of way.
- Dr. Hulsey talks about how he found it strange or odd that a Fire Marshall on 9/11 said to a bunch of people: "this building (WTC 7) is coming down shortly." Could it be that because both twin towers collapsed that said Fire Marshall was worried about the same possible occurrence for WTC 7? I wouldn't expect two large sky-scraper buildings to collapse only hundreds of feet away from adjacent buildings (like WTC 7) only to have fire crews tell everyone that it's OK to stay in those buildings and go back to work. The fire crews were likely telling everyone around to get out of ALL adjacent buildings. I was surprised that the Dr. didn't consider this obvious possibility.
- Dr. Hulsey talks about how he found it strange or odd that the two jetliners would have brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2 given that the original building engineers designed the buildings to prevent jets from going through it. Need I remind everyone of what people said about the Titanic before it sank.
- Neither Jimmy Dore nor Dr. Hulsey asked a question I would have asked which is: "if you believe that pyrotechnic explosions caused the buildings to come down, than why weren't said explosions or puffs of pyrotechnic smoke visible as are visible in building demolitions." I was disappointed that no one asked this question. One the one hand, the building fell onto it's own footprint (like a demolition) and on the other hand there were no visible pyrotechnic explosions (unlike a demolition).

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >