Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
$125 for a spaceship? Where did they get it, Walmart?
-Gumboot
Hehehe....my bad. $125 million
Norman Minetta
- Thread starter timmyg
- Start date
Hehehe....my bad. $125 million
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
All I can say is it's about time you Americans crossed to the dark side and went metric.
Won't someone think of the spaceships? Dear lord! Please someone think of the spaceships!
-Gumboot
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
We will never go metric because it.....makes sense!
As for the Mars Climate Observer, NASA Scientist Group A makes calculations in inches while NASA Scientist Group B makes calculations in centimeters resulting in a very, very confused spaceship burning up in the Martian atmosphere.
But according to the CTers, it's these same evil (yet brilliant) NASA scientists that can create the WTC destroying star wars beam.
Its about time you Aussies got your toilets to flush the correct direction.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
[derail]
This is totally off topic but your post reminded me of the crash of a 767 in 1983 that was nearly catastrophic (but for expert piloting, the passengers and crew would probably all have died) because of a faulty conversion from metric to imperial or vice versa shortly after Canada went metric.
The plane ran out of fuel at 26,000 feet and far short of its destination because of faulty conversions at the time of refuelling.
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/gliding_into_infamy.htm
Basically, what happened is that the ground crew at Dorval made a mistake converting the fuel density into weight, and although the plane was carrying the correct 20,345 units of fuel, those were pounds instead of kilos.
[/derail]
That's not supposed to get out. The dimensional stressor beam, which outputs alternating metric and imperial measurement fields, changing the length of an object alternately from 25.4 mm to 1 inch, at rates varying from a million cycles per second to a MHz, is supposed to be a secret. Blabbermouth.
Mince
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Its about time you Aussies got your toilets to flush the correct direction.
I'm sorry, did you just call me an Aussie?
-Gumboot
Technically speaking, the Mars Climate Observer anomaly was a mismatch between software expecting metric (JPL) and a parameter file containing thruster values given in Imperial units (Lockheed Colorado). And both sides failing to check with each other.
Also the cost was higher -- $328 million. A measly $125 million will barely get you a Moon lander. Launch vehicle alone was about $90 million, not counting upper stage.
It happens. Try getting a mathematics professor to do arithmetic on a blackboard and watch the results.
Nooooooo!!!
It was a conspiracy!!
Everything has to be a conspiracy. We CANNOT have random chance and error intruding into our perfectly ordered world...it's just not....nice!
OK, so govt spooks in an effort to prevent yet another mission to mars which might discover evidence of alien civilisation/our secret bases/a chocolate bar factory cause two of the contractors to mismatch their system of measurement by intercepting emails and changing them while simultaneously planting explosives within the concrete core of the space craft...just to be certain.
OK I feel better now.
It was a conspiracy!!
Everything has to be a conspiracy. We CANNOT have random chance and error intruding into our perfectly ordered world...it's just not....nice!
OK, so govt spooks in an effort to prevent yet another mission to mars which might discover evidence of alien civilisation/our secret bases/a chocolate bar factory cause two of the contractors to mismatch their system of measurement by intercepting emails and changing them while simultaneously planting explosives within the concrete core of the space craft...just to be certain.
OK I feel better now.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
you guys might want to edit the wikipedia entry for norman mineta.
I'm still confused about his testimony. Although it certainly isn't as simple as it initially appeared to me. so thanks for pointing out the details.
For it to be an 'inside-job' I don't beleive that all participants have to be aware of the whole picture. I also think many of the people working in government are completely immorral, so I don't think they'd feel bad about covering something like this up. I don't see too much difference between executing 3000 americans at the WTC and sending thousands of troops to die in a war based on lies. This is more of a social/cultural debate and I can't be arsed continuing debating things like this here as the conversation isn't really getting anywhere. I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
I'm still confused about his testimony. Although it certainly isn't as simple as it initially appeared to me. so thanks for pointing out the details.
For it to be an 'inside-job' I don't beleive that all participants have to be aware of the whole picture. I also think many of the people working in government are completely immorral, so I don't think they'd feel bad about covering something like this up. I don't see too much difference between executing 3000 americans at the WTC and sending thousands of troops to die in a war based on lies. This is more of a social/cultural debate and I can't be arsed continuing debating things like this here as the conversation isn't really getting anywhere. I'm going to try and find another forum that isn't 911truth cultiness or hardcore JREF skepticism.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Good luck. From what I have seen in my travels, those aren't the two options. The two options are '911truth cultiness' and 'rational people'.
If you stick around here you have the opportunity to clear up your confusion. Relying entirely on wikipedia for your view of the world is not going to help with your confusion.
The difference is that you can understand how people can rationalise the war - they aren't engaging in a pre-meditated attempt to murder those troops, in fact they hope that none of the troops will die. Nevertheless they can rationalise that it is necessary to put those troops in danger. You may not agree with them (I certainly think they are wrong), but surely you can see how it is easier for somebody to think they're doing the right thing in these situations?
The other important distinction is the level of evidence: there is plenty of evidence for the Iraq war; for serious flaws in the intelligence leading up to it; and for the failure to find WMDs. The supposed evidence of an 'inside job' is lagely based on incorrect and selective anaylisis of photographs and videos; inept scientific analysis of the physics of collapsing buildings; and focussing on testimony that contradicts the official version while ignoring testimony that supports it.
The conversation isn't getting anywhere because you are not prepared to do the work of familiarising yourself with the evidence. You aren't prepared to talk about the details of the matter. To assume that the only debate when it come to the validity of a piece of evidence is a "social/cultural" one is intellectual laziness in the extreme.
If I agree with you that the US government is capable of great evil (and, with reservations, I do) how does that make the Mineta testimony more relevant? Surely it stands or falls on its own merits?
Furthermore, you haven't even been very clear about what you think Mineta's testimony indicates about the events and what Cheney was doing.
Again, you're implying that the members here are rejecting evidence of a conspiracy on principle. That does a great disservice to the time and effort that many people have put in to analysing the claims made by both sides.
There is a lot of information in this forum and I think you could learn a lot by staying. If you do your research and can offer a substantive criticism of any part of the official account of then you will receive a great deal of respect and we can guarantee an interesting discussion.
However, on the subject of Mineta you have shown only ignorance so far and rather than confront this and learn about the subject you have attempted to derail the discussion into a general political discussion and refused to reply to specific points about the evidence. This forum is hardcore skeptic only in the sense that nobody can expect to make a broad statement and not be expected to back it up.
Edited to add:
While I was typing all that, you edited your original post to add:
And I'm glad you added that. I apologise if what I read above comes accross too harshly - and I still think it would be useful to hang around here and talk as dispassionately as possible about specific problems you have with the official version. Do it as a mental exercise, to gain information about why people here have reached the conclusions they have - don't try and win the argument or have a political discussion. Once you've got a good idea of peoples reasoning then you can start to argue from solid fondations.
All the best, anyway.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Unfortunately what you believe and actually prove are far apart. I'm sorry you have also got such a dim view of those that work in Government and class them as immoral and capable of covering up mass murder of their fellow countrymen by thier co workers.
It appears you see absolutely no difference between war and mass murder of Americans carried about by Americans. Please allow me to enlighten you with one blatant difference.
Wars are fought between nations; they generally are fought between the armed forces of those nations. Some times wars erupt inside nations, these are called civil wars. Wars in general are a very bad thing and generally speaking lots of innocent people get caught up in them and get killed. Wars between nations generally erupt because of disputes over borders, differences of opinions between leaders and can on occasion erupt through the most trivial of things. The war inside Iraq was and is part of longer champagne stretching back to the first Gulf war. Whether you believe the present situation there is immoral or not is not the point. The point is that it is being fought, rightly or wrongly. The decision to fight it has been made and has been made openly and publicly.Some people support the decisions made, some do not.
Mass murder of your own citizens on the other hand is not like a war, it is a crime, the most heinous crime imaginable. There is no excuse; there is no get out clause. It is cold blooded, coldly calculated, heartless mass murder. This you accuse the US of, this you do with the slenderest of evidence. The decisions to do this are not made openly and publicly.Nobody supports mass murder, period.
I am disappointed in your views and I hope you find another forum that will indulge you in your theories. I actually think it is commendable that people here will not condemn the US for mass murder without any evidence.
Maybe you are better off over at the British truth movement.
Good day.
Last edited:
Well said. And nominated
Thank you.
That's made me go back and take all the typos out...
well i think i was encouraged to derail the debate a bit due to being attacked as to why I was asking this question.
I also said 'I don't see too much difference' between war on lies and countries attacking their own people.. I didn't say they were exactly the same thing.
I am guilty of being lazy by asking you guys for your opinion on here (as I know you all do a lot of research which is pro-the official story) and not searching through threads. yes. sorry. I am lazy sometimes.
I also said 'I don't see too much difference' between war on lies and countries attacking their own people.. I didn't say they were exactly the same thing.
I am guilty of being lazy by asking you guys for your opinion on here (as I know you all do a lot of research which is pro-the official story) and not searching through threads. yes. sorry. I am lazy sometimes.
If you'd said "Would just like to know what skeptics here think about Norman Minettas testimony" then I doubt that anyone wouild have given you a hard time.
What you actually said was
timmyg said:
The second part of the question is an assumption about the testimony - so effectively you're making a statement as well as asking a question. It was this statement that was attacked and not you.
To reiterate, even if we only go by Mineta's testimony it indicates that he believes that the order was to shoot down Flight 77.
In other words, Mineta's testimony indicates the opposite of what you said it did, and you have to do some pretty convoluted mental gymnastics to interpret it as a "no shoot down" order.
You're resorting to a semantic argument. Nevertheless, your implication was that sending troops to war based on lies is enough like murdering your own people to indicate that that a government is capable of murdering its own people, because it sent people to war on a lie. Whether you say "I don't see too much difference" or "they are exactly the same" is irrelevant, you are arguing an equivalence - that one indicates the possibility of another. My argument is that the justication that someone can use to start a war is significantly easier than that used to deliberately murder their own people.
Also, you can't assume that the US Government knew there were no WMDs - I'm pretty sure they assumed they would find something (they certianly looked pretty stupid when they didn't), their lie was to state that the evidence for WMDs was conclusive when it wasn't. Add to that the fact that they saw other reasons for a war, which the UN would not have accpeted, I can still see how they would justify the war to themselves, even knowing that the WMD evidence was week.
I can't however, see a self-justifcation for the events of 9/11 in terms of what was to be gained versus the cost in US lives that makes any sense to imagine for any part of the US Government.
I'm going to make a new post about plausible hypotheses that clarifies some of my thinking about this. Briefly, I think you're muddling your argument by trying to talk about two things simultaneously.
I was only accusing you of laziness on one point:
maccy said:
Other than that, I don't think you need to apologise. Edit to add: but you can't expect to be able to argue with people without getting facts straight first. If you're asking questions, fine. If you're trying to make a point, expect to get called on your lack of knowledge.
It's fine by me to ask questions, but see my fist point about combining them with assumptions.
Finally, how can research be pro the official story? Evidence is evidence. Presenting it selectively can give it bias, as can interpretation; but carrying out research can only add to the available evidence.
Last edited: