Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Ok, for [2] there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to [...]

And [3] If you look at the towers and honestly believe that all that debrit and sections of the building were propelled by a gravity colapse [...]

You were misreading my post. Your remarks are still about point [1], i.e. why the standard theory is supposedly wrong. At point [2] and [3], you prove that it was possible to smuggle large quantities of explosives into the building and place them carefully on the crucial points in the structure, all without raising suspicion.

Quote :

I can't understand this, just because a theory is simpler it automatically gets the vote of everyone? That's crazy.

Not precisely. The simplest theory becomes the default. You can overturn it, but you need to have a good case.

For example, I could claim that the towers fell because they were shot down by an invisible Martian UFO. (Or by the hand of God/Allah. ) It would be a perfect explanation -- except that it goes against Occam's razor.

Quote :

So bin Laden is an enemy of the US? Do you think he is responsible for 9/11? The organising and funding of the operation?

Bin Laden, or any other terrorist would do as an explanation of the facts. They are a much fit than the Bush administration.

Hah, you can't fool me! I know the "9/11 truth movement" is just a government setup, cunningly constructed to hide the REAL truth. Bring all the "evidence" you want, but I ain't fallin' for it! I've seen South Park.

Quote from Electric Eye :

Since Obsolum mentioned it could someone tell me why scawen doesn't want anyone to help out with developing?

Maybe he has seen how life can be in the sweatshops of games development. I don't know how things were at Lionhead (where both Scawen and Eric worked), but for an impression of the dark side, read the EA Spouse story.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

No, you are the one trying to tell me how it is, so you show me any document which clearly states what happened each floor, after the collapse began.

I don't have to prove anything.

The default explanation is simply this: a plane flew into the tower - there was an explosion and a fire - a bit later, the tower collapsed. No complicated math, no report from no commission, just a basic chain of causes & effects. It's the simplest explanation.

Anyone who claims that there is another cause underlying the events, such as controlled demolition, is going against Occam's razor. And because of that, the burden of proof is on him. He will have to come up with a decent underpinning of his hypothesis. Not only must he show that [1] the default cause is not sufficient, he must also prove that [2] the alternative cause was present (there were explosives), and [3] it was sufficient to cause the effects (lots of explosives, well-placed). The conspirationalists have only concentrated on [1] afaik.

And they have the same burden when it comes to human actions and motives. The default explanation (a known enemy of the USA) is so much simpler than the alternative (a government suddenly killing thousands of its own citizens). That makes 2 mountains to climb.

BTW, it's odd that they embraced the "controlled demolition" story. They could have made it easier on themselves by accepting that it was the planes that brought the WTC down, and only claiming that Bush allowed Bin Laden to do his dirty work.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Are you serious? Simple logic, yeah? "tens of billions of watts" from a gravity driven collapse??? The fire supposidly made the supporting floor structures fail and gravity took over, yes? It's impossible to create billions of watts of energy just from gravity collapse.

Then do the math yourself. Or post a link to a page where it is done. You won't convince people by typing extra question marks.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

* Well, that's exactly what they wanted, not to damage the other nearby buildings and kill even more people (it seems they had some simpathy left after all) not to mention the importance of nearby buildings...

This is typical of conspirationalist thinking: just bend every fact into the direction of your conclusion.

Q: If it was an inside job, why did they have to kill so many people?
A: Otherwise the world wouldn't be struck with terror.

Q: If it was an inside job, why didn't they kill more people?
A: The plotters have some compassion left.

Q: If it was an inside job, why did it look so much like a controlled demolition?
A: Because it is a controlled demolition.

Q: If it was an inside job, why didn't it look exactly like a controlled demolition?
A: Then the world would clearly see that it was a plot.

Furthermore, all that the conspiracy theorists do is shed doubt upon the "classical" explanation. I have not seen any positive proof, like "mission accomplished" messages to Bush, or confessions from someone who was in the plot. (Of course, that only proves what a cunning conspiracy it was. :rolleyes

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

So you believe that floors falling on top of each other caused some of the steel to melt?

So you believe that the molten metal was steel? And not another metal that melts easier, like zinc (from galvanized steel) or aluminum (widely used in any office building). Were the reported puddles of molten metal ever analyzed properly?

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Just watched Zeitgeist for the first time (i know, don't shoot me). Now, i won't coment on the first part, but parts 2 and 3 are really mindblowing, much more believable info then in Loose change...

If you took the time to watch Zeitgeist, why not take some time to read Conspiracy Science, a website that tries to debunk the movie. Or just see where Google takes you if you search for "zeitgeist" and "debunk".

BTW, kudos for your stamina, watching the whole movie. I could barely stand it for 5 minutes. Then my propaganda detector sounded, my baloney detector went berserk, so I had to stop.

I got 4 (mistake in the last bar). Not bad, considering I've been staring at my monitor for a whole day, and the letters are dancing on my retina.

EDIT:
Worst scores are around 1400. Completely random (press "Score Test" immediately) gets you around 1000 points.

EDIT2:
Or is this a test of the quality of your monitor?

Last edited by wsinda, Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:19.

A big lottery here once advertised that its payback rate was 70%.

I can do better. I'll pay you back 75% of whatever money you enter. Guaranteed and fully legal.

Glas Goggomobil Coupe 250

EDIT: I'm at work right now, so I can't search for a new pic. First person to post one wins.

Last edited by wsinda, Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:32.

Quote from beefyman666 :

Matra 530 or M530A?

Winnah!

Your turn.

Last edited by wsinda, Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:31. Reason : Added pic

It's not from one of the big French names of the day (Renault, Peugeot, Citroen, Simca).

Not a Citroen. Not an Opel GT (which isn't even French), though it is similar: small sports car, same era (late '60s - early '70s), and pop-up headlights.

The license plate is Californian, but apparently some Yanks do have taste. Um, i mean a taste for European cars.

No, it's a French car.

Quote from wien :

I hear the CGI scenes with Mecha-Hitler are awesome.

I hear the CGI scenes of Tom Cruise smiling are awesome, too.

Another solution would be to let LFS convert replays into a portable, physics-independent replay format. The new format would not contain every detail from the car's physical state or the driver's input. It would be more like a movie, except that you can view the race from any angle you choose.

Apart from being independent of the LFS patch number, this would have some extra advantages:
- The portable format could be frame-based, making it easy to do smooth rewinding and scene selection. It would be a good tool for movie makers and race stewards.
- You could convert both SPR and MPR files to this format.
- You could let demo users view "licensed" races, without having to worry about cracks (because the conversion is one-way).

Abarth Simca 2000GT

Here is a new one:

Quote from Gunn :

The big band theory requires no God

Correct, but it does require trombones, saxophones and white tuxedos.

Quote from lerts :

instead of considering the object falling i consider the ground going up

That's why we all need strong legs, to help push the ground back down.

I think I'll wait until there's a Chrome add-on that hides ads served by Google.

Neither Ferrari nor Alfa, because it has a rear-mounted engine. (Proof: air scoop behind side window, big lid with metal clasps.)

Is that the Porsche logo on the side panel??

Quote from BurnOut69 :

The fact that those jokes exist does not mean they're typical, and again, Im glad they are NOT.

They are typical of the kind of jokes that you hear after some shocking event, like terroristic attacks or natural disasters. In fact, the one that lerts translated was an oldie: I heard it first when the Challenger space shuttle exploded.

Or this one:
Q: What did Al Gore do after he heard the death toll of 9/11?
A: He demanded a recount.

Quote from CasseBent :

He did post them though, you can't deny that, so technically that doesn't prove if he read the post(s) or not.

Zeugnimod said that BastianB didn't read the posts properly. (Which proves that you didn't read his post properly. Technically.)

Quote :

Fact remains that lerts ruined the thread, by clarifying, to absolutely no one but himself and the voices, that the elephant story wasn't true.

It takes more than one person to ruin a thread: the one who goes OT, and the ones who react to him. You have heard about ignore lists, right?

Quote from BastianB :

why? Is it me posting jokes about some girls which lost their legs at some bomb atack. Is it me going other peoples nuts with posting absolutly bullshit about religions and stuff? Is it me destroing funny threads with my totaly dumb theories?

No, it's you spouting ad hominem attacks.

Quote from sinbad :

Only a religious person would find a way to be offended by this joke. The intention of this tale is just to tell a story with a surprise twist at the end. It's amusing because of how it is told. Long build up, building predictability, then surprise, and then "probably wasn't the same elephant".

I was sort-of offended by the joke, because it was disguised as a true story. I'm far from religious, but my first reaction was shock about a human suffering a terrible fate. It would have been a better laugh if it had started like "Johnny was hiking through the bush when he saw an elephant ..."

Quote :

Don't start reading anything into it which is not there.

It was there. It did not start as a joke. The story was deliberately filled with made-up details, to make it sound like a true story. So much so that it needed debunking by Snopes.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Superman, Invisible Man and WonderWoman aren't jokes as such, but fiction characters. A slight but important difference.

Nope. There is an old joke (in several variations) about these 3 characters. Lerts only said he doesn't like the joke. I'm not going to repeat the joke here, Google can find them for you.