9/11 Poll

The pyroclastic comes from pyro, fire, and clastic, broken.

The problem I see here is that a clastic event is being called a pyroclastic event. Simply misleading.

There are few words on that chart. I'm not picking on a word in a tome. A summary such as the one provided concerns me when a word is used that to me is so misleading.

You sent me to a page to see some pics of destruction. On that page it says:

Anyone engulfed by a pyroclastic flow is killed. They are burned to death. Some cars show most of their external paint intact. This does not look like a pyroclastic event. It looks like some vehicles burned. This does not mean it was pyroclastic in nature.

Why be misleading?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dictionary.com states that they're synonymous:

1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In attempting to describe a phenomena that has never occurred before, we attempt to use terms that are close to it; pyroclastic flows are what most closely resembles what happened on 9/11. This was clearly demonstrated in one of the videoclips from 911 Eyewitness that I linked to before:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then you may also have noticed that there have been several 911 threads none of which resolved anything, and also that this does happen to be a moderated forum.
You don't like the rules you go elsewhere.

Anyone with an incorrect "opinion" and claims they can't justify deserves pulling up. Banning is to the mods.

If you had actually researched it you'd have found that it's quite possible: it depends on where (or if) the steel can shed the heat...

Discuss like adults?
You start with a false claim and then go on to state that you are the proof?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, go ahead...

 

I see you've already made up your mind. It is either imperative to your world view, please wiki: cognitive dissonance, or you are an operative for the NWO. Either way I do not wish to continue generating negative energy with you, or wasting my time. The information is out there, you know where to look if you wish to open your mind and find out why so many people have stopped believing corporate media driven myths. Allowance good man, allowance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eace:

no. . . I was typing my post, sorry 'bout that. damn newbies, eh? lol

oh, I know, I'll shall remove myself from that behavior as well when I come across it. I will hope that I will receive only the attitude which I put out eventually. The seeds of wisdom can only find purchase upon fertile ground good sir. Remember, there is a very big difference between knowledge and wisdom, please don't confuse the two.

What the Internationalists within our government, in Europe, and the (hmmm. . . I had better not mention them, it looks like that is a quick way to get censored. The ******** in Israel or the "Mossad") have done to the international world political scene and economy is unconscionable. What does this have to do with my ego?

 

If people are claiming that then their science is equally bad:Star Trek (and 90% of TV/ movie SF) is a joke as far as science goes. The language is used and the tropes, but the reality, sadly, isn't.

Hardly: the main science advisor for the show has complained that he gets over-ridden due to plot requirements.

Written SF, yes.
TV/movie SF is entertainment.

Except that YOU yourself used it as an example of "science in TV", and the show was incorrect, merely so that the good guys could have a clue...

The point being that people assume these shows (due to the basic premise) are factual, when they aren't.
There was a study published some years ago stating that something on the order of 60% of the US public got all of their science from shows like Star Trek.
Does that bode well for science?
I think not.

A grammarian, most especially an Oxford graduate (and a stickler for precision as the character was supposed to be), would know that the word required was "imply".
Anything else is sloppy and ambiguous.
Lack of care by the script writers - like Trek etc, if the writers don't care enough to get it correct why should I care enough to watch?

 

Using caps lock doesn't actually do anything for your argument; to the contrary, it only shows that you have a short fuse. I think the dictionary definition I quoted actually contradicts you, so no, I don't think that it's saying the same thing. However, I've probably seen the terms used in the way you are mentioning it, because when you made the statement below, it clicked:

This leads me to conclude that the dictionary messed up. To give an example: I believe you inferred something from the dictionary definition I gave that wasn't implied- namely that it was supporting your statement concerning the difference between inferance and implication. Conversely, either of us may imply things the other may never infer.

 

Yeah, while we're on that subject, I CAN'T FIND the rules. I mean, in the sign up, it said it was moderated for things like language, sexual content, and nudity, but no where did it mention anything about IDEAS or RADICAL THOUGHT, or even OFFENSIVE IDEAS or THOUGHT. So I just want to read the rules on censorship and thought-crime if someone can provide the link for me, I would very much appreciate it. I have read the postings of several Muslims who seemed to want to express their views concerning Zionism, but apparently they are continually censored? I want to know if there is freedom of speech on this board, or if it is a place where group think must be maintained. If it is the latter, than yes, Oli, perhaps I should not waste my time here. Like cable and satellite TV in America, it would be nothing more than another brainwashing tool. I got rid of my TV because all it told were lies, why would I want to participate in something I can't speak the truth in?

O.K. lol. Are you being "cheeky" with me? Or are you just uninformed as to the definition of, "OPINION?" Let's see; dictionary.com do?

"OPINION
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: "I haven't much of an opinion of him."​

Hence, NOBODIES opinion is ever "incorrect." No matter if you accept their proof or evidence or what ever. Kapisch?

"However, I do have lots of new stuff if you are interested that might blow your minds"

Actually, I must post 20 times first. I think this is a good policy really. I am not really sure yet about this board. Like I said, there seems to be some REAL censorship issues of IDEAS as opposed to language or images, etc. I find that troubling.

There was a time when I was a kid, you could pretty much say and think what ever you wanted to, not anymore. Now, if it isn't approved by people in control, then you can't. Well sir, I have read 1984, and I have read "A Brave New World." Haven't You? You should. In fact, Aldous Huxley was among the powerful elites, and he even knew what was going on, you can listen to it from his own lips on Youtube if you care to do a search and find out. That's why I'm The Esotericist, I know things you aren't supposed to know, you don't want to know, you will fight to deny, because it isn't convenient to your world view. Hence, I need to know before hand if I am allowed to speak. :scratchin:

Whether or not you listen? I don't care, that's your choice.

 

go ahead...speek

 

Oh you're quite mistaken.
You can THINK whatever you like.
Saying it is another thing altogether

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So you don't think a professional judgement could ever be incorrect?
Or an estimate of someone's character?
Or even a belief based on insufficient evidence?
Interesting... "I don't know much at all about this, but I'm definitely not incorrect in my opinion".:shrug:

Of course I have.

Yep, you and a million others.
Including me.

Depends upon its veracity doesn't it?

 

But. . . back to my ORIGINAL point. At the time of this post, 52.63% of the people in this poll accept the official story, no questions asked. The others? Smell a rat.

So. . . What gives a moderator in that 52.63% of the people the right to continually stifle the discussions of the other 47.37%? Where is the appeals process here? I have been informed that numerous people have left this forum in disgust because of the shutting down of dissent. Seems to me, one person is making this place unfriendly to the many. I don't know much about Star Trek, but what do they say about the needs of the many over the needs of the one?

I am not really concerned at this point with the nuts and bolts of the discussion. What concerns me is the shutting down of dissent. That speaks volumes more to me about the truth of what occurred on that sad day in September, than any other disagreement about science or "the facts." The simple unwillingness to discuss the issue from the citizens that support the official myth, should tell those that are unsure of what happened to take a closer look at everything that is available out there.

 

So you've taken "questionable in some areas" as being, for want of a better term, pro-conspiracy?

Do tell.

Just one person?
Tut, shame.
And you've got Scott's penchant for using fictional characters to back up your point, too.

Or maybe the fact that the entire 911 thing has been done to death with nothing new added since it started, the same tired arguments and "data" presented the same tired way...

Yep, or maybe it's just the fact that every thing's been gone through so many times without a conclusion so why re-hash it?

 

Aha!
You're right - the moderators of SciForums did it.
How blind we've been.

Ooh and an assumption thrown in for good measure, perhaps.
Citizens of where?

 

This is becoming quite disturbing at this point Scott3x.

You are describing an avalanche of material as a pyroclastic flow. That is misleading, purposely misleading. The video makes the same misleading statements.

The only thing that the video has in common with a pyroclastic flow is that the dust cloud is acting as a dense fluid. That does not mean it is even close to the density of a pyroclastic flow.