Yeah, he does go on about the end of the world scenario way too much. But all the stuff he says is backed up with statistics and facts.
Beefy's Corner.......For all off Topic threads
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Yeah, he does go on about the end of the world scenario way too much. But all the stuff he says is backed up with statistics and facts.
What Jones does extremely well is reeling off numbers devoid of context. Because he does it quickly, and from memory, it makes it seem as if those numbers are meaningful. They aren't; they are nothing more than slight-of-hand to demonstrate his supposed mastery of the facts...and, again, to illustrate to the listener how they -- as fans of his -- are superior to the sheeple in the general public, and would you please buy some ammo and some seeds?
I believe in architects and engineers that are independent and impartial. They must all be conspiracy nutjobs as well...
Haha yeah, it's not as black and white as that. That is some plan if it's true, but I don't believe that he does all of these shows just for money and fame.
Then you should believe the vast majority of architects and engineers who state that what happened was exactly what you'd expect when structural supports are weakened, rather than a small minority that believes otherwise. If you're going to do the appeal to authority thing, it helps to be on the side of most of the authorities.
Who are this architects and engineers of whom you speak of? The one's that work for NIST? How come other buildings that have had fires raging for hours not collapse?
When the fire is hot enough, they most certainly do collapse. That is a basic physical property of building materials...their tensile strength decreases as heat is applied, and when that heat reaches a certain level, this happens.
The whole building didn't collapse though, did it? Compare that to the WTC7 collapse. That building that you showed me was on flames and bits of it crumbled, but the core of the building withstood. WTC7 collapsed perfectly and symmetrically and in free fall speed.
You sort of contradicted yourself there.
I don't think you can describe that buiding as a skyscraper or a high rise building can you?
[video=youtube;hZEvA8BCoBw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw[/video]
Irrelevant. It's a different building and probably a hotter fire. And most importantly, you can see the fire bending the beams! The fire in Tower 7 was largely concentrated on one floor. All it takes is for that floor to go, and it takes the others down in a domino effect. It has been confirmed by experts that this is how it happened.
This should be painfully obvious, but: where and how a building collapses is incumbent on where and how the weakening of its support structures occur. If you have a fire in an apartment that spreads, you will have asymmetrical distribution of heat which will cause one side to heat up far faster than another, causing the sort of crumbling that you see in that video. However, once you've accepted that such collapses can happen, that a mere fire can so weaken supports as to cause a building to collapse, it takes a rather remarkable act of closed-mindedness to believe that a 'pancake' collapse cannot; if you have, say, the spread of an accelerant in a structure, causing the weakening of all or most supports, than the collapse of any one or three or ten supports is likely to cause the collapse of the remainder. It takes seconds, possibly less than seconds for the weight to be redistributed after the collapse of the first pillars; if that weight overwhelms the structural capacity of the others, the whole thing is going to go down in a very short period of time.
"Euro 2020 games will be held in 13 cities" UEFA announces. What should the end of that statement be? My two favourite options at the moment are A: Thus allowing us to collect significantly more bribes than a standard country based bidding process or B: As we wish to undermine the very basis of international tournament football. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21203253
... or C: so we can price out the average fan who wants to follow his team and may have to travel across half a dozen countries just up to the semi-final
I was dragged in to see it with Mrs AS last week. I never liked musicals, and always thought them a bit silly with people singing at one another. Then I thought it`s a bit like being at a football match, but with extra swear words.
Went to watch Django Unchained last night. An excellent film and the first time in years I haven't felt ripped off for buying 2 cinema tickets (the prices were still ridiculous though).
Thyat's the latest Tarantio film isn't it ?
Which , if any , of his other's would you compare it to ?
Yeah it is. Difficult to say what Tarantino film it's closest too as it's quite a conventional film by Tarantino's standards, I would probably say Inglourious Basterds though.
Yep, anyone that hasn't seen Django already go and see it, it's amazing!
Yet again Tarantino absolutely nailed the opening scene. I actually think it's one of my favourite Tarantino films. Seems to tone down the ridiculousness to just the right level for once.
Yet again Tarantino absolutely nailed the opening scene. I actually think it's one of my favourite Tarantino films. Seems to tone down the ridiculousness to just the right level for once.
Or are you just believing what you are told and closing your mind to the possiblity of a conspiracy?
- Status