Marksbrother (324 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jun-14-09 11:22 AM
DU link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x252561)
PAID Disinformation Agents at DU: Myth or Fact?
Are there paid Disinformation/Propaganda agents here on this forum?
I don’t think so. In the first place, it would be a waste of money. Why? Because this forum
is populated primarily by people who are well informed about 9/11. They know the government’s version, so a “substantiveâ€
argument in support of the official story/stories isn’t going to change their mind. Indeed, substance is conspicuously absent in
most of the posts of those who support the official version(s). They have no credibility and make almost no attempt to establish
credibility. Insults and truth suppression are their stock in trade. It’s as though they are intentionally trying to make
enemies. Not a smart way to influence opinions or get people to change their minds. Why would you PAY someone to make enemies of
the very people you wish to persuade? Professional agents of influence and disinformation are targeted at large, GENERAL
audiences or small audiences – if they’re composed of prominent opinion leaders. They appear to be serious minded
people with a high level of integrity and expertise. They have a background that can be checked. They write serious articles
with source references for any factual claims they make. They do not use the kind of tactics associated with trolls and extreme
partisans. They rarely interact with their target audience and whenever they do it’s on a limited basis and follow-up questions
and counter arguments are not entertained. Does all this mean that DUers are not worth targeting by paid disinformants? Perhaps
in the future, but certainly not now. Why? Because they would be limited to targeting only the relatively small number of DUers
who even know that this forum exists, and those who frequent it know enough about the facts that they can usually spot
disinformation whenever they encounter it.
Besides, why would you PAY someone to post what plenty of snotty kids would do for free or at least almost for free.
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jun-14-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. "truther " Dictionary
Disinformation: any fact which refutes our goofy theories.
Because this forum is populated primarily by people who are well informed about 9/11.
Because this forum is populated primarily by people who are well informed about 9/11.
Yeah...like spooked911. :whatever: :-)Heh. Tragically there are no pics of this experiment, use your imagination though. :-)
I set up an experiment testing how a plane might break up upon impacting arrayed steel columns like the WTC wall. The plane and the columns were both constructed of similar pieces of wood (which here favors the plane, since in real life, aluminum is weaker than steel). The dimensions of the models were not perfect, but they were a rough match for the WTC and a 767. I did not put floors into the model, so this also favors the plane.http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html
I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane. The wings actually bent backwards and slid into the hole alongside the fuselage. The wood of the wings actually broke. A few "columns" broke where the fuselage went in, and a couple broke on either side of the fuselage hole, where the wings broke off-- but basically the array of columns were much stronger than the long wings.
This actually makes sense in terms of physics. The fuselage had a concentrated impact force on a relatively small front area, and thus could break the columns inward. However, a wing has a much wider impact area, which dissipates the impact force, thus favoring the columns' strength. If I were an engineer, I'm sure I could find an equation that could describe this phenomenon. Basically, of course, it is the same principle why a pointed object has more penetrating power than a long straight edge-- even if both are equally sharp.
Note that in real-life, the aluminum wings should break off even more readily when they impact heavy steel columns than in this experiment.
This finding that the wings break off also fits with what is observed in other plane crashes: the wings break off.
This means of course, that no 767 hit either WTC tower.
The plane-shaped hole was merely a ruse, to trick people into thinking a large plane had impacted the WTC. Unfortunately this trick defied physics.
Further: in theory, wings could break through the columns if they had enough mass and momentum. The key point though is that on a plane, the wings are far from the center of mass, they cannot carry enough force to break through the columns and thus their response is to break and fold back. The analogy would be like having your arms stretched straight out and trying to knock down two strong wooden posts on either side of you with your fists. With your whole body behind your hands, you could knock down one post, but your body's force is too diffuse to knock down both posts when your arms are stretched out to the side ...
Heh. Tragically there are no pics of this experiment, use your imagination though. :-)http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html
I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane.:rotf: holy hell...
:rotf: holy hell...
:rotf: holy hell...
:rotf: holy hell...I heard he'll be in the next season of Mythbusters*, since they were sooo impressed by this guy's 'scientific genius'.
:rotf: holy hell...
Chris, don't laugh--that's as scientific as they're ever going to get!Hey, don't knock it! Dummy engineering is a thing to behold. Oh sure, it's based on a bag of pretzels but the comic relief is well worth the read.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :loser: :loser: :loser: :mental: :mental: :mental:
Anonymous said...
To be truly dedicated to finding out the truth about 9/11, one must first remove their head from their ass. Then again... if I were a brain surgeon, I'm sure I could develop an invasive proceedure to rectify this phenomenon.
That George guy who has taken over for Art Bell had some truther from Architects and Engineers for Truth on last week. They were talking about thermite being placed in the buildings, and George asked him if it was at all possible that terrorists, and not Bush/Cheney/Rove, had pre-placed thermite in the buildings... Of course the lunatic immediately shot that down, there was NO WAY anyone outside of the Bush administration could have done that. Then he goes right on to tell how a private contractor had 90 employees with six weeks of full access to the critical areas needed to place this thermite, nine months before the attacks... (that would be before Bush took office). George failed to point out this apparent contradiction, or ask if it was possible if any of those employees might have been terrorists, or even who this private contractor was.
One of the comments....I'm not sure what the cure is for "cranial rectosis", aka a rectal/cranial inversion, but I bet if you kicked him in the ass, he's suffer an concussion.... :tinfoil:
Anonymous said...
To be truly dedicated to finding out the truth about 9/11, one must first remove their head from their ass. Then again... if I were a brain surgeon, I'm sure I could develop an invasive proceedure to rectify this phenomenon.
:rotf: :lmao:
Heh. Tragically there are no pics of this experiment, use your imagination though. :-)http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html
you are honestly nothing less than a complete ****ing moron, do you honestly think this is any kind of re-enactment whatsoever, do the world a favor and kill yourself before you reproduce and make more drains on society.
You're kidding me. Build a model out of blocks, an airplane out of the same, push one into the other....and you think this is an accurate simulation? What a joke. Heck, I could do the same sort of thing for a "controlled demolition". Build a building out of blocks, suddenly remove the bottom layer....and the whole thing topples sideways, just like controlled demolitions *don't*. What a farce.
Oh, and I love this line: "If I were an engineer, I'm sure I could find an equation that could describe this phenomenon." Since you are, by your own admission, obviously not an engineer, how are you the least bit qualified to comment on this?
Holy F**K. How did you figure all that out. You say you're not an engineer, but you are obviously way smarter than all the engineers in the world. I am SO thankful I found your blog site as I can hardly wait for your next dispensation of brilliance.
Have you ever thought of running for president? With your intelligence at the helm of the country the world would quickly turn into a Utopian dream.
(In case you didn't notice...I was being sarcastic)
Get a life and get back to sweeping the Walmart parking lot.
BTW, for any lurkers or new members, can someone post the link to his "Rabbit Cage/Kerosene/Cement Block=WTC" experiment?
BTW, for any lurkers or new members, can someone post the link to his "Rabbit Cage/Kerosene/Cement Block=WTC" experiment?Also dont forget this one.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,22141.0.html
Also dont forget this one.
[youtube=425,350]lBuH8NNIBys[/youtube]