Forum menu
Brilliant
Has anybody noticed how Kaesae NEVER repsponds to my questions about those frames he was flogging. Now that is a conspiricy
Which probably explains his belief in conspiracies. Himself being the architect of one!
for those who are unenlightened, what is with the 'frames' ?
i think it is this thread
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-this-joker-on-about
Basically,iirc, he was able to source a number of frames - he never said where and a number of folk were not convinced about the legitimacy of the frames/sources
He answered the question in much the same way he does here - lots of words but no actual answer
My talent my skill and my passion went into this frame
Drys eyes
Ahh, that threads going to provide some amusement
I realise its going to take some time to read that, but i get the gist, i feel a bit sorry for the guy in some ways, but not that much....
Holy Crap, that thread is bonkers
That thread has been bookmarked
face like a shaved gerbils ass
It just keeps on giving.
Sorry, I'll stop posting now
a classic insult , it brings strange images to my mind !
I remember watching a programme a while back, possibly C4 or the Beeb, not sure really, but it went into an enormous amount of forensic analysis about why the WTT's fell, with computer diagrams of the internal structure, and details of what fire retardant materials were used to protect the internal structure. As I recall it, while there was protection given to the steel against fire, it was inadequate when asked to protect against an impact from a passenger jet travelling at 500mph, with a full fuel load; the immense heat generated severely weakened the main steel core, and because the impacts were some way down the towers, the sheer weight of building above the fires just collapsed straight down, accelerating and crushing everything below. Modern buildings have a completely different structure now, from what I understand, using a concrete core with all services contained inside, rather than steel, as with the Towers.
This gives more detail about the most likely cause of collapse:
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml
And WTC7? It wa apparently severely damaged by debris to approximately half it's height, 20 floors out of 47, and was burning pretty fiercely. It housed an electricity sub-station and generators, but no people, and because water pressure was inadequate for fire hoses to fight the main tower fires, at was decided to let it burn. Fire fighters reported creaking from the building structure some time before it fell.
That is not the full version of the insult, face like a shaved gerbils ass half way through a shit, after six months of constipation!
Good too see you lot are in your usual charming, tolerant, don't you dare criticize the media or government as they wouldn't lie to us mood.
There are no conspiracy theories, there are however a great deal of facts and a huge amount of evidence that is being ignored because it doesn't fit what you believe.
Tell me something, in your opinion what exactly constitutes actual verifiable evidence for your perspective and opinion on a subject to change?
Also when you look at a situation do you apply your mind to the situation or do you alter the situation to fit your mind or perspective on things?
Also when you look at a situation do you apply your mind to the situation or do you alter the situation to fit your mind or perspective on things?
It's dealing with unknowns. We apply Occam Razor, that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely - a form of reductive reasoning.
Conspiracy theories can arise when we forget this, or find the simplest explanation a bit boring for our febrile imagination.
A converse danger is that having "made up our mind" we refuse to re-evaluate when a new fact appears. Or are just too unimaginative to see equally viable alternative explanations.
Yes I know there is some emphasis/showmanship 😆 and because your brain cannot process the information it must be false, but some of the evidence presented and the questions being asked are quite cool!
kaesae - You'd get less abuse if you'd answer the questions asked of you.
buzz-lightyear If there are still unanswered questions, then do you think it is fair to say that we have the truth of the matter?
Atlaz, when I was younger I would go to the zoo, many times when passing the monkey enclosure. I would see them having a go at people, making noise, throwing insults the usual conduct from primitive beings, that don't know any better or are not civilized.
However their antics never got to me, at the end of the day what do they know? they are after all, only monkeys!
If there are still unanswered questions, then do you think it is fair to say that we have the truth of the matter?
What we mainly discover, is new limits to our knowledge. It's fair to say what is truth based on current knowledge. But who is in posession of [u]all[/u] the facts? Truth tomorrow may be somewhat different.
For example, consider the following timeline of scientific facts:
1976: Mars is dead planet
2012: Mars was once wet and may still be geologically active
2020: Mars once harboured indigenous life forms
2025: Mars harbours indigenous life forms
The SciFi author Arther C Clarke commented once: "If an older and respected scientist says something is Possible, he is almost certainly correct; if he says that something is Impossible, he is very likely mistaken"
For example, consider the following timeline of scientific facts:
1976: Mars is dead planet
2012: Mars was once wet and may still be geologically active
2020: Mars once harboured indigenous life forms
2025: Mars harbours indigenous life forms
2028: Mars holds inaugural Mountain bike Championship
2029: SingletrackMarsWorld forum argues about Helmets, Razors, Tyres, and Coffee...
Very funny!
Those cannot be scientific facts as two of the periods have not yet occurred.
Since a fact must be verifiable how can an event that has not yet occurred be verifiable.
Who wants to do some actual research and studying? we could look into and debate anything 😯 I just got some new books and I don't have much hope of many people wanting to actually learn something.
So do I go off and read my books or do we want to start a research club?
Atlaz, when I was younger I would go to the zoo, many times when passing the monkey enclosure. I would see them having a go at people, making noise, throwing insults the usual conduct from primitive beings, that don't know any better or are not civilized.
However their antics never got to me, at the end of the day what do they know? they are after all, only monkeys!
You are Eric Cantona, and I claim my 5€
Tell me something, in your opinion what exactly constitutes actual verifiable evidence for your perspective and opinion on a subject to change?
A Peer Reviewed paper stating a Hypothesis that has never yet been disproved by any professional ?
Would that be suitable for you ?
Here you go then.
[url] http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf [/url]
kaesae, I asked you a direct and simple question. Would you please answer it.
Since a fact must be verifiable how can an event that has not yet occurred be verifiable.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
there are however a great deal of facts and a huge amount of evidence that is being ignored because it doesn't fit what you believe
Do you mean the way you suggested cosmic energy was causing earthquakes to increase so we gave you the data to say they were not increasing.
The way you then claimed it was intensity [even though the graph had intensity on it DOH and you then flew off on a tangent about extreme weather
Could it be the "fact" you said about all the missing gold, where we gave you some facts and then you ignored them?
Every thread you say something ridiculous, give "evdence" from dubious sources that rarely even support your view never mind prove it. People refute it with evidence and you just carry on or fly off on another ill defined tangent and then you have the temerity to say we cling to illusions in the face of evidence.
I cant work out which is greater your lack of self awareness or your blinding lack of any form of reasoning.
Its has to be an elaborate troll.
You are Eric Cantona, and I claim my 5€
not really despite the warning fro mark he is clearly comparing us to monkeys. Its tragic as frankly you come across to any one rational , which is everyone on the thread as and I quote
paranoid, delusional, crackpot conspiracy theories please?
No personal abuse or insults - no matter how bonkers the opinion you are addressing is.
Do you wish us to address you the way you keep speaking to us
TBH the reason we have not is frankly we are actually genuinely worried about your well being that is how out there your views appear to folk. I am leaving your threada and I am not returning
I wish you luck
Didappointed you dont get this kaesae: When my predictions for Mars become indisputable scientific facts the truth will be very different from current truth. Just as truth in 2012 is very different from truth in 1976.
What you find is that disputable evidence of martian life which exists today is dismissed by venerable scientists as impossible because they made up their minds in 1976 that Mars is dead. I have seen this evidence and find it compelling enough to make my predictions of proof by 2020. Then the truth will shake and shift like the ground in an earthquake.
As a slight diversion from the Kaesae conversation (I expressed sincerely-meant concerns about him in the original frame and bearing threads he joined STW with).
I'll return with my own 9/11 conspiracy theory: it is quite possible that Flight 93 was shot down, rather than brought down by the actions of the passenger fighting back against the hijackers.
TBH I always thought this was far more likely than the accepted version of events. Given what had already happened how would intercepting jets have justified [i]not[/i] shooting it down? Not looked into it sufficiently to see how much evidence (phone messages from passengers etc) would discount this but the heroic retaliation seemed too perfect. Sad that I can think that, on reflection.
and getting way back to a response to a post of mine about Maxwell
But what would be the point? His death precipitated the corporate collapse, not the other way around
the missing £450million from the pension fund had come to light [i]before[/i] his death IIRC, which is why at the time I thought "how convenient", rather than forming that 'theory' after the event.
Looks like this thread has been killed.
Maybe Keasea doesn't like the way that Proper Evidence, from Credible Professional sources, that's peer reviewed and factual comes in Black and White, with loads of words, and not with pretty pictures on YouTube ?
Conspiracy makes the world go round but governments couldn't organize a b*mming in a barracks
What have 3 Para mortars got to do with this?
i think it is this thread
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/whats-this-joker-on-aboutBasically,iirc, he was able to source a number of frames - he never said where and a number of folk were not convinced about the legitimacy of the frames/sources
He answered the question in much the same way he does here - lots of words but no actual answer
Thanks for that one Junkyard. I wasn't aware of kaesae's [i]interesting[/i] back story (or indeed the story about his back).
On a conspiracy theme, that thread seems to end with [url= http://www.descent-world.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2440.0 ]kaesae being banned for 82 years, 1 month[/url].
It's pretty clear he used his contacts at the Bilderberg Group to force Mark to reinstate him. 😆
The 2nd post on the DS world thread is quality and, in my case accurate.
Just as truth in 2012 is very different from truth in 1976.
Not really.. scientists don't really deal in truth.
[quote=molgrips ]Not really.. scientists don't really deal in truth.
Molly lets not get into a technical scientist debate about reducing infinite error rather than finding truth
Science is certainly looking for the truth and has a theory that is best fit and in some cases has nothing to refute it
Is evolution true ? Does DNA not actually define what species we are?
I know your point but it confuses lay people
For a moment Molly reminded me of someone else.....
I think lay people very much need to understand this principle. How many times have people cited "scientists" saying one thing then later another as proof that science is all rubbish?
If people understood that scientists are just trying to find stuff out and sharing it with the world, then it'd make much more sense. When scientists say 'we found X' it doens't mean 'X is definitely true' it means 'X is simply what we found when we did Y, make of that what you will'.
That is a fair point about scientists. Although I think it actually goes a little deep for what we are currently trying to achieve 😉
Pointing out to someone that a random YouTube clip proves nothing at all.
And that a peer reviewed paper is worth reading and understanding.
(Unless YouTube comments count as some sort of illiterate sweary Peer Review system 🙂 )
neal - well for the average foil-hatter, youtube commenters ARE their peers so I suppose it does. We next need to define a new standard for peer reviews.
Molly is right of course. But I'm aware that laypeople, unfamiliar with the concepts of science, think in-terms of absolute "truths". So I used that language to challenge that mode of thinking. With conspiracy theories, what interests us is deception.
I've experienced varying degrees of deception going on in business and politics. But the conspiracy theories tend to be elaborate. While the reality is more often rather simple.
While we are on the topic, can someone clarify what happened to The Pentagon on "9/11"?
we all know molly is right but if we say scientists [ or engineers in this case] think that the most likely scnario is that ..then the lay person goes so you cannot be sure, you dont know for definite etc
It really depends who you are speaking to whether you say truth or not IMHO
TBH conspiracist are confused enough without compounding it
conspiracist are confused enough without compounding it
It was my intention to hijack this thread so the forum's conspiracist-in-chief ran away. It seems to have worked too. Either that or he got bored, or banned 😉
then the lay person goes so you cannot be sure, you dont know for definite etc
Well of course, but that's how it is. If you start saying 'x is definitely true' then when they eventually hear y from somewhere else they either get confused or give up with the whole concept of science.
Evidence gathered by me suggests the latter is prevalent 🙂
has that evidence been reviewed by your peers and published 😉
I don't have any peers, silly.
While we are on the topic, can someone clarify what happened to The Pentagon on "9/11"?
A plane crashed into it.
A 757 I think.
Was there something more specific you were wanting ?