But what causes the crack propagation? You keep saying things "just happen" but there is always a cause." Seeing crack propagation happen without the Yakuza just means that something else made it happen. You do not tell me what made it happen in your case, nor do you give me any information with which to come to the conclusion that the same thing that caused the crack propagation in your lab is what caused the crack propagation in the airplane.
On of the features of property is its protectability. The RIAA has been failing to protect that which they consider property. Thus, it seems more likely that what they consider property is not property.
All of them seem to boil down to "uh, this part broke" Parts don't just break. Force has to be applied, and I haven't heard any explanation for what that force was in any of the the accidents.
I just don't understand the logic of credibility. Though it seems logical to me that a less credible source is better than no source at all.
I haven't heard a very good theory as to why airplanes crash. When faced with several equally plausible theories, I don't understand what the credibility of the sources has to do with anything, or how it makes one theory more plausible than another.
Then I look for flaws in each of the models. I know that the Yakuza seem to exist. There are reports outside of him that they do. I know it is likely that they want to attack America for nationalist reasons. I know that I haven't heard of any other involvement of Yakuza in attacks on America. I know that people work hard to make sure that the shuttle and airplanes doesn't crash. I know that airplane pilots make reports of unidentifiable air sightings. Now applying Occam's razor, which is the simpler explanation, that these things went wrong because things go wrong, plus finding explanations for the other things or because someone, the Yakuza are making them crash, which resolves neatly all of these problems. If you don't want to believe zebras exist, you go right ahead, but it's pretty likely that they do. It's pretty funny to hear someone say they got run over by a horse when they got run over by a zebra. Here is someone who also does the pulling electricity out of the vacuum theory, though many of his claims are more dubious than those of Tom Beardon's.
I am someone who looks at holes in my knowledge and looks at what fits the edges. I don't know enough about what he says to say whether it is wrong or right, but then again I don't know enough about what the government is saying to say whether or not they are wrong or right. Their proofs are only ones of assertion too, you know. So they are no more convincing than he is. I am not saying that he is too terribly convincing but he is about as convincing as the theory accepted by the establisment. Unless you'd care to explain why the establisment theory is too terribly convincing.
Say Hi to the conspiracy tripe fellow for me. It's easy to dismiss something as a crank or conspiracy tripe, much harder to give reasons why something is wrong. Try doing it sometime.
And the comment that was in response to mine answered my question. It should get modded up informative, but so far, nothing. If someone would care to explain why they think my post is a troll that would be great too.
You expect me to believe you because? Where's your body of evidence? Ever heard of plausible deniability. Not all terrorists want to be realized. You should read Sun Tzu On The Art of War.
Why? To accept all the reassurances is just as naive as thinking that just because Ilan Ramon was on the spaceship it must be terrorists out to get him.
This article suggests a wat that the Columbia incident might be terrorism and
the website backs it up with hard to dissect science. Big science doesn't even claim to have all the answers, yet seems to constantly get stuck in a rut of not accepting or examining differing ideas. Does anyone have any good sites that prove this guy wrong? This website seems more interested in the social stigma involved with association with this guy than proving him wrong. What was that quote again about new ideas not becoming mainstream because of winning people over, but because their opponents died off?
Where is this coming from and why did this get moderated so informative? I have seen nothing on the news or anywhere else to suggest that NASA has a good idea what happened. Links anyone?
is that all the bandwith will given over to devices that use only the capacity they need, not like television and radio that send over a wide area, going into area that doesn't have a device in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good sort of arrogance to me. Not all arrogance is bad, you know.
But what causes the crack propagation? You keep saying things "just happen" but there is always a cause." Seeing crack propagation happen without the Yakuza just means that something else made it happen. You do not tell me what made it happen in your case, nor do you give me any information with which to come to the conclusion that the same thing that caused the crack propagation in your lab is what caused the crack propagation in the airplane.
On of the features of property is its protectability. The RIAA has been failing to protect that which they consider property. Thus, it seems more likely that what they consider property is not property.
All of them seem to boil down to "uh, this part broke" Parts don't just break. Force has to be applied, and I haven't heard any explanation for what that force was in any of the the accidents.
I just don't understand the logic of credibility. Though it seems logical to me that a less credible source is better than no source at all. I haven't heard a very good theory as to why airplanes crash.
When faced with several equally plausible theories, I don't understand what the credibility of the sources has to do with anything, or how it makes one theory more plausible than another.
Then I look for flaws in each of the models. I know that the Yakuza seem to exist. There are reports outside of him that they do. I know it is likely that they want to attack America for nationalist reasons. I know that I haven't heard of any other involvement of Yakuza in attacks on America. I know that people work hard to make sure that the shuttle and airplanes doesn't crash. I know that airplane pilots make reports of unidentifiable air sightings. Now applying Occam's razor, which is the simpler explanation, that these things went wrong because things go wrong, plus finding explanations for the other things or because someone, the Yakuza are making them crash, which resolves neatly all of these problems. If you don't want to believe zebras exist, you go right ahead, but it's pretty likely that they do. It's pretty funny to hear someone say they got run over by a horse when they got run over by a zebra.
Here is someone who also does the pulling electricity out of the vacuum theory, though many of his claims are more dubious than those of Tom Beardon's.
I am an informationalist. Those with the best information should rule those without. That is the best way for them to catch up.
I am someone who looks at holes in my knowledge and looks at what fits the edges. I don't know enough about what he says to say whether it is wrong or right, but then again I don't know enough about what the government is saying to say whether or not they are wrong or right. Their proofs are only ones of assertion too, you know. So they are no more convincing than he is. I am not saying that he is too terribly convincing but he is about as convincing as the theory accepted by the establisment. Unless you'd care to explain why the establisment theory is too terribly convincing.
He HAS extraordinary evidence.
Say Hi to the conspiracy tripe fellow for me. It's easy to dismiss something as a crank or conspiracy tripe, much harder to give reasons why something is wrong. Try doing it sometime.
It's on-topic, a reasonable question, and not something I just made up, also it had several replies to it before it got moderated a troll, so why?
And the comment that was in response to mine answered my question. It should get modded up informative, but so far, nothing. If someone would care to explain why they think my post is a troll that would be great too.
You expect me to believe you because? Where's your body of evidence? Ever heard of plausible deniability. Not all terrorists want to be realized. You should read Sun Tzu On The Art of War.
Link that got messed up in my original post.
No one was saying that this was supposed to be conclusive proof, just that it supports a terrorism theory enough that it might be feasable.
I haven't been stating any conclusions.
Why? To accept all the reassurances is just as naive as thinking that just because Ilan Ramon was on the spaceship it must be terrorists out to get him.
Oh, well that clears that up... NOT. Is that the best you can do? I mean come on here.
How does that make the grouping any less of a coincidence?
This article suggests a wat that the Columbia incident might be terrorism and the website backs it up with hard to dissect science. Big science doesn't even claim to have all the answers, yet seems to constantly get stuck in a rut of not accepting or examining differing ideas. Does anyone have any good sites that prove this guy wrong? This website seems more interested in the social stigma involved with association with this guy than proving him wrong. What was that quote again about new ideas not becoming mainstream because of winning people over, but because their opponents died off?
Where is this coming from and why did this get moderated so informative? I have seen nothing on the news or anywhere else to suggest that NASA has a good idea what happened. Links anyone?
is that all the bandwith will given over to devices that use only the capacity they need, not like television and radio that send over a wide area, going into area that doesn't have a device in it.
Here is some information on how it could be terrrorism.
What I heard from FoxNews was that insulation fell off the rocket and hit one of the wings before launch
However, Open source technologies are driven by poory identified impetuses that do not drive proprietary technologies.
That man admits to being a pirate of your software. Go get him.