You were misreading my post. Your remarks are still about point [1], i.e. why the standard theory is supposedly wrong. At point [2] and [3], you prove that it was possible to smuggle large quantities of explosives into the building and place them carefully on the crucial points in the structure, all without raising suspicion.
Not precisely. The simplest theory becomes the default. You can overturn it, but you need to have a good case.
For example, I could claim that the towers fell because they were shot down by an invisible Martian UFO. (Or by the hand of God/Allah. ) It would be a perfect explanation -- except that it goes against Occam's razor.
Bin Laden, or any other terrorist would do as an explanation of the facts. They are a much fit than the Bush administration.
Hah, you can't fool me! I know the "9/11 truth movement" is just a government setup, cunningly constructed to hide the REAL truth. Bring all the "evidence" you want, but I ain't fallin' for it! I've seen South Park.
Maybe he has seen how life can be in the sweatshops of games development. I don't know how things were at Lionhead (where both Scawen and Eric worked), but for an impression of the dark side, read the EA Spouse story.
The default explanation is simply this: a plane flew into the tower - there was an explosion and a fire - a bit later, the tower collapsed. No complicated math, no report from no commission, just a basic chain of causes & effects. It's the simplest explanation.
Anyone who claims that there is another cause underlying the events, such as controlled demolition, is going against Occam's razor. And because of that, the burden of proof is on him. He will have to come up with a decent underpinning of his hypothesis. Not only must he show that [1] the default cause is not sufficient, he must also prove that [2] the alternative cause was present (there were explosives), and [3] it was sufficient to cause the effects (lots of explosives, well-placed). The conspirationalists have only concentrated on [1] afaik.
And they have the same burden when it comes to human actions and motives. The default explanation (a known enemy of the USA) is so much simpler than the alternative (a government suddenly killing thousands of its own citizens). That makes 2 mountains to climb.
BTW, it's odd that they embraced the "controlled demolition" story. They could have made it easier on themselves by accepting that it was the planes that brought the WTC down, and only claiming that Bush allowed Bin Laden to do his dirty work.
Then do the math yourself. Or post a link to a page where it is done. You won't convince people by typing extra question marks.
This is typical of conspirationalist thinking: just bend every fact into the direction of your conclusion.
Q: If it was an inside job, why did they have to kill so many people?
A: Otherwise the world wouldn't be struck with terror.
Q: If it was an inside job, why didn't they kill more people?
A: The plotters have some compassion left.
Q: If it was an inside job, why did it look so much like a controlled demolition?
A: Because it is a controlled demolition.
Q: If it was an inside job, why didn't it look exactly like a controlled demolition?
A: Then the world would clearly see that it was a plot.
Furthermore, all that the conspiracy theorists do is shed doubt upon the "classical" explanation. I have not seen any positive proof, like "mission accomplished" messages to Bush, or confessions from someone who was in the plot. (Of course, that only proves what a cunning conspiracy it was. :rolleyes
So you believe that the molten metal was steel? And not another metal that melts easier, like zinc (from galvanized steel) or aluminum (widely used in any office building). Were the reported puddles of molten metal ever analyzed properly?
If you took the time to watch Zeitgeist, why not take some time to read Conspiracy Science, a website that tries to debunk the movie. Or just see where Google takes you if you search for "zeitgeist" and "debunk".
BTW, kudos for your stamina, watching the whole movie. I could barely stand it for 5 minutes. Then my propaganda detector sounded, my baloney detector went berserk, so I had to stop.
Not a Citroen. Not an Opel GT (which isn't even French), though it is similar: small sports car, same era (late '60s - early '70s), and pop-up headlights.
The license plate is Californian, but apparently some Yanks do have taste. Um, i mean a taste for European cars.
Another solution would be to let LFS convert replays into a portable, physics-independent replay format. The new format would not contain every detail from the car's physical state or the driver's input. It would be more like a movie, except that you can view the race from any angle you choose.
Apart from being independent of the LFS patch number, this would have some extra advantages:
- The portable format could be frame-based, making it easy to do smooth rewinding and scene selection. It would be a good tool for movie makers and race stewards.
- You could convert both SPR and MPR files to this format.
- You could let demo users view "licensed" races, without having to worry about cracks (because the conversion is one-way).
They are typical of the kind of jokes that you hear after some shocking event, like terroristic attacks or natural disasters. In fact, the one that lerts translated was an oldie: I heard it first when the Challenger space shuttle exploded.
Or this one: Q: What did Al Gore do after he heard the death toll of 9/11? A: He demanded a recount.
I was sort-of offended by the joke, because it was disguised as a true story. I'm far from religious, but my first reaction was shock about a human suffering a terrible fate. It would have been a better laugh if it had started like "Johnny was hiking through the bush when he saw an elephant ..."
It was there. It did not start as a joke. The story was deliberately filled with made-up details, to make it sound like a true story. So much so that it needed debunking by Snopes.
Nope. There is an old joke (in several variations) about these 3 characters. Lerts only said he doesn't like the joke. I'm not going to repeat the joke here, Google can find them for you.