36 of 91
36
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 23 May 2013 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 526 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 23 May 2013 01:06 PM

Claims are based on evidence, or lack of same. I have claimed you have none. Do you have any?

My claims stand until you disprove them. Just like how you maintain your claims stand until they are disproven by me. I am playing by your rules, there is nothing I can do about it unless you change the rules and apply them to us both equally, jomper.

And don’t be dishonest, I’m referencing your three specific claims from earlier, not your claim I have no evidence. I don’t care if you claim that or not.

You are either interested in proof, or you aren’t. If you are, you made the first three claims, so you start and I will follow suit.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 04:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 527 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 23 May 2013 01:15 PM

My claims stand until you disprove them.

Like 4 inch slabs “throughout” the towers.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 528 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 23 May 2013 01:15 PM
jomper - 23 May 2013 01:06 PM

Claims are based on evidence, or lack of same. I have claimed you have none. Do you have any?

My claims stand until you disprove them. Just like how you maintain your claims stand until they are disproven by me. I am playing by your rules, there is nothing I can do about it unless you change the rules and apply them to us both equally, jomper.

And don’t be dishonest, I’m referencing your three specific claims from earlier, not your claim I have no evidence. I don’t care if you claim that or not.

You are either interested in proof, or you aren’t. If you are, you made the first three claims, so you start and I will follow suit.

I’m starting to think you’re actually insane. My claim is that you have no evidence to present. You aren’t presenting any.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 529 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 23 May 2013 05:03 PM
Robert Walper - 23 May 2013 01:15 PM
jomper - 23 May 2013 01:06 PM

Claims are based on evidence, or lack of same. I have claimed you have none. Do you have any?

My claims stand until you disprove them. Just like how you maintain your claims stand until they are disproven by me. I am playing by your rules, there is nothing I can do about it unless you change the rules and apply them to us both equally, jomper.

And don’t be dishonest, I’m referencing your three specific claims from earlier, not your claim I have no evidence. I don’t care if you claim that or not.

You are either interested in proof, or you aren’t. If you are, you made the first three claims, so you start and I will follow suit.

I’m starting to think you’re actually insane. My claim is that you have no evidence to present. You aren’t presenting any.

Now you’re lying again. I said prove your three claims you made earlier, not your new claim I have no evidence. I do have evidence, I just refuse to submit it until you submit evidence for your three claims that you made first. That or you retract your three claims and admit their only basis is your personal ignorance, and therefore invalid. After which I will gladly respond to my burden of proof for my claims.

I’m under no obligation to provide evidence for my claims when you refuse to prove your own claims you made prior to mine. As I said, I am playing by your rules you have set by example.

Have you forgotten what positive claims you have made, jomper? I can quote them for you again if you wish.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 05:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 530 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Go ahead.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 06:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 531 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

Jomper’s claims:

Post #474: “my position is your explanation for the collapses is fake science, and my evidence for this is that it cannot be reproduced in any way, shape or form
Post #476: “you are clearly unaware that if “expert” conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, shape or form, they should not be accepted by anyone”

Your first claim here is that the current expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way, shape or form. This is a positive claim.

I responded to your claim here:

Post #477: “You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.”

You responded here:

Post #478: “That’s easy to prove: no testing or reproduction of results has been done

This is another positive claim. And then:

Post #482: “the reality is merely that experimental validation has not been done”, “it is my suggestion that we have had no validation because it is impossible

This is another two additional claims. You assert quite clearly that the ‘reality’ is that experimental validation has not been done. You then ‘suggest’ validation is impossible. Those are two positive claims on your part.

So, your claims are the following: the expert conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, no testing or reproduction of results has been done, validation has not been done and validation has not been done because it is impossible.

Those are four very specific, very clearly defined claims on your part. I now await you to either prove or retract these claim. You can retract those claims by admitting you have no justification for making them and what you’re actually arguing is your own personal ignorance on the issue. Meaning you don’t know of any such examples, but this does not mean you can assert there are no such examples.

If you do so, I will then turn to my burden of proof for my claims.

[ Edited: 23 May 2013 06:11 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 532 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 23 May 2013 12:39 PM

No, they’re scientific models, not game physics models, three of them being real world models. All of which can be replicated at home with basic materials, although taking some effort in time.

How do the Laws of Physics tell the difference between the three?

Here is a great video of physics needing to be explained:

roto3.gif

How did that movement occur?  But how can it even be questioned properly without accurate distribution of mass data?  How much mass had to move in how much time?  That old F=ma equation and that does not even take the energy required to break things, like columns.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 533 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Here is a great video of physics needing to be explained:

Not really. The fire weakened the structure, some of which was already compromised by an airplane smashing right through it. Excessive heat did the rest and something on one side just gave way first. The weight of the top floors did the rest.

It’s not quite the set piece you imagine it would be, but it’s not rocket science either.

I understand your suspicion of our government, but to think they could pull off something like this and get away with it? You’re giving Big Brother credit for having much more intelligence then they have.

Your whole premise also suffers the fatal flaw of temporal anachronism too. Think about that for awhile.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 08:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 534 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 23 May 2013 08:29 PM

Here is a great video of physics needing to be explained:

The fire weakened the structure, some of which was already compromised by an airplane smashing right through it. Excessive heat did the rest and something on one side just gave way first. The weight of the top floors did the rest.

It’s not quite the set piece you imagine it would be, but it’s not rocket science either.

I understand your suspicion of our government, but to think they could pull off something like this and get away with it? You’re giving Big Brother credit for having much more intelligence then they have.

What have I said about the government besides certain information not being in the NIST report?  This is not about the government pulling off anything.  This is just analysing obvious physics.  You are bringing up irrelevancies for your own reasons.

The dial on that circle shows the approximate motion of the bottom portion of the segment of the building that broke loose.  The circle would have a radius of 24 feet to match the horizontal lines of the spandrels seen outside the tower.  The dial starts at the top and rotates clockwise.  That mean the bottom of the 29 story section was moving horizontally faster than it was moving downward.  What force could cause that?  The only force that should be in effect is gravity which would be downward.  Where was the center of rotation of that 29 story moving section?  Where was the center of mass?  Neither of those questions are addressed in the NIST report. 

If structural damage from the impact and fire started this then the center of rotation would be on the same level, probably as far from the impact and fire as possible because that would be weakened the least.  But instead the center of rotation is around the 89 floor almost 100 feet above the impact point.  That is what needs to be explained and that is about physics and the government is irrelevant until that is addressed.

This is a Center for Inquiry isn’t it?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 535 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 23 May 2013 06:08 PM

Post #474: “my position is your explanation for the collapses is fake science, and my evidence for this is that it cannot be reproduced in any way, shape or form

Yes. Quite a sweeping statement wouldn’t you agree? Practically begging to be challenged. Incidentally I also said you and all your experts wouldn’t be able to reproduce the “collapse effect” with Lego even if you spent ten years playing with it, after you started wibbling on about toy boats.

Although I made it clear I was being categorical for rhetorical effect, you had a choice when I made that statement: You could either have proved me wrong by offering evidence that the “collapse effect” had in fact been experimentally validated, or you could’ve gotten abusive, get told off by the mods, whinge to the mods, invent some “rules” you then claim I’ve made up which somehow prevent you from being able to able to present the evidence you insist you’ve got, and then sulk childishly about the need to follow these “rules” for pages and pages while the discussion goes nowhere.

Post #476: “you are clearly unaware that if “expert” conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, shape or form, they should not be accepted by anyone”

A statement of fact.

Your first claim here is that the current expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way, shape or form. This is a positive claim.

So prove me wrong; when I say “tested” I of course mean successfully validated through testing.

I responded to your claim here:

Post #477: “You will of course now prove your assertion the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced in any way.”

Yes, I do not think that the expert conclusions have been properly validated and I do not think they can be experimentally reproduced. You haven’t proved me wrong yet…

You responded here:

Post #478: “That’s easy to prove: no testing or reproduction of results has been done

This is another positive claim.

An important dimension to the scientific method is admitting you’re wrong when you’re shown to be wrong. I would love to have these statements falsified, which is why I made them in such sweeping terms. So where is this evidence of yours that experimentally reproduces the “collapse effect” that totally destroyed the towers?

And then:

Post #482: “the reality is merely that experimental validation has not been done”, “it is my suggestion that we have had no validation because it is impossible

This is another two additional claims. You assert quite clearly that the ‘reality’ is that experimental validation has not been done. You then ‘suggest’ validation is impossible. Those are two positive claims on your part.

Again, when I say “validated” I of course mean successfully validated through testing. You haven’t proved me wrong yet: it seems you have no evidence. My assertion stands.

So, your claims are the following: the expert conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced in any way, no testing or reproduction of results has been done, validation has not been done and validation has not been done because it is impossible.

You haven’t proved me wrong yet: it seems you have no evidence. My assertion stands.

Those are four very specific, very clearly defined claims on your part. I now await you to either prove or retract these claim. You can retract those claims by admitting you have no justification for making them and what you’re actually arguing is your own personal ignorance on the issue. Meaning you don’t know of any such examples, but this does not mean you can assert there are no such examples.

You haven’t proved me wrong yet: it seems you have no evidence. My assertion stands. As I’ve said several times while trying to coax you out of your childish little sulk, if you prove me wrong it will be obvious I have been speaking from personal ignorance, and I will retract my claims.

If you do so, I will then turn to my burden of proof for my claims.

I predict, however, that you will continue to sulk about your “rules”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 536 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

What you think you know is irrelevant. I’m only interested in what you know you can prove.

So if your claims stand until disproven, therefore so shall mine.

[ Edited: 24 May 2013 09:37 AM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 537 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Robert Walper:

Do you think it would be reasonable to assess that as a mental disorder? After all, my immediate reaction to the statement an individual(s) has a bizarre concept of reality is that you’re referring to those who are clinically insane.

  You missed part of my point.  No matter the beliefs of anyone, they can be quite certain that those who have strong, refractory beliefs very different from theirs must be mentally disordered.  While conservatives and theists have views of reality that are strongly at odds with mine, I can’t assume they are cracked.  After all, they may feel the same way about me. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 10:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 538 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Occam. - 24 May 2013 09:57 AM

No matter the beliefs of anyone, they can be quite certain that those who have strong, refractory beliefs very different from theirs must be mentally disordered.  While conservatives and theists have views of reality that are strongly at odds with mine, I can’t assume they are cracked.  After all, they may feel the same way about me. 

But these differences are about things which cannot be tested experimentally.

What does it say about people’s mentality when they have to reject the experiments?

psik

[ Edited: 24 May 2013 10:21 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 539 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 24 May 2013 09:25 AM

What you think you know is irrelevant. I’m only interested in what you know you can prove.

So if your claims stand until disproven, therefore so shall mine.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the only position you are undermining is your own. Again: I am convinced you have no experimental validation for the “collapse effect” you believe in; I have been sweepingly categorical in my expression of this conviction mainly because I am so keen to to be disproved. Every post you make seems to confirm my position.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 540 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 24 May 2013 10:17 AM
Robert Walper - 24 May 2013 09:25 AM

What you think you know is irrelevant. I’m only interested in what you know you can prove.

So if your claims stand until disproven, therefore so shall mine.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the only position you are undermining is your own. Again: I am convinced you have no experimental validation for the “collapse effect” you believe in; I have been sweepingly categorical in my expression of this conviction mainly because I am so keen to to be disproved. Every post you make seems to confirm my position.

I don’t care what you are convinced of. What you are convinced of is not proof of your claims. If you do not have to prove your claims or what you are convinced of, then nor do I have to prove my claims or what I am convinced of.

You do not get to sit there and pretend that if you make claims, it’s up to others to disprove them. That said, you keep insisting I have to prove you wrong. So I am no longer arguing with you on that issue and will simply do exactly what you’re doing. I will make claims and they will stand until disproven. Just as you have made claims and insist they stand until disproven.

You win the argument. Claims stand until disproven, like yours. I in turn now make claims and they stand until disproven as well.

If it helps you, I’m convinced your claims are invalid, just as you said you’re convinced the same for mine. I used the word ‘convinced’ now just like you. Impasse.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
   
36 of 91
36