1 of 22
1
CFI involved in scientific fraud?
Posted: 16 September 2012 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01

I asked for an official statement from CFI as to why they are participating in perhaps the largest scientific fraud in US history. Perhaps they will respond here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/

As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15355
Joined  2006-02-14

Yeah, right. And so is Randi and Shermer’s skeptic society. In fact, oddly, all responsible scientific skeptics are. It’s only the cranks who aren’t.  oh oh

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I love that statement: “As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.”  Sort of like asking the question, “Just because he can’t read or see the plays, why should his evaluation of the meanings in Shakespeare’s writings be ignored?”

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2012 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
Occam. - 16 September 2012 10:46 AM

I love that statement: “As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.”  Sort of like asking the question, “Just because he can’t read or see the plays, why should his evaluation of the meanings in Shakespeare’s writings be ignored?”

Occam

LOL

11 years and not even Richard Gage discusses how steel and concrete must be distributed down skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up against gravity and withstand the wind.  It is not 9/11 that is important now, it is the massive scientific travesty of post-9/11.  10,000 page report cannot even specify the total for the concrete and thousands of scientists do not point out the absence of the information.  How many have not even looked at the report to see if it makes sense?

The 9/11 Affair should overshadow the Galileo Affair for centuries to come.

Of course all of the Conspiracy Theorists who don’t seem to be able to handle Grade School Physics are just icing on the cake.

And then 9/11 seems to be important to atheists because it provides another excuse to beat on religion.

Who cares about Newtonian Physics?  LOL

I think Galileo was more important to science and physics than Shakespeare.  However the 9/11 Decade may become the pinnacle of science in relation to Western culture.  If airliners could do that then it should have been explained IN DETAIL with COMPLETE DATA long ago.  But if airliners could not do that it means the Physics Profession stood idly by and allowed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan go on without mentioning why the excuses for them were totally ridiculous.

psik

[ Edited: 16 September 2012 03:39 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2012 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2012-08-27

couldn’t agree more.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2012 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1396
Joined  2010-04-22

It’s not scientific fraud, it’s political delusion.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2012 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Really, psikeyhackr?  “I think Galileo was more important to science and physics than Shakespeare.”  I hate to tell you, but my post was an analogy, not a suggestion that Shakespeare had anything to do with science.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2012 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2012-04-24
dougsmith - 16 September 2012 09:36 AM

Yeah, right. And so is Randi and Shermer’s skeptic society. In fact, oddly, all responsible scientific skeptics are. It’s only the cranks who aren’t.  oh oh

Funny you should mention that.  He posted the same thing over on the Skeptic forums.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=18767

 Signature 

Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2012 10:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
Occam. - 17 September 2012 12:41 PM

Really, psikeyhackr?  “I think Galileo was more important to science and physics than Shakespeare.”  I hate to tell you, but my post was an analogy, not a suggestion that Shakespeare had anything to do with science.

Occam

Yeah, I’m too dumb to know what an analogy is.  [/sarcasm]

Like I give a damn about an analogy about a physics problem that has nothing to do with physics from people who can’t even ask about the amount of concrete in the buildings that we are supposed to believe can be collapsed by an airliners weighing less than 200 tons but official sources won’t even supply simple data about.

A $20,000,000 report with 10,000 pages can’t list a table as simple as tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.  No one needs to build a physics model demonstrating that the conservation of momentum would allow the top 15% of a self supporting structure to collapse the rest. 

Of course if such a model can’t be made then some people would have to admit the they have believed stupid bullsh!t for 11 years.  But then some people just have to claim to be skeptics to regard themselves as intelligent.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

I remain agnostic as to some things that occurred on 9/11.  I have not heard a convincing explanation, other than the official version.  Yet 3 buildings falling perfectly into their own footprint… What are the odds?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7664
Joined  2008-04-11
TimB - 18 September 2012 11:57 AM

I remain agnostic as to some things that occurred on 9/11.  I have not heard a convincing explanation, other than the official version.  Yet 3 buildings falling perfectly into their own footprint… What are the odds?

What makes you think they fell ‘perfectly’ into their own footprint…and what do you think it would take to blow them over onto their sides? Something THAT huge collapsing makes perfect sense, especially since nothing smaller than an F5 tornado has the slightest chance of affecting the direction of its fall….and I don’t believe the tornado could do much.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2012 09:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
asanta - 18 September 2012 08:04 PM
TimB - 18 September 2012 11:57 AM

I remain agnostic as to some things that occurred on 9/11.  I have not heard a convincing explanation, other than the official version.  Yet 3 buildings falling perfectly into their own footprint… What are the odds?

What makes you think they fell ‘perfectly’ into their own footprint…and what do you think it would take to blow them over onto their sides? Something THAT huge collapsing makes perfect sense, especially since nothing smaller than an F5 tornado has the slightest chance of affecting the direction of its fall….and I don’t believe the tornado could do much.

Perhaps you’re right about them only being able to fall straight down.  I don’t know about such things. I’m just saying, 2 planes crash into 2 buildings, and 3 buildings (2 really big ones and 1 smaller one) collapse from fire, pretty much completely, on the same day. It seems to me that those were some extraordinarily lucky terrorists, if the official version is completely correct.

I’ve seen videos of buildings fall in controlled demolitions, the way those buildings seem to have fallen. But I haven’t seen videos of buildings that have fallen in that way from fire. If there are videos of other tall buildings that have fallen in that way, from fire, could someone post a link, because I haven’t seen that.  Is it common?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 12:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7664
Joined  2008-04-11
TimB - 18 September 2012 09:35 PM

Perhaps you’re right about them only being able to fall straight down.  I don’t know about such things. I’m just saying, 2 planes crash into 2 buildings, and 3 buildings (2 really big ones and 1 smaller one) collapse from fire, pretty much completely, on the same day. It seems to me that those were some extraordinarily lucky terrorists, if the official version is completely correct.

I’ve seen videos of buildings fall in controlled demolitions, the way those buildings seem to have fallen. But I haven’t seen videos of buildings that have fallen in that way from fire. If there are videos of other tall buildings that have fallen in that way, from fire, could someone post a link, because I haven’t seen that.  Is it common?

When they do a controlled demolition, they are go around putting explosives in specific places to weaken the structure. They can’t afford to have the building fall the wrong way. Think of it as a four legged table. It will fall differently depending on how you remove the legs. In the case of the airplanes, as large as they were, they were still weight wise, much much lighter than the building. What it DID have, was a full tank of jet fuel. It is the fuel that caused the damage and weakened the structures. Why would another tall building fall that way? Do you know of another tall building hit by a jet full of fuel? There have been deadly high rise hotel fires recently (Puerto Rico comes to mind), but there were no accelerants involved, and although there were some deaths, the fires were eventually put out.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 01:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31

A few points should be considered:

- The planes surely damaged parts of the structures of the building, but if there had been no fire the towers would still stand
- The fire was surely bigger than the size of the planes, maybe spreading over the whole floor, well, over several floors I assume
- The bearing structure became weaker and weaker, maybe not quite symmetrical, but sure not completely one sided as well
- When the towers crashed, there was of course no momentum of the planes left. This was dissipated by buildings and the ‘connected earth’ in a few seconds after the planes crashed into the building
- The planes did not crash at the basis of the buildings but very high. If the same crash with fires had happened e.g. at the 10th floor, and the buildings would have crashed, then you can be sure they would have fallen over to the side, and not just on their footprint
- Now assume the bearing structures started to break one sided: as far as I remember, the upper parts of the buildings did in fact fell a little to the side, but then the rest of the bearing structures on the floors also broke, and from then on it was free fall, straight down
- The falling to the side just stopped because the whole construction was now falling down.

It is extremely silly to suppose that there was more needed than planes crashing in these buildings with their steel constructions, to bring them down. If you need a conspiracy you better proof that Atta and co were in fact NSA or CIA agents, or were motivated by them. Which is nonsense also, of course.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2390
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 19 September 2012 01:31 AM

It is extremely silly to suppose that there was more needed than planes crashing in these buildings with their steel constructions, to bring them down. If you need a conspiracy you better proof that Atta and co were in fact NSA or CIA agents, or were motivated by them. Which is nonsense also, of course.

It is SO silly to wonder why skyscrapers with bigger and longer lasting fires never came near collapsing.  In fact most just stood until the fires burned themselves out.

It is REALLY silly to wonder about the distribution of mass down the building to analyse the conservation of momentum in relation to the speed at which this supposed “collapse” occurred.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and could magically remove 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be travelling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec on impact.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories, then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast that the north tower completely collapsed in 11 seconds.

The 15 stories at the top of the 90 had to be strong enough to support the weight of 20 stories. Making them stronger means putting in more steel which would make them heavier. The 15 stories below that had to support 35, and the next 50, and the next 65 and then 80 and then 95. So all of the way down the building had to get stronger and heavier. That is true of all skyscrapers. So this presents a problem just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. How could a smaller lighter mass accelerate stronger and heavier masses and destroy the supports which must have held them while doing the destruction in less than triple the free fall time of 9.2 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

Scientists can find evidence of the Higgs Boson and land robots on Mars but can’t deal with the physics of skyscrapers.

The Irony of Curiosity     LOL

[199]
psik

[ Edited: 19 September 2012 09:43 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2012 12:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

I don’t understand the physics involved.  But I know that 3 buildings came down (pretty quickly once they started to collapse) with utter and complete destruction.  The sheer unlikelihood of such an event is enough to make a naive observer, like myself, wonder at the explanation.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 22
1