psikeyhackr - 23 October 2012 03:43 PM

Robert Walper - 23 October 2012 01:42 PM

psikeyhackr, it’s quite obvious at this point you don’t actually believe the arguments and position you’re making (due to the poor nature of them), so I’m curious why you’re holding it?

Well who am I to argue with the OBVIOUS?

psik

I’m curious though, why did you waste so much time advocating for a position you admit you don’t hold? Was this a reverse psychology argument of some sort?

psikeyhackr - 23 October 2012 07:01 AM

Write4U - 22 October 2012 08:12 PM

psikeyhackr - 22 October 2012 05:15 PM

Write4U - 21 October 2012 09:15 PM

That is exactly what I thought when composing the phrase. “What the hell was that thing called”... ....I picked the first name that came to mind…

I have mentioned General Semantics on this site a few times.
psik

Yet you insist that your model which in all respects is just a “semantic interpretation” of the real physics is infallibly correct.

A PHYSICAL MODEL is not a semantic interpretation.  Semantics is about WORDS and their MEANING.

A physical model is REAL.

psik

Semantics (definitions)

3. relating to truth: relating to the conditions in which a system or theory can be said to be true

Your physical model is both systematically and theoretically false.

Write4U - 23 October 2012 05:39 PM

psikeyhackr - 23 October 2012 07:01 AM

A PHYSICAL MODEL is not a semantic interpretation.  Semantics is about WORDS and their MEANING.

A physical model is REAL.

psik

Semantics (definitions)

3. relating to truth: relating to the conditions in which a system or theory can be said to be true

Your physical model is both systematically and theoretically false.

How did that “S” get in there?

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/Search?q=define+semantic

That is semantic (adjective) not semanticS (noun)

semantics
Definition
se·man·tics
[ sə mántiks ]
NOUN
1.  study of meaning in language: the study of how meaning in language is created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences
2.  study of symbols: the study of the relationship between symbols and what they represent
3.  study of logic: the study of ways of interpreting and analyzing theories of logic

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+semantics&go;=&qs=n&form=QB

Evaluating the validity of a physical model is not a matter of semantics because it is not words.

psik

yes, here is the actual link I quoted from.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+semantic&go;=&qs=n&form=QB

But the question is if I used the phrase in context, and I demonstrbly can. #3

I cannot believe you two are down to arguing semantics. You should be arguing the conspiratorial mindset that leads to psikey’s irrational thinking and maniacal refusal to take a stand on what he believes.

Edit: That type of thinking is directly related to the original question, to which the answer is “No.” The reason the OP asked it lies within the conspiratorial mindset, and psikey’s history on this subject is an excellent case study of how an intelligent person can go completely irrational when obsessed with a conspiracy theory.

Arguing conspiracy theories is like wrestling a pig in shit….pretty soon you gonna realize that the pig is the only one enjoying it….

DarronS - 24 October 2012 04:23 AM

I cannot believe you two are down to arguing semantics. You should be arguing the conspiratorial mindset that leads to psikey’s irrational thinking and maniacal refusal to take a stand on what he believes.

Edit: That type of thinking is directly related to the original question, to which the answer is “No.” The reason the OP asked it lies within the conspiratorial mindset, and psikey’s history on this subject is an excellent case study of how an intelligent person can go completely irrational when obsessed with a conspiracy theory.

This is why it is quite obvious psikey cannot seriously be holding his position. It’s bullshit and he knows it, otherwise he’d be talking to the experts to show them how they’re wrong instead of a bunch of online laypersons.

But instead he’s ranting about his obvious bullshit on a sceptics forum on the subject. Even assuming his wet dream came true and he got numerous people to agree with him, to be blunt, so fucking what? Does he think that goes on a resume? “Successfully convinced a bunch of online non expert people I’m right about [insert subject here]!”

Which is as impressive as convincing young children about the existence of santa clause.

If he had any serious notion about getting the facts and setting the record straight, he’d be talking about the issues with actual experts on the subject, not trying to preach ignorance online and showing off his incredibly stupid youtube video.

Write4U - 23 October 2012 10:44 PM

yes, here is the actual link I quoted from.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+semantic&go;=&qs=n&form=QB

But the question is if I used the phrase in context, and I demonstrbly can. #3

You said:

Yet you insist that your model which in all respects is just a “semantic interpretation” of the real physics is infallibly correct.

I repeat:

A PHYSICAL MODEL is not a semantic interpretation.  Semantics is about WORDS and their MEANING.

A physical model is REAL.

We have to use words to talk about whatever we think happened on 9/11 and to talk about the model but that does not make the model an aspect of semantics.

The washers have mass and therefore weight in a gravitational field.  That weight must be supported against that field.  So in order for that mass to come down the supports must be eliminated or destroyed.  So can that be done by mass falling from above which the supports had to be strong enough to hold?  But my model is not a tube in tube structure like the WTC.  But breaking the connections around the edges of the floors would still require energy and therefore slow any falling mass down.

So how can this be SCIENTIFICALLY investigated without inquiring into how that had to affect any collapse time?

Gravity and energy and time are concepts investigated in physics so I do not understand how the OP expects to talk about scientific fraud involving 9/11 without discussing physics.

Now our “physicists” at CSI mentions concrete 3 times but only in relation to it being pulverized and “supposedly” computes the potential energy of the tower claiming that is what provided the energy to do the pulverizing.  But then he never mentions the quantity of concrete.  Surely the more concrete that was present the more energy required.  So this is what happens regularly in these supposed physics discussion.  ONE SIDED PHYSICS.  Impressive numbers supposedly supporting the official story but no information to determine if the impressive numbers are actually adequate.  But then since all of the levels did not have the same weight the calculations based on those assumptions are wrong anyway.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_truth_movement_the_top_conspiracy_theory_a_decade_later

I demonstrated that years ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

Frank Greening did not respond.  He says because JREF kicked him out.

psik

Robert Walper - 24 October 2012 08:05 PM

This is why it is quite obvious psikey cannot seriously be holding his position. It’s bullshit and he knows it, otherwise he’d be talking to the experts to show them how they’re wrong instead of a bunch of online laypersons.

Frank Greening is a name who is supposedly an expert.  He wrote papers involving the physics of this incident.  BUT HE’S A CHEMIST!

http://archive.org/details/WTC-REPORT-GREENING

I used Ryan Mackey to explain the concept of physical models in my video.  He never built one by the way.  Curious that!  But I have seen no response from him regarding my model even though I used him for introduction.

But 9/11 has become a weird problem because of what the lay persons have already decided what they prefer to believe.  Even most of the conspiracy theorists are more concerned about who did it than they are about the physics.

The physics profession has created a problem for itself because this is grade school physics.  If the grade school physics cannot be explained with ACCURATE DATA on the buildings then the Official Story CANNOT BE TRUE.  That would mean that the people in the nation that put men on the Moon are a bunch of dummies.

What would have happened if in the summer of 2002 a few thousand physicists had held a conference in New York explaining why airliners could not have done it?  That is what makes 2012 so IRONIC.  They find evidence of the Higgs Boson and land a 2000 pound robot on Mars but they have not explained in reasonable detail how a couple of airliners could totally destroy a couple of nearly identical skyscrapers in 1 and 2 hours.  But people wanting to believe this have to blame it on the tube-in-tube design but when do they ever specify the total number of connections those floors had to the core and perimeter?  If it really happened that way then why don’t we hear such simple information all of the time?  Like if there is a God then why doesn’t He show up?

But what is the problem now?  Now the physicists would have to explain why they didn’t expose the nonsense 10 years ago.

But that does not stop it from being grade school physics.  So why can’t they even talk about the total quantity of concrete in the towers, much less the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers?  Would that help show how absurd the collapse idea is?

If anything the question is why do lay people believe this is a complicated problem?  Why can’t the physicists just build a physical model that can collapse if that is what happened?

We have this problem with Belief in EXPERT AUTHORITY.  The egos of experts are on the line now.

And that includes all of the engineering schools.

psik

semantic
Definition
se·man·tic[ sə mántik ]
1. linguistics relating to word meanings: relating to meaning or the differences between meanings of words or symbols
2. linguistics of semantics: relating to semantics

3. logic relating to truth: relating to the conditions in which a system or theory can be said to be true

[ Mid-17th century. Via French < Greek sēmantikos “significant” < sēmainein “signify” < sēma “sign, mark” ]
se·man·ti·cal·ly ADVERB

psikeyhackr - 24 October 2012 09:15 PM

yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda…

psik

You’re still talking to us the laypeople. We’re not the experts, psikey. Go argue with the experts and see how you fare.

Psikey, I don’t know if your position holds any merit, but I admire your persistence in the face of almost unanimous disagreement on this forum.

TimB - 25 October 2012 12:59 PM

Psikey, I don’t know if your position holds any merit, but I admire your persistence in the face of almost unanimous disagreement on this forum.

The validity of his position can be established by the mere fact he’s trying to lecture laypersons rather than talking with actual experts in the field.

He’s no different than religious folk who claim they have some seriously valid objections and magical proof of how evolution is flawed. They then proceed to talk to atheists about it rather than, you know, biologists.

Robert Walper - 25 October 2012 01:14 PM

TimB - 25 October 2012 12:59 PM

Psikey, I don’t know if your position holds any merit, but I admire your persistence in the face of almost unanimous disagreement on this forum.

The validity of his position can be established by the mere fact he’s trying to lecture laypersons rather than talking with actual experts in the field.

He’s no different than religious folk who claim they have some seriously valid objections and magical proof of how evolution is flawed. They then proceed to talk to atheists about it rather than, you know, biologists.

Although it may be easy to think of him as part of the group of “truthers”, which holds some resemblance to a religious group, he seems more like an independent non-conformist to me.  I don’t mind him saying what he thinks, here, and exposing it over and over to challenge.

TimB - 25 October 2012 01:31 PM

Although it may be easy to think of him as part of the group of “truthers”, which holds some resemblance to a religious group, he seems more like an independent non-conformist to me.  I don’t mind him saying what he thinks, here, and exposing it over and over to challenge.

Tenaciously holding a position can be accomplisahed by any random idiot. I fail to see what makes his example anymore impressive.

He’s not concerned about the validity of his position or subjecting it to expertise scrutiny. Otherwise he’d be talking with experts on the subjects of structural engineering. There’s a reason scientific inquiry requires peer review, not review by laypersons.

Although that could prove difficult for him to do, since a cursory examination of his ‘model’ and argument is so full of holes it would sink an aircraft carrier in seconds. They have better things to do with their time.

His youtube ‘model’ of the WTC towers is a joke of epic proportions. He may as well be throwing a hand sized toy metal airplane off the roof of his house and afterwards examing it to reveal very little if any damage. Then concluding there must be something hidden going on with real aircraft crashes, since his smaller scale model survived just fine from a height that relative to his model would’ve been many thousands of feet high.

This level of stupidity is the only impressive aspect of his argument.

He’s entitled to opinions and arguments on the issue. Just as others are permitted to call his arguments and model flawed, stupid and utter nonsense.