Robert Walper - 25 October 2012 01:45 PM

...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.

Well, there you go.

Write4U - 24 October 2012 11:38 PM

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

Logic is something that goes on in people’s minds.  Of course WHAT THEY CLAIM is logic also goes on in their minds.

A physical model is not in anyone’s mind.  You can duplicate my model and test it for yourself.  Whether my model is valid in any way compared to what happened on 9/11 may be a matter of judgement but that does not make it SEMANTIC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV1SqGINnP8

psik

It would appear that some people’s definition of LAYMEN is people who are supposed to believe that they are stupid and kept ignorant by experts.

I pointed out that the linked document produced by a supposed physicist does not say anything about the quantity of concrete even though the pulverization of concrete is mentioned three times.  In actuality there were two types of concrete in the WTC.  There was 150 lb/cu ft and 110 lb/cu ft.  Was the amount of energy required to pulverize each type per cubic foot the same?  How much of each type was there?

It seems our experts on this subject leave out information even though any “intelligent” lay people should be able to understand it.  It seems to me some lay people choose to be deliberately obtuse while claiming to be intelligent.

A layperson or layman is a person who is not an expert in a given field of knowledge. The term originally meant a member of the laity, i.e. a non-clergymen, but over the centuries shifted in definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layperson

But it is certainly curious that atheists would be inclined to use a word that came from European religious tradition.  But it is as though science has been turned into a religion by some people who make a point of keeping laymen ignorant.  Like not having the Bible in a language people can read for themselves.  Similar to not telling people how much concrete was where in a 400,000 tons skyscraper which held itself up for 28 years and withstood 100 mph winds on several occasions.

But after 11 years there would be a serious problem with admitting that airliners could not have done it since the experts should have pointed that out within a few months if it were the case.  But if the official story is true why should there be a problem with everyone knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level, and why can’t the experts build a physical model that can collapse completely?

Though I don’t know if CFI can be accused of being involved in scientific fraud.  Maybe Scientific American could be.  But how can scientific fraud be proven if the specific science being abused is not specified.  If the fraud in biology?

psik

TimB - 25 October 2012 01:49 PM

Robert Walper - 25 October 2012 01:45 PM

...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.

Well, there you go.

Of course they don’t have to actually explain anything.  They are laymen after all.  Not like Frank Greening who I already mentioned.  How about Ryan Mackey?

What about David Chandler?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XwVq6WhMj8

But he would be on my side.

But why do so many physicists seem to be completely silent.  Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  He was there and took videos and sent out an email the next day.  But as far as I can tell he has said NOTHING since then.  But although he isn’t an architect or engineer he published a book about Black Holes in 2007.  Aren’t Black Holes the epitome of gravity?  Doesn’t gravity have something to do with skyscraper and this collapse?  Curious how so many experts have been so quiet for so long.

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 October 2012 02:49 PM

Curious how so many experts have been so quiet for so long.

It’s not ‘curious’ at all. It’s because the case is closed and all 9/11 conspiracy nonsense has been debunked countless times.

Robert Walper - 25 October 2012 03:14 PM

psikeyhackr - 25 October 2012 02:49 PM

Curious how so many experts have been so quiet for so long.

It’s not ‘curious’ at all. It’s because the case is closed and all 9/11 conspiracy nonsense has been debunked countless times.

Debunked my ass.

Ain’t it curious my opponents keep talking about CONSPIRACIES when I am not saying a thing about that but you say nothing about the missing concrete and center of mass data.  All you have to work with is psychological bullsh!t because you admit that you are mere laymen who can’t comprehend 300 year old Newtonian Physics.

Your tame physicist never says anything about how much energy is required to collapse the steel structure but just presumes the potential energy can make it collapse itself.  But the only way for potential energy to be released is for there to be nothing supporting the mass so how could that happen all of the way down the building?  But then his estimate of Potential Energy is wrong because he assumes every level had the same amount of mass rather than the building being bottom heavy.  He is giving us circular logic saying it collapsed because it collapsed.

So you laymen believe nonsense physics because you want to and then talk about something being debunked.

That is why no one is building a model that can collapse.  They cannot.  It is not physically possible.

ROFL

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 October 2012 02:49 PM

But why do so many physicists seem to be completely silent.  Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  He was there and took videos and sent out an email the next day.  But as far as I can tell he has said NOTHING since then.  But although he isn’t an architect or engineer he published a book about Black Holes in 2007.  Aren’t Black Holes the epitome of gravity?  Doesn’t gravity have something to do with skyscraper and this collapse?  Curious how so many experts have been so quiet for so long.

psik

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a physicist, he is an astronomer. Your Mensa brain should understand the difference. And Tyson did not publish a book about black holes in 1997. Apparently you have seen the title but not read the book. Get your facts straight.

DarronS - 26 October 2012 03:42 AM

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a physicist, he is an astronomer. Your Mensa brain should understand the difference. And Tyson did not publish a book about black holes in 1997. Apparently you have seen the title but not read the book. Get your facts straight.

Neil deGrasse Tyson born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist and science communicator. He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

This is what I wrote and you can see I did not edit the post.

But although he isn’t an architect or engineer he published a book about Black Holes in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_Black_Hole:_And_Other_Cosmic_Quandaries

What is that about getting facts straight?

How about READING?

Where did you come up with 1997?  That is weird! 

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 October 2012 11:26 PM

Debunked my ass.

Ain’t it curious my opponents keep talking about CONSPIRACIES when I am not saying a thing about that but you say nothing about the missing concrete and center of mass data.  All you have to work with is psychological bullsh!t because you admit that you are mere laymen who can’t comprehend 300 year old Newtonian Physics.

Your tame physicist never says anything about how much energy is required to collapse the steel structure but just presumes the potential energy can make it collapse itself.  But the only way for potential energy to be released is for there to be nothing supporting the mass so how could that happen all of the way down the building?  But then his estimate of Potential Energy is wrong because he assumes every level had the same amount of mass rather than the building being bottom heavy.  He is giving us circular logic saying it collapsed because it collapsed.

So you laymen believe nonsense physics because you want to and then talk about something being debunked.

That is why no one is building a model that can collapse.  They cannot.  It is not physically possible.

ROFL

psik

Now you’re just trolling. ‘It’s not physically possible’...well, except for the towers that did collapse. LOL!

psikeyhackr - 26 October 2012 06:59 AM

But although he isn’t an architect or engineer he published a book about Black Holes in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_Black_Hole:_And_Other_Cosmic_Quandaries

What is that about getting facts straight?

How about READING?

Where did you come up with 1997?  That is weird! 

psik

OK. We were both wrong about Dr. Tyson. He is neither an astronomer nor a physicist, he is an astrophysicist, which is related to both but a different discipline. And 1997 was obviously a typo.

You are flat out wrong about Dr. Tyson’s 2007 book, Death by Black Hole. The book is an anthology of his popular science writings: it is not a book about black holes. How about reading the book? Or even the wikipedia page you cited?

DarronS - 26 October 2012 02:16 PM

OK. We were both wrong about Dr. Tyson. He is neither an astronomer nor a physicist, he is an astrophysicist, which is related to both but a different discipline. And 1997 was obviously a typo.

You are flat out wrong about Dr. Tyson’s 2007 book, Death by Black Hole. The book is an anthology of his popular science writings: it is not a book about black holes. How about reading the book? Or even the wikipedia page you cited?

Oh, so you can make three typos in a row in which case you were saying that he didn’t make a book about black holes in 2007 but I am at fault any way because I was not specific enough by using the word “about”.

I am not interested in reading the book I just watched a video in which he discussed it and explained the effects that a black hole should have on a body falling into it.

But of course the physics of stars and black holes and other stellar phenomenon are so simple compared to skyscrapers, he could not possibly understand it.  In that respect he is just another LAYMAN.

Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists and astrophysicists.  It is 300 year old Newtonian junk.  The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered.  I wonder if astrophysicists know anything about neutron stars.

psik

You are not going to admit you are wrong about Dr. Tyson’s book, are you psikey?

DarronS - 26 October 2012 04:28 PM

You are not going to admit you are wrong about Dr. Tyson’s book, are you psikey?

Of course he won’t. Him being wrong isn’t an option in his mind. That’s why all the experts are clearly wrong, lying or incorrect in their conclusions!

Robert Walper - 26 October 2012 04:36 PM

DarronS - 26 October 2012 04:28 PM

You are not going to admit you are wrong about Dr. Tyson’s book, are you psikey?

Of course he won’t. Him being wrong isn’t an option in his mind. That’s why all the experts are clearly wrong, lying or incorrect in their conclusions!

Those experts just happen to not be able to specify the the total amount of concrete after 11 years and haven’t discussed the mass distribution down the buildings but it’s OK for them to compute potential energy on the assumption that the weight is the same on every level.  But that is perfectly acceptable to laymen.

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 October 2012 05:50 PM

Robert Walper - 26 October 2012 04:36 PM

DarronS - 26 October 2012 04:28 PM

You are not going to admit you are wrong about Dr. Tyson’s book, are you psikey?

Of course he won’t. Him being wrong isn’t an option in his mind. That’s why all the experts are clearly wrong, lying or incorrect in their conclusions!

Those experts just happen to not be able to specify the the total amount of concrete after 11 years and haven’t discussed the mass distribution down the buildings but it’s OK for them to compute potential energy on the assumption that the weight is the same on every level.  But that is perfectly acceptable to laymen.

psik

C’mon, psik. Admit you are wrong about Death by Black Hole. I have read the book. You admitted you have not. You are speaking from ignorance.