psikeyhackr - 26 October 2012 05:50 PM

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

So go ask/tell the experts how flawed their models are based upon your “superior” expertise. Why the fuck are you sitting here telling us about it? We didn’t make the models.

Well, if you spend years digging for something you have a hunch about and don’t find anything, and are constantly told by others that there’s nothing there…some people just keep digging.

Imaginos - 26 October 2012 10:53 PM

Well, if you spend years digging for something you have a hunch about and don’t find anything, and are constantly told by others that there’s nothing there…some people just keep digging.

Well if you spend months digging for something and find something, some people are too pig-headed to even look at it. Take the OP for example. Anyone with an elementary school education in science should be able to read it and see the monumental flaws in the crackpot official 9/11 theory yet all we get is diversion and limp-wristed bare assertion logical fallacies from posters here. How is it that CFI apparently has no one with any rudimentary understanding of science or capacity for critical thought posting in this science forum to defend CFI from allegations of scientific fraud?

Michael Fullerton - 27 October 2012 05:14 AM

Imaginos - 26 October 2012 10:53 PM

Well, if you spend years digging for something you have a hunch about and don’t find anything, and are constantly told by others that there’s nothing there…some people just keep digging.

Well if you spend months digging for something and find something, some people are too pig-headed to even look at it. Take the OP for example. Anyone with an elementary school education in science should be able to read it and see the monumental flaws in the crackpot official 9/11 theory yet all we get is diversion and limp-wristed bare assertion logical fallacies from posters here. How is it that CFI apparently has no one with any rudimentary understanding of science or capacity for critical thought posting in this science forum to defend CFI from allegations of scientific fraud?

You are a bit repetitive to say the least. You claim no one here has a rudimentary understanding of science and on that point you are correct. Most of us dont have a rudimentary understanding of science, in fact we as a group have a very good understanding of science. You on the other hand have at most a rudimentary understanding at best. The OP you refer to is an article completely devoid of any science at all.

When you have a good science based argument you may return here to comment. Until then you are only wasting our time.

Robert Walper - 26 October 2012 09:58 PM

psikeyhackr - 26 October 2012 05:50 PM

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

So go ask/tell the experts how flawed their models are based upon your “superior” expertise. Why the fuck are you sitting here telling us about it? We didn’t make the models.

Where is this MODEL of the complete collapse of the north tower that you are talking about?

Provide us with a link to where the experts you speak of have done one?

It’s only been 11 years.  Of course how could they do such a thing without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?  Purdue claims they did a “scientific” computer simulation.  It looks pretty.  But it is the airliner impact into the north tower not the collapse.  But the funny thing is that the core columns do not move due to the conservation of momentum but the NIST provides empirical data indicting that the south tower deflected 15 inches.  One of them must be unscientific.

The problem is that it looks like the scientists can’t be trusted to do the science even though it should be stuff that laymen should understand so the problem is with the laymen and the scientists being reluctant to burst the bubble.  The laymen are willing to go and send their children to war over this, afterall.

psik

Psikey, are you just pasting a saved file here? We have this this argument from you dozens of times. Your continuous bleating got old a long time ago.  We have also told you that you should take this to the subject matter experts.

And when are you going to admit you are wrong about Death by Black Hole?

Michael Fullerton - 27 October 2012 05:14 AM

Imaginos - 26 October 2012 10:53 PM

Well, if you spend years digging for something you have a hunch about and don’t find anything, and are constantly told by others that there’s nothing there…some people just keep digging.

Well if you spend months digging for something and find something, some people are too pig-headed to even look at it. Take the OP for example. Anyone with an elementary school education in science should be able to read it and see the monumental flaws in the crackpot official 9/11 theory yet all we get is diversion and limp-wristed bare assertion logical fallacies from posters here. How is it that CFI apparently has no one with any rudimentary understanding of science or capacity for critical thought posting in this science forum to defend CFI from allegations of scientific fraud?

Doesn’t a scientific fraud have to involve some specific area of science to be tested against like biology or chemistry or something?  What area of science are you saying this fraud is occurring in?  What body of knowledge do we use to test to see if there is a fraud?

psik

DarronS - 27 October 2012 06:27 AM

And when are you going to admit you are wrong about Death by Black Hole?

If the book was about 10 different things and only one of them was black holes it was still about black holes.  I did not say it was about ONLY black holes.

So you need to make a big deal about trivia in the name of winning.  But if you read a book partly about black holes and could actually understand it then why do you have a problem with what a skyscraper has to do to hold itself up?  The surface gravity of the Earth does not nearly approach that of a black hole.  Or are you just a scientific dilettante who throws words around but does not actually understand anything?

I met a man once who told me he LOVED cars.  He had this Automobile magazine from May of 2004.  I remember the date because I did read one interesting article in it.  I asked him what a cam shaft was and he didn’t know.  These car magazines have pictures of lots of car parts laid out in geometric patterns and I pointed to a part and asked him what it was.  He said, “Cam shaft?” in a questioning voice.  I was pointing at a crank shaft.

I don’t buy car magazines.  The junk is annoying.  But I could not stand to look through a magazine with lots of pictures of things I did not understand.  If I was interested I would work at comprehending them.  If a skyscraper could collapse I would have to comprehend it and would expect accurate data about it.  But Richard Gage is full of crap because he does not explain how mass distribution mitigates against collapse but then runs around repeating “controlled demolition”.

This is a GRAVITY problem.  You say you read Dyson’s book.  Don’t you get gravity.

You have to comprehend the gravity of the situation.

This is a Center for Inquiry isn’t it.

psik

psikeyhackr - 27 October 2012 06:51 AM

DarronS - 27 October 2012 06:27 AM

And when are you going to admit you are wrong about Death by Black Hole?

If the book was about 10 different things and only one of them was black holes it was still about black holes.  I did not say it was about ONLY black holes.

Nice attempt to weasel your way out of being wrong, but you are still wrong. Death by Black Hole was about 31 different things, one of them being how a black hole can kill you. This is far different than being a book about black holes, such as Black Holes and Time Warps. Using your logic The Black Hole War is a book about black holes.

This is relevant to the discussion because it shows how psikey is unable to admit when he is wrong and will invent all manner of rationalizations so he can continue thinking he is right, even when facts contradict him.

Edit: I just found out Dr. Tyson wrote a book about Merlin in 1997 (not a typo).

Michael Fullerton - 27 October 2012 05:14 AM

Well if you spend months digging for something and find something, some people are too pig-headed to even look at it. Take the OP for example. Anyone with an elementary school education in science should be able to read it and see the monumental flaws in the crackpot official 9/11 theory yet all we get is diversion and limp-wristed bare assertion logical fallacies from posters here. How is it that CFI apparently has no one with any rudimentary understanding of science or capacity for critical thought posting in this science forum to defend CFI from allegations of scientific fraud?

So go talk to the experts Michael. Why the fuck are you sitting here trying to convince a bunch of people whom according to you have no “rudimentary understanding of science or capacity for critical thought”?

If a scientist discovers some interesting fact about physics or whatever subject he’s investigating, he doesn’t take his results and go talk to a bunch of random people (and online to boot). He takes his discovers and data to fellow scientists for peer review.

psikeyhackr - 27 October 2012 06:23 AM

Where is this MODEL of the complete collapse of the north tower that you are talking about?

Provide us with a link to where the experts you speak of have done one?

It’s only been 11 years.  Of course how could they do such a thing without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings?  Purdue claims they did a “scientific” computer simulation.  It looks pretty.  But it is the airliner impact into the north tower not the collapse.  But the funny thing is that the core columns do not move due to the conservation of momentum but the NIST provides empirical data indicting that the south tower deflected 15 inches.  One of them must be unscientific.

The problem is that it looks like the scientists can’t be trusted to do the science even though it should be stuff that laymen should understand so the problem is with the laymen and the scientists being reluctant to burst the bubble.  The laymen are willing to go and send their children to war over this, afterall.

psik

Ah yes, the laymen (specifically you) are more versed and better experts than the worldwide sum of experts who’ve analysed the event. Keep dreaming your fantasy life there, psik.

I already destroyed your pathetic model and arguments with easy to understand physics (which you apparently didn’t understand). As I said, you don’t actually believe or care about the crap you’re spouting. Otherwise you’d be consulting with actual experts on the subject rather than desperately pleading with non expert sceptics on a web forum to ‘believe you’.

Don’t sugar coat it Robert, tell us what you really think.

DarronS - 27 October 2012 12:21 PM

Don’t sugar coat it Robert, tell us what you really think.

hehe…well, I am being blunt. I’m not angry or anything by any means, although some people seem to think that is the case. Worst case scenario I might be annoyed, but that’s my fault more than anyone elses.

Robert Walper - 27 October 2012 09:54 AM

I already destroyed your pathetic model and arguments with easy to understand physics (which you apparently didn’t understand).

So why don’t you provide a link back to where you did this destruction so anyone who happens to wander through in the future will not have to waste their time searching through the thread?

psik

psikeyhackr - 28 October 2012 12:50 PM

Robert Walper - 27 October 2012 09:54 AM

I already destroyed your pathetic model and arguments with easy to understand physics (which you apparently didn’t understand).

So why don’t you provide a link back to where you did this destruction so anyone who happens to wander through in the future will not have to waste their time searching through the thread?

psik

People can read the thread at their leisure. You may rest assured your model and argument is neither impressive or compelling enough to make a big deal out of having shown how ridiculous and flawed it is.

Well if you spend months digging for something and find something, some people are too pig-headed to even look at it.

On that note, I think I solved your mystery of no responses.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

On the very same page issuing your challenge, a challenge that was sent to:

the majority of structural engineering professors and physics professors at: McGill University, University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Alberta, Queens University, University of Waterloo, McMaster University, University of Calgary, University of Western Ontario, Simon Fraser University, Dalhousie University, University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University, Carleton University, University of Manitoba, Concordia University. It was sent to every engineering and architecture firm in the Okanagan, every physics and engineering instructor at Okanagan College and even all Vernon-area high school physics teachers. Not one person has responded with an explanation. Every known newspaper in Canada was contacted about this challenge. Not one newspaper has covered the story.

Further down, addressing the potential participants:

Why do you unquestioningly believe what authorities tell you to believe without figuring things out for yourself? Are you a courageous rational autonomous human being or just a frightened slab of livestock that authorities control and manipulate at their will?

You don’t understand why they won’t respond or take you seriously? You need to change your approach when communicating to the scientific community, or anyone with differing views, or you’re setting yourself up for much more wasted time, and empty mailboxes Michael. It’s like saying “Hey there, could you help me figure this out, you cowardly sheep, unscientific fraudsters?!! (the last two words pertaining to the article in your first post). But I’m sure that’s only part of why they don’t respond. If not, maybe they were all thinking “As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.”

Absolutely no responses… Hum, I wonder why…