VYAZMA - 15 April 2009 09:23 AM

Sorry Psikey. You witnessed the event.

I witnessed NOTHING.  I haven’t been to New York since before the towers were built.  I never saw them with my own eyes.  All I have seen are photographs and videos.

Considering that there is absolutely ZERO empirical,or tested evidence

Tell that to the Danish scientist that I provided the video link for.

What, Along with the planes impact, caused the towers to collapse?
Look…I’m giving you an out here!! Take it. Can you figure it out?

Read what I said about conservation of momentum.  I am not talking about what DID DO IT because I do not have any evidence for it.  I am talking about what could not have done it because I understand the physics of why it should not have happened.  I even built a physical demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

I haven’t seen any other video like it.  One would think that our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for FOUR YEARS could have done much better in SEVEN YEARS.

Now understanding why it should not have happened involves needing to know the distribution of mass in a skyscraper.  It is certainly curious that WE DO NOT HAVE information on the distribution of steel and concrete in the WTC towers after SEVEN YEARS.  Now if you can’t comprehend what I have been saying about the distribution of mass then why don’t you stop responding?

psik

Conspiracy theories are not really my thing…

unholyblackdeath - 24 April 2009 04:08 PM

Conspiracy theories are not really my thing…

I presume PHYSICS isn’t either.

Atheists don’t seem to be up on it.

Darwin is presumed to be smarter than Newton.

psik

psikeyhackr - 25 April 2009 08:06 AM

unholyblackdeath - 24 April 2009 04:08 PM

Conspiracy theories are not really my thing…

I presume PHYSICS isn’t either.

Atheists don’t seem to be up on it.

Darwin is presumed to be smarter than Newton.

psik

WTF are you going on about?  I just joined this conversation.  Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

Wow.

Backing up drastically:

This is a forum for rationalists.  Yes? 

Rationalists want to search for truth, not win arguments. 
Rationalists understand that they are subject to cognitive fallacies and biases, and they try to overcome them.
Rationalists honestly examine evidence that may disprove their theories.

Rationalists would be willing to read this

before judging what it says.

If you don’t want to bother, then what the heck are you doing here?

(Sort of generally directed at everyone.  Which won’t win me popularity points, I’m sure.  Also, this is in response to the first half of the thread.  Ignore if it’s gotten better.)

Okay.  Moving forward a bit:

Skeptics, you can try to state the obvious.  (Passing semi trucks: scale up by a thousand.)  But that erects defenses.  Instead, go along with the conspiracy theories.  Follow the assumptions logically.

For example, there’s pictures of the Pentagon plane.  There’s suspiciously little debris.  And the wings appear to be missing.  (“So… you’re saying it was planted as evidence?  And… someone forgot to attach the wings?”)

See how much better?

Help people learn to question, really question.  Because hindsight can be embarrassing for a lifetime.

Kellan - 27 April 2009 01:32 AM

Wow.

Backing up drastically:

This is a forum for rationalists.  Yes? 

Rationalists want to search for truth, not win arguments. 
Rationalists understand that they are subject to cognitive fallacies and biases, and they try to overcome them.
Rationalists honestly examine evidence that may disprove their theories.

Rationalists would be willing to read this

If you don’t want to bother, then what the heck are you doing here?

(Sort of generally directed at everyone.  Which won’t win me popularity points, I’m sure.  Also, this is in response to the first half of the thread.  Ignore if it’s gotten better.)

Okay.  Moving forward a bit:

Skeptics, you can try to state the obvious.  (Passing semi trucks: scale up by a thousand.)  But that erects defenses.  Instead, go along with the conspiracy theories.  Follow the assumptions logically.

Help people learn to question, really question.  Because hindsight can be embarrassing for a lifetime.

.
Do rationalists understand Newtonian physics?

Are skeptics skeptical about Newtonian physics?

Does the 9/11 Commission Report invalidate Newtonian physics.

I have downloaded the NIST NCSTAR1 report.  It is 10,000 pages and I never attempted or intended to read the entire thing.  I have searched it for various information and have possibly read a total of 300 pages though not in sequence.  Only in areas where they discussed things I deemed relevant to the physics of the problem.  The trouble with the NCSTAR1 report is that it does not provide adequate information on the skyscraper.  They do not even specify the total mass of concrete.  We are not told the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.  How are we supposed to do competent physics without that?

http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=55445

Do people need to read government reports to understand grade school physics?

Do the laws of physics care about conspiracies?  Can people conspire to change the laws of physics?

Do atheists believe in PHYSICS?  Believe NOTHING, Understand what is Relevant!

People keep defining the problem in relation to the government and conspiracies.

PHYSICS doesn’t give a damn about the human race.

psik

PS - Plenty of people who claim to be Rationalists are merely Rationalizers.

Unholyblackdeath, I just want to reassure you that psikeyhacker is incorrect to claim that physics supports his arguments. I hold a master’s degree in physics and so I took some time explaining the physics to him some months back. He ended up denying the physics when it contradicted his claims. I have him on ignore now.

Popular Science magazine did a very detailed, but understandable critique on this subject some time ago. As in most conspiracy theories, the pool of individuals with knowledge of the evil plan grows expotentially over time until there are thousands of folks keeping their mouths buttoned up. Not possible.

Note that POPSCI also debunked the ‘FEMA Death Camps’ in another recent article. Of course, the people who believe in this stuff are immune from logic.

Chris Crawford - 27 April 2009 08:19 AM

Unholyblackdeath, I just want to reassure you that psikeyhacker is incorrect to claim that physics supports his arguments. I hold a master’s degree in physics and so I took some time explaining the physics to him some months back. He ended up denying the physics when it contradicted his claims. I have him on ignore now.

Now this is interesting.  I don’t recall you ever claiming to have a masters in physics before.

Now I will have to go back and look more closely at your posts.  But what did you ever say was incorrect about FALL OF PHYSICS?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52039/

Wait a minute.  You said this:

Your calculation also errs in treating the material as having a fixed velocity. The velocity of all the material is increasing as it falls.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/52223/

I have 4 speed lines in FALL OF PHYSICS that compare the changes in the velocities before and after impact in each of 4 cases, and now you are claiming to have a masters in physics.  ROFLMAO

psik

What does an actual gravitational collapse on a self supporting structure look like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c&feature=channel

psik

psikeyhackr - 26 March 2010 09:56 PM

What does an actual gravitational collapse on a self supporting structure look like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c&feature=channel

psik

I haven’t, or will not follow your link. I’d like to think that you are revisiting this topic with tongue in cheek Psikey. Because otherwise the implications are dreary for you.

VYAZMA - 27 March 2010 06:36 AM

psikeyhackr - 26 March 2010 09:56 PM

What does an actual gravitational collapse on a self supporting structure look like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c&feature=channel

psik

I haven’t, or will not follow your link. I’d like to think that you are revisiting this topic with tongue in cheek Psikey. Because otherwise the implications are dreary for you.

It is certainly dreary for some of us.

Being NORMAL is so comforting isn’t it?

See if you can find the total weight of a floor assembly.  The concrete slab is easy to compute, 600 tons.  So why can’t you find the weight of all of the corrugated pans and 35 and 60 foot trusses after EIGHT YEARS?

psik

unholyblackdeath - 24 April 2009 04:08 PM

Conspiracy theories are not really my thing…

With all due respect, if you’re reading this thread, then conspiracy theories are your thing.  Regarding 9-11, either there was a government conspiracy, or a conspiracy of Muslims with boxcutters.  The buildings didn’t just fall down on their own.  Somebody planned and plotted for their demise.  That is the definition of a conspiracy.  You get to pick one conspiracy or the other to believe in, unless you honestly have no opinion, which is not a bad thing.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” - J Edgar Hoover

Sanchez, you may notice that this is a very old thread - Last post before yours was over two years ago.  Unholyblackdeath hasn’t been around for a couple of years so he probably won’t see your quite valid argument.

Occam