Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

reply to post by Cassius666


I think the assumption that all believers in the OS are blind sheep that thoughtlessly follow and support the government/MSM is not only daft, but offensive. I believe in the negatively connotative "OS," AND I just so happen to be an anti-government, capital-L Libertarian.

I do believe an apology is in order.

Originally posted by ANOK


That is absolute nonsense.

Okay. If you like I'll produce a series of quotes from posters in this forum who have no idea about physics but endorse the Truth Movement narrative. You can counter by quoting posters who do understand the physics involved, but yours will be a short list.

Bear in mind that my list will include people who use the word "sensiate". They're on your team.

First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.

I'm not sure you understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

I have yet to debate with ONE OS supporter who understands Newtons laws of motion. Want to prove me wrong, debate me on it.

And yet the vast majority of scientists and engineers remain unmoved by your strident claims. Either you're wrong, or you're very bad at communicating. One of the two.

I have yet to debate with ONE OS supporter who doesn't give up debating me on physics and start throwing personal insults. In fact your post here is a personal insult, with no evidence to support it's claim.

My post is "personal"? Okay. Then to whom does it refer?

If your understanding of physics is as informed as your understanding of english then I can see why you're where you are.

If you think trusses sagging from heat can put a pulling force on the much more massive columns they were attached to, then you are the one who has trouble understanding the physics involved in collapsing buildings.

So no pulling force can be exerted by sagging trusses? Is that what you're claiming?

If you think a building can naturally fall into it's own footprint, with all four outer walls landing on top of the rest of the demolished building, then you are probably physics challenged.

That's not really a phrase, is it? Physics challenged?

But ignoring that, your insistence that a building falls into its own footprint is irrelevant. And probably wrong. I suspect you're basing it on an inconclusive photograph. Anyway, everyone knows that the WTC demo "flung debris 400 ft etc etc." Except in the WTC 7 demo. They did that differently. Quite why I imagine you might struggle to explain.

reply to post by ANOK

LOL an appeal to authority is an appeal to authority.

Not when the authority is actually producing something other than a few lines of opinion.

You can't go around claiming people do that when you do it yourself, and admit it.

I am not appealing to their simple authority but proposing that their detailed analysis and arguments are constructed by persons with relevant education and experience. That's how we do things in the real world. Relevant eduction and experience together with detailed analysis and comprehensive accounting of relevant facts.

As to what 'authority' is credible is down to opinion, this is why it's not a credible form of debate.

No, it is by and far not a matter of opinion. A medical doctor that specializes in cardiology and is degreed, licensed and certified is a credible authority on matters pertaining to cardiac health, that is not an opinion, it is a fact. A person with a PhD in theology is not an expert in building demolition, neither is an architect. That is not an opinion, that is a fact.

You appeal to authority because you can't make a credible argument yourself.

I "appeal" to the work they did and note their recognized authority.

You can just say 'read this', or 'watch this', and think you've made a valid argument. I thought we were here to debate each other, not someone else's work by proxy.

Sure I can, its called information. I refer to information. You refer to your opinion and incredulity.

Newtons laws of motion is a repeated because you all keep ignoring it, because if you truly apply the laws it makes your opinions and the NIST report nonsense.

Simply refering to that phrase is absolutely meaningless. No one is dumb enough to think that simply because you declare that such and such is a violation of some scientific principle, does not make it so and I am not obligated to prove you're wrong.

If you truly understood the physics then you would also be using the laws of motion to explain your points. The laws of motion are the laws of motion, and are the most relevant physics to collapses, momentum and collision. Your obvious fear of the 'phrase' is very telling.

My what? Fear of the phrase? Thats a laugh. You and others throw it around like some magical incantation. its actually comical.

Tell me, what other laws of physics should we be applying to this problem?

Its not which, its how you are interpreting their application.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.

We appeal to those "authorities" because unlike posters on the internet, they have actually produced reports and constructed arguments based on facts. As opposed to just a constant repitition of phrases like "Newtons laws of motion" and arguments from incredulity.

No they did not.They were given an event parameters and told to construc the in their opinion, most likely scenario on why we saw what we saw IF indeed only panes and fires were involved into exploding the buildings. Pretty much what the warren comission did, to explain how one gunman achieved all those hits.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

First off the whole OS supporters argument is based on appeals to authority, NIST report, Bazant, NOVA, PM, etc.

We appeal to those "authorities" because unlike posters on the internet, they have actually produced reports and constructed arguments based on facts. As opposed to just a constant repitition of phrases like "Newtons laws of motion" and arguments from incredulity.

Not to mention a near religious belief in these armies of sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life who are planting fake evidence and false disinformation. How many people are involved in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy, anyway?

reply to post by Cassius666

They were given an event parameters and told to construc the in their opinion, most likely scenario on why we saw what we saw IF indeed only panes and fires were involved into exploding the buildings.

That's called science. It attempts to explain what is observed. Planes crashing into the buildings were observed. Fires in the building were observed. Damage caused by the plane impact was observed. The collapse was observed. It was explained based on what was observed. Like it or not.

No explosive charges were observed. No thermite reactions were observed. No mini-nukes were observed. No space beams were observed.

What is not science is first constructing a theory based on your own persoanl bias and then looking for facts that support your bias. That is what is often refered to as "pseudo-science".

Originally posted by jrcris2011The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence.

I don't see fires doing this:

Steel to Dust

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by jrcris2011The government saying that the fires on the towers brought down the WTC is like an insult to my intelligence.

I don't see fires doing this:

Steel to Dust

Doing what? Shaking the dust off of steel as it falls?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Not to mention a near religious belief in these armies of sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life who are planting fake evidence and false disinformation. How many people are involved in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy, anyway?

Actually the people planting fake information can be measured on one hand, NIST, PM, NOVA, YOU....

BTW what is false disinformation?

Tell me Dave, where did all the steel floor pans and rebar go from the floors? How did wt7 land in it's own footprint?
Why did the collapses ignore equal opposite reaction and moment conservation laws? Why do you ignore known physics for illusionary new phenomena? All you ever do is make derogatory comments about 'twoofers'.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Okay. If you like I'll produce a series of quotes from posters in this forum who have no idea about physics but endorse the Truth Movement narrative. You can counter by quoting posters who do understand the physics involved, but yours will be a short list.

Bear in mind that my list will include people who use the word "sensiate". They're on your team.

I'm not on a team so you can quote away all you want mate, I have no control over what other people say. Be sure to include me though just so I can get a better idea of what you're not understanding.

I'm not sure you understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

When you make the claim that NIST, or whoever, is correct because they are an authority, then that is an appeal to authority.

And yet the vast majority of scientists and engineers remain unmoved by your strident claims. Either you're wrong, or you're very bad at communicating. One of the two.

Just because scientists don't publicly dismiss the OS it doesn't mean they support it. Do you know what an appeal to authority is? Because you just made one.

My post is "personal"? Okay. Then to whom does it refer?

If your understanding of physics is as informed as your understanding of english then I can see why you're where you are.

A personal insult to anyone who questions the OS. My English is not the problem your comprehension skills are.

So no pulling force can be exerted by sagging trusses? Is that what you're claiming?

Yes that is what I'm claiming, because that is what physics supports. When steel heats up it expands(gets bigger), that expansion has to go somewhere. If the steel is pinned between two columns it will push against those columns, if they don't move it does the only other thing it can, it sags to the path of least resistance.

If you think it was only weight causing the sag then you are wrong in so many ways. IF it was just the weight then the truss would just simply sag more. The only way the trusses could pull in the columns was if the truss cooled and could sag no more, and weight was added that it was not designed to hold. But the truss could not have reached such high temps in an hour, let alone do that and then cool, and where did the extra weight come from?

That's not really a phrase, is it? Physics challenged?

Why not lol?

But ignoring that, your insistence that a building falls into its own footprint is irrelevant. And probably wrong. I suspect you're basing it on an inconclusive photograph. Anyway, everyone knows that the WTC demo "flung debris 400 ft etc etc." Except in the WTC 7 demo. They did that differently. Quite why I imagine you might struggle to explain.

This is not an inconclusive photo, you can clearly see the outer walls on top of the debris pile...



Only one way that can happen, period.

Yes the towers was a different method of demolition. Too tall to be imploded like WTC7.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Not to mention a near religious belief in these armies of sinister secret agents planted throughout all walks of life who are planting fake evidence and false disinformation. How many people are involved in this supposedly "secret" conspiracy, anyway?

Actually the people planting fake information can be measured on one hand, NIST, PM, NOVA, YOU....

Huh?? Just who is a NIST? And who is a Popular Mechanics? I don't think I've ever gone to the store and bumped into 911 Commission, or saw in the paper how FEMA married a highschool sweetheart..

These entities aren't individual people. They're groups of people, and in the case of your absurd 9/11 conspiracy stories, hundreds of thousands of people. Do you genuinely think there was only one guy maintaining the entire security in the World Trade Center, AND who planted all those hundreds of thousands of demo charges in the WTC, and then after steering the planes into the towers by remote control and setting off the charges, immediately rushed down to Arlington and planted all those of bits of wreckage on the front lawn of the Pentagon? Oh, and that same guy is in charge of NATO and issued an article V in support of the US? AND is in charge of NIST *and* FEMA?

This is why your conspiracy stories don't have even a microbe of credibility- you people never think your own conspiracy accusations all the way through. We ask you how these imagined conspiracies were staged and you people almost religiously accuse everyone from NYC firefighters to the Red Cross to even an immigrant from El Salvador watering the Pentagon lawns of being secret gov't agents. Don't complain when we point out your own words are coming back to haunt you.

BTW what is false disinformation?

You conspiracy people are the ones who are making things up off the tops of your heads to suit your conspiracy stories as you go along. You tell me.

Why did the collapses ignore equal opposite reaction and moment conservation laws? Why do you ignore known physics for illusionary new phenomena? All you ever do is make derogatory comments about 'twoofers'.

Rubbish. I have always said my beef isn't with the conspiracy people themselves. My beef has always been with the con artists and lunatics behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites that you conspiracy people get all your information from. They've filled your heads with so much paranoid foolishness that even something idiotic sounding like a bunch of secret agents faking a plane crash site in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania makes perfect sense to you. You yourselves are merely the victims in their con, and all I'm doing is showing you the information they've been keeping from you.

reply to post by ANOK

When you make the claim that NIST, or whoever, is correct because they are an authority, then that is an appeal to authority.

No, an appeal to authority is when you posit that someone with some kind of credential has expressed an opinion that agrees with your own therefore enforcing your position. Citing someone's work and then presenting their relative education, experience, licensing or certifications is not an appeal to only their authority.

Just because scientists don't publicly dismiss the OS it doesn't mean they support it.

Yeah, it does. There are millions of scientist worldwide and as far as I know there is no master list wherein they have all signed off officially on say, Newton's laws of motion, so I guess that means they don't support them either?

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I think the assumption that all believers in the OS are blind sheep that thoughtlessly follow and support the government/MSM is not only daft, but offensive. I believe in the negatively connotative "OS," AND I just so happen to be an anti-government, capital-L Libertarian.

I do believe an apology is in order.

Okay lets assume an artist throws seemingly randomly paint at a wall. The paint rains down on the wall to form the gioconda. Then the wall explodes. Some spectators go on saying how it is all an incredible coincidence, while others say there must be some kind of trick, even if they are not sure how it has been done exactly. What else am I supposed to think of the former, please tell me?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

When you make the claim that NIST, or whoever, is correct because they are an authority, then that is an appeal to authority.

No, an appeal to authority is when you posit that someone with some kind of credential has expressed an opinion that agrees with your own therefore enforcing your position. Citing someone's work and then presenting their relative education, experience, licensing or certifications is not an appeal to only their authority.

Just because scientists don't publicly dismiss the OS it doesn't mean they support it.

Yeah, it does. There are millions of scientist worldwide and as far as I know there is no master list wherein they have all signed off officially on say, Newton's laws of motion, so I guess that means they don't support them either?

You are equating Newtons laws of physic to a crude sketch? You are saying silence is the reason Newtons laws of physics has been accepted in the scientific community. Thats not the case. In 2001 deniers accused "conspiracy theorists" to be just "kids in their basement". Now all you can present is the "silent majority" . Thats something straight out of Monty Python

reply to post by Cassius666

You are equating Newtons laws of physic to a crude sketch?

Huh? What are you talking about?

You are saying silence is the reason Newtons laws of physics has been accepted in the scientific community. Thats not the case.

No, silence is not the reason, whatever that means. Conspiracists have posited that because millions of scientist and engineers have not publically denied all the wild-eye fanatasies that they, in fact, support them. THAT is not the case.

In 2001 deniers accused "conspiracy theorists" to be just "kids in their basement". Now all you can present is the "silent majority" . Thats something straight out of Monty Python

I think you are giving way too much weight to these "theories". The majority are not "silent" on them, they just don't care. If real scientist and engineers dropped everything to respond to every fanatasy posted on the internet they would be doing nothing else. If you want the real response from real scientist and engineers then there are real avenues, publish your theories in accepted journals, present them to actual professional groups like the ASCE. Good luck.

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I think the assumption that all believers in the OS are blind sheep that thoughtlessly follow and support the government/MSM is not only daft, but offensive. I believe in the negatively connotative "OS," AND I just so happen to be an anti-government, capital-L Libertarian.

I do believe an apology is in order.

Okay lets assume an artist throws seemingly randomly paint at a wall. The paint rains down on the wall to form the gioconda. Then the wall explodes. Some spectators go on saying how it is all an incredible coincidence, while others say there must be some kind of trick, even if they are not sure how it has been done exactly. What else am I supposed to think of the former, please tell me?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

[quote.

No, silence is not the reason, whatever that means. Conspiracists have posited that because millions of scientist and engineers have not publically denied all the wild-eye fanatasies that they, in fact, support them.

Ill leave it at that. If you truly believe that, then you are in a place where logic and reason cant grace you.

Also Conspiracists? Its us who are trying to make the point, that the official conspiracy theory the likes of you have been trying to sell us does not exist. So who is the conspiracist here.

Originally posted by hooper
No, an appeal to authority is when you posit that someone with some kind of credential has expressed an opinion that agrees with your own therefore enforcing your position. Citing someone's work and then presenting their relative education, experience, licensing or certifications is not an appeal to only their authority.

LOL when you can't make an argument of your own and you say read this, or look at this, read the NIST report, or Bazants paper, without any input from own intellect is an appeal to authority. It's you saying this must be true because an excepted authority says it is, when you don't know if it is or not, and can not explain why when challenged to do so.

Explain the laws of motion to me, and moment conservation? Then we can discuss them and see where we stand eh?

Yeah, it does. There are millions of scientist worldwide and as far as I know there is no master list wherein they have all signed off officially on say, Newton's laws of motion, so I guess that means they don't support them either?

How can silence be considered support? I did not say they didn't support the OS either. Both claims are just as invalid but you fail to realise that, and assume silence as support. You have a problem of believing everything you agree with to be true, simply because you agree with it. This means you simply dismiss what you disagree with without having to think about it, not very open minded way of thinking is it?

reply to post by ANOK

LOL when you can't make an argument of your own and you say read this, or look at this, read the NIST report, or Bazants paper, without any input from own intellect is an appeal to authority.

Yes, but it is not a fallaciuos appeal to authority and it is not limited to some credential person expressing a brief opinion or offering a conclusion or product without a formula. I am refering to a detailed work being offered by persons well qualified in the area in which they are speaking and writing.

It's you saying this must be true because an excepted authority says it is, when you don't know if it is or not, and can not explain why when challenged to do so.

Its true not just because an "expected"(?) authority simply said so, but because they presented a detailed argument to support their conclusions. Please post your specific challenge.

Explain the laws of motion to me, and moment conservation? Then we can discuss them and see where we stand eh?

Sure, the first generally states that something that is standing still will keep standing still unless something outside of that object acts upon it, the second basically tells us how the mass of an object will effect the behavior of an object in motion when force is applied and the third law tells us that when force acts upon two objects the reaction will be equal (but not by meaning the same). Your "moment conservation" or conservation of momentum is stating that a physical system will not change unless acted upon.

How can silence be considered support?

Well its quite simple. The work is published, if there are no official objections then the work stands. There are official avenues for scientist and engineers and other technical professionals to state objections to date there have been no professional objections to the findings of the NIST. Thats how.

I did not say they didn't support the OS either.

They being who?

Both claims are just as invalid but you fail to realise that, and assume silence as support.

First there is only one claim. The truther claims are not considered valid, invalid or even relevant. Silence is considered support when there are accepted avenues of objection and there are no objections.

You have a problem of believing everything you agree with to be true, simply because you agree with it.

Uh, yeah. I don't "believe" things I know to be false. Do you?

This means you simply dismiss what you disagree with without having to think about it, not very open minded way of thinking is it

Well, if I disagree with it then that means I have considered it and found it to be wrong. And no, I do not have a completely open mind. You can tell me that frogs can talk until the cows come home but I'm still not going to go down to the pond for a conversation. But that doesn't mean I am not open to new ideas, it just means I'm not a moron.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Truthers on the other hand have pretty much the premise that the laws of physic do not take a vacation ever. Science is the only truth. Therefore if they are presented with an impossible scenario and confronted with either questioning what they thought to know about their goverment its loyalities and the goverments perception of its own people or accepting that this one time fantastic events beating insurmountable odds unfolded, the choose the latter. Science does not lie, but somebody here must be lying.

Science and reality are two different things.

At best science is only our current understanding of reality.

But then we get situations like this where people with science credentials are disagreeing with each other. Is somebody wrong or is somebody LYING. The problem with this society is that we have not sufficiently spread enough understanding of science/reality. What if America was such that when the perps first considered the idea they concluded that nobody would believe it so they didn't even try?

But now we are at nearly the TEN YEAR mark and the majority of physicists have not come out and said that there is no way airliners could do that. So what does that say about most of our so called scientists?

This is not an area that astronomers are supposed to be experts. But astronomers have to know something about gravity. How can astronomers not wonder about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper? What about submarine designers? They know that the pressure on submarines increases as they go deeper. Isn't that related to GRAVITY? So lots of people from different fields should see this is nonsense. So why is it still going?

So how has "science" not been demanding distribution of steel regarding skyscrapers for almost TEN YEARS in a grade school physics problem.

Too many Truthers keep going off on The Illuminati and New World Order and Energy Weapons, etc., etc.

If airliners could cause that much destruction that fast it should be explainable in 200 pages. But I got banned from The Naked Scientist website. I haven't understood what the excuse was yet. But this society definitely has a problem with Science, Reality and Semantics.

Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski
www.worldtrans.org...

This is better

The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase
www.time.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that maybe, just maybe all those scientist and professionals aren't lying and realize that the "distribution of steel" in the World Trade Center towers was wholly irrelevant to the observed events of September 11, 2001. Just maybe. Someday you should look into the strenght of steel.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that maybe, just maybe all those scientist and professionals aren't lying and realize that the "distribution of steel" in the World Trade Center towers was wholly irrelevant to the observed events of September 11, 2001. Just maybe. Someday you should look into the strenght of steel.

I'll get a saw.

Have you noticed that the vast majority a scientists seem to be saying NOTHING about the subject?

The Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year. This ain't rocket science.

But this whole thing is definitely very weird psychologically. But Einstein already commented on it.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

The United States should be laughed at for the next 1,000 years over this nonsense.

psik