Do Truthers Understand Basic Physics?

Discussion in '9/11' started by psikeyhackr, Apr 10, 2018.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Tags:
  1. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And now for something completely different:

    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328279

    This used to be the JREF forum which I have been banned from for years. I look in to see what they are blathering about now and then and could not resist this.

    Their mantra used to be, Static and Dynamic, meaning that a skyscraper could support itself under static conditions but the dynamic conditions of the top falling on the bottom would make collapse possible. They never made a decent model demonstrating this claim and just laughed when I asked about accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete.

    I do not BELIEVE in Physics. Science is not about BELIEVING. Get the correct data, do the experiments then we will KNOW the Physics.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure where you want to take this discussion. For now I'll just comment on the below.

    In a sense it is about faith. Either one believes the science of physics is valid or not. It doesn't matter whether something can be proven or not, if one does not accept proof, one has no faith that it is proof even though such proof can be repeatedly demonstrated every single time. You can see such examples among the cognitive dissonant. They will never accept scientific proof if it doesn't coincide with their world view.
     
  3. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So we need to develop a virus that only kills stupid people. :smile:

    Have you ever looked up the definition of "believe" and notice that it does not really make any sense?
     
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Im a 'truther' and so are a lot of my friends.

    Ive not heard one person ever claim 'the planes shouldve bounced off' or 'the collapse should've stopped halfway.' I think you're making up rediculous strawmen to demonize folks. Either that or your sources are.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Stupid" is highly subjective.

    It makes sense to me, belief is faith.

    Where are you going with this?
     
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not much into labels, but I have heard people of the opinion that the airplanes should have been completely stopped by the structure, and come sliding down to the ground. A silly and uninformed opinion to hold, but I've heard it.

    And, of course, there are those who think there were no planes at all.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Just another word with an equally bad definition.

    I had to come up with my own. "To accept something as true, or false, without sufficient evidence, often no evidence."

    Therefore belief is "stupid". Part of our cultural problem is that we do not use the word "SUSPECT" very much. That word is an admission of insufficient data to be conclusive but possibly encouraging thinking in a certain direction for further investigation.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I provided a link to the thread in the Skeptics forum. I have said the collapse of the north tower should have arrested though without specification of halfway. I would expect less than that but trying to analyze it without accurate distribution of mass data is nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That may be true for some but it isn't globally true. To believe can also be to accept something as true or false based on science, evidence, logic, common sense or any combination. For example, I believe in science because the same valid scientific experiments will always yield the same results. So logic and common sense tells me that if 100 experiments of the same kind yield a specific result, I strongly believe the 101st experiment will also yield the same result even though it has not yet been conducted. It's not absolute so it is strictly a belief. So is such a belief "stupid" to you?
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Then you are saying there is no difference between KNOWING and BELIEVING.

    Is your concept of science 'Believing' what scientists say rather than understanding for yourself?

    That is the peculiar thing about the 9/11 problem. I only 'suspect' things that scientists say about complicated subjects that do not interest me all that much like black holes and string theory and gravity waves. On a simple problem like collapsing skyscrapers I expect people to understand and therefore ultimately know the science for themselves.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't understand where you get that from what I posted. I said no such thing. In some cases there is a fine line between believe and know and in other cases it's strictly a belief. For example, the belief in a god is strictly a belief, no one knows for sure. In other cases, one knows 1 + 1 = 2 but one also has to believe that the science of mathematics is valid. Why? Because it can always be proven via experiment that 1 + 1 will always yield 2.

    No but in a science where one requires many years of technical training and you have none, you either believe what a specific scientist claims or you don't. Then it's strictly faith that you trust that particular scientist.

    You expect too much. I would hazard an educated guess that most people are clueless about the laws of physics. You can see that in this very forum, even from some who claim to be engineers or have an engineering background. Which of course, is extremely dubious to me how one can claim to be an engineer and defend the NIST "collapse" theories.

    What is interesting is in the 52 page petition for a grand jury investigation of 9/11, the attorneys who put it together seem to have a full understanding of the scientific claims they list as supporting evidence. One would think attorneys are the least likely to understand physics. I've dealt with many attorneys in the past since I'm the author of a software solution for corporate law departments and found many of them to be computer illiterate, at least back in the day (1980s).
     
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That depends on one's interpretation of science.

    Yes, sort of.

    That depends on what you mean by a natural proof.

    100% probability is proof.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A little humor which you might have already heard: Mark Twain's Huck Finn defined faith as "when you believe in something that you know ain't true". :fart:
     
    psikeyhackr and Shinebox like this.
  15. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I just stumbled across this:



    I don't know of any water towers over 1,000 feet tall, but do you suppose skyscrapers need more steel toward the bottom for similar reasons?

    I guess Tyson can talk about physics as long as it only involves non-controversial subjects.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But, but, the collapse of the tower ACCELERATED at 2/3 G, so the building must have been built stronger at the top, weaker at the bottom.

    Yeah, same with Kaku and Hawking. They can figure out the birth of the Universe, black holes, string theory and multiverses but when it comes to the towers, hey, they "collapsed", plain and simple.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  17. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    These people are really ridiculous:

    I'm surprised Truthers don't doubt the WTC ever existed
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328724

    It is like coming up with statements to ridicule those they call "Truthers" makes them seem intelligent.

    There is an educational series called Connections by James Burke that aired in 1979 where in the first episode he rode an elevator to the roof of the World Trade Center. How many millions of people had seen that series?



    Of course until after 9/11 I would not have remembered what building that was. How many movies and TV shows had those buildings in the background? And most people hardly thought about them until after 9/11. Now it is almost a shock every time I see them. Maybe we should destroy all of those movies. LOL
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's easier to ridicule those who don't buy the official fairy tale by using well worn labels and insinuations of mental illness than to actually review the overwhelming incontrovertible evidence that the official investigations were a scam designed to coverup 9/11.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    After all this time, psi have your credentials expanded beyond bombing the interview at MIT, and rooming with a guy who wanted to be an architect?

    MIT has open course work. There's even a lecture that directly discusses this. What's your excuse?
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
  22. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There are lots of people with credentials of various types who have said nothing about the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower in SIXTEEN YEARS, even though the NIST admitted that it was tilted 20 to 25 degrees.

    [​IMG]
    The problem with the 9/11 Affair is that it demonstrates that credentials do not mean squat. Schools indoctrinate conformists into believing that they are intelligent because they conform.

    That has to be one of the most amazing pictures in history. When has so much man-made mass ever been in such an unstable position? But what matters to you is my certification I presume people with credentials need for other people to not think about simple physics. Everyone might notice that they are stupid.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All it takes is a basic understanding of physics and common sense to know that the cause of what happened to the twin towers and WTC7 on 9/11 isn't about strength of materials. This is a red herring peddled to try to distract from the reality of the event.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gotta love those contradictory truther arguments. Truther argument: No one has said anything about tilting in sixteen years! Then, surprise, in the very same sentence: NIST discussed the tilt I’m talking about. 16 years and you’ve made zero progress learning in the relevant field that you’re obviously obsessed with. That’s something to be ashamed of, not something to crow about. You should be a mechanical engineer by now. You’re obviously not if you’re still stuck in this 16 year old time warp.

    What you call conformity I call observation of the properties of the physical world. 16 years you’ve been asking a question. The answer for the question exists. Lots of people have told you the answer. Why haven’t you figured it out for yourself?

    Another glorious truther question. What significance does the answer have? How about in 1912 during the fracture of the Titanic?

    It doesn’t matter to me either way. It’s an honest question. You’d think someone who’s been asking the same question for 16 years would seek an education on the subject in order to determine an answer to it.

    Where do you plug in mass into Euler’s column formula? Nowhere. Why is that?
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018
    BillRM likes this.
  25. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2018

Share This Page