Jump to navigation
Continued from here: http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/science-fail-x4-supporters-nist-physics-still-relying-faith-foggy-notions-
Anders Björkman wrote: The upper block consisted mostly of air and its density 0.18 ton/m3 was similar to that of wool and it was not rigid. That it imposed an exceptionally high initial load is just a dream; it would just have bounced on top of the structure below, where no damage would even occur!
No massive steel structure has ever been annihilated by gravity and just 0.15 of itself.
Get your own thread title, Michael. This is not a "continuation" of the previous series.
I would actually ask mods to close down this thread. Michael Nenonen may not like the idea that his support of the progressive collapse theory requires belief in absurd impossibilities and willful blindness of his own, as he describes here, but he has been unable or unwilling to argue otherwise in any of those threads. To riff off the thread series titles and start this new one, saying it's a "continuation" of the previous one, when clearly he has changed the basic argument in the thread title is dishonest and incorrect.
I wonder maybe if people should refrain from starting new threads as continuations of a series unless they intend to actually post in them. I understand why remind does it, as she is on dial-up and cannot follow a thread if it starts getting too unwieldy, but it opens the practice up to abuse, as is shown here.
Your thread titles debase a bunch of people, perfectly intelligent people.
When I was a kid my grandma told me something 'don't dish it if you can't take it'. Well, jas, I think in this case it is a perfectly acceptable idiom. You refer to things as 'nutty' and 'crazy' commonly. Ever thought that that might be construed as language that makes people uncomfortable? Huh? Or is it unimportant in your quest for the 'truth'? At this point I don't think that it would be unfair to have a meta-discussion surrounding these theories, the history and some honest debate about a lot of facets of this interesting discussion. You've dominated the discussion unfairly and haven't allowed it to be organic in anyway.
Michael can start any thread he wants. We have always encouraged the anti-science crowd to do so. What he can't do is call it "No. 5" and pretend it's a continuation of mine. It is not.
He can come up with his own title.
And my thread titles don't debase you. They provoke you to examine your support of absurdities like: "rubble stays all together as it falls..." or "...buildings are like tripods... or avalanches..." or "...all the fireproofing was dislodged when the jets severed 15% of the columns in the impact zone. We don't know this, but we believe it so it must be true...." or "...I don't need to show you how the collapse progresses beyond the first floor. It just does, and it does so faster each time. So there."
If you don't like being told you are making leaps of faith and have foggy notions of how the buildings collapse and how buildings normally collapse, then show us how this isn't so.
I'm wondering who will post another hyperlink to a psyschobabble web site and implying I am a racist for choosing not to believe in a wacky conspiracy theory churned out by a few government scientists during crazy George Dubya's reign. And then they flee the discussionlike they know they've done something not so good. Real mature.
Jas, as you pointed out, remind opened a continuation of the previous thread that you participated in and that she didn't. That thread, of course, had a subject heading deliberately intended to insult those who disagreed with you. Pants-of-Dog agreed to debate you in that thread despite the fact that (a) you didn't open it and (b) the subject heading was deliberately insulting towards those who held his point of view. Not only that, but I believe that it's pretty clear that he has repeatedly demolished your arguments: I simply don't believe that the quality of your arguments merits the kind of intellectual arrogance reflected in the subject heading of the previous four threads.
If you refuse to participate in this thread, then I can only assume that it's because you're incapable of abiding by the kind of arbitrary parameters that you expect others to respect. So, while I would prefer that this thread remain open, I ask that if this thread is closed, then in the interests of fairness any thread opened with the old title be closed as well.
Ok, I have calmed down slightly.
Thank you Michael. These jas and Fidel create an embarassment to Babble in these threads.
Michael, you're perfectly free to start your own thread on any subject about "Truthers" or the 9/11 argument that you like. You can use insulting thread titles if you like. Just don't rip off others' thread titles and pretend it's a "continuation" of theirs.
And I'm sorry, but all Pants-of-dog has done is shown in greater detail how ridiculous the Bazant hypothesis is.
Fidel, no one has "fled" the discussion. I've observed the "debate", such as it is, and what I saw coming out of the truther side was just so intellectually bankrupt that I inserted a hyperlink to an article on projection to help illuminate the reasons why truthers were so clearly accusing Pants-of-Dog of misdeeds that he had NOT committed and that the truthers, in my opinion, HAD. Consider the number of times that he was accused of failing to back up his arguments with scientific evidence, even though he has continually provided a wealth of solid arguments supported by detailed evidence and scientific acumen...virtues that the truther side simply has not demonstrated. Frankly, I suspect that these threads have brilliantly demonstrated to most of the people following them the psychological underpinnings of at least a segment of the truther movement. I believe that it is important to understand such phenomena as projection if we are to ever to understand the reliance on wilful blindness and hyperbole that have marked the truther arguments in the previous threads, not to mention the appeal of poorly-reasoned conspiracy theories for so many people in our society. As for where these problems have appeared, well, Pants-of-Dog has done an excellent job in pretty much every post he's made to draw your attention to them.
And you really, really don't have any grounds to cast aspersions on anyone else for questioning the psychological motivations of truthers, given the repeated instances in which you have accused anyone who disagrees with you of intellectually colluding with imperialism.
However, I will say, to his credit, that he has been able to engage the argument with courtesy and respect and has never once resorted to heckling or grade-school-level taunts.
So, do you really think I'm a racist for refusing to believe in this modern day Gleiwtiz incident, or this nouveau Gulf of Tonkin big lie for the sake of warfiteering in Asia again? What is your psychological motivation for wanting to believe in 9/11 fairies magically removing the strength of all 250 steel support columns in far less time than a blink of an eye? Because I don't understand it myself. I think the psychobabble as well as the physics of 9/11 should be studies in school physics and psychology classes across North America for the sake of world peace. What do you think about that?
Ya I must say that even Pants is more focused on the discussion at hand.
If your thread title is "Science Fail X5" where are the other four of your threads, Michael?
Jas, you have no proprietary claim upon these threads, and you were very willing to participate in a continuation opened by remind. Not only don't I need to open "my own thread", I can't open "my own thread": I don't own any thread, and neither do you. Participate in it or not, it's your choice. However, I should point out that the only difference between this thread and the others is a modification to the title. If you choose not to participate in this thread, then why on Earth would anyone who disagreed with your position choose to participate in threads you have opened--especially threads with such insulting subject headings? Or would you prefer that no one disagree with you in the threads you participate in?
Edited to add:
And Fidel, let's be perfectly clear: I think that Pants-of-Dog has demolished your arguments: its no use throwing some of the rubble left in his wake at me.
Jas, the fact that you have participated happily in threads with such insulting titles, and that you have never distanced yourself from Fidel's repeated accusations of imperialist collusion on the part of those who disagree with truther positions, means that you don't really get to take the high moral ground here. Pants-of-Dog has, indeed, participated in these debates with extraordinary patience--far, far more than he has been shown in return. I modified the title of this thread in order to see if you would be willing to accept the conditions that he has been willing to labour under. The fact that you aren't speaks for itself.
That seems pretty clear from jas's postings in these threads.
Ah, the wilful blindness again. Okay, one more time: "Jas, you have no proprietary claim upon these threads, and you were very willing to participate in a continuation opened by remind. Not only don't I need to open 'my own thread', I can't open 'my own thread': I don't own any thread, and neither do you."
This could be the inquisitional thread where truthers are accused of anti-crazy George II heresy and the like. Brrrrring OUT the PILL-OWS! Thanks Michael. Good idea actually.
As I said in the other thread:
If you lot want to continue banging your head against this wall, pick a neutral thread title that doesn't indirectly attack those on the other side.