As soon as you prove you can understand it, sure.
Which assumes that your standards for assessing other's competence are correct or even relevant.
How can you tell they understand it if you won't actually show it to them? Does this logic actually make sense in your mind? Or do you have some criteria for determining whether they'll understand it which is only in your head and not written down anywhere? Something that cannot be expressed as a cohesive verbal argument, but exists only as a vague concept?
Of course, given that you've been evading giving your math for pages, and have actually actively been trying to change the subject away from it, this is just another evasive excuse.
You may have missed it in the video, but the 9/11 Crash Test project proposes a scientific test to prove or disprove an hypothesis. The test hasn't occurred yet, and the engineering documentation hasn't been completed.
I am still scraping up the money for the engineereing for my project, but since you geniuses can already explain the math (where MIT could not), now's your chance to back up your petulence. I even included a link for you:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
That starts using math on the
second page.
Your claim that they don't explain is either a lie or biased delusion. This is merely
one of a series of reports. The next in the series is on the fires.
I notice you take offense with my using layman's terms to make my case; good.
No, I merely pointed out the terms you used and the points you made were wrong. I am
amused by your incompetence and hypocrisy, nothing more. Dear me, can't you get anything right? Do you default to one-liners because every time you say more, you end up being proven wrong? Are you
sure you've never heard of Ergo?
I suspect that you use "layman's terms" because you yourself are incapable of a more comprehensive understanding, like many truthers. Hence the reflexive and unsupported gainsaying of any post with actual math in it. Add in standard Truther bias, and I have a firm impression of you being "all hat, no cattle".
Most people aren't scientists so the math would be lost on them, therefor I use layman's terms to reach them. You self-proclaimed scientists will need to wait for the engineering documentation, but there's nothing stopping you from making your own cases, unless your fingers are painted on and you need them to count with.
I never claimed I was a scientist of any sort, and I don't recall anyone else claiming they were either. I am not a scientist. I have a greater understanding of science and skepticism than most people, and am a skeptic. Part of which involves knowing when people are smarter than me on some subjects.
Say, you do know about reproducibility, falsifiability, and peer review, right? How about the burden of proof? You keep making claims and then not backing them up. You haven't even been able to explain precisely how the official story is wrong, barring your "layman's terms" arguments.
Once again, it is hypocritical to attack the credentials of others while refusing to reveal your own, especially when you've been proven wrong about them already (I note that you stopped referring to pilots and engineers). Also, this is a tactic commonly used by truthers to lead discussion away from the subject of their evidence, or lack thereof, as you do now.
Also, you can't claim you'll reveal your working out if we demonstrate a suitable level of understanding, and then try to score brownie points via "layman's terms" arguments. How about just explaining and seeing if we get it?
And, gosh, you didn't answer the one serious question I asked about whether you'd be willing to risk your life on your experiment.
How can you claim to be waiting on THE EXPERIMENT, yet also be sure the official story is wrong? Those are two separate beliefs. You can "prove" the official story wrong without waiting on an experiment to "prove" what you think it actually happened. If a cop finds someone's alibi doesn't hold up, that doesn't mean he committed the murder.
Why do I not give a rat's ass what Fitz thinks?
Steve
I love how you keep letting your (thin) facade of being reasonable drop whenever your pride is picked or suitability to judge questioned.
