If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

The last video he posted undermined every argument he's made since he's been here.

  • No explosions
  • concrete chunks flying
  • Not reaching terminal velocity (free fall speed if you're a dpistick)
  • WTC7 receiving serious damage from WTC1

It's like he secretly wants us to believe that Al Qaeda hijacked a bunch of commercial jetliners and flew them into the WTC.:jaw-dropp

Hey! I posted it first! As a matter of fact, I post it as often as I can in Truther discussions. For obvious reasons. He's just trolling now.
 
False Flag

And, as fully expected, the MAIN point of my post - that you're doing sloppy thinkers no favors by coddling their sloppy thinking - went right over your head. It was completely ignored by you, as your juvenile brain Gished its way to other, irrelevant, non-issues.

I am sorry that he is no longer with us. I do mean that.

No, you don't. Stop lying to me.
In order to stop lying to me, you have to stop lying to yourself first.

The chance of THAT happening, on this topic: smack dab between slim & none.

You don't mean ANY of this.
It's just a pathetic game of knee-jerk contrarianism, so that you can maintain some delusion of moral/intellectual superiority.

The cold, hard reality is that you are no more "intellectually superior" than kyoon & his delusions of "micro-nukes" or yankee451 with his delusions of “the building being gutted prior to the attack & nobody really working there”.

Now, on a separate note, if you took the politics out of the equation, and just showed him the collapses, he would laugh at you for saying the things you do.

ONE of the two of us never throws politics into engineering discussions.
The OTHER of the two of us, does that all the time.

And you haven’t the slightest clue how first-rate managers work.
“Laughing at their employees” is a certain strategy for a failed career in management.

Don was a supremely rational person.
He knew his strengths: organization & management.
He knew my strengths: engineering & analysis.

He would wonder where he went wrong. He would probably drop a bowling ball on your head to remind you of what freefall is.

No, he was NOTHING like you.
He knew what he did well. And he had the humility to recognize what he did not understand.

When it came to engineering, he would listen to me carefully.

That was, of course, after I’d earned his trust with successful designs.

Actually, he would just probably make you take a middle-school level physics class to remind you of the basics.

You’ve stated, over & over, whenever it was convenient for you because you could not answer simple questions, that you’re “not an expert”.

I’ve stated several times (whether or not you’ve seen it) that I have taught a university level Engineering Dynamics course to engineering students.

ONE of us understands “middle school physics”.
ONE of us has not the slightest clue what he is bloviating about.

I encourage you, right now, to state clearly, what aspect of the collapse of any of those buildings do you think would “violate any law of physics, if it was driven only by gravity after collapse initiation”?

Feel free to use as many equations as you wish in your analysis.

I’ll … do my best … to follow along…
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
So, False Flag,

No posting of the explosions that you claim were visible in that collapse video.
No evidence of flaming cars before the collapse of WTC2??

You make stupid, wrong assertions.
Then, when called on them, you just run away from your own assertions.

Da Twoofer Way.!

One of the most important aspects of becoming a thinking person is "rigor".
Being demanding of yourself.

You haven't a clue how to do this.
You let yourself off the hook, time after time after time.
With no internally driven correction of your own mistakes.

You're lazy.
You're self-indulgent.
You're a sloppy thinker.

With these as your primary characteristics, you have no hope of becoming the slightest bit "intellectually admirable". They have left you, instead, being a public laughingstock.

You know, it ain't too late to change.
The only thing standing in your way is your own overblown, undeserved ego.
 
I encourage you, right now, to state clearly, what aspect of the collapse of any of those buildings do you think would “violate any law of physics, if it was driven only by gravity after collapse initiation”?
Wait. Why? What does physics have to do with engineering? Isn't physics considered science? Didn't you say
This topic ain’t “science”.
It’s “engineering”.

Oh, wait, you did say that, which is why I quoted your exact text.
 
ONE of us understands “middle school physics”.
No. We both do. The difference is that one of us isn't ignoring it.

You keep emphasizing the "fact" that you are an engineer. It's irrelevant, and here's why.

Imagine a person is an apple farmer. They have been one for their entire lives. They hand you an orange but they insist it's an apple. Do you believe them even though you know they are wrong? They can say whatever they want, but an orange is an orange. The "expertise" of the person making the statement is irrelevant if you know the statement is wrong.

Imagine a person is a mathematician with a PhD. The mathematician says that 1 + 1 equals 876. Do you believe them just because they have a degree in mathematics? You don't have to be a mathematician to know that 1 + 1 = 2. It does not matter what the "expert" says, and you don't have to be an expert to know he's wrong.

Now, imagine some anonymous person posts something on the internet. The person claims to be an authority on a subject, but that person routinely makes claims that a non-expert can see is wrong. Is the non-expert supposed to give credibility to the expert when the expert can't even get the simple stuff right? No. The answer is no.

Your expertise is meaningless when you deny basic principles of physics.
 
Last edited:
No. We both do. The difference is that one of us isn't ignoring it.

You keep emphasizing the "fact" that you are an engineer. It's irrelevant, and here's why.

Imagine a person is an apple farmer. They have been one for their entire lives. They hand you an orange but they insist it's an apple. Do you believe them even though you know they are wrong? They can say whatever they want, but an orange is an orange. The "expertise" of the person making the statement is irrelevant if you know the statement is wrong.

Imagine a person is a mathematician with a PhD. The mathematician says that 1 + 1 equals 876. Do you believe them just because they have a degree in mathematics? You don't have to be a mathematician to know that 1 + 1 = 2. It does not matter what the "expert" says, and you don't have to be an expert to know he's wrong.

Now, imagine some anonymous person posts something on the internet. The person claims to be an authority on a subject, but that person routinely makes claims that a non-expert can see is wrong. Is the non-expert supposed to give credibility to the expert when the expert can't even get the simple stuff right? No. The answer is no.

Your expertise is meaningless when you deny basic principles of physics.

How about we deal with reality.

Any competent farmer will know an apple from an orange.

Any competent mathematician will know 1+1=2.

tfk has taught University level engineering courses and is fully licensed to practice his profession so clearly he's competent, what are your qualifications?

Oh wait that's right you're not expert, but think you can teach engineering to engineers and science to PhD's. You realize how dumb this makes you look don't you?
 
Any competent farmer will know an apple from an orange.
We agree.
Any competent mathematician will know 1+1=2.
We agree.
tfk has taught University level engineering courses and is fully licensed to practice his profession so clearly he's competent, what are your qualifications?
I am not an expert.
Oh wait that's right you're not expert,
You knew what was coming. :)
but think you can teach engineering to engineers and science to PhD's
Please copy and paste the exact text where you claim I have said this.
 

Back
Top Bottom