Kevin Barrett interviews Frank Greening

[johnny karate]

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Why did your mind automatically insert it? Shall I do the same with you?

You've already been thoroughly schooled on the absolutism of an "either/or" phrase. No need to further your embarrassment.

Turns out I didn't have to insert or imagine the qualifier in your statement. All the time, you said.

"All the time" is an idiom that means, among other things, "Frequently, repeatedly, as in He goes to that store all the time."

Swing and a miss.

I've already provided TWO counterexamples from one thread to prove you wrong, in my previous post. You have to stop throwing bricks, you're not up to the task.

Since my statement was not absolute, as was RedIbis', your two examples do nothing to undermine my point.

Truth be told, I see from your posting history that you're neither averse to making unqualified sweeping generalizations nor to ignoring (even single) counterexamples when making them. See:

Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place.

I know more than one truther that does not imagine "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" and so do you. To cover any silly objection you might have about supporting that claim, I'm going to pull a JREFer on you and tell you to do your own damn research. Hint: go to Gregory Urich's forum.

Had I said all Truthers, or made any similar qualifications, you might have a point. But I didn't so you don't.

If I said "Dogs bark", and someone produced one dog which does not bark, is my statement therefore rendered false?

And there's:

Way to go, Truth Movement. You've tracked down one eye witness who supposedly supports you. Just a few thousand more to go!

followed later by:

Does this stunning new work of academia account for the fact that not a single person who witnessed these buildings collapse has expressed a belief it was due to controlled demolition?

Don't worry about me calling you stupid or a liar or otherwise hurting your feelings, I don't even feel that way.

Nor do you have any justification for doing so, since I committed neither an act of dishonesty nor stupidity. I've bolded a particular word above. Feel free to look it up and let's see if you can figure out how my inclusion of it undercuts the point you attempted to make.

I don't apply the absurdly picayune criteria for qualifying statements you apply to others and not to yourself.

The arguments you've been making in this thread seem to indicate otherwise.

So long as you remain preoccupied with irrelevant pedantry like this, you are not likely to do much but clog threads.

You might want to do a quick count of posts regarding this so-called irrelevant pedantry to see who's engaging in thread-clogging.

After easily exposing you to be wrong and also plainly guilty of double standards within the last month, even skipping threads you've participated in like U.S. obesity problem intensifies and Michael Jackson Joke Thread, are you sure you want the pounding that will come from me in the course of supporting my opinion? 'Cause I would focus on you, 2600+ posts should be sufficient raw material.

So far, I'm not impressed all that much by your pounding ability.

It's rhetorical. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time trying to prove anything to someone like you. Fruitless and worthless on the face of it.

Amazing you were able to type such a long post in less than a minute.

I truly regret letting useless annoyances like those introduced by johnny karate draw me into off-topic conversation

Sometimes that happens when you intrude on other people's discussions. Lesson learned, I guess.

 

[johnny karate]

I've not demonstrated jonny karate to be incorrect at all

Fixed that for you, sport. Better luck next time!

 

[OneRedEye]

No, it wasn't the image Norseman pointed out? Is that what you're saying?

I was saying that -

Wasn't it determined that the image not showing the bulge was in fact not one intended to reflect the actual event, but one showing what the collapse would be like if tower 7 had not been damaged by north tower debris?

No, it was not determined (merely speculated) and no, that's not really the question here. It's not a matter of difference between the two variants of simulation, damaged and undamaged. It's a case of the damage simulation failing to jibe with reliable accounts of the bulge extent and magnitude. Building is creaking, leaning, bulging for hours, it's no secret that it's in danger of collapse. We are told here that the visible bulge skirts a large portion of the perimeter and spans as much as 10 stories vertically. A transit was placed on the building to monitor externally measured displacement. The situation deteriorates and people are evacuated.

What is depicted in the simulation? Just prior to collapse, the vertical deflection has reached 8 inches or 1/900th of the total height of the building.

While I have no problems with a transit resolving displacements much smaller over the course of the afternoon, I do find it difficult to believe that a maximum quasi-static travel of only 8 inches very late in the day would be so readily observable to the unaided eye in a building with smoke pouring out all over, the curtain wall peppered with damage and so on. I suspect it was a good deal more displacement but it's only a suspicion.

Provide a source for this beliefe

Only if you correct your spelling.

I don't intend to retract anything. Oh and Think whatever you want. the truth movement is of no consequence. Enjoy

I'm not a truther, so I don't care about any of that, either. Nice try. You also provided the nth independent confirmation that wild assumption runs rampant here, based on zero evidence, completely unchecked. Ohhh, the hypocrisy.

 

[OneRedEye]

You've already been thoroughly schooled on the absolutism of an "either/or" phrase. No need to further your embarrassment.

Hahahaha. God.

"All the time" is an idiom that means, among other things, "Frequently, repeatedly, as in He goes to that store all the time."

And the one above it says -

2.Continuously, without interruption, as in That old refrigerator is running all the time.

People who demand such precision in qualification from others might want to consider that 'all the time' also literally means 'all', not 'some' and not 'many', but ALL. The third of three idiomatic interpretations should automatically take precedence over the prior two and the literal meaning? But only in your case. Did you ever hear anything like this:

Either go to college, or you'll have a hard time getting a good job.

If you heard a parent say that to their child, would you spend as many words arguing with them because you know it's a false dichotomy and there are other possibilities not enumerated? Bet you would, actually. Maybe college was a good idea after all, eh?

Amazing you were able to type such a long post in less than a minute.

There you go again with your inane obsession on precision in the spoken word. Most would take it with the intended meaning, like you can do for your comrades. The missing word is 'more', figure out where to put it. I should have fixed that, I thought about it, but had to satisfy my curiousity as to whether or not you'd jump on it. You did. I think I could write a chat-bot to emulate your behavior and your mother wouldn't even know the difference.

But sure, whatever, you win. I'm soooo bloody embarrassed. I deserve to have you rub it in even more, so go ahead. Keeps you from annoying other people who might not have the same capacity for amusement that I do.

Oh, and stop calling me sport.

 

[johnny karate]

People who demand such precision in qualification from others might want to consider that 'all the time' also literally means 'all', not 'some' and not 'many', but ALL. The third of three idiomatic interpretations should automatically take precedence over the prior two and the literal meaning? But only in your case.

I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide for me which of the definitions of "all the time" I intended to use. But nice try.

Did you ever hear anything like this:

Either go to college, or you'll have a hard time getting a good job.

If you heard a parent say that to their child, would you spend as many words arguing with them because you know it's a false dichotomy and there are other possibilities not enumerated? Bet you would, actually. Maybe college was a good idea after all, eh?

I guess when you can't argue that I'm wrong, all you're left with is complaining how tedious it is that I'm right.

There you go again with your inane obsession on precision in the spoken word. Most would take it with the intended meaning, like you can do for your comrades. The missing word is 'more', figure out where to put it. I should have fixed that, I thought about it, but had to satisfy my curiousity as to whether or not you'd jump on it. You did.

Quite the clever trap, however I wasn't criticizing your semantics. I was merely pointing out the irony of someone telling me they refuse to spend any more time "trying to prove anything" to someone like me... while in the process of doing exactly that.

But sure, whatever, you win. I'm soooo bloody embarrassed. I deserve to have you rub it in even more, so go ahead. Keeps you from annoying other people who might not have the same capacity for amusement that I do.

And yet only a short while ago it was this:

After easily exposing you to be wrong and also plainly guilty of double standards within the last month, even skipping threads you've participated in like U.S. obesity problem intensifies and Michael Jackson Joke Thread, are you sure you want the pounding that will come from me in the course of supporting my opinion? 'Cause I would focus on you, 2600+ posts should be sufficient raw material.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Here's a tip: In the future curb the bluster and bravado, and you'll be spared the humiliation of losing and having your face rubbed in it.

 

[OneRedEye]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide for me which of the definitions of "all the time" I intended to use.

No, but you of all people should take care to be clear that you intend a particular meaning from a multiplicity of generally accepted possibilities, lest someone misinterpret you. Perhaps by using a more accurate and less absolute sounding qualifier, like most or some. At least then it would be more honest, and literally correct. FYI, I never misunderstood your intent, even though it was last on the idiom list. Neither did I misunderstand RedIbis' intent, and I think maybe, just maybe, you knew exactly what he meant, too. It was a tangential nitpick as far as I'm concerned, and much ado about nothing. I responded in kind.

I was merely pointing out the irony of someone telling me they refuse to spend any more time "trying to prove anything" to someone like me... while in the process of doing exactly that.

Oh hell, I know that, just as I hope you know that the bit about the chat-bot was an insubstantial dig and not meant literally. Another amendment besides the word 'more': I make exceptions to my own snotty rules for (SOME) amusing exchanges. So I'll take it back, even though I'm no longer trying to convince you of anything, I'm being belligerent for its intrinsic value. You can ignore me, or keep feeding it. Don't be offended if all of a sudden, I stop feeding it. I'm alarmed that I'm losing my student status, I probably need to stop. This does beat the hell out of real research, though, I tell ya.

Here's a tip: In the future curb the bluster and bravado, and you'll be spared the humiliation of losing and having your face rubbed in it.

In the minds of you and your hive-mates here, I'm sure that's how this went down. Of course, I don't feel embarrassed at all. Had any of you spent 1/10th the effort to refute the nonsense coming from rwguinn and Gravy in the thread I linked as you are straining at this particular flea that troubles you so, I might have stayed quiet, like SO MANY OTHER TIMES, WAY WAY TOO MANY TO COUNT. But please don't confuse acquiescence in the face of foolishness with humiliation or losing.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

And I'm riding you all the way...

 

[fourtoe]

When was the final report released and what were its conclusions about diesel fuel?

I was gonna continue to argue about this but this thread is already suffering from going completely off course and I shouldn't add to it.

I concede that I was reaching when I asked that but I think that it still would have been better if you included the qualification as well.

Now, back on point. Who listened to this thing and what did they think? I'm about to look for it online to listen to but anyone please stop me if I would be wasting my time in doing so.

 

[johnny karate]

OneRedEye-

I have no interest in taking this any further.

You took your shot, and you got smacked down. Time to move on.

Regarding your challenge: I accept. Start a thread (or choose an existing one) on a topic of your choice and fire your opening salvo. I will respond in kind.

[/derail]

 

[OneRedEye]

OneRedEye-

I have no interest in taking this any further.

Me neither.

You took your shot, and you got smacked down. Time to move on.

Yep, you know it.

Regarding your challenge: I accept. Start a thread (or choose an existing one) on a topic of your choice and fire your opening salvo. I will respond in kind.

Remind me again what this challenge is. I've been on a Thursday night drinking binge. On second thought, never mind, you win again.

On the topic: should I actually listen to the broadcast? Is it a better use of time than this? Or should I pour myself another? Opinions welcome.

 

[fourtoe]

Me neither.


Yep, you know it.


Remind me again what this challenge is. I've been on a Thursday night drinking binge. On second thought, never mind, you win again.

On the topic: should I actually listen to the broadcast? Is it a better use of time than this? Or should I pour myself another? Opinions welcome.

Listen to it and play a drinking game. Take a drink every time Barrett talks about how someone should be executed in some fashion.

 

[johnny karate]

Remind me again what this challenge is.

This struck me as a call-out:

Had any of you spent 1/10th the effort to refute the nonsense coming from rwguinn and Gravy in the thread I linked as you are straining at this particular flea that troubles you so

Forgive me if I misinterpreted what was merely more bluster and bravado.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It's not a matter of difference between the two variants of simulation, damaged and undamaged. It's a case of the damage simulation failing to jibe with reliable accounts of the bulge extent and magnitude. Building is creaking, leaning, bulging for hours, it's no secret that it's in danger of collapse. We are told here that the visible bulge skirts a large portion of the perimeter and spans as much as 10 stories vertically. A transit was placed on the building to monitor externally measured displacement. The situation deteriorates and people are evacuated.

What is depicted in the simulation? Just prior to collapse, the vertical deflection has reached 8 inches or 1/900th of the total height of the building.

http://i25.tinypic.com/fyk4df.png

While I have no problems with a transit resolving displacements much smaller over the course of the afternoon, I do find it difficult to believe that a maximum quasi-static travel of only 8 inches very late in the day would be so readily observable to the unaided eye in a building with smoke pouring out all over, the curtain wall peppered with damage and so on. I suspect it was a good deal more displacement but it's only a suspicion.

Forgive me for saying this, but presuming I'm reading the report correctly - I'll subject myself to correction from the engineers here if I'm misunderstanding the report - isn't that 8 inch downward displacement only what's observed after inputting impact damage and gravity load, but before distortion from fire induced creep? In other words, isn't that bulge (as well as the image you provided) in fact not the state of the tower "(j)ust prior to collapse", but instead one step towards building the overall model that doesn't include all the distortions and failures yet?

I'm hoping Newton's Bit, Ryan Mackey, Architect, rwguinn, or someone else here with some engineering knowledge can comment on this. I'm seeing from the included image that this image is from NCSTAR 1-9 volume 2, p. 569 with descriptive text starting on p. 568, and that section to me is describing a specific point in the modeling (again, after impact damage but before heat creep). A quick leafing through the rest of the reports I see discussions of larger distortions, but I'm doing a very fast leaf-through, not a concentrated reading, so I'm not sure what the final figure NIST gives is for the vertical distortions. Regardless, my point is that the 8 inches OneRedEye is referring to seems to me to not be the final bulge in the modeling. Am I wrong about that? Again, I defer to expert analysis on this.

 

[funk de fino]

What is it about having "red" in a username that leads you to get roundly trounced in every thread you partake in?

 

[Locknar]

Just as a general reminder...please keep the conversation on topic, and remember it is attack the argument vs the arguer (ie. no bickering). Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[nicepants]

Just listened to the interview last night, a few thoughts:

- Truther internet "radio" shows always have ridiculously long and obnoxious bumper music
- Barrett claimed that several scientists who agreed with him were afraid to go on the air. (How convenient. I call BS.)
- Barrett claimed that there were no photos or video of the hijackers getting on the planes or going through airport security. (Wrong)
- Barrett claimed that the hijackers were not on the passenger lists. (Wrong)
- Barrett didn't seem to understand how the fires in WTC7 could have started.
- At one point barrett started parroting the AE (signs of controlled demolition)

Seems like Barrett is really far into the woo...far enough that he's repeating things that have been debunked a long time ago. Of course, he did mention that he has a book coming out.

 

[Heiwa]

Just listened to the interview last night, a few thoughts:

- Truther internet "radio" shows always have ridiculously long and obnoxious bumper music

You don't like some Egyptian background music (when I opened the page!)? You have to click on some box on the screen and it will go off.