I couldn't agree more. But that begs the question, why are you bothering to have this debate in the first place?
Dave
For exactly the same reasons that I've written about this for about 10 years now:
It bothers me greatly that the competent engineers have left this discussion, abandoning younger generations to the woo & stupidity of people like Tony & Gage. I think that my profession has an obligation to the next generations, that they are neglecting. (That was exactly my purpose in intending to go to the AIA show. But that little fiasco generated a really positive idea. Still germinating, but I think that it'll be worthwhile.)
To try to help non-engineers better understand the engineering arguments. And clarify for them the absurd flaws in Tony's arguments.
Because these Truther clowns have taken the field that I love (mechanical engineering) and with clueless ignorance, have attempted to twist it, and abuse it, and turn it out on the street as a "money making" object. I feel about the same about them as I would about a pimp who'd turned some woman that I cared about into a crack whore. (A little strong, but just by the tiniest amount.)
I don't care very much about the clueless idiots with zero engineering knowledge, like 99% of the Truthers. I DO care about the tiny percent that do have some pertinent training ... and have still gone down the Rabbit Hole.
And I care greatly that these idiots are using technobabble to mislead the technically unsophisticated. And it is my belief that they are doing so for only two reasons:
- politics. They hated the GWB administration or US's involvement in foreign politics.
- the ego boost that they get from the adoring, clueless youngsters that think that they are "wonderful".
To me, these clowns are exactly like doctors who start advocating (aka, selling books about) "healing crystals & auras", or physicists who write books that "quantum physics proves psychic abilities" idiocy. They are betraying their own education, and all their real teachers.
I invited Chandler to come here & debate. He refused. I invited that obstinate, clueless kid from Texas (Derek something or other) who was their champion for a short while.
Tony is a mechanical engineer. He SHOULD be able to figure out the simple things that baffle him so regularly. He constantly confuses trivial concepts, such as the difference between "reduced acceleration" with "deceleration".
When we were discussing some tech point, a couple of years ago, he repeatedly asserted that the stationary foundation of the WTC towers had been "accelerating at 32.2 ft/sec
2 for the 30 years between construction & destruction of the towers." These are both high school concepts that he gets wrong.
His missing jolt nonsense is only slightly more complicated: freshman college physics.
And all of the above is easily explained. To anyone who wants to listen, of course.
So, I hope to put a clear explanation of where his "Theories" fall apart in one location. It'll be more concise & clearer, without all the other noise.
Finally, it'll be very refreshing to require him to address my arguments for a change, and not just run away from them.
