ok, maybe you missed it.
Even the right-brain/left-brain people (like Gazzaniga, for instance) have abandoned your view of the brain. Do you want references?
Don't be an idiot.
WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.
- Thread starter 28th Kingdom
- Start date
Even the right-brain/left-brain people (like Gazzaniga, for instance) have abandoned your view of the brain. Do you want references?
Don't be an idiot.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
well im glad someone learned something in this thread, lolThank you default, that was more than I've learned reading this entire thread.
8den
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1,293
Wow so you could like look at someone carrying out brain surgery, and just after a few times of rewatching, I'd figure out how brain surgery works? Or y'know look at a concert pianist watch his fingerwork for a while and get how to play the piano. How about flying? Can you look at a pilot a few times, and instinctuvely conclude via "common sense" how to fly a plane?
I cannot comphrend the egotism of someone who feels that the way "his brain is wired" means that he can "intutively" know better than any structural engineer, be able to ignore a report, science and the laws of physics.
You can look at the building falling down, and know it was brought down by controlled demolition using a method never before used to destroy a building, and using technology that hasn't even invented yet? Man that isn't evidence of intitution, thats psychosis.
Can I ask if your brain is wired so that you can understand the world this way, and god the morons on this forum's brains aren't wired to function like yours, why waste your time trying to convince these right brainers using their methods? Even though you're reduced to making stuff up?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Thanks beachnut, good point I hadn't thought of before!
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
yeah, the CTers arent even looking for the right things, they are looking for components of thermate when they should be lookign for products
instead of looking for sulphur and barium nitrate (both of which are consumed during the reaction) they shoudl be looking for large quantities of aluminum oxide encased in an iron slag
of course since they couldnt find that they had to go to plan B
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Unfortunately your small brain is 100% wrong again, irrespective of which side you use.
Because a building collapses and you cannot understand why does not mean you can concoct a story that fits in with your already preconceived ideas.
You see what you have failed to grasp and continue to fail to grasp is that people with degrees in things like structural, civil or any engineering degree for that matter tend to go into trades where they study in-depth their trade. This is why the are called experts in their trades, because they are usually very clever and have a great deal of expertise in their given field.
Whereby you are not an expert, you have neither the hard earned qualifications nor the years of experience that those who you foolish try to challenge have. You simply watch youtube videos, read some dross that another nut job has wrote about it and like the niave person you are fall for it hook line and sinker.
You fall for it because you are an easy target, you are so wrapped up in it all that you cannot see the forest for the trees, you simply miss it all.
I really do not care what 28th says anymore, I really do not care that he will not respond to this post; it is not for his benefit. It is simply a statement of fact. The fact being that this individual has single handedly done more damage to the truth movement than any debunker could.
Well done 28th, you have shown everybody the shear and utter madness behind your theories.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
That's exactly what uneducated, arrogant, ego delusional people would like to believe. That fact is, look around tin hatter and see who agrees with you. Very few intelligent people with actual jobs which require intelligence, logic and clear thinking. You have burger flippers, drop outs, wanna be's and pretenders. Sure you have a few educated fools, but once they come out of the CT closet, they get what they've earned, unemployment.
solidslade
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 167
Yes.
One way is seen in the retarded fashion.
Because you only use one side of your right brainniness.
The other, well seen in the fashion a rational person would see it.
False Dichotomy.
This isn't about Left or Right brained people.
This is about "right braininess" (ie your kind.) against FULL Brained People.
Full brained people will look at the video, and see how WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by 2 other collapses.
And yes, it takes a knowledge of structural engineering to realize the full implications and details on that collapse.
Go back to reading Derrida or something. Stop wasting your time in a skeptic forum if you aren't going to be convinced that you are either Wrong or Stupid.
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,785
blank
Last edited:
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,785
28th now has the distinction of having both the stupidest post ever and the funniest post ever.
I have been to http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/background.html
web site many times. He never answers his email; I was looking at his energy work and I think he is off more than 20 percent.
However, his site reminds me of a speed trip. A lot of work but it just fits too well together. Most of his site is just junk, but it contains lots of background information as you have found.
I have seen the author; he looks strung out on speed.
I assume he is not a meth guy; but it would explain his inability to correct or revise his work; he just can not see any problems because he is a speed freak.
But this must be an illusion I have; Just reminded me of work I have seen as a result of speed.
Dumb ole me. I guess I have my own CT problems. Any drug expert on works done under speed out there?
5 years at University to become a structural engineer.
7 years to become an architect.
4 years to become a fire engineer.
Minimum qualifications required for entry to study siad courses: High Grade (Scotland) or A Level (England) Maths and Physics, plus 2-3 other subjects.
Let's be clear here: the technical issues involved are highly complex. Study and tuition are involved. Mistakes made and lessons learnt. This isn't something that your average punter can understand from reading a book or looking at something on Google.
The likes of 28th don't understand how we model loads or what are credible design criteria. They have absolutely no idea about plastic or elastic modelling of structures, never mind the relative merits of each or how they might be used in the design of a structure such as this.
They don't understand how we specify fire protection of structural metalwork, or how it might be applied. They've not had to study fire modelling, or understand how it spreads. They've never had to study fire brigade or BRE fire testing experiments.
So I have to ask myself; why should I listed to these clowns? What makes them think that they're qualified to even begin to understand the issues involved? Why am I expected to give equal credence to crackpot theories and questions that wouldn't make it past first year at Uni?
Frankly, I wear the "ignore" as a bit of a badge of honour. It's the equivalent of 28th putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "I'm not listening". Or maybe those danger obscuring shades that Zaphod B. had.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I posted this in another thread, but I think it fits well in this particular discussion too:
I want to second what UK Dave is saying. Firstly, please don't take such comments personally. Frankly I think the folks here can be a bit hasty in dismissing newcomers, however in just about every case they turn out to be right. I think many are tired of people turning up who think they know it all, when they don't.
And adding to what uk dave said. It's more than just that people here are well versed in 9/11. A number of people here are actually experts in the particular fields being discussed. Beachnut attents air crash sites to investigate them.
It is incredibly frustrating, rude, and insulting when people turn up and start throwing around misinformed opinions on specialist subjects, and when confronted with evidence from experts in the field, these expert opinions are ignored.
People like beachnut worked exceedingly hard to earn the right to the title "expert" in their particular field. Dismissing their opinions out of hand, especially from a position of ignorance, is a great disservice to both them and yourself.
-Gumboot
I am minded of an old (and dull) construction industry joke.
An architect is someone who starts off knowing an awful lot about a few things. As time goes on, he learns less and less about more and more until he knows almost nothing about nearly everything.
An engineer is someone who starts off knowing very little about lots and lots, but learns more and more about less and less until he knows almost everything about nearly nothing.
Hey, I thought it was funny.....
An architect is someone who starts off knowing an awful lot about a few things. As time goes on, he learns less and less about more and more until he knows almost nothing about nearly everything.
An engineer is someone who starts off knowing very little about lots and lots, but learns more and more about less and less until he knows almost everything about nearly nothing.
Hey, I thought it was funny.....
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I have heard a similar joke about officers (generalists) and other ranks (specialists) in the army.
-Gumboot
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Let me further elaborate on this, since it seems that some of you still don't understand what I'm talking about. In the scenario I painted above, I'm not implying that a right-brain person can automatically say, therma/ite was used....or that a right-brain person will automatically say, I know there are explosives involved. I'm only saying that a right-brain person will be able to confidently proclaim, that this building (WTC 7) could not have symmetrically collapsed, in seconds...due to random damage i.e. a few scattered fires and some exterior damage.
The only significant damage on the interior of the building was caused by scattered fires throughout a few floors...yet the entire steel structure failed on all 47 stories - and all at once. Common sense tells us...that this isn't even remotely possible. Steel structured high-rise buildings don't just fall to the ground, because of a few fires...if that were the case, the entire NYC skyline would look vastly different.
The fact that a right-brain person can make this judgment with only the basic facts...doesn't mean they are more intelligent than a left-brained person or that they have a higher IQ...or that they know more about structural engineering than someone who has a degree in it.
Main Entry: common sense
Function: noun
: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
See, left-brained people have a penchant to make things more complex than they really are...which can often lead to an acute case of myopia. (Can't see the forest for the trees) They (left-brain) get so absorbed in the data and facts...that they often lose sight of the big picture.
Sure, if we're talking about quantum mechanics, string theory or holographic universes - hey...let's get technical and in depth. But, sometimes and in certain situations it's possible to make a sound judgment using just simple perception of the situation. For example:
If someone posed the question - what would happen if you dropped a 100lbs anvil on a raw egg. A right-brained person would go, "The egg would crack." A left-brained person...on the other hand...would actually take the time to break it down....and calculate every aspect involved in the event before they would want to draw any conclusions...even if the outcome is a given.
I can see how CTist might come on here...and think you guys are stupid, because it can appear that way. But, like I have stated in the past...this has nothing to do with IQ, or intelligence. It has more to do with how left/right brain people process information. You may have noticed...that I keep trying to paint really basic pictures of the buildings and collapses (and you perceive this as a lack of intelligence because it's simple and not complex) that's because I'm trying to show you what common sense looks like.
Common sense is sort of like an image or visualization you get, that allows you (based upon rudimentary logic) to make an extremely sound and prudent judgment of the events observed. Common sense is like saying steel is stronger than plastic...even though I might not be able to scientifically articulate exactly why that is...I still know it to be true.
Anyway, this has all been a really enlightening experience for me. Very fascinating stuff. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how to translate this common sense perception into a way that you left-brainers can interrupt and understand.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Okay, I think I finally get it.
A right brained person can look at the collapse of WTC7, and say, "It obviously looks like a controlled demolition, so therefore it was, and it's silly and naive to bother looking for more evidence of the cause of the collapse, and doing any analysis."
Meanwhile, the same right brained person can look at WTC1&2, and say, "It's obvious the plane impacts and fires couldn't have caused the collapse, and only a naive fool wouldn't go looking for more evidence and go making up a more complex explanation than just planes and fires."
Is that how it goes? Must be more of that doublemint gum he's been chewing.
That's not right brained, that's no brained.
Meanwhile, we skeptics and scientists look at WTC1&2, and say, "Damn that collapse looked funny. We'd better look for evidence and analyse it, to figure out what actually happended."
We then look at WTC7, and say, ""Damn that collapse looked almost like a CD, and that's pretty funny too, considering the context. We'd better look for evidence and analyse it, to figure out what actually happended."
But of course, such a logical and coherent approach is hopeless naive. Or whole-brained, take you pick.