Posted: Nov 19, 2010 12:06 am
@Patriots4Truth.
I see some real progress in this post so I will just make a couple of comments. (EDIT: Well maybe "a few comments"
)
I know my memory seems to be suffering the symptoms of advancing age but my vision, reading and comprehension must also be affected. I cannot recall one instance of "asking". Maybe it was phrased in different language. However... let's progress. (For the record I am and always have been available to help anyone "walk through" my understanding of the WTC1 and 2 collapses. Preferably by discussing the global collapse first because it is simpler, then progressing to the initial collapse - that is "progression" and "initiation" in the language the members of "the911forum" prefer. I would tag WTC 7 on the end of that process.)
but
You have migrated your progressing your critique of my explanations to another forum where femr2 among others has asked you to define what your questions are. I cannot help but observe that it would have been far simpler to ask me the questions here. Still, if the roundabout technique suits you go for it.
For those of us who take the harder line of "scientific method" the burden is still yours. I have taken that line also on occasion. Either prove my hypothesis wrong OR post your own. The door has always been open down those two tracks, the track of competing hypotheses OR the track of interactive discussion and explanation. You have chosen to go by alternate paths - the standard truther tracks of debating bits of technical claims bereft of any context. Sorry I don't play those games. The discussion of thermXte as a demolition tool for WTC is a waste of time unless there is a plausible explanation of how it was or could have been used in demolition.
I see some real progress in this post so I will just make a couple of comments. (EDIT: Well maybe "a few comments"
) I find that statement astonishing given the number of posts I have made on the theme "lets discuss this" BUT "...limit it to either my claims or yours"Patriots4Truth wrote:...And while I was researching uke2se's link I've been trying to get some more professional-type opinions of econ41's global collapse theory because he has been avoiding to do so himself...
Patriots4Truth wrote:...evidence in me repeatedly asking him if he has any desire to do so...
I know my memory seems to be suffering the symptoms of advancing age but my vision, reading and comprehension must also be affected. I cannot recall one instance of "asking". Maybe it was phrased in different language. However... let's progress. (For the record I am and always have been available to help anyone "walk through" my understanding of the WTC1 and 2 collapses. Preferably by discussing the global collapse first because it is simpler, then progressing to the initial collapse - that is "progression" and "initiation" in the language the members of "the911forum" prefer. I would tag WTC 7 on the end of that process.)It is not a matter of "fortunately" - it just happens to be right for the lay audiences it is targeted at. I do not include lots of maths - they add nothing even if they look impressive. And it is so easy to include so much impressive looking maths that you/we/they whoever reads can lose track of the fact that the base premises are wrong. That is Szamboti. And I recall my very first post on the internet 13/14 November 2007 where I made this introductory comment in the second paragraph:Patriots4Truth wrote:...Fortunately for him, his global collapse theory seems to hold up so far...
me on RDNet wrote:...The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong...
...which, no surprise, is exactly the track I have attempted to follow.Patriots4Truth wrote:...(there hasn't been much discussion about it yet because they want me to point out what specifically they should discuss)....
Not a problem other than the predictable responses - Darkwing will misunderstand something, Sander0 will coach/correct and femr2 will probably want more detail.Patriots4Truth wrote:...econ41, I apologize if you didn't want me to share your posts/theory but you know that I've been wanting to see what techies have to say about about it....
but...your truther bias and indoctrination showing there patriots. Remember that professional engineers and physicists do not give the mystique to free fall that truthers have erected. That is the myth that somehow "free fall" == "demolition". i.e. that free fall always means demolition and cannot arise from non-demolition causes. As I and others have said repeatedly that truther premise is false. So NIST gave little prominence to free fall in their draft reports, expanded on it obviously to address truther concerns AND the thanks they get is truther misrepresentation about "forced to admit" "forced" for doing a bit of PR and "admit" as if it was something hidden. Bloody ridiculous.Patriots4Truth wrote:...with exception to the 2.25 seconds of freefall that Nist was forced to admit after Chandler confronted them about it....
...er...no comment.Patriots4Truth wrote:...Now I wouldn't of had to go on for several posts about these things if debunkers had explained themselves clearly in the first place....
It will hold up because it is correct. And it was first published 2007/8 way ahead of Major_Tom. I don't see it "holding up" actually because the brains over their are techo detail types and not persons dedicated to explaining technical matters to a non-technical layperson audience. Not that there is anything technically wrong with my explanation. But the writing is not geared for academic or theoretical engineers.Patriots4Truth wrote:... Also, econ41's global collapse theory has yet to be entirely debated over there. If it's mostly ROOSD then it will probably hold up as a feasible theory...
your reliance on certain "authority figures" shows that you are progressing in your understanding. Nevertheless you have been told on multiple occasions that Tony Szamboti was wrong and exactly why and where he was wrong. The fact that you accept something when "truther friendly" femr2 says something but reject it or don't even acknowledge when I tell you the precise same thing is something we may need to work through.Patriots4Truth wrote:...Tony Szamboti has been proven wrong - most visible by femr2's post from the the first freeforums link I posted....
You have migrated your progressing your critique of my explanations to another forum where femr2 among others has asked you to define what your questions are. I cannot help but observe that it would have been far simpler to ask me the questions here. Still, if the roundabout technique suits you go for it.
neither do I expect a big jolt. AND I have several times explained why. And I have told you what there will be - multiple little jolts. AND why there will be multiple little jolts. And you partly accepted that but wanted to include "medium sized jolts" which I agreed to. So now femr2 is agreeing with me you can accept it. OK.Patriots4Truth wrote:... Also, I think it's worth noting that femr2 doesn't believe a "big jolt" is expected (what is expected though? I'll have to ask him)...
...I don't think he will but femr2 could baffle you with science. Szamboti cannot be relied on. Nor Chandler. And recall my cautionary note in a recent post - neither Szamboti nor Chandler has ever suggested how demolition could be achieved. All they have tried to do is show that some demolition was indicated by collapse data. And they both got that bit wrong..Patriots4Truth wrote:...I tend to trust femr2. Tony Szamboti has almost entirely lost my trust (he should of researched "no measurable deceleration" better). David Chandler is off and on...
A pity you see it as "war" with "victories". I cannot speak for others here but my aim is to explain some fairly straight forward bits of engineering so that people coming here can understand.Patriots4Truth wrote:...I'll let the debunkers celebrate these victories....
That is both misplaced and wishful thinking. Even for someone like myself, essentially offering a teaching or explaining service, I cannot know which answers to give if you persistently refuse to engage in discussion. Even now you have not asked me or your trusted experts anything specific about my explanation. Until you do so the ball is firmly in your court.Patriots4Truth wrote:.. But next time I would prefer if I didn't have to do all the work for them
For those of us who take the harder line of "scientific method" the burden is still yours. I have taken that line also on occasion. Either prove my hypothesis wrong OR post your own. The door has always been open down those two tracks, the track of competing hypotheses OR the track of interactive discussion and explanation. You have chosen to go by alternate paths - the standard truther tracks of debating bits of technical claims bereft of any context. Sorry I don't play those games. The discussion of thermXte as a demolition tool for WTC is a waste of time unless there is a plausible explanation of how it was or could have been used in demolition.