Posted: Nov 19, 2010 8:02 am
by econ41

Thanks for your candid comments. My responses to your first few points follow.
Patriots4Truth wrote:...I do not know how to interpret some of your claims and you make physics claims without citing references....
Both points understood. The situation is that I am operating in "let me explain it" mode whereas you are looking for the "fully explained with references" sort of scientific mode. So my way of posting is that I deliberately make a lot of bold claims fully expecting to back them up with more detail if needed/not understood. And I nearly always write for the lay person genuine sceptic enquirer whilst also trying to address what was in some recent post.

My physics will usually be accurate. ( I'm tempted to guarantee "always" - another "bold claim" :naughty2: ) There are two reasons why it is accurate, beyond the obvious fact of basic professional competence. The first is that I write to ensure accuracy by the simple technique of not trying to go too far with details. The second is that, where possible, I will reduce the level of physics to the level where common sense can make the decision without needing physics skills. I will give an example a bit later. There have been occasions when I have seemed to get it wrong because I made an error of terminology which created ambiguity of meaning leading to genuine wrong interpretations. (reference available to a recent post sequence on another forum if you want to follow it through.)

Also I will take short cuts because I have lived with this topic and specifically this thread in its various iterations for 4+ years. So all the key questions answered previously but not readily accessible now. So I need to be more fulsome. However when posting for known truthers - not yourself at this stage of our discussions because your recent posts show genuine scepticism - but posting for truthers I usually lock and bar every door in the logic which tends to make for lengthy pedantic posts. Not conducive to "explanation".
Patriots4Truth wrote:...Lots of components of physics arguments are hard for me to fathom without experience... who's to say which physics argument is best? The answer is to get some professionals critiques...
Which puts us at cross purposes. I am explaining. And in that mode I will get the physics right. So the "gap" that needs bridging is in your understanding. If you don't get it first time round I try again. The "gap" I see is one of lack of understanding. So it is not a question of "is he right?" rather "what does he mean?" In contrast you do not trust me to present basic physics accurately. Why? Do you think I don't understand the physics? Do you think I would lie? I am not an obsessed truther to whom lying is normal conduct. I am a professional engineer and hold to values where lying is not an option. It would never enter my mind to deliberately mislead.
Patriots4Truth wrote:... I stand by the conclusion that I need more than just you explaining your theories. Scientific critique is important in verifying theories like yours.
No problem but they are two different aspects. Your choices include "I will trust femr2 without understanding" OR "I will trust femr2 to say it's OK but listen to econ41 for explanation so I can understand..." OR "I will trust femr2 for saying it is OK and for explaining..." OR.... - multiple variants on that theme. I doubt the last one is viable but.... It is your call.

More to follow - work intervenes. Let me finish this post with an example of reducing the explanation to where common sense is all that is needed. It will also illustrate why I prefer to explain the "global collapse" of either of the "Twin Towers" first. It is much simpler than the two that follow.

Let's look only at the starting point. That is the moment in time when the "top block" has started to fall. It is moving downwards in what I call the "initial collapse" and at the final stage of what your colleagues on the911forum call "initiation". I make this claim in two parts:
  • All of the columns in the impact and damage zone, the columns holding up the top block have failed. AND
  • The proof that they have failed lies in the fact that the top block is moving.

Now we can "calibrate" my communication with you and yours with me. there is no physics in the sense of numbers and equations in what I just posted. Can you accept as fact that all the columns have failed"? AND that the proof is that the "top block" is falling. Nothing more, nothing less. I know you seem to express distrust of logical sequences which focus to yes/no answers. We may need to work through that.

If you cannot at this stage accept those two parts of a claim I can go one level deeper.

Your call.

I will address the remainder of your post as soon as I get the necessary time.

Eric C