Psik, Did you read the paper presented in the credibility gap thread yet, or do you tend to ignore information that doesn't fit with your preconceptions? Because that would be ironic.
Not Joe Blow...the GOVERNMENT says so...so it must be so. Yet I have several of the Ozians admitting they don't trust the gov. Makes me wonder what their goal is
Show support for your claim that the members of NIST are "gov paid dry labbers" (whatever that means.)
Are you talking about this junk again? http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf I have already commented on it more than it is worth. psik
Oh you commented, alright, but you didn't actually read it. Do you see the irony in posting a comment about cognitive dissonance when you can't even bring yourself to read a 32 page paper that contradicts you? I'll explain it to you. If the belief you are defending is true, you should be able to address the points made by the paper directly. It should be able to stand up to the test. But you didn't do that. You didn't allow you belief to be tested. You didn't read the paper. Instead you made assumptions about the paper based solely on your bias. You searched for terms you thought the paper should include, didn't find them, and for you, that confirmed your bias that the paper was wrong. That's not science. That's not even logical. Those are the actions of someone resolving a dissonance by relying on emotion. Spock would not be proud of you.
How about answering the question. What is your evidence that the entire NIST and the hundreds of engineering contractors who worked on the project are all lying?
First of all, I have no idea what it means. Second, I didn't ask you for a definition, I asked you to show evidence of your claim. Why don't you drop the petty insults and actually back up your case for once?
You explain something? What a hilarious concept. Like the energy required to buckle a beam in that video which you said was there but wasn't. You supposedly explaining something is ironically producing cognitive dissonance. Like talking about a skyscraper supposedly collapsing and without accurate distribution of steel and concrete data for TEN YEARS. psik
What are you talking about? Ohh, that time when you said that energy doesn't exist unless work is done? Right. You should read the paper. It's really short. Then we'll talk about what caused the collapse.
Seriously?!? He said that?!? OMG That is FUNNY! I guess all those physicists have been wrong this whole time in regards to potential energy! Thanks for the laugh Psik!
I just went to try and find it. The site is dead now but the internet archive still has a capture here: http://web.archive.org/web/20101028...ons-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/#comments I'm pretty sure he said it there, but it could have been here as well. I was trying to explain buckling load to him and it just wasn't getting through.
They were given a pre concieved conclusion and built their BS science around it. They spent a lot of time and money collecting material, yet they were unable to collect any samples to be tested for explosives, even though it is a known fact that explosives is used quite extensively by middle east terrorists, with some 9/11 terrorists allegedly claiming they had explosives on the hijacked aircraft
Explain exactly how their science is "BS". You keep throwing around claims, but you aren't showing any supporting evidence. As for their being explosives on the planes, that point was rendered moot the moment the planes exploded against the side of the building. The planes were the weapon.
Wow. The attention span of truthers is really embarassing. The WTC investigation. Now quit playing stupid.
Wrong yet again. The NIST reports for both the towers and the WTC 7 were different from what people thought happened. There was ZERO EVIDENCE of high explosives used. ZERO. Truthers have yet to produce a single piece. Even WTC 7 has documented evidence the truthtard bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories are just that; bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The explosions they said happened before the collapse? Never happened. Reporters on the ground mere blocks from WTC 7 could hear the collapse but there was NOTHING prior to or during the collapse that could possibly be high explosives. High explosives are incredibly LOUD. This is why truthers would make such terrible detectives. They would see a man laying on the ground with an arrow sticking out of him, a bow 20' away, and have a video of the arrow going into the man, and they would INSIST it was a gunshot wound and whine about there not being an investigation about the person with the gun.
Oh is that what I said? Well one of us is a liar. You said the presenter discussed the energy required to buckle the column and I said he had not but you provided the link to the video. I have looked on ilovephysics and haven't found our exchange. I believe this is the video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrdO8hPJGyg"]Buckling of a Thin Column.MP4 - YouTube[/ame] psik
Oh yeah. I forgot about that. You got wrecked there too. http://www.ilovephysics.com/2008/07/01/911-troofers-are-idiots/comment-page-5/#comment-91184 You've gotten shot down and corrected all over the internet. You'd think that after 10 YEARS you'd not still be arguing the exact same thing. Though I guess that'll never happen if you can't even be bothered to read a 32 page paper.
