What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?

Posted by Spocko on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 06:47 AM. Read 4823 times. Tags:
{name} pic

The guys at MemeTherapy have been running a series of interesting threads about Strange Beliefs over the last few weeks. It’s a fun read. I thought the kind folks here at the Bastard’s might like to give it a try.

Their question:
“What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?”

My response…

At first glance this question appears simple enough. I can think of many fascinating subjects I have read about over the years; nanotech, “gray goo”, 11-dimensional space, relativity, the possibility of time travel, quantum entanglement, wave particle duality, virtual reality. There flows a never ending stream of ideas that wells up from the spring that is the Mind of Man. I could have selected any item from this list, or more, and would have provided a reasonably interesting response. How does one choose from such a fantastical array of knowledge? Technology can indeed appear strange or magical to one unfamiliar with a particular field of study. Some feel that medical wonders, from stem-cell research and genetic engineering to face transplants, are the definition of the word “strange”. Others may perceive the political and ideological mindset of their “enemies” to be the pinnacle of the eldritch.

But to ask an atheist what he “believes” to be true introduces quite a different “texture” to the question posed. The meaning of the word “believe” may easily be misconstrued. I am often bewildered by the multiple usage of some words from the English language. To some, “belief” is only given to that which has overwhelming evidence to support it, such evidence that there is no point to even use the word “believe”. Does one say: “I believe the sky is blue”? No. We say: “The sky is blue”. We can test this statement through many types of observation, experimentation, and verification. We know the sky is blue. Some use the word “believe” in the same manner that they use the word “think”, e.g. “I believe I’ll have another beer!” - the two words are interchangeable here. Then we come, of course, to the most common meaning of the word “believe”, that equivalent to “faith”; acceptance of a proposition without any need, or desire, for supporting evidence whatsoever.

I avoid the use of the words “believe” and “belief” because of their imprecise usage. There are, however, certain words I’ll use in spite of their misuse. For example, I have no qualms stating that I’m an “atheist” even though that word has been intentionally misused and demonized, perhaps since its inception. An atheist is simply one who does not believe. To be an atheist one need only answer “no” to the question “Do you believe [in god(s)]?” No further assertion is made.

I prefer to use the verb “know” instead of “believe” and, like Great Lady Science, accept that knowledge can be transitory and must evolve as new evidence is discovered. Ironically, my answer to the question “What is the strangest thing you know to be true?” would bring me back to the issue of faith.

The strangest thing I know of is the ability of the human mind to accept the most incredible of statements by the simple application of the magic word “faith”. How is it that, in the 21st century, we still have people that believe the world is only 6000 years old in light of the evidence from various fields of science in support of its vastly older age? How can one ignore mounds of fossil evidence for the progression of evolution and only see the “gaps”. What is it that allows the brilliant scientist who, otherwise, demands empirical data to advance his theories, to assert that there is a god when no one has presented any evidence to corroborate the existence of said deity? Is it a mental blind spot, a type of intellectual laziness used to avoid investigating fully the reason one believes one fable over another?

This strange thing called faith intrigues me. I have studied several of the mythologies of various civilizations throughout history and I find the subject fascinating. The majority of us appear to be so desperate for answers that we will accept any concept of reality that we are subjected to at an early age. We indoctrinate our children into a system of thought handed down by our progenitors and our children will usually teach their own children the same vision; the meme propagates. The evolution of religion presents the prime example of this strange ability to close the mind to healthy skepticism and reason. I wonder if we have herein evidence for the existence of a parasitic meme, one that propagates from the pulpit and lives in symbiosis with those that hunger for its anesthetic affects.

I look forward to a future where such strange ideas as faith and belief have faded into obscurity and disrepute as have the gods of old. A future where the unknown is regarded as an opportunity, not an enemy to be feared and obscured by the blinders of myth.

What’s the strangest thing you “believe”?

Comments:

Page 5 of 9 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:36 PM

Webs pic

I just had a great couple cups of Green tea I picked up from a store.  But I haven’t had a Martini in a while either.  That does sound good.

Oh, GR I got one last question.  Do you know what brevity is?

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:41 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

sigh.

Apparently my last comment was a bit to vague for you, GD. Let me make it a little clearer.

Sod off.

You’re a kook and I have no interest in wasting my time on kooks. Life’s far too short to spend it arguing with a paranoid ocd case.

And no, I’m not going to go into my background and no, I don’t care if you respect my opinion. Feel free to disregard anything and everything I said in previous posts and concentrate solely on the following:

Go fuck yourself.

Oh, and don’t fuck with Sadie or I’ll have to get serious.....  cool grin

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:42 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Mind if I join you for that Martine, Sadie?

And the bath....  wink

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:44 PM

Godless Raven pic

NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower…

...the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse.

1. You would have to believe that the impact of one plane loosened the asbestos off of ALL of the truses. Do you have any idea how improbable that is? What basis do you have to go on to believe that? Again, it’s because we’ve never seen a plane hit that building. Ughh...What makes you believe or they for that matter that the asbestos some how got knocked off of all of those trusses? Are you familiar with Newton’s laws? Please, apply his laws to how that impact could cause that effect. I’m not familiar with this law of converted energy or motion. You must know something new. Do tell.

2. The planes were not even filled to capacity, and if you researched airliners (not those specific ones, but the norm for ALL flights similar to that one you would know that they don’t fly around filled with fuel. Did hijackers fill it up at Domo?) Unusually large fuel supply...now that’s a leap of faith based on no evidence whatsoever. Do you know how long those flights were already in the air burning fuel before they crashed? Maybe they were solar powered. Ughh...like I said, don’t copy paste. Explain to me how this new chemistry works.

3. Are you saying that 1,000 celsius was enough to melt steel trusses? Whoah! What? You are completely ignoring the central core which was not built on this system you claim completely failed without any scientific evidence. Have you asked yourself how they came up with this hypothesis, considering there was no investigation? Interesting, the laws of chemistry changed on that day, but they can’t really say how. I’m talking about a serious scientific investigation and hypothesis. Not a copy paste of the official story. It does NOT fall in to the known laws of science. Is this what you actually believe happened, or are you just screwing around?

4. Photographic evidence from a half an hour before the collapse? What, photos of before the planes hit? So this is a case of “who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or me”? Because here is what I’d like you to do...take that description that you’ve posted here of the official story and read it out loud as you watch the events on your screen. That alone should make things pretty obvious. If the floors were “weakened” you would have a slow, sideways collapse. Not a complete decimation in to the basement. It’s as if you actually believe there was zero resistance below the building. I guess this massive amount of fuel leaked all through the building and managed to miss all of the people that were running down to the exits. They were perhaps...inflamable? Explain.

5. This wasn’t what I was talking about. I’d like YOUR hypothesis, because this one makes zero sense scientifically. Even if you’re right about the planes knocking off all of the asbestos, and some how the core of the building just magically dissapeared for no known reason, are you really under the impression that a building that size could just completely collapse on to itself in to the ground in 8 to 10 seconds? That’s the speed that it would take for a ball bearing to hit the ground if it was tossed off the top of the building while it was standing. How do you account for this? Did popular mechanics address this? I’d like to know.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:46 PM

Sadie Jane pic

I’ll reiterate for you, GR: you don’t want to take on KPG. Especially not where I’m concerned… smile

Oh, and be my guest, K. Shaken or stirred?  cool smile

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:46 PM

Godless Raven pic

sigh.

Apparently my last comment was a bit to vague for you, GD. Let me make it a little clearer.

Sod off.

You’re a kook and I have no interest in wasting my time on kooks. Life’s far too short to spend it arguing with a paranoid ocd case.

And no, I’m not going to go into my background and no, I don’t care if you respect my opinion. Feel free to disregard anything and everything I said in previous posts and concentrate solely on the following:

Go fuck yourself.

Oh, and don’t fuck with Sadie or I’ll have to get serious.....

Ahh yes, the intellectual debating scientifically. Now I see why you took your initial shots at me. Because you have an alternate scientific thesis that works. You are a complete idiot, and you are clearly not competent to have this discussion.

“Oh, and don’t fuck with Sadie or I’ll have to get serious.....” I beg your pardon? Are you threatening me you sack of shit? Oh boy...an internet tough guy...I’m shocked! *scoff* What did you mean by this comment, I’d like to know what “get serious” means by your definition?

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:48 PM

Godless Raven pic

I’ll reiterate for you, GR: you don’t want to take on KPG. Especially not where I’m concerned…

Oh, and be my guest, K. Shaken or stirred?

You guys have the nerve to call me a kook? I’m sure he’s not physically threatening me, because I assume that is his photo he’s got beside his posts. That can’t be it. So what exactly did you mean by that threat dicktree?

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:49 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Ignoring all the rancor over styles of debating, I’m a bit mystified by the dislike of Popular Mechanics.  While not exactly an engineering journal, they do a good job of presenting comlex subjects.

GR, as Les said, you can’t expect us to welcome tired arguments with open arms.  This happens even more with discussions of evolution, too - someone shows up, drops a steaming load of debunked stuff and demands an explanation of each and every point.  Then, when everyone doesn’t say; “My God, you’re right!” but basically rolls their eyes, it’s all; “Help, help, I’m bein’ repressed!”

Get over it, already.  How gentle (and I’m not the first to ask this in other threads) did you expect a forum to be whose motto is “What the fuck is wrong with you people?”

Good advice to newcomers, read the archives.  Use the search feature.  The regulars have put a lot of time into their posts and replies and no one likes to reinvent the wheel.

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:50 PM

Godless Raven pic

Oh I see...you guys are sharing an internet martini...and I thought I was dealing with fruit cakes. My bad.

Webs United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:51 PM

Webs pic

Ok, after seeing this nuball work I can’t even begin to describe how I feel having being previously associated with him as a conspirist.  Dude, good luck at winning us over now.  Your scientific reasoning of pissing everyone off is likely to work. oh oh

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 06:59 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Don’t feel bad, Webs - I used to believe in the Second Coming of Christ.  red face  But (having been turned into a newt) “I got better”.  wink

OK that’s two Monty Python references - it’s Friday and I’m tired so I guess I’ll just sign off now.

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 07:00 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Oh, and be my guest, K. Shaken or stirred?  cool smile

I’ll take you shaken and the martini stirred, darling.

as for the little shit:

Ahh yes, the intellectual debating scientifically. Now I see why you took your initial shots at me.

Actually, you iggnorant little snot, I’m the one who was actually NICE to you. It’s true, go back and re-read the thread. I didn’t attack you until after you took your first swipe at me.

As for the threat, if you’ll notice, there’s a silly little cartoon next to it. If that’s too subtly for you, no it wasn’t serious, it was basically hyperbole. However, I am 5’11”, 220lbs, in decent shape and have been in more than my fair share of physical altercations. So if you’d like it to be a real threat, swing on down to Michigan and I’ll see what I can do.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 07:13 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

A quick bit of clarification here.

If someone came up to me and claimed they had made a huge break through and figured out how to transport matter and they had box loads of papers with notes that they said proved their theory, I’d probably feel compelled to sit down and go through it.

If someone came up to me and claimed they had been abducted by aliens and they had box loads of papers with notes that they said proved their theory, I’d probably laugh and walk away.

I’ll leave it to everyone else to decide which example best fits GR.....

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 07:47 PM

Sadie Jane pic

GR: Ahh yes, the intellectual debating scientifically. Now I see why you took your initial shots at me.

My, my. For someone who has taken shots at people for allegedly being scientifically ignorant, intellectually deficient, or inattentive to the content of your posts, you sure don’t read through other people’s posts very well. This is only one example of you misattributing quotes to the wrong person (you have also done it previously with Webs and Consi). KPG was initially willing to offer you an olive branch, but you thoroughly rejected it.

Oh I see...you guys are sharing an internet martini...and I thought I was dealing with fruit cakes. My bad.

Yes, and I initially wasn’t going to write you off as a kook. My bad.

I stated previously that I was done with you, and now I really mean it. I’m no psychologist, but you are clearly unstable; you’re projecting all over the place, and I suggest you seek help. I’m not saying this in a snarky, holier-than-thou sense, either--I really mean it. No one here ever meant you any harm. It was only after you started treating like shit everyone who even questioned your sacred ideas that you’ve taken it back in turn. Around here, you get what you give.

And KPG, you can rock me like a hurricane, good sir.wink

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 09/29/2006 at 08:56 PM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Rave: I could care less what anybody else on here says

I wish you’d used ‘I could care less’ in your first post - I could have saved myself A LOT of reading - it’s a fool-proof method I’ve developed of categorising people and it’s rarely incorrect ... that’s why it’s fool-proof.  LOL

‘I could care less’ makes no fucking sense.
The expression is ‘I could NOT care less’ - see the subtle difference?

Webs: Why you freaked on me for that I still don’t know,

Way too much red cordialwink

Rave: What did you mean by this comment, I’d like to know what “get serious” means by your definition?

The wrong meds or ... too much red cordial. smile
Seriously, Rave, develop a thicker skin and slow down – you’ll wear out another keyboard.

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

Patness Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 09:00 PM

Patness pic

GodlessRaven, you may not like what Webs has had to say on the matter, but after 8 and a half minutes of the video they’ve already piled several conjectures atop oneanother. It is important to note that these are merely conjectures - they are not statements of fact. To be taken as fact they must beg the question of their own accuracy. To show that these conjectures are not conclusive, it is only necessary to describe another possibility, other than the one prescribed.

The video you have linked is extensive on conjecture, that indicates that it is possible that they were demolished. There is nothing conclusively showing this. Witness testimony does not conclusively show anything - it is documented as an unreliable source of evidence. So let’s skip over that.

The steel, for instance. Steel melts at 2750F. This does not mean that it must be necessary for the entirety of the building’s steel trusses and columns to be liquified for a collapse. In fact, since any given building is designed with a load, we can infer that the WTC, which, IIRC, was designed with an eightfold maximum load, would have lost significant amounts (50%) of that capacity by being heated to less than half that temperature, well within the range of hydrocarbon fuel. Second, the trusses were joints - they rely on the stability and soundness of their connecting parts for their strength. While the core may have been able to withstand such a high temperature, the trusses are not necessarily able to do the same - especially when their connecting parts could have been (and were) compromised during impact. Once the grid is damaged structurally, it no longer carries the capacity to behave like a grid, and the ability of the steel to carry its load, between heat and physical damage, is crippled. Eight floor max load for any given floor - but with several floors thusly damaged, it puts collapse within reason.

So what about the fires? Sure, an uncontrolled fire can burn at 1200F. It’s very unlikely that one part of the building recieved an optimal oxygen supply to burn at a higher temperature. It needs saying that it remains possible, however, even if such temperatures are not necessary for a failure of structural integrity.

“Imagine, building expressly for airplane impact but never thinking of the fuel”. Just like the University of Calgary campus where the library was built, and the load demanded by the weight of the books was overlooked. The Mackimmie Library is sinking because of that. Similar design flaws can be found in buildings all over the world, precisely because the flaws in design were not made immediately apparent. Mistakes happen. One cannot cast aside the notion that the buildings simply were not blueprinted properly. As a programmer, I have to be aware that over 90% of all problems in programs arise from errors in the conceptual design of the program - that the hypothesis did not fit the practice.

This is one of many examples where conjectures are pitched as fact. This is a pattern best exemplified by David Ray Griffin’s book, “The New Pearl Harbor” - conjecture upon conjecture stacked tediously towards a conclusion. A single counterexample, much less the many that Webs has provided, debunk it.

It’s gotten laughable and I’m only 20 minutes in. “We are seeing explosions, rather than implosions”. I don’t see explosions; I see debree puffing out from beween collapsing floors. But let’s go with explosions anyway. Of course, since implosions are indicative of demolition, one would think they’d stop right there and go, “huh, a stumper” but nope! They just keep on truckin by saying it’s “a first in demolition history”. Come on!

So let’s top this off with one more conspiracy strategy - this one with due kudos to Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. We won’t state facts - we’re about the tough questions. See, facts are contradictable. That’s the problem with being objective. But we already know that when you want to get an idea in someone’s head, all you really need to do is ask a question. A question like

“DOES Jon Stewart orally pleasure Teamsters for pocket change?”

“What? No, that’s absurd!”

“Well, Jon, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m sure I can assemble a panel of people who will say otherwise”.

And that’s really what it comes down to.

“Would this be aluminum oxide, a byproduct of a thermite reaction?”

“Not necessarily”

“Well you’re entitled to your opinion, Mr. Patness - but I’m sure I can make a sequence of moving pictures set to music where I say otherwise”.

Conjectures and questions do not make facts. This is the fundamental problem with the video. I can claim that a squirrel fell from the sky and that’s why my brother has a bloodstain on his windshield. Certainly, it is possible. Simply because it is possible does not make it certain. It does not even make it likely or worth investigation.

I wanted more investigation done into the towers’ collapse - especially on the basement floors of the towers to discount the idea of demolition. Rather, forensic evidence was quickly seized and shipped to be recycled. There was still much at stake following the collapse of the towers, I’m sure. Regardless, none of these things equate to proof that the collapse of the buildings was planned, as is gestured by the video.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Patness Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 09:04 PM

Patness pic

forgive the few typos I left behind - I’m about to go for dinner and I managed to sneak this in smile

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

Les United States Posted on 09/29/2006 at 09:20 PM

Les pic

I just got done watching the video and, as I feared, I’m not overly impressed.

There’s really nothing new in it that hasn’t already been covered by the other videos floating around and which we covered in the previous thread I linked to earlier. Facts tended to be cherry picked and there was a very heavy reliance on both eyewitness accounts of what happened (the utility of which is often very debatable) and a lot of “this looks a lot like demolition squibs/volcanoes erupting/explosion shock waves/etcetera” statements.

It doesn’t help that Godless Raven seems really fond of the False Dichotomy fallacy. Take for example his rebuttal to the five points in the NIST investigation:

1. You would have to believe that the impact of one plane loosened the asbestos off of ALL of the truses. Do you have any idea how improbable that is?

GR is implying here that unless all the trusses lost their asbestos there’s no way they would’ve gotten hot enough to fail. An either/or argument which ignores the fact that it would only take a percentage of weakened trusses to initiate a collapse. Not all of the trusses had to fail in order for the building to collapse. GR goes on to write…

What basis do you have to go on to believe that? Again, it’s because we’ve never seen a plane hit that building. Ughh...What makes you believe or they for that matter that the asbestos some how got knocked off of all of those trusses?

And again relies on a False Dichotomy.

Are you familiar with Newton’s laws? Please, apply his laws to how that impact could cause that effect.

Fortunately the NIST investigators did just that with a couple of computer simulations of the planes striking the towers. Watching those simulations it’s quite easy to imagine how enough damage was done to the fireproofing to allow for a collapse.

Moving on to point 2…

2. The planes were not even filled to capacity, and if you researched airliners (not those specific ones, but the norm for ALL flights similar to that one you would know that they don’t fly around filled with fuel.  Did hijackers fill it up at Domo?) Unusually large fuel supply...now that’s a leap of faith based on no evidence whatsoever. Do you know how long those flights were already in the air burning fuel before they crashed? Maybe they were solar powered. Ughh...like I said, don’t copy paste. Explain to me how this new chemistry works.

I have to ask why we wouldn’t research those specific flights?

American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were both Boston to Los Angeles flights. The planes can hold around 23,980 gallons of fuel and are estimated to have had around 10,000 gallons left at the time of the crash according to the NIST investigation. I’m no expert, but I find it easy to believe that 10,000 gallons of burning fuel is more than enough.

Moving on to point 3…

3. Are you saying that 1,000 celsius was enough to melt steel trusses?

Of course not, but then that’s not what the NIST investigators said either. Taken from their FAQ on the topic:

    7a.  How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
    OR
    7b.  Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

    In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

    However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

    UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

No melting required for collapse.

Whoah! What? You are completely ignoring the central core which was not built on this system you claim completely failed without any scientific evidence.

The NIST investigation shows that the central core suffered similar issues and contributed to the failure.

Have you asked yourself how they came up with this hypothesis, considering there was no investigation?

There was an investigation and it’s rather well documented. You can read it for yourself.

Interesting, the laws of chemistry changed on that day, but they can’t really say how. I’m talking about a serious scientific investigation and hypothesis. Not a copy paste of the official story. It does NOT fall in to the known laws of science. Is this what you actually believe happened, or are you just screwing around?

What amuses me most about the above commentary is the fact that GR keeps claiming that he is only interested in “serious scientific investigation” and he insists on discounting out of hand an investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology which is chock full of scientists and makes use of outside independent scientists as well.

Moving on to point 4…

4. Photographic evidence from a half an hour before the collapse? What, photos of before the planes hit? So this is a case of “who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or me”?

It would appear you are now guilty of not carefully reading what was put before you. It said: “Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse.”

You’re trying to imply that they looked at a single point in time prior to when the planes hit when clearly they are speaking of a duration of time after the planes hit up to the collapse.

If you want a serious intellectual discussion then you should try to be intellectually honest about what the other side actually said.

Because here is what I’d like you to do...take that description that you’ve posted here of the official story and read it out loud as you watch the events on your screen. That alone should make things pretty obvious.

This exercise would prove nothing as it’s an appeal to emotion. You’re implying it won’t feel right, but that doesn’t prove anything as there are all manner of situations that can occur that won’t feel right when you recount them.

If the floors were “weakened” you would have a slow, sideways collapse. Not a complete decimation in to the basement.

For someone who likes to demand others back up their claims you completely fail to do so here. Instead you go on to propose a couple of straw men:

It’s as if you actually believe there was zero resistance below the building.

First, the NIST reports explains the near free-fall speed quite well. Again, taken from their FAQ:

    As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

    “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

    Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

    In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

And then you continue with…

I guess this massive amount of fuel leaked all through the building and managed to miss all of the people that were running down to the exits. They were perhaps...inflamable? Explain.

You seem to be implying that a substantial amount of burning fuel would have to have made its way through the entirety of the building in order for it to collapse the way it did. This is such a silly claim to make that its rebuttal should be self-evident.

Continuing on to point 5:

5. This wasn’t what I was talking about. I’d like YOUR hypothesis, because this one makes zero sense scientifically. Even if you’re right about the planes knocking off all of the asbestos, and some how the core of the building just magically dissapeared for no known reason, are you really under the impression that a building that size could just completely collapse on to itself in to the ground in 8 to 10 seconds? That’s the speed that it would take for a ball bearing to hit the ground if it was tossed off the top of the building while it was standing. How do you account for this? Did popular mechanics address this? I’d like to know.

You keep accusing others of not having watched the film, but I have to wonder if you’ve actually read the NIST investigation papers as many of the claims you repeatedly make are addressed and refuted. The collapse doesn’t require all of the asbestos to be knocked off the trusses and the core didn’t “magically disappear.” I quoted the relevant section on the speed of the collapse above and if you really want to know what the Popular Mechanics article addressed why don’t you try reading it?

I could go on with the other points you’ve raised throughout this thread such as the possibility of thermite being used or the fact that the smoke was black suggesting an oxygen starved fire, but all of those points have been covered by the NIST in several of their papers and their FAQ to my satisfaction so I don’t really see the need to repeat them. You also keep making references to having a background in some of the sciences without really saying just what your credentials actually are. You give us no basis other than your own word for why we should accept your claims as true in opposition to an organization such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology—an organization that has a long history and good reputation.

The truth is I don’t know you from Adam’s cat (as my mother is often wont to say), but I am pretty familiar with the NIST. You’ve given me no valid reason to doubt or distrust the NIST’s investigation other than a video that rehashes many of the same claims other conspiracy theorists have tossed out about the events of 9/11. Additionally you’ve engaged in quite a few logical fallacies in your argument thus far despite claiming to want an intellectually honest debate and that gives me even less reason to trust your claims over that of the NIST. In short, there’s nothing new in what you’re asking us to consider here.

I’ve now spent an hour and a half watching a video that provided nothing new to the debate, spent another hour and a half composing this reply, and I see that Patness has already replied with similar statements. Oh well, I’m not known for my brevity either.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 10:58 PM

Godless Raven pic

“As for the threat, if you’ll notice, there’s a silly little cartoon next to it. If that’s too subtly for you, no it wasn’t serious, it was basically hyperbole. However, I am 5’11”, 220lbs, in decent shape and have been in more than my fair share of physical altercations. So if you’d like it to be a real threat, swing on down to Michigan and I’ll see what I can do.”

Oh hoe hum...I was 5’11 when I was in the fifth grade. I’ve always been bigger than people around me, but the size of someone means nothing. You’re in decent shape? You know what...I’m not getting in to this internet tough guy thing. As if I would fly to Michigan to fight you. I’ve boxed since I was 6 years old and I’ve trained in martial arts since I was 12. I stopped competition 4 years ago. So what? Does that mean anything? There are photos of me on various boxing websites. Does that mean anything? I can still be shot or stabbed. Internet tough talk is for weiners, and I’m sure you and I can both agree on that. It’s pointless. If you meant it as a joke, you probably picked a really inappropriate time to make a joke about threatening me. But...whatever...it has no effect on my life.

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 11:01 PM

Godless Raven pic

Patness - I knew I would appreciate your post. I wasn’t even sure what you would say, but I knew it would be rational and thought out. I don’t think it really had a lot to do with science though. (a little) I am very familiar with Stewart and Colbert, and the exact segment you are refering to. I know what conjecture is. You make a point. Now, I’d like to try something but you’ll have to be patient, because I want to respond to Les first and then I would like to see if the two of you are interested in actually doing this right. I don’t feel good about getting in to a stupid fight with people. Particularly people that had already decided they knew it all before. I haven’t. So please refer to my post to Les to see what I propose at the end and let me know if you are game.

Thanks for the post.

GR

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 11:18 PM

Godless Raven pic

Les - Well, first of all, thank you for actually watching the video. It was basically my only request to begin with. I appreciate what you are saying, but basically the problem here is that you believe the “facts” I believe are false, and I believe the same about the “facts” from you report you are mainly quoting.

So here is what I would like. What I originally asked for was a discussion about the actual science that took place on 911. There are so many emotions on all sides regarding this terrible tragedy. We all agree on that. I don’t even want to discuss those things, because we probably agree on them.

Here is what I want to discuss with you and Patness. Preferably exclusively considering the back and forths going on between me and the other regulars. I do not believe there is any chance to have a rational discussion with them. And I’m sure they feel the same. I’m fine with that. What I would like is for the three of us to simply put forth what we believe physically took place on 911. I don’t think quoting reports is the right way to go. For every report I use, you can find one that completely contradicts it. For every popular mechanics magazine article you use, I can find a university physics professor to refute it. That’s not going to get anywhere.

What I would like is some ground rules, because this has been the least professional discussion/debate I’ve ever been involved in. The rules can be negotiable of course, but this is what I suggest from my end. No reports. Of any kind. No borrowed theories. Nothing like this. We put forth our theories based on what we see (and I’m fine with not including the 300 or so eye witness reports that took place that day. Eye witnessess can be wrong.) We use our collective intellect to form a thesis and the only facts we can use to back them up is actual scientific knowledge. In other words, if I say that the buildings went down a certain way, then I have to prove my model within the known laws of science. The two of you would do the same.

Because it’s the only way to actually figure out what happened. To just say “we’ll never know” is not a good way of approaching anything in the universe. You guys both know that. Maybe we aren’t qualified, but we’ll soon find out. We have nothing to lose and who knows...maybe after discussing it we’ll come to a common conclusion.

I feel this would be much more difficult for me to do without simply using other university professors research as a crutch, and video evidence says a lot to me. But...I believe I can do it. I’m fairly confident that without any videos, conjecture, opinions and emotional outcries, I can prove what my thesis is regarding that day. I believe that both of you would have to agree that the best any of us can do is go with the best model that fits. Like any thesis.

It’s not a minor thing to do, but for the sake of truth, and the two of you being the only two people I’ve talked with on this website that I think would be unbiased at this point...I would appreciate it.

That way, you can’t believe I have some motive, conjecture, conspiracy theories or anything else.

I don’t care about time frames. I’m willing to start working on mine this weekend while I’m travelling to a funeral of one of my wifes relatives. I will only cite science that can be confirmed and examples that are none 911 “conspiracy theory” related. You will have to agree to the same. I’m not talking about taking Popular Mechanics and simply rewording it, or the equivillant from me.

If the problem the two of you have with that video is what you claim, then...it shouldn’t be all that difficult to make me look a fool.

Accept or decline?

You can email me at if you’d like to discuss it off site. At this point, I feel as though I’m going to be disrespected regardless of what I say on here anyway, and...I’m not the type of person to just let that happen. I don’t want this to turn in to another ugly incident like this today.

I’m all for fair play and honest debate/discussion.

Let me know.

Bryce/Godless Raven

Godless Raven Canada Posted on 09/29/2006 at 11:54 PM

Godless Raven pic

p.s. - I can take a digital photo of my degrees and you can call my school if you think that means anything. I do however require some form of privacy, so I would ask that you do not abuse that offer and pass the information around. I’m also pretty confident that once we start this discussion, should you both agree, it will be pretty clear what I know and what you can easily verify in any physics and chemistry books available in any library or book store. I’m talking about laws of gravity, resistance, thermal dynamics, ideal gas constant, inertia, energy conservation, enthalpy, isothermal process, idiabatic process, kenetic motion and potential etc, etc, etc.

I believe I can formulate my thesis using only physics and chemistry, and I do not think you can do the same using the thesis of the NIST report (which again...I have read). If I’m wrong...then this is a chance to prove it in an honest, respectful, intellectual discussion. If either of you prove me wrong and it’s verifiable with science, I’ll change my mind on that point. I would expect the same in return. Worst case scenario is that we all come up with a common thesis when it’s all over. I don’t think you can be more accurate or honest than that.

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 12:55 AM

KPatrickGlover pic

hehehehe

The only two people to actually watch your silly video and respond completely rip it apart for the tripe that it is and youe reply as if there’s actually something to debate.

Astonishing.

What I would like is some ground rules

Of course, can’t have all of us peons making fun of you, can we?

No reports. Of any kind. No borrowed theories.

Uh, huh. And that leaves what?

We use our collective intellect

And what will you be contibuting, Mr. Hayes?

Because it’s the only way to actually figure out what happened. To just say “we’ll never know” is not a good way of approaching anything in the universe.

We know what happened that day. Some people who don’t like Americans very much flew a couple of planes into a couple of buildings. I assume you’re familiar with Occam’s razor? If not, google it.

then...it shouldn’t be all that difficult to make me look a fool.

Not to worry, you’ve done an wonderful job of that, all on your own.

I think maybe you took a few too many blows to the head in the ring......

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

Webs United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 12:59 AM

Webs pic

I was wondering if I was the only one to notice that.  This one really is mind boggling!  I too like the too many blows to the head theory.

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Webs United States Posted on 09/30/2006 at 01:02 AM

Webs pic
 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Page 5 of 9 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main