The science of why it had to be controlled demolition, in laymen's terms

The idea of the jet fuel fire melting or weakening steel just doesn't fit the picture. It doesn't fit because of the other factors. The entire building is a I-beam mesh structure. Breaking one corner or one area doesn't compromise the integrity of the entire building. Fires heating one area also doesn't make sense because the building is a mesh structure. Concentrated heat in one area will be quickly displaced throughout the rest of the structure.

You can take a I-beam stick one end in a molten pool of steel and the other half sticking out of the pool it will take a lot longer to melt at that one end if at all. The more structure you have the longer it takes to heat or melt. If you throw the whole structure in the pool it melts very quickly. Now if one section of the building did reach red hot to bend it doesn't matter. Because, we fall back to the mesh idea. So that brings us to the question who planted the explosives.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by sean]

Originally posted by OrionStars

youre saying that compressed air has a lot of force yeah?

Your question begs this question. Have you ever stood in front of an air compressor and been hit with a blast of compressed air? If so, please tell us if you think it lacked pressure.

well, no not really, a simple "yes, thats what i was saying" or "no that isnt what i was saying" would have sufficed, there was no question that needed to be begged unless youre implying that im an idiot, which im sure you werent were you?

so, based on what you wrote, would you admit its possible that the "squibs" MAY NOT have been explosives?

Now that I saw my specific cited reference, I can properly answer the question. Why are you asking me about "squibs" I did not mention. Exactly which squibs would those be?

no, YOU didnt mention squibs...but, anyone thats read anything to do with the 911 conspiracies is, or should be, aware of the jets of material that many of the CT'rs will claim are "premature detonations" of high explosives which cause these jets. i beg to differ but thats another story.

so, i was asking you becuase you are givng a pretty good example of what a falling building should in theory do to air in the sense that all that displaced air has to go somewhere.

therefore i was simply asking your opinion, if its possible that these jets of material or "squibs" as so many call them, could have in fact been caused by somethign OTHER than high explosives.

i thought it was pretty simple question but i guess not. so, if you'd rather just disregard it thats fine. if you would like to answer thats great too, but theres really nothing sinister behind my motivation to ask you. i guess what i think is simple in my head may just not come out so simple when i type it out.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by Damocles]

reply to post by sean


but high explosives wont cause puddles of melted steel either.

so the actual question then goes back to what caused the melted steel, not who planted the explosives as theres just not much actual evidence there was any explosive.

The vids showing a melted SOMETHING coming off the building. Can't prove or disprove that its steel. If it is steel then how do you melt one end of a I-beam and not the other? That is why people brought up the ideas of thermite.

ZEUS Gets His Hypothisis Crushed............

Seems Zeus has taken his case to the guys/ gals at Jref where he pretty much got shut down... FAST.

Critical failure in understanding how structures work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zeuzzz has made a very critical error in his not quite so free-body diagram (there's actually more than just one, but I'll just touch on the important one).

The lower structure cannot impart a horizontal force of any magnitude into the upper block. The force he labels as Rf has two components, a vertical and a horizontal. I show the horizontal below. See the second figure below.

A normal undamaged structure can resist horizontal forces (typically referred to as a shear) such as wind and earthquake. In the case of wind forces, the wind pushes against the exterior frame work/columns, this force is delivered to the diaphragm (the flat plate you laymen call concrete floors) to the lateral elements that are parallel to that force. In our problem here, the diaphragm (floor plates) have been destroyed on the upper floors of the lower block. With an angle of 20 degrees and a tower width of 208ft we know that the height of the upper triangle is 71 ft. That's over 5 stories that have lost their diaphragm (no jokes please). The two column lines (that's half the tower, see the third figure below) that are normal to this force have no lateral capacity. The columns on the line that is parallel with the lateral force do have some lateral resistance, but not much without a diaphragm (this is due to stability, which is a textbook worth of information).

Ultimately, the only force the lower block applies on the upper block is a pure vertical force. But even then we need to step back and look at what is really happening. Zeuzzz makes the same error all the want to be scientist truthers make in assuming that the upper and lower block are homogeneous solid objects. They are not. They are an intricate lattice work of discrete steel members. These steel members are not falling on top of each other, they are eccentric and they are punching directly through the concrete without ever developing anything close to their full compressive capacity. It's not even the same order of magnitude.

If I were his professor, I'd give him an F. Not because of his lack of understanding of how buildings work, I'd never expect a physicist to have an understanding of that, but rather in the failure of being able to draw a simple moment diagram. Zeuzzz only shows the forces that INCREASE the rotation, he conveniently forgets a force that decreases the amount of rotation, which I've labeled as F4 in my first figure. F4 is larger than F1 (and not just because I made it a bigger font, ah hah!) because the force is based upon the size of the red triangle, or the weight above. For the enlightenment of the laypeople here, F1 would equal F4 when the angle of rotation is 45 degrees.

And for the record Zeuzzz, you didn't draw a MOMENTUM diagram, you drew a MOMENT diagram. Go take some basic courses.

forums.randi.org...

Side note:

Those guys are jerks. How is a bunch of arrogent intellictuals spewing hatred "crushing" anyone. To be honest, I'm not sure I can call anyone who lacks that much courtesy and civility an intellectual.

You actually think that* thread is productive CO?

*edited to change from this to that

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620

i can see where yer coming from on this one but trust my man, it goes both ways. there are as many or more people out there in the truth movement that are more worried about finding a way to prove they are right than they are about finding any actual facts and if you disagree with them its gloves off. even simple name calling gets old after a while. if i had a dollar for everytime i got called a govt agent (sorry govt DISINFO agent) i wouldnt have to fight the govt over money they DO owe me.

Originally posted by UofCinLA
I see major flaws in your assumptions and therefore claim they are all invalid. Who's claim is better, mine or yours since that's all there is. The facts are long gone and buried (as rubble) and unless you had strain sensors and g meters on the damn buildings there are no facts anyway - only conjectures.

ha. Real physics based on real facts and data = cool, fake physics based on conjectures = stupid wannabees looking for attention....

It was 6+ years ago, move on and get a life. What good does it do to keep harping on your version of physics.

Just curious,,exactly, why did you come here to do this? I say it that way, rather then use the words "why did you come here to "say" this" as it is real transparent that your intentions are to DO to him rather then FOR him.

If this is dead and buried THEN WHY DON'T YOU PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH?

Let Whats Dead, BURY,, Whats Dead.

Does it Bother you that MANY PEOPLE VALUE THIS INFORMATION?

REGARDLESS of your malicious attempts to insult and discredit his perfectly reasonable and technically feasible assertions illustrated in his post? While you tell him to get a life,, I wonder sometimes if it isn't your life and the mission of most people like yourself, that do this as if they are on a mission of sorts in a tit for tat objective of cancelling out any provocative data given by those of us whose social conscience remains an open wound.

The heart of America was Viciously attacked and won't begin to heal until JUSTICE,, REAL JUSTICE is at least attempted rather then placated by synthetic circumstances of fabled official theories substantiated by the NISTIAN Gospel. It's been 6

Maybe it is YOU who should reflect on your OWN life and letting go of this mission to feel compelled to offer opinions of alleged "major flaws" which by your own unmitigated authority have judged totally invalid.

Do you really think that is going to work? Ill tell you all it did for me,, as I read your post was cause the first one too look that much more rational.

You say without this meter , that gauge, etc, we can only speculate what happened. Don't you people ever ask yourself, WHY those "truthers" do this? I mean I understand that you might get tired of it or even sick of it. I get that hostility aimed towards truthers but understand this,,

I have been around since JFK and when Jack Ruby took this country's opportunity to see justice done, away from us, it left a nation with an injury that will never know and never quite heal.

It happened again when O.J. Simpson's acquittal shocked me and I heard that agonizing scream of Mr Goldman as Justice was within smelling distance and RIPPED away from him.

With all due respect to your angst aggression towards truthers, OUR memory and the reasons most are compelled to write the theories they write, may very well be the catharsis they need to heal from it.

Until then, know that everyone boils at differen't degrees, that it may as well have been done this morning or 6+ years ago.

If all posts like this do is keep that memory alive then so be it.

By the way,, I am not merely talking about the tragedy or even those that died but that if anything like this EVER happens again,, THAT WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN BY EXPEDIENT REMOVAL OF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE AND A GOVERNMENTS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

That they may have gotten away with it THIS time but Next time,,, we won't allow ourselves to be spoon fed perpetrators by a Government that answers ONLY to softball questions and totally gives up on hunting down those it swore to bring to justice in favor of a war predicated on the same lies by the same co-conspirators who used the 911 event in a sick twisted agenda a conspiracy to fool a nation into two wars goin on three, the same perpetraitors whose proven lies are the same as those used to deny being complicit in 911.

Yeah I don't and won't apologise for saying it like I see it. Call me unpatriotic or insensitve to those that died and there families. I am just as much a member of the collective victims known as "We The People" as they are.

Truthers will NEVER stop and if you don't like that,, then I would suggest you either HELP them get the the forensic criminal investigation they will need next time rather then the litany of civil engineering lessons and CT's that will be the resulting symbolic side effects as blood of an open wound from an unsatisfied victim, a Nation, a People who's justice was denied.

- Con




[edit on 31-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Truthers will NEVER stop and

i agree and support what you say in your above post in particular to your response to the other poster.

the problem/danger is that line i quoted from you and thats that there are simply too many truthers who already "know the truth" and are more interested in proving their pet theories than actually finding out if their theories hold water in the real world.

there are simply too many people that will buy just about any theory so long as it ends in "the govt did it".

but i suppose in all fairness that there are even more on the other side that so blindly follow the "official" version they wont even consider the possibility of it being anything but...

crazy...

Hi there,,

As much as I agree with your experience having seen many a theory myself I have no idea why the obsession with HOW the towers fell.

The imprint it left on my brain is an indelible mark and the uncanny resemblance of a building demolished in a controlled demolition is a memory I cannot deny. Whether that IS or ISN'T HOW they fell has never been my area of expression in my obsession and unexplainable curiosity for researching the two party system of truther vs debunker politics.

I don't think the Govt did it nor do I think they orchestrated it. Until I see proof prima facia that is true, I cannot say unequivocally.

HOWEVER,, what I DO KNOW,,is,

Over the past 7 years I have voted a Republican President in Office that I will forever be ashamed of and consider one of the biggest regrets I have.

Listen,,We all have talents and abilities, some learned,, some we were just born with.

One I was born with is the ability to use any medium, paint, pencil, chalk or clay and I can sculpt, sketch, paint or draw your visage like a photograph. I was more or less "discovered" if what my third grade teacher would call it for she was the first to notice this "gift" i had for Art.

One of the best techniques I have used to get a better perspective on a piece regarding it's dimension and continuity is to "step away" from the painting. Get an overall look seeing if the nose the right size in relation to the rest of the facial features.

I have never had to use a ruler, a compass or template. It is just something I can do that I can't explain. Life has many mystery that aren't necessarily problems to be solved but just experience to live, feelings to express etc. I don't create theories and have marveled at some of the time and effort that goes into some of the explanations substantiating or debunking them. It is something I am well aware,, have no business in debating.

I simply don't have the aptitude and totally suck at the math.

So I rely on debunkers to force the inaccuracies of theorists to go back to the drawing board and keep them honest. I rely on truthers to keep debunkers from settling on ther laurels till they get off that unstable datum they call NIST and the three letter acronym called the GOP. What I disagree with is the postulate that it is a problem to have too many truthers or that they are dangerous. Frankly I don't take all this that serious and it is the mudslinging when ones need to be "right" is in jeopardy that I see as a problem with a possible danger.

Me, all I do is what I have always done.

I step back, look at the overall picture and see where any anomalies are.

In the past 7 years, we have had a Government whose Administration from the very start was rife with controversy and suspicion from stealing the election, whose real victims weren't the democrats or Al Gore.

It was The American Voters.

Since then this man has committed an estimated 700 high crimes and misdemeanors, is the subject of war crimes in the world, has more considering he be impeached, has disregarded every bit of council, advice even the people of this country. He has spit on the Constitution as a damn piece of paper. He and his thugs have conspired us into a war and is instigating another with Iran. His long history and involvement with the Bin ladens in addition to his Father being the head of the CIA who trained Osama, ALL OF THAT I have to consider when asking myself,, would this man do something like 911? I have to say ,,

I wouldn't put it past him.


That STILL doesn't tell me he is the Mastermind of any conspiracy. I see him as an opportunist who by his own mouth and his own actions have proven to me unequivocally he didn't orchestrate 911 he merely saw it as something he could add his own spin on to it and that he did exactly THAT.

That he did what he could to not only look the other way while it happened but make damn sure IT HAPPENED without recourse.

For that, IS complicity and THAT DOES HAVE DOCUMENTED MAINSTREAM MEDIA PROOF PRIMA FASCIA TO CONVICT.

BEFORE ANYONE OF YOU DEBUNKING DO NOTHINGS EVEN ASK,,,

GOOGLE IT YOURSELF.

I don't have to play with theories to figure that out. Ill use statistics already well known but with the addition of a perspective NONE of you have even considered and I have only said once before. It has to do with the difference between what Truthers want you to believe and the limits to what debunkers expect truthers to believe.

WE realize that NOTHING WE say that has anything to do with a CD is acceptable and IT IS YOU WHO HAS SAID WE WILL ACCEPT ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT ENDS WITH THE GOVT DID IT.

Isn't THAT the REAL reason for stopping all this stuff about it being cd?

Ok lets see just see then what you are asking me to accept and how the odds are so overwhelmingly in the truthers favor that even the most zealous defender of the NIST version, can see they are asking us to buy into a set of unique circumstances that it pales in comparison to the most wild, whacked out truther story we have ever heard.

Until now.

The day before 911, if I were to ask all the experts if their were any other way to demolish a building in the same way a cd is done, using only jet fuels and perhaps the use of some old jets we could use for the initial explosion. If their were a way to do that having very similar results that the buildings would come down in a nice pile on there own footprint?

The experts would have laughed at the suggestion so hard it would have made me regret ever asking such an absolutely ridiculous question.

Now wait,, this gets much better beloved

They would ask me "Do you have any idea the skill and high technology that goes into such a thing as a cd the months and months of preparation it would take? umm no but I just thougt maybe there was a lucky way to do it?

( isn't that why it debunkers find it so hard to believe it was a cd in the first place?)

So then was this just a "fluke" or did we by accident discover another way to bring buildings down in a competitive new kind of "demolition?" I mean this apparently would work on all buildings we crash jets into right?

Again, the experts would say NO NOT all Buildings, not very many at all in fact even if there were less then three percent of them out there that could fall that way,,what are the odds you would pick the ones that could? Well THIS WAS THEIR LUCKY DAY!!

JUST THE WTC TOWERS CAN FALL THAT WAY!! and Oh by the way umm wtc 7 too for some reason out of all the buildings in the world,, if that were even possible,, that the,, not one, not two, BUT THREE in the world that would come down like a cd it just so happens that the two the terrorists picked just happened to be the two that would. AS a bonus,, out of all the steel frame buildings that even COULD come down that way these two would be the two that could by some act of luck osmosis in random freak of luck times ten MAKE YET ANOTHER ONE FALL THAT SAME DAY!

BUT THERE IS MORE!

That on this lucky day of lucky air crashes,, that 911 would be the luckiest day of all days to do it? that who ever did this Knew, that our government because of all the exrcises that went on that day, would have only two jet fighters that could scramble to stop them, and lo and behold even THAT would be a stroke of luck for them because on this lucky day,, luck would be a lady for evil and those two jets would be sent on a wild goose chase.

I mean the luck goes on and on and ya know what??

Not you or anyone of you would believe it.

none of you would,, so then

Why do you expect us to



- Con


[edit on 31-12-2007 by Conspiriology]

Conspiriology, that was a REAL REFRESHING RANT !

At last someone who can play with words, and combine that gift with plain old logic.

Captain Obvious, I challenge you to prove me wrong ; you know very well what I mean, so show me your colours.

reply to post by LaBTop


wow, labtop and i agree on something lol. i also find conspiriology's post a great dissertation on things.

it seems some of my previous comments werent real articulate but conspiriology sums it up well.

reply to post by LaBTop


LabTop,

You know better than to derail a post! tsk tsk. I believe you have your hands full with Damocles. Who is better qualified to deal with seismic data than I am.

Lab, have you contacted anyone to read your thesis? Some true professionals? Really, reaching out to us here in cyber space does not prove your paper accurate or inaccurate.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Side note:

Those guys are jerks. How is a bunch of arrogent intellictuals spewing hatred "crushing" anyone. To be honest, I'm not sure I can call anyone who lacks that much courtesy and civility an intellectual.
[edit on 31-12-2007 by Sublime620]

If they are right, and clearly so, why are they "arrogant intellectuals"? Who spewed hatred? Honestly, it sounds like your calling them mean because they don't agree with you and have answered these same questions many times over.

I have watched this thread with intense curiosity. The OP, from the start, takes a very snotty, elitist position in his relation of the subject matter. The assumption, from the OP IMO, is that he has a solid grasp on all the facts, anyone else who disagrees is an idiot and he makes a point (several times) of mentioning how he is dumbing everything down for we "lay" people.

What I find interesting is the OP goes to great pains to "educate" the rest of of on the "correct" understanding of the physics involved. However, it appears the only person who doesn't understand "...the basic physics involved..." is the OP.

This has obviously been a successful tactic in the past.

That is, bluffing.

Basically, the OP relies on those of us who are honest to admit we can't discuss physics in that kind of detail. The only problem is, the people who can discuss physics in that kind of detail do, and IMO once again, we have a truther very selectively looking at data and relying on conjecture built on conjecture built on conjecture, making seriously incorrect assumptions and flat out ignoring any data that doesn't support their theory.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar

If they are right, and clearly so, why are they "arrogant intellectuals"? Who spewed hatred? Honestly, it sounds like your calling them mean because they don't agree with you and have answered these same questions many times over.

"Honestly, it sounds like your calling them mean because they don't agree with you "

As I read your post, I see now where you might get such an idea about people.

that is one of the nicer rebuttal post's I have seen from a JREF debunker.

What I find interesting is the OP goes to great pains to "educate" the rest of of on the "correct" understanding of the physics involved. However, it appears the only person who doesn't understand "...the basic physics involved..." is the OP.

Really?? you find that interesting do you? Perhaps, rather then grand standing as if you're this guys answer to Ed McMahon,,, you could be more direct? If I didn't know better,, I'd say you were calling him an idiot and that stupid people,, especially "truthers" are the sort that really get under your nerves.

The JREF post doesn't correct Zeus at all. It explains very well how Zeus would have given erroneous suppositions for his physics had Zeus presented a model that didn't include explosives as part of the scenario. In the context he outlines his reasons why it had to be a CD, Or is the jref post saying that explosives or not, either scenario, a cd adds no entirely different dimension his physics.

Basically, the OP relies on those of us who are honest to admit we can't discuss physics in that kind of detail. The only problem is, the people who can discuss physics in that kind of detail do,

That's why I go ask Bill Nye the science guy,, he is a good teacher which is the REAL problem here. I never seen anyone learn any faster by belittling them. Perhaps cheaply enhancing ones ego by belittling others what you mean by referring to his calling us "lay People", I appreciate the consideration nevertheless and find your intolerance of us common folk or truthers, to be a strong indication you should take a vacation from all this.

once again, we have a truther very selectively looking at data and relying on conjecture built on conjecture built on conjecture, making seriously incorrect assumptions and flat out ignoring any data that doesn't support their theory.

You got all that from his off hand remarks about "those guys being a bunch a jerks at jref" ? or is this tirade have a point that goes beyond you loathing of people that just don't get it on purpose.

making seriously incorrect assumptions and flat out ignoring any data that doesn't support their theory.

Mmmmm sounds like NIST where they fit data to fit the theory, then fema,, they speculate, then we have the 911 commision and they just omit critical data entirely.







[edit on 4-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
ZEUS Gets His Hypothisis Crushed............

I figured i would put my diagram to the test to see what the skeptics at JREF made of it, quite a bold (and foolish) step, they seemed more interested in attacking me than my diamgram. I am not blindly following my own conclusions, i was completely open to what they had to say. They provided me with some very useful resources to analyse other aspects of the collapse. I had to pretend I did not think it was controlled demolition to begin with to gain some acceptance there, although it didn't pan out, they just got angry with me when i said my true opinion they really are a bunch of pseudoskeptic idiots at JREF.

They seemed to think that my spelling was more important than the science i was bringing up, which i found quite amuzing to say the least. It was a typical case of shoot the messenger but ignore the message. The only person that added anything worthwhile to the debate was the person who informed me of my error, 'Newtons Bit', and i thank him for pointing that out to me.

Seems Zeus has taken his case to the guys/ gals at Jref where he pretty much got shut down... FAST.

Did you read the whole discussion? obviously not. I would first like to point out that i accepted the small mistake in the diagram i drew, and even the science 'experts' there awknowledged that i was not trying to manipulate anything. I quickly added to opposing force that i had missed, and took that into account in the new diagram i drew.

That the person who wrote that quote you used, later said this;

My guess is that the resistive force generates much less of a moment than F4 does. But I cannot quantify this force since I do not have any details on the connections in the towers. These will fail long before the columns will.

I assumed you were the typical truther and were intentionally trying to mislead people and doing put F4 in your diagram on purpose, seeing that you can actually admit to a mistake is... refreshing. I'll try to give you more of the benefit of the doubt in the future.

This was my correction;



The whole reason that i colored the opposing red section in red was that F1 and F4 cancel out. The result of this would be an increase in F3 by 2(L X F1) , an increase in the resultant force in accordance with the weight of the two sections. There was no reason for me to highlight that section otherwise, that is what i intended to do, but i forgot i was going to cancel them and add them to F3. Doing this it just makes the diagram even simpler that way. This way the only rotational force is from the resistance of the building. So thats what it comes down to.... how much resistance should the building have provided?

my point still stands that the resistance of the building should still be causing a rotational motion, causing the top section to topple.

Also, that one minor mistake does not negate my other diagram, there was very little critisism of that, mainly because it is largely correct, and shows that the top section would continue its path and land outside the building. In fact, someone else on there verified that it was correct, considering the assumptions that i myself awknowledged;

This video shows that there is initial rotation in the north tower collapse but that the antenna comes back, www.youtube.com..., assuming the top section is more or less intact that should be due to the vertical resistive forces.

Zeuzzz, I scanned this thread quickly and I think you mean that the top section of the south tower would fall outside the building if it didn't provide any resistance. That is indeed true using the laws of conservation of angular momentum and the fact that the centre of gravity follows the same path it would follow if it were a point mass. But from the wtc1 video it is clear that the vertical forces are highly relevant. I agree with you that describing what happens is not the same as proving that it should happen in that way, that is in fact an interpretation of the event. I have an other video that shows that indeed a very large amount of mass of the top section of wtc2 falls on ground zero, I will upload it later. The theory is that the top section initiates a pancaking/funneling of mass/progressive collapse and we have also to take into account that those vertical forces are different when the mass is already pancaking under that block. I'm at the moment not able to comment on this because I first need to read this toppling math stuff in depth (not my highest priority).

When i do a new diagram i am going to take into account how fast the falling section is moving laterally with respect to the remainder of the building, which can be calculated from various video's, and i will also also add the torque from the resistance of the building once the people on JREF agree with me on a rough value to use for it.

I have still not read all of the papers that they supplied me with there, and i am really busy at the moment for a week or so with something else anyway. In a week and i'll continue the discussion on the JREF forum, I was really enjoying it, hopefully we can eventually come some sort of consensus on there.

I dont expect much acceptance there, i shall be expecting more pseudoskeptisism, personal attacks, ignoring the facts and downright rudeness from the members there, but i will never do the same in return, professionals never engage in Ad Hominem arguments. Hopefully, eventually, they will get the message that i am not trying to manipulate anything and address the issues that i raise properly. If i am shown to be wrong then i will accept it, but at the moment i am confident in my conclusions.


....Lets not forget i am talking about the collapse of the twin towers, i am not even mentioning WT7, in my opinion, that absolutely had to be controlled demolition.


[edit on 4-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
I figured i would put my diagram to the test to see what the skeptics at JREF made of it

Very bad idea, you will never make them change their minds on anything there, so you really are wasting your time. And they are not skeptics there, they are DEBUNKERS. There is a real difference between being a "skeptic" (in which you approach individual cases an objective "open-minded" manner, considering ALL possible causes, no matter what your personal belief is) and a "debunker" (in which you approach cases with a completely closed mind that examines every case with a prearranged agenda designed to "prove" that every case is explainable, and you simply ignore or twist the actual evidence to prove your point).

I find particularly amusing the lunatic fringe among them (skepticultists, skeptopaths) whose claims are, evidently, on a par with geocentricism and the flat Earth ideas.

[edit on 4-1-2008 by Skeptik101]

Originally posted by Skeptik101



Very bad idea, you will never make them change their minds on anything there, so you really are wasting your time.

Oh yes you got that right I totally agree but Zeus says he DID benefit in some ways and perhaps that was worth it to him, I don't know. It is the LAST place I would go to. I can't even describe what it is about that place exactly but to get along you have to go along,, I saw that very clear.

And they are not skeptics there, they are DEBUNKERS. There is a real difference between being a "skeptic"

I like the distinction you added defining the "debunker" from the "skeptic". I spent quite sometime trying to find some reason to enjoy that forum. I had always heard it was where all the really elite intellectuals hung out and their was so much to learn from JREF legends like beachnut, gravy, pomeroo, R Mackey etc. I should have listened to my gut the very first impression I got from that place. The first thing they tried to do with me, was find out if I was a truther or not. I could tell just by the way they were interrogating me that I had better play dumb. I spent a lot of time there as a spectator not making many posts.

It just seemed so pointless and without a doubt, the mods there are soooo biased and the place in general so combative so hostile. I got the impression JREF was the center of gravy and beachnuts entire lives as they were always online there I mean 24/7 and they would Post there vitriol and disapproval of you your ideas your very presence they would find repugnant if you were deemed a truther..

R.Mackey seems genuinely intelligent but like you say very dogmatic. Gravy and Beach,, come off as graduates of a "trailer park scholarship"

boorish "unskilled and unaware of it."

- Con


[edit on 5-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


I read your post and appreciate your opinions.

I love how you guys drag out the "belittling" card when you made to account for your claims, assertions and behavior.

Because the OP acted like a condescending subject matter expert, got schooled and was exposed as not being nearly as in command of the facts as he likes to claim and my drawing attention to that does not make me a belittler.

I don't apologize for my comments. They are stated as I see things and also, at the risk of sounding smug, are right on the mark. Actually, the only person smug and seemingly very at ease with their "superiority" over the rest of the fiefdom is the OP. I merely pointed out the irony.

My suggestion is that if you and others int he Truth movement don't like criticism, don't enter the debate.

If you enter the debate with a condescending attitude and then get schooled, don't then turn around and claim you've been some how mistreated.

(I think it's worth mentioning that when I use the word "you", I am referring to the royal you).

I find it interesting that the debate has moved on from the OP's original assertion and now we are arguing semantics and fine minutia.

The point is this: to me, IMO, this is a classic example of the truth movement in operation and why the movement is it's own worst enemy. You have someone claiming to be a physics major engaging in engineering talk about which he has a deeper knowledge than most. However, that doesn't make him right. In fact, those who do understand engineering think he doesn't know what he's talking about, have more than a jargon-natured understanding of the terms involved and doesn't seem to understand his own math! Of course this is while exhibiting some real elitist thinking that portrays the rest of us as stupid and not having the educational background to understand what he's talking about. Guess what? Neither does he.

IMO, the truth movement relies on this kind of lack of understanding. The difference between most truthers - again IMO only - is I admit when I don't understand all the factors involved in a given debate.

The OP - IMO - seeks to position himself as fully understanding the topic at hand, and with a depth of understanding that he must "dumb-down" for the rest of us when, in fact, he doesn't really understand what he's talking about. If your going to submit yourself as a subject matter expert, you better know what the heck your talking about. He doesn't.

He put his thoughts out there on his own accord. He also heaped a large helping of condescension on top of what he claims are facts. When you do that, you are submitting your thoughts for, essentially, peer review.

He's been peer reviewed and found to be wrong.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
He put his thoughts out there on his own accord. He also heaped a large helping of condescension on top of what he claims are facts. When you do that, you are submitting your thoughts for, essentially, peer review.

He's been peer reviewed and found to be wrong.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

I understand better, I guess I just see your post as more unforgiving his lack of humility to justify pushing that issue into humorous humiliation hehe. I didn't know your post was responding to Zeus, I thought it was to the post saying those "Jref guys are jerks" and is why I saw your post as a bit overkill, if you can see where I might of gotten that idea.

No harm done and us truthers can take criticism since that is all we set ourselves up for. I just find that lable a bit irritating because i have ripped several truthers threads and their creators apart. I just wish there were perhaps a sub category or a reformed truther. I had never really thought about that one distinction made in the post above separating skeptics from debunkers buy I see the line of demarcation in ideology. When I see a post that makes drop dead common sense whether it is truther or skeptic I am loyal to the truth or am at the mercy of my limited knowledge. I guess I am a true bi-skeptical

- Con