Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've already posted the analysis of a civil engineering lecturer at the University of Sydney. But apparently Alex Jones and Charlie Sheen know more about civil structural engineering than someone who studies structural steel and lectures on engineering.
It's funny,Deano posted the same thing but I guess that yours is somehow better. 😉
Narcissist much.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarDeano posted the a "paper" on the hypothesis of a physicist who studies cold fusion, with no background in structural engineering, whom neither his faculty nor the faculty of engineering at his university agree with.
It's funny,Deano posted the same thing but I guess that yours is somehow better. 😉
His paper which he claims has been peer-reviewed has only been "peer-reviewed" by the Marxist Journal, Research in Political Economy. He intends to published said peer-reviewed paper not in any respected civil engineering journal but rather a commercial book. In said paper he references Professor David Ray Griffin, the editor of said commercial book, as if he were an authority on physics or structural engineering. He is in fact a Professor of Philosophy, Religion and Theology. He has not submitted his article for peer-review in any civil engineering or even physics journal. His most well-known other "paper" is "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" in which he claims Jesus visited Latin America after being resurrected.
A quick database search reveals Steven E. Jones has all of 5 published peer-reviewed journal articles total. At least all that I can find. These have been cited a total of 14 times.
You continually say that I insult you and offer no counterpoints. I am sure that you don't see how hypocritical you are, so I will help you as you read the following post.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
It's moot because you say so, wow your full of it no counter no nothing.
No, it's moot because the building did not defy physics. That was my counter. It is a simple statement. You criticize my argument, but you have offered nothing in return. (Saying that I am full of it is an insult and offers no counter point, that's 1)
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
No need, I'm not gonna express my idea to someone like you, claiming something is wrong without saying why.
(someone like me? Insult 2. and the second time you offered nothing to argue against) And not explaining your position out of embarrassment or fear does not allow me to state my position for or agaisnt it. If you are afraid to state what you think happened please do not engagte in a conversation with others criticising them for their beliefs. At least they have the nuts to put them forth.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Are you in love with Deano, it seems everytime I read a post from you it mentions his name. do you have some obsession with him?
Attempted insult number 3 and a total lack of anything to do with the subject or point that needs to be addressed.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I made several arguments before, one involving the north towers Antenna, and another about the the steel.
Stating you made a point does not mean that you made one. Elaborate.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm surprise you have any form of sense since all you do is insult people because of a typo, You can't debate your point so you whine over a mistake.
INsults and 5 are they? I have debated multiple points. You have avoided multiple points. (Are you embarrassed yet? You should be.)
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
😆 Predictable and pathetic is there anything else you wanna point out
Yes, that you continue to insult without debating anything I have said. And that you coninually do what you accuse me of.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
when you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. try doing this next time.
You won't even state what you think happened!!! I have provided evidence, and ENCOURAGED you to both research the evidence, the writers and their sources. Please do so and criticise that at will.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What is up with you and all these one liners, you can't do anything but insult and nitpick typos.
Yes in fact I can, I have pointed out your flaws in logic and information many times. The one liners and insults are free. As for noticing the typos, their not typos, they're mistakes that make you posts completely muttled and unclear. If you want to try and act smart, at least take the effort to try and look smart.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And you prove this by not elaborating way 😆
Yous stated[b[When uses an opinion as the basis of an argument.
And say's I lack common sense it's okay[/b]. Please elaborate where I used opinion based as fact. I cannot elaborate on a simple and ignorant comment. To ask so is equally stupid and ignorant.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Why, your not worth the effort.
No, I think it is because you are afraid to stand behind your beliefs. It is easier for you to riducule what others say than put yourself out there. That's quite cowardly.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
the Towers fel very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references.
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case –
Do you understand the concept of cascade failure?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
... 😕 You belive the central core gave out due to fire
You cannot distort a persons argument in order to further your own and try and seem right. Ush, Gav and I have said that the central core gave out due to a multitude of causes. The links I posted stated the same. You have chosen to ignore that and read that all we believe is that fire caused the collapse. That is willful ignorance. How do you expect me to argue or debate with you when you ignore points and evidence and then put words in mine and others mouths?
So continue your little rants and offer nothing to this conversation, perhaps it makes you happy, but you do look silly.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
It's funny,Deano posted the same thing but I guess that yours is somehow better. 😉
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Deano posted the a "paper" on the hypothesis of a physicist who studies cold fusion, with no background in structural engineering, whom neither his faculty nor the faculty of engineering at his university agree with.
Another example of both Deano posting a source without confirming ihow reputable it is, and anoth example of you misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions. This is tiring.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You continually say that I insult you and offer no counterpoints. I am sure that you don't see how hypocritical you are, so I will help you as you read the following post.
You haven't made any points to counter , all you been blabbering about is ush's argument.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
No, it's moot because the building did not defy physics. That was my counter. It is a simple statement. You criticize my argument, but you have offered nothing in return. (Saying that I am full of it is an insult and offers no counter point, that's 1)
I insulted you because you insult me, I explained my argument. you just made a statement with no elaboration at all.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
(someone like me? Insult 2. and the second time you offered nothing to argue against) And not explaining your position out of embarrassment or fear does not allow me to state my position for or agaisnt it. If you are afraid to state what you think happened please do not engagte in a conversation with others criticising them for their beliefs. At least they have the nuts to put them forth.
"Someone like you" is an insult, and no their is no point in debating you all you do is make one statment with out elaborating it's a waste of my time.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Attempted insult number 3 and a total lack of anything to do with the subject or point that needs to be addressed.
Yes it has to be addressed maybe if you weren't so busy drooling over him you would form a better argument.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Stating you made a point does not mean that you made one. Elaborate.
I did elaborate, man your a hypocrite you haven't explained anythingand you just keep posting one liners.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
INsults and 5 are they? I have debated multiple points. You have avoided multiple points. (Are you embarrassed yet? You should be.)
Like the point about the bombs I didn't make or how you keep on repeating ush argument and ignore my rebuttals to them.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, that you continue to insult without debating anything I have said. And that you coninually do what you accuse me of.
😆
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You won't even state what you think happened!!! I have provided evidence, and ENCOURAGED you to both research the evidence, the writers and their sources. Please do so and criticise that at will.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes in fact I can, I have pointed out your flaws in logic and information many times. The one liners and insults are free. As for noticing the typos, their not typos, they're mistakes that make you posts completely muttled and unclear. If you want to try and act smart, at least take the effort to try and look smart.
Oh, so when you say "It does not defy the laws of physics" all the time, and never to the time to elaborate your using logic?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yous stated[b[When uses an opinion as the basis of an argument.
And say's I lack common sense it's okay. Please elaborate where I used opinion based as fact. I cannot elaborate on a simple and ignorant comment. To ask so is equally stupid and ignorant. [/B]
For one when you accused me of claiming bombs were involved, then you ignore the point I made about the building falling too fast.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
No, I think it is because you are afraid to stand behind your beliefs. It is easier for you to riducule what others say than put yourself out there. That's quite cowardly.
yeah, like when I debate my belief in ID several times or how I post conspiracy's, obviously your blind.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Do you understand the concept of cascade failure?.
And can you explain why the 47 steel columns offered no resistance?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You cannot distort a persons argument in order to further your own and try and seem right. Ush, Gav and I have said that the central core gave out due to a multitude of causes. The links I posted stated the same. You have chosen to ignore that and read that all we believe is that fire caused the collapse. That is willful ignorance. How do you expect me to argue or debate with you when you ignore points and evidence and then put words in mine and others mouths?So continue your little rants and offer nothing to this conversation, perhaps it makes you happy, but you do look silly.
Ush simply stated, "fire weakened the steel" when FEMA clearly stated that the fire and the plane were nt enough. and even if they gave outthat does not explain the lack of resistance when the towers fell or how the steel melted.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Another example of both Deano posting a source without confirming ihow reputable it is, and anoth example of you misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions. This is tiring.
Jumping to conclusion, like when you accused me of claiming bombs were involved, man your a hypocrite.
has anyone posted about the BYU professor ? I know its kinda old but maybe it hasnt been introduced here yet.
Originally posted by UshgarakI was thinking the same thing. That's basically the antithesis of their conclusions iirc.
Sorry, when did FEMA say that? I will dare call you a liar on that one.
Originally posted by forumcrew
has anyone posted about the BYU professor ? I know its kinda old but maybe it hasnt been introduced here yet.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Deano posted the a "paper" on the hypothesis of a physicist who studies cold fusion, with no background in structural engineering, whom neither his faculty nor the faculty of engineering at his university agree with.His paper which he claims has been peer-reviewed has only been "peer-reviewed" by the [b]Marxist Journal
, Research in Political Economy. He intends to published said peer-reviewed paper not in any respected civil engineering journal but rather a commercial book. In said paper he references Professor David Ray Griffin, the editor of said commercial book, as if he were an authority on physics or structural engineering. He is in fact a Professor of Philosophy, Religion and Theology. He has not submitted his article for peer-review in any civil engineering or even physics journal. His most well-known other "paper" is "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" in which he claims Jesus visited Latin America after being resurrected.A quick database search reveals Steven E. Jones has all of 5 published peer-reviewed journal articles total. At least all that I can find. These have been cited a total of 14 times. [/B]