You Know You Are A Conspiracy Theorist If...

[tedkidd]

Oh my GOD, did you see the one where molten metal was pouring out of the buildings!

[coolwhip]

Steven Hawking is on Youtube, according to your thinking is he to be discredited for this?

Youtube is a vessel...a tool used to reach the masses. By your thinking, you are using a computer to reach the masses on HVACTALK...does this make you an idiot to be ignored?

Sherlock Holms said it best!
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

[scrogdog]

Please show us how you determined that was from the joists and not office furniture?

[scrogdog]

Steven Hawking is on Youtube, according to your thinking is he to be discredited for this?

Youtube is a vessel...a tool used to reach the masses. By your thinking, you are using a computer to reach the masses on HVACTALK...does this make you an idiot to be ignored?

Hawking goes on youtube to discuss his already published white papers!

You want to show me the already published white papers from the experts in the video?

You can ignore ME if you like, but I haven't done anything other than parrot the published science. I wouldn't suggest that you ignore that.

[Brian GC]

Scrogdog,
You ask us to counter arguments presented by your scientists so you should counter the comments made by the professional Architects, Structural Engineers and demolition experts presented in post #40. Just because Youtube is the medium that makes their comments available to us doesn’t make them “Youtube Scientists”.

If you have the guts to watch it I have one question for you. Do your credentials surpass any of theirs? You seem to throw around scientific terms and expect us to cower in response to it. Do you really think you could stand before these professional skyscraper contractors and speak to them as condescendingly as you do to us? Do you really think you could teach them thing or two.

When I mention common sense applied to this discussion this is one example: Those professional skyscraper builders said building 7 is the first building in the history of all skyscrapers in the world to fall from an office fire, and a small fire at that. Does that make you scratch your head or are you still clinging to your select scientists? And, before you challenge their statements, do as they did, state your credentials first.

[coolwhip]

You want to show me the already published white papers from the experts in the video?


Sure, as soon as you show me where the government has admitted to its lies and deception since the creation of the federal reserve.

As soon as you show me that we have enough gold to back the US dollar.

As soon as you tell me why people will trust an economist and not a fortune teller.

[scrogdog]

Scrogdog,
You ask us to counter arguments presented by your scientists so you should counter the comments made by the professional Architects, Structural Engineers and demolition experts presented in post #40. Just because Youtube is the medium that makes their comments available to us doesn’t make them “Youtube Scientists”.

If you have the guts to watch it I have one question for you. Do your credentials surpass any of theirs? You seem to throw around scientific terms and expect us to cower in response to it. Do you really think you could stand before these professional skyscraper contractors and speak to them as condescendingly as you do to us? Do you really think you could teach them thing or two.

When I mention common sense applied to this discussion this is one example: Those professional skyscraper builders said building 7 is the first building in the history of all skyscrapers in the world to fall from an office fire, and a small fire at that. Does that make you scratch your head or are you still clinging to your select scientists? And, before you challenge their statements, do as they did, state your credentials first.

As usual, you seem quite confused.

I have made NO CLAIMS WHATSOEVER. I have simply pointed you to the proper science. Upon the realization that you will not actually read it, I simply told you what the articles said. Again, I HAVE NOT MADE ONE SINGLE CLAIM IN THIS TOPIC. I have simply showed you peer reviewed science.

Comments are NOT science. White papers are science. Apparently you have not read or understand my posts that describe what the scientific method is and why we need to use it, and why even scientists who DO use the proper method can make non-scientific claims that have nothing to do with what they published!

Science can only happen one way. Youtube ain't it.

I invite ANY one of those experts to demonstrate what they say to be true in the proper way. Just like any other scientist in the world; we aren't asking them for anything more than we ask of ALL scientists.

It is true that not only was building 7 the first to fall by fire, that is true of the towers as well. What neither you or the experts have done is to show how that would affect progressive collapse. It wouldn't. Progressive collapse is progressive collapse. It can be initiated in many ways.

Progressive collapse is based on the laws of physics. It has little to do with HOW the damage was incurred. The laws of physics don't change based upon what type of damage was incurred.

You certainly are a strange sort of thinker.

[wherzamizat]

but I'd also have a very comfortable grip on a little thing called reality.

Me too! see attachment.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/fluoride.HTML

http://www.naturalnews.com/030952_CDC_fluoride.html

[scrogdog]

You want to show me the already published white papers from the experts in the video?


Sure, as soon as you show me where the government has admitted to its lies and deception since the creation of the federal reserve.

As soon as you show me that we have enough gold to back the US dollar.

As soon as you tell me why people will trust an economist and not a fortune teller.

None of those things are potential scientific inquiries since none of it can be shown to meet the scientific standard of fact. Show me something self-evident or mutually observable about any of those things, then science can tackle it.

Except for the gold standard. But then seemingly you should know that Nixon changed all that and didn't hide anything about it.

Which is the precise reason why God cannot be a subject of scientific study.

Who said I trust economists? That's a judgement call again not subject to scientific standards. How could one possibly trust all of them? Just because they wear a badge that says "economist"? There are no exacting standards to economic strategies, we simply view them through the lens of history and take our best shot. Note that we are not very good at it.

[scrogdog]

Me too! see attachment.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/fluoride.HTML

http://www.naturalnews.com/030952_CDC_fluoride.html

I'm not sure what your point is here. The theory of gravity was changed from Newton to Einstien.

Please describe for us how this changed apples falling to the ground.

[wherzamizat]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The theory of gravity was changed from Newton to Einstien.

Please describe for us how this changed apples falling to the ground.

That is my point.

[wherzamizat]

lol

[scrogdog]

That is my point.

?

Ok, guess I'm having an off day becuase I'm still not getting it.

The laws of physics are unchanging. As far as we know anyway. I think we have sufficient precedent at this point, wouldn't you say?