|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 177)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Wait you mean you are not a Structural Engineer? You do not have a Peer Reviewed Paper either?
What a fukin joke you are.
Reasoned, Formal Education, LOL. |
The point being (which I am totally unsurprised that you missed) that I am familiar with the world of academia (and the importance of it) as well as some of the important characteristics that may (or may not) differentiate similar bodies of work (or thought) from each other.
thus I am unlikely to post "yo w_astley owned this thread!" because I confused the issue due to lack of experience and/or knowledge of academic endeavours.
What's even funnier is that you somehow think all those credentials are more important than the capacity to produce a proper scientifically-validated (meaning peer review) study.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
What a fukin joke you are. |
don't be jealous that mummy and daddy couldn't afford to send you through school. that's quite common.
again, the onus is upon you to provide the evidence, not us (again, something you would understand if you'd spent a little more time in school).
but, keep at it internet detective! your non sequiturs are a constant source of entertainment. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Why should he have one to be able to ask for one? |
precisely.
also, there ARE 2 peer-reviewed studies that support (more or less) the findings of the NIST report (which, despite its flaws is still superior to everything the CTs have been able to produce). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Can any of you explain why you think an internet video is somehow superior to a proper, peer-reviewed study? Or why someone that bothers to make such a video doesn't bother with producing that paper? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Wait you mean you are not a Structural Engineer? You do not have a Peer Reviewed Paper either?
What a fukin joke you are.
Reasoned, Formal Education, LOL. |
With all due respect to to Colonel, no offense, but engineers aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. They do grunt work, scientists do the thinking. Number crunching and following procedure they don't even necessarily fully appriciate or understand is a simpiified description of what an engineer does, of any kind. Scientist on the other hands, engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc. In short, engineers are grunts who can't handle too much thinking. Which is why liberal arts majors, ever so proud of their piece of cake degrees that they have a stick the size of the WTC up their ass, are fairly condescending to anyone who doesn't have a formal college education to make up for their lack of drive, intelligence, or competence. It's quite ammusing and consequently they're hard to take seriously, especially when it comes to any scientific issue. Yeah, I don't care if you have a degree in humanities, economics, or whatever else... you still are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything invovling science, and your formal education doesn't mean squat when it comes to understanding anything involving physics. You may be articulate as hell but your empty rhetoric means less than a simple quation with a three line proof. So their degrees are essentially worthless and they basically have the same calibur of rationalality, logic, and critical reasoning as someone with no degree at all. Their arrogant and ignorant attempts at arguments are ammusing to say the least, not becuase they don't necessarily know what they're talking about, but mostly because of their inflated baseless ego's with no merit.
EDIT: The most incompitent dolts I've ever had the misfortune to have to collaporate with in any type of natural science class has always been engineers who're thick as bricks and take forver to catch on to anything. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
With all due respect to to Colonel, no offense, but engineers aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. They do grunt work, scientists do the thinking. Number crunching and following procedure they don't even necessarily fully appriciate or understand is a simpiified description of what an engineer does, of any kind. Scientist on the other hands, engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc. In short, engineers are grunts who can't handle too much thinking. Which is why liberal arts majors, ever so proud of their piece of cake degrees that they have a stick the size of the WTC up their ass, are fairly condescending to anyone who doesn't have a formal college education to make up for their lack of drive, intelligence, or competence. It's quite ammusing and consequently they're hard to take seriously, especially when it comes to any scientific issue. Yeah, I don't care if you have a degree in humanities, economics, or whatever else... you still are absolutely clueless when it comes to anything invovling science, and your formal education doesn't mean squat when it comes to understanding anything involving physics. You may be articulate as hell but your empty rhetoric means less than a simple quation with a three line proof. So their degrees are essentially worthless and they basically have the same calibur of rationalality, logic, and critical reasoning as someone with no degree at all. Their arrogant and ignorant attempts at arguments are ammusing to say the least, not becuase they don't necessarily know what they're talking about, but mostly because of their inflated baseless ego's with no merit. |
Oh, ok. So a tertiary level education doesn't give anyone the experience with appreciating the rigours of academic inquiry or experience in judging intellectual or academic honesty? (which is what my point was)
It's amusing for you to lambast me over my lack of scientific credientials whilst simultaneously lauding the scientific community generally, yet ignore the fact that nobody on your side of the fence actually fits the characteristics that you're preaching (engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc). NONE of your scientists have passed peer-review - if you're really such a lover of the scientific method, why you keep ignoring this glaring problem is kind of beyond me. (ie where is your simple equation with three line proof champ?)
And yes, I'll take a formal education over the idiotic and dishonest conclusions drawn by the under-educated like culorut when it comes to their ability to assess basic evidence, scientific or not. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Oh, ok. So a tertiary level education doesn't give anyone the experience with appreciating the rigours of academic inquiry or experience in judging intellectual or academic honesty? (which is what my point was)
It's amusing for you to lambast me over my lack of scientific credientials whilst simultaneously lauding the scientific community generally, yet ignore the fact that nobody on your side of the fence actually fits the characteristics that you're preaching (engage in criticial thinking, refining existing theories, formulating new ones, etc etc). NONE of your scientists have passed peer-review - if you're really such a lover of the scientific mindset, why you keep ignoring this glaring problem is kind of beyond me. (ie where is your simple equation with three line proof champ?)
And yes, I'll take a formal education over the idiotic and dishonest conclusions drawn by the under-educated like culorut when it comes to their ability to assess basic evidence, scientific or not. |
The physicists you love to deride and discredit so much has quite a few peer reviewed published journals in the past and isn't exactly some dolt with no credibility. Non sequitors and argumentum ad verecundiam don't qualify as legitimate criticism. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The physicists you love to deride and discredit so much has quite a few peer reviewed published journals in the past and isn't exactly some dolt with no credibility. Non sequitors and argumentum ad verecundiam don't qualify as legitimate criticism. |
No they don’t shaolin. Not one. Getting your fellow buddies at "journal of 911 studies" to mark your work doesn't count as a proper peer review. So, let's stop being disingenuous shall we?
And even if that were true (and for emphasis i'll reiterate that its not), why we're looking to a physicist when it comes to building collapse is still beyond me. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
No they don’t shaolin. Not one. Getting your fellow buddies at "journal of 911 studies" to mark your work doesn't count as a proper peer review. So, let's stop being disingenuous shall we? |
Haha, a scientifically sound argument is more than enough, and no it doesn't come from the so called sources you're trying to associate me with. I don't require external validation to reinfornce something I can easily comprehend myself with concepts I've already understand well for a while now.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
And even if that were true (and for emphasis i'll reiterate that its not), why we're looking to a physicist when it comes to building collapse is still beyond me. |
Yeah, which is one of the why I stopped participating in this thread. It's beyond a lot of people apparently, which isn't unexpected from anyone that can't comprehend elementary physics or science period. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Haha, a scientifically sound argument is more than enough, |
a "scientifically sound" argument is only sound because it has support through rigorous peer review. feel free to provide me with the argument if you have it at hand.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
and no it doesn't come from the so called sources you're trying to associate me with. I don't require external validation to reinfornce something I can easily comprehend myself with concepts I've already understand well for a while now. |
so what you're really saying is that you know everything and do not require external sources to support your opinion, despite the fact that your rudimentary understanding of physics isn't nearly good enough to explain and comprehend the complicated nature of sky scraper collapse?
thus far the only science-driven stuff ive read from you revolved around analysing the kinetic energy and how it was dissipated. Not a particularly strong or comprehensive argument by any stretch of the imagination.
I do have an old memory of you talking about the conservation of momentum idea proposed by our old friend steven jones, but that idea has been shat on by the wider scientific community if I am not mistaken.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Yeah, which is one of the why I stopped participating in this thread. It's beyond a lot of people apparently, which isn't unexpected from anyone that can't comprehend elementary physics or science period. |
Haha, touche. But your problem is that those that DO possess such relevant expertise (like our good friend colonel) ARE willing to discuss it with you but you seem to be less interested. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
a "scientifically sound" argument is only sound because it has support through rigorous peer review. feel free to provide me with the argument if you have it at hand. |
No, it's soudn because it's in agreement with known laws and theorems. You've never studied discrete mathematics have you?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so what you're really saying is that you know everything and do not require external sources to support your opinion, despite the fact that your rudimentary understanding of physics isn't nearly good enough to explain and comprehend the complicated nature of sky scraper collapse?
thus far the only science-driven stuff ive read from you revolved around analysing the kinetic energy and how it was dissipated. Not a particularly strong or comprehensive argument by any stretch of the imagination. |
No, I'ce brought up several other points in the past, problem is, it didn't suit the negligent flawed analysis and theorising necessary for the state sactioned conspiracy theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I do have an old memory of you talking about the conservation of momentum idea proposed by our old friend steven jones, but that idea has been shat on by the wider scientific community if I am not mistaken.
Haha, touche. But your problem is that those that DO possess such relevant expertise (like our good friend colonel) ARE willing to discuss it with you but you seem to be less interested. |
Colonel actually never counter argued a single point I brought up, but simply obfuscated it with other possibilities with out presenting any reasonable need for adjustment based on probability or any other compelling justification. I eventually got sick wasting my breath, time and energy as the only repsonse I reveiced in this thread were irrelevant rants and non sequitors. |
|
|
| Krypton |
And what about the planes hitting the towers? Was that just for show?
"Let's have suicidal hi-jackers crash their planes into the towers, and THEN we'll blow them up."
Really, that is a stupid assertion... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Is it really that hard to apply the scientific method to any of these theories? Or are we to simply take our cues from Zeitgeist? |
|
|
|
|
