He is a Mormon, so his wacky religious ideas don't come as a complete shock to me. :D
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I understand there's somewhat of a gap between theory and practice/science and engineering in general. As a Computer Science major having know plently of Electrical/Computer Engineers, I have some frame of reference to understand that. But as far as my understanding goes, the gap between predictions based on theory and practical results isn't that great, although it's certainly something that needs to be taken into consideration. Bah, I'm pretty tired at this point and can't really properly articulate myself, but hopefully you got what I meant.
Just out of curiosity, why exactly did his mentioning cold fusion make you "pee in your pants?" :D
EDIT: Did you post that response after watching the entire interview (1st video)/lecture (2nd video) or did you pee your pants before you got that far :p ?
first minute of the first video lol.....
lets put it this way, he was involved with the fleischmann-pons debaucle back in 89 and thats why i lol'd
that team claimed to have invented cold fusion (the opposite of nuclear fission) basically clean safe energy for the world. except it didnt do .
basically claiming that they can make energy out of pure H20 and that the only byproduct was helium gas....
while it has been proven possible since, it sure as hell wasnt with water, and it sure as hell isnt the be all end all of the worlds problems. it requires a rediculasely expensive torroidal reactor inorder to contain the super heated plasma trail required to give hydrogen atoms enough energy to bond by collision with to form helium. the main problem is, to get teh reaction started, you need two fission reactors running at 80% efficiency..... and even then with the current model you dont get much out of it
basically the study of cold fusion is looked upon like alchemy by the majority of the science and math community
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I took a look at it (and a few other with seismographs for earthquakes before you posted that one, some of which had spikes somewhat resembling ones for undergournd explosions). But the spike looks far less pronounced and dense relative to and the spike for an underground blast. I have a question though, how often does you see clearly pronounced and "dense" spikes for seismographs of earthquakes (or 'ground shaking')? More specifically, what's the statistical probability of seeing one like that?
The reason why I'm asking is that there seems to be way too many anomolies/unusal occurances in the edivence for the WTC collapse (this obviously just being one of them). And most of them seem to be explained away by the possibility of their occurance, eventhough they have a very low probability. A large enough collection of a significant number of low probability occurances simoultaneously taking place in one incident makes me rather skeptical of the pancake thoery, especially considering how most of them fit in very well with the controlled demolition theory, as they don't have a low probability of occurance in that case. [EDIT: I guess to summarize, simplify, and clarify what I meant is that new and suppressed evidence that's emerging only makes the pancake theory more and more problematic with time, especially keeping in mind FEMAs original statement of it having a low probability of occurance in the first place (hidden in the appenices), which NIST left out in their final report]
NOTE: The spike in the example you posted was clearly visible, but it didn't seen anywhere near as pronounced or dense in comparison to spikes on seismographs for underground explosions. It was noticeably more spread out.
one point i will make is the seismographs from the WTC toweres didnt show the scale very clearly, which makes me wonder if they were zoomed in closely, because after all, 2.1 is pretty lame for a quake so the resolution of the seismograph would have to be pretty tight, and to make it look big they probably zoomed in on the pic significantly.
secondly i think i can explain the spike in earthqakes quite simply. basically there are two basic conditions, the slip fault (slow grating action) and the build and release (think of a bike chain on the main cog, put alot of force on it then a tooth on the cog breaks off and the chain slips quickly) these cause a large short release of energy http://mceer.buffalo.edu/infoservice/faqs/eqlist.asp
New york state is the 3rd most active earthquake zone in the US. mind you, the activity in california is 100 times more active, but the fact taht new york is so far from any plate margins, makes it interesting as to why it is so active. the reason is that it lies on a network of faults that were created when the theoretical supercontinent pangea separated some 750 million years ago, slightly before margret thatcher was born.....these faults were filled with sediment from an ancient mesozoic sea and average about 400 quakes every 150 years.
_Ocean_Drive_
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
it lies on a network of faults that were created when the theoretical supercontinent pangea separated some 750 million years ago, slightly before margret thatcher was born.....
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
I think that qualifies for my next signature!
colonelcrisp
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
I think that qualifies for my next signature!
what is debate with out some slight humour :P
shaolin_Z
His top ten reasons as to why the official story is a lie:
Call it The Great Escape. Only four people survived above the 78th floor in the south tower. They did it by acting against the advice of others and going down the stairs through smoke and debris. Dozens more, possibly hundreds, could have taken the same path to safety. Instead, they went up in search of a helicopter rescue that would never come. The story of Stairway A is a haunting exception to an otherwise successful evacuation. These four survivors, plus about 10 people in the south tower's 78th floor elevator lobby, are the only survivors known to have escaped from the floors above the jet crashes.
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the 78th through 84th floors of the south tower at almost 9:03 a.m., 16 1/2 minutes after a jet hit the north tower.
Brian Clark, executive vice president of Euro Brokers on the 84th floor, was standing against the west wall when the higher wing of the Boeing 767 hit his floor. "It felt like the building was going to fall," he recalls. The tower twisted. Air conditioning ducts fell. Floors buckled.
Clark dropped into a football stance. He locked eyes with senior vice president Robert Coll. "Come on, everyone. Let's go," said Clark, 54. As one of his company's fire wardens, he had a flashlight in one hand, a whistle in the other.
Five Euro Brokers colleagues walked with Clark into the hall, turned left and entered Stairway A.
At the 81st floor, they met an obese woman and a frail man walking up. "You can't go down," the woman said. "The floors are in flames. We have to get above the smoke and fire."
In the dark stairwell, the Euro Brokers colleagues debated: up or down? Clark shined his flashlight on the face of the person speaking. "The woman carried the argument," Clark recalls. Four decided to climb up. "Bobby Coll and Kevin York put their arms under the woman's elbows and helped her up the stairs," Clark says.
As his friends climbed, Clark and co-worker Ronald DiFrancesco continued down. Clark heard banging from inside Fuji Bank's wrecked office.
"Help! I'm buried! Can anybody help?" yelled Stanley Praimnath, a loan officer. Clark pulled him from the rubble and they walked down together.
In the meantime, DiFrancesco, struggling to breathe, turned around and headed up. DiFrancesco climbed to the 91st floor. He lay down on the landing for 10 minutes. Then, moved by an intense desire to see his wife and children, he got up and pushed himself back down the stairs through the smoke that had stopped him before.
As he left the building, he saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face.
He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive — the last person out of the south tower.
Richard Fern, another Euro Brokers executive, was the fourth survivor. He was in an 84th-floor elevator, doors open, when the jet hit. He found Stairway A before the others and took it to safety.
Why didn't more people use Stairway A to leave the building?
Two Aon Corp. employees came down from the 105th floor, but turned back in the face of smoke at the 79th floor, not knowing the heavy smoke lasted only a floor or two more.
USA TODAY identified nine people in the stairway who went up in the hope of a helicopter rescue. A helicopter rescue was not possible: The rooftop doors were locked*, and the roof was smothered in smoke.
Euro Brokers lost 61 employees. "I can still see my friends helping that woman up the stairs. They were heroes who made an unfortunate decision," Clark says.
ARTICLE USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
*The NYC Fire Code doesn't allow for locked exits for fire escape. Being that the WTC is not under the juridisction OF NYC or NYS, they had the roof doors locked.
shaolin_Z
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I'm only responding to your unfounded accusations and "intellectual dishonesty" ;)
hehe, but what then would you describe comparing apples (the WTC collapses) to oranges (the madrid fire)? they really arent comparable from a structural collapsing point of view.
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There's tons of "experts" supporting both propositions and Steven Jones is more than qualified to determine the scientific plaussibility and possibility by virtue of the fact that he's a highly qualified Phyics P.H.D. Engineering, Arcitechture etc are disciplines based on Physics, and only a sub-section of it, not the other way around. Keeping his credentials in mind, Jones is easily qualified to assess the plausibility and probability of any of the theories about the WTC collapse in accordance with the laws of Physics and available evidence. And it's not like he hasn't consulted engineers, architects, demolition experts, and other relevant experts while conducting his research and performing his analysis. You're not going to convince me of anything repeating by trying to discredit Jones just because he doesn't have a particular professional title/document in possesion.
well then, why has he not submitted his paper for peer review? as far as i know, a physicist is not qualified to investigate the complexities of a building collapse. even if he has "consulted" others, that isn't necessarily enough to give his paper credibility. until his paper has received peer review from structural engineers, then it doesn't hold any water. and as far as i am aware the world's engineers disagree with his assessments.
quote:
A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
i dont see how you can hold his research with such high regard when it flies in the face of the world's experts as well as not undergoing standard scientific practice of having it assessed by relevant experts for validity and accuracy. until that occurs his paper is as relevant as anything i might write ;)
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hehe, but what then would you describe comparing apples (the WTC collapses) to oranges (the madrid fire)? they really arent comparable from a structural collapsing point of view.
Not according to the FEMA report. They claim fire as the primary caused for the collapse.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well then, why has he not submitted his paper for peer review? as far as i know, a physicist is not qualified to investigate the complexities of a building collapse. even if he has "consulted" others, that isn't necessarily enough to give his paper credibility. until his paper has received peer review from structural engineers, then it doesn't hold any water. and as far as i am aware the world's engineers disagree with his assessments.
He has, which wasn't a process without resistance. It's beeing peer reviewed. ;)
And I went over [part] of the section on Jones at debunking911.com, I didn't find anything convincing so far.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i dont see how you can hold his research with such high regard when it flies in the face of the world's experts as well as not undergoing standard scientific practice of having it assessed by relevant experts for validity and accuracy. until that occurs his paper is as relevant as anything i might write ;)
Experts are also the ones proposing/investigating the controlled demoliton theory. And Jones is more than qualified, especially in demonstrating the scientific plausibility of the pancake theory.
