Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The Scientific Method Part II

This guy became famous for his amazing post where he proved that a wooden plane could not have crashed into a wooden World Trade Center. But you will not believe this experiment.

37 Comments:

At 04 July, 2006 04:08, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

The DUers will believe anything that is thrown their way (Rove is indicted, etc.), so the fact that a moron lighting fires in his backyard is given credence as some kind of knowledgeable "truthteller" is typical.

In other news, I once proved how the Titanic was actually blown up in a secret government / Mossad covert operation by blowing up a plastic model with a Black Cat firecracker in my bathtub. I mean, the ship broke in two, right? - there was no WAY a ship of that size, strength and structure could have "just broken" after "hitting an iceberg." I know what all the eyewitnesses and survivors say happened, but they're all in on the mission to cover up the REAL truth. The actual victims' families are still alive and well - spread out all over the world. The US government, under Republicans, won't let this information see the light of day, and have blocked my every attempt to look into the matter. I say we get the truthout.

That about sums up the loosers. More wheels coming off the bus daily, and they keep doubling down. There must be a new mental condition among these folks - I think I'll call it Severe Acute Leopoldism (SAL).

 
At 04 July, 2006 10:42, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Its lame, but saddly it is more then anything you'll get from the government.

 
At 04 July, 2006 10:48, Blogger CHF said...

Wow, what a convincing model. I'm a believer now!

And jack - the engineering community has already explained the WTC collapses many times over.

If you're too ignorant to listen then that's your problem.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:04, Blogger Manny said...

The US government, under Republicans, won't let this information see the light of day, and have blocked my every attempt to look into the matter. I say we get the truthout."

Taft was round -- people drowned!

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:07, Blogger CHF said...

I just built a WTC out of paper and threw a paper airplane at it.

Know what happened?

The plane just bounced off and fell on the floor, thus proving that the planes on 9/11 should have bounced off the WTC towers!

Therefor, we now know that a missile was fired into the WTC to allow for the planes to get through. Or something.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:14, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man those models were so I mean, convincing I thought I was looking at the real thing.

 
At 04 July, 2006 11:28, Blogger Chad said...

His wife must be so proud....

 
At 04 July, 2006 12:09, Blogger Chad said...

That reminds me of the time I tried an experiment of my own. After watching numerous videos found on YouTube and Google Video, I was convinced that what happend to the towers was not a result of fire or structural damage.

To prove this I made two tall hollow square tubes out of clay. These were to represent the towers. I then took my mechanical Bic pencil and poked many many holes in one face of each "tower". This was to simulate the damage done by the supposed planes.

My next step could be argued as overkill, but I placed each tower in a kiln. This was to simulate the fire. Now, we all know that clay is not as strong as steel, so I figured the raging inferno inside the oven would positively vaporize both of my clay structures.

Imagine my suprise when, upon removing them from the kiln, I found them to be hard as a rock!! The fire actually made the towers MORE stable!!! (I thought to myself, that they were almost like trees.)

This begged the question then: What brought the towers down? If the fire actually made the buildings stronger, some foriegn force must've been at work.

I took a hammer out and whacked the towers to simulate Bush whacking the towers with a hammer... Nothing. I shot at them with an AK-47 to simulate Israeli soldiers shooting at them with AK-47s... Still nothing!!

Finally, I went down to Ace Hardware and picked up some yellow cake. I made myself two mini-nuclear bombs and detonated each at the base of the towers (always wear protective goggles).

That was the one to do it, although not as I expected. It seems from my observations that the strength of the outer tube carried the force of the nuclear blast up vertically to the top of each tower whereby it proceeded to facilitate collapse at the areas weakened by my Bic, from the top down.

I have proceeded to post my findings on reputable websites known for hating this administration and have found them to be very well received for some reason.

This is concrete proof that the government story is a sham.

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:00, Blogger jackhanyes said...

And jack - the engineering community has already explained the WTC collapses many times over.

I have yet to see a model that acturely shows the structure collpasing. Maybe you can help? Asshole.

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:08, Blogger jackhanyes said...

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….

University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….

A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)

 
At 04 July, 2006 13:21, Blogger Chad said...

I have yet to see a model that acturely shows the structure collpasing. Maybe you can help? Asshole.

Proof positive that in the mind of a CTer, if it ain't on Google Video, it ain't real.

And is "acturely" a combo of "accurately" and "actually"?

Jack, you're obviously well versed in how structures should fall. Why don't you make your own model and post it on the web for us to see?

 
At 04 July, 2006 14:38, Blogger apathoid said...

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:

Well, there are thousands of engineers which means there are probably lots of folks who wouldve gone about the investigation another way. NISTs role was to explain the most likely cause the collapses. Thats all. Its not a comprehensive study of high-rise fire safety(it probably should be). Its not a tool for the benefit of engineers who want to build better and safer structures in the future.
They know what caused the collapses and agree on the conclusions. A few of the smaller details is where the dissention is among engineers lays.
Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says

The question is:
Why do YOU guys have such a hard time siding with the entire field of professionals who design and build skyscrapers??

 
At 04 July, 2006 14:54, Blogger shawn said...

Its lame, but saddly it is more then anything you'll get from the government.

Can you people stop being so intellectually dishonest. Whatever you take on the NIST, Commission report, etc, it's a helluva lot better than some guy pushing models around.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:52, Blogger nesNYC said...

He just PWND NIST.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:54, Blogger nesNYC said...

Its lame, but saddly it is more then anything you'll get from the government.

Oh they tied alrighty, they got the same results the guy with the rabbit fence and cinder blocks got. No collapse from heat. The only way they could get it to "work" was in the memory of a computer.

 
At 04 July, 2006 19:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

The question is:
Why do YOU guys have such a hard time siding with the entire field of professionals who design and build skyscrapers??


No, only the guys that are writing these fabrications. I'm sure if ALL of them looked, they would find them ALL at fault.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:00, Blogger shawn said...

No, only the guys that are writing these fabrications.

"Any evidence against my unsupported, preconceived notions is faked."

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:08, Blogger nesNYC said...

Whatever you take on the NIST, Commission report, etc, it's a helluva lot better than some guy pushing models around.

Both are as ridicules only one cost 20 million.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:28, Blogger shawn said...

Both are as ridicules only one cost 20 million.

Nesnyc, there's no reasoning with you. You're so utterly involved in your fantasy world you can't make distinctions between ridiculousness as long as the more ridiculous point supports your bias.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nesnyc, there's no reasoning with you. You're so utterly involved in your fantasy world you can't make distinctions between ridiculousness as long as the more ridiculous point supports your bias.

Since NIST didn't address the molten metal found in the basements weeks after the attack, it is simply junk science. Believe it all you want, doesn't change the fact that it is ridicules as the guy with the rabbit wire cages.

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:54, Blogger apathoid said...

Since NIST didn't address the molten metal found in the basements weeks after the attack

Actually, FEMA did.

Article on molten steel
Article on evaporated steel
Article on a common application of the Eutectic principle.

Where are your links that say Thermite burns for 8 weeks?

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:54, Blogger shawn said...

Since NIST didn't address the molten metal found in the basements weeks after the attack, it is simply junk science. Believe it all you want, doesn't change the fact that it is ridicules as the guy with the rabbit wire cages.

Ridicules is a verb, not an adjective.

The molten metal was from a second-hand account. What do you not get about that?

 
At 04 July, 2006 20:56, Blogger shawn said...

Your links said that acid rain allowed the parts of the steel to melt at lower temperatures than pure steel does.

Are you ever going to link something that actually supports your points?

 
At 04 July, 2006 21:20, Blogger Richard said...

Hmm, Microstructural Analysis of Steel or a guy setting fire to chicken wire. I'm not sure who to believe.....

 
At 05 July, 2006 04:20, Blogger CHF said...

jack,

"I have yet to see a model that acturely shows the structure collpasing. Maybe you can help? Asshole."

Then you haven't looked very hard. Fucking moron.

 
At 05 July, 2006 07:49, Blogger Alex said...

Oh they tied alrighty, they got the same results the guy with the rabbit fence and cinder blocks got. No collapse from heat.

How many times are you planning on repeating that particular lie? You've been shown several times already that the experiment you're refering to was intended to measure something completely different.

Since NIST didn't address the molten metal found in the basements weeks after the attack, it is simply junk science.

Right.

Since Einstein didn't address the idea of nuclear winter, the atom-bomb is junk science.

You really are a looser.

 
At 05 July, 2006 08:35, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Both are as ridicules only one cost 20 million.

So how does it feel to be kicked out of the 911studies message board, nesync?

 
At 05 July, 2006 09:47, Blogger ScottSl said...

I agree that was too funny. How screwed up do you have to be to get kicked off of the 911studies board?
Don't worry I don't think you'll get banned here.
We need people like you.

 
At 05 July, 2006 10:10, Blogger nesNYC said...

So how does it feel to be kicked out of the 911studies message board, nesync?

Like I noted here before, I've been kicked off of many sites through the years for what I write so it's no surprise or the first time. I think they said I wasn't "polite," go figure.

 
At 05 July, 2006 10:12, Blogger nesNYC said...

Since Einstein didn't address the idea of nuclear winter, the atom-bomb is junk science.

Nope. Since Einstein didn't address the Quantum, he "theory" is junk science would be a better comparison.

 
At 05 July, 2006 10:51, Blogger shawn said...

Nope. Since Einstein didn't address the Quantum, he "theory" is junk science would be a better comparison.

Man, can't ever let the Jews have their day.

Since you're such an ignoramus, you wouldn't know that both of his relativity descriptions predate quantum mechanics by about twenty and ten years (for special and general).

Not only that, but he did make significant contributions to the field of quantum physics. (But saw quantum mechanics as not enough of a theory.)

Hell, he called photons "quanta", so obviously a single photon would be a "quantum", ergo he took it into account.

 
At 05 July, 2006 11:04, Blogger Alex said...

Einstein wasn't real anyway, he was invented by the CIA. All those pictures of him were computer generated to make him seem real.

Yeah, I know what you're going to say, they didn't have that kind of technology back then. Well, see, that's where the time-machine from area 51 comes in....

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:01, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, I know what you're going to say, they didn't have that kind of technology back then.

Not only did they not have the technology, the CIA didn't exist either.

 
At 05 July, 2006 12:01, Blogger shawn said...

Though I wouldn't put a conspiracy like that past nesnyc.

 
At 05 July, 2006 14:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

Not only did they not have the technology, the CIA didn't exist either.

hello!?! time machine!

 
At 13 September, 2006 15:47, Blogger Mork said...

My name is Mork, I send you greetings from the planet of Ork, and I am here to tell all of you earthlings that the "neo-cons" are actually escapees from our political penal colony located on the asteroid known as cheneydick...........elvis is alive!!!

 
At 13 September, 2006 15:58, Blogger Mork said...

Fidel is a closet Conservative!! Jerry Falwell was a jihadist in a past life!! Bill O'Reilly is secretly married to Al Franken!! Thats right folks, catch all the news that the others refuse to print, right here on "Nutbag News"!! Stay tuned for our interview with Elvis, who claims to have evidence that 9/11 was plotted on the planet of Ork!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home