Science Deniers are Everywhere

I believe its a female of its species. Others hve reched that conclusion so I just yield to their logic.
I was reading some psych reports (of course on the web) where these conspiracy people hve been studied bit to determine why they seem to deny real forensics an lean on some voodoo "scientific" ****.
The commonality of the "lack of any control" in their own little worlds seems to drive em all, no matter what they deny.
Its really a sad waste of someones mind , but its further evidence that no matter what we say, they will try to turn it around and gin some advantage (no matter how obviously ridiculous their assertions are)

Where did I make this claim?

Anyway, at the 10:00 mark on the video below, it is explained how the low spectrum of the audio file had been scrubbed. At the 10:50 mark, forensic reconstruction of the file shows what was missed. What caused that huge explosion just before collapse?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJMPN66FHwY&t=1s

You're playing dumb about the fact that the lower intact core structure and perimeter columns were not exposed to such heat. Why are you playing dumb?

Sure. I've often wondered how it is that proponents of the government-sanctioned theory can accept the idea that the upper fire-damaged block can fall through the undamaged lower block at a rate just forty feet shy of freefall for an observed 360 feet drop. Obviously, psychology plays a major role in such acceptance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark, and 1:12 mark.

It's incredible how you can talk in this fashion of others when there are so many facts, so much science right in front of your nose(s) that you are outright ignoring, farmerman.

And not only you, it's all the readers who are too frightened to tell you you aren't wearing any clothes.

You keep stroking Olivier or whoever comes your way supporting your science denial, instead of using "farmerman science" to prove your points.

You pretend you have me on ignore, which is farmerman BS, yet you ignore the impossibilities of the US government conspiracy theory.

That's not science, but that is farmerman the "scientist".

Why would a guy who purports to be a scientist make a claim that fire temperatures, that is the air temperatures surrounding the flames were the same temperatures that the fire protected steel reached. That is so patently dishonest.

"NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers"

"upper layer air temperatures" of 1,800 F doesn't mean that the steel itself approached anywhere near that.

The "gravity collapses" farmerman pretends existed, should have come when the fires were at their hottest or soon afterwards, not long after the fires had died down to nothing.

Why haven't much hotter, much longer lasting temperatures, some for 24 hours, in other steel framed high rises ever easily initiated gravity collapses?

"Gravity collapses" cannot fall at accelerating speeds. That is impossible according to the laws of physics.

"Gravity collapses" cannot fall at free fall speed, as happened for WTC7. That too is impossible according to the laws of physics.

Why don't you possess the honesty to tell farmerman [he obviously doesn't even have the guts to read this, or so he pretends] that all his "science" has been proven to be false, or at least brought into great doubt, Finn?

Why doesn't max, olivier, anyone here at A2K possess such honesty, Finn?

I agree there's a psychological imbalance of some kind and obvious manic tendencies, but the ideological dimension ought not to be neglected. Max was right to stress that. There's a deeply schismatic drive here, an us vs. them mentality that uses (pseudo-)science as an ideological weapon, as a wedge issue between the "good" and the "bad" guys.

Not to mention that bridge fire in Atlanta. Seems as though a pile of PVC pipe caught fire below the bridge and was hot enough to weaken the concrete and allow steel reinforcing to deform. Plastic Pipe generated that much heat! This was a couple of months ago, and if you can't find it, I bet I can.

No jet fuel under that bridge by the way, and no impact.

yeh there was a fire up in Reading at an old brewery. The fire was mostly building contents of wood and it caused the metal beams to bend under the stress of their carrying load.

In the case of the "truthers' , they are puppets of a very small group of actual scientists whove just crossed the line from collecting and analyzing evidence to becoming cheerleaders for some wackiness.

All of the 9/11 "truth" **** has been suitably debunked by scientists and engineers who keep the rules of evidence (like chain of custody) above board(while the truthers have not subjected ANY of their supposed samples of the "Thermite residues" to ANY Quality control scrutiny. Thats really unacceptable science to begin with, and to lie about something as environmentally sensitive as seismic records and try to bullshit their way to assert something that the seismic records DO NOT support, is unconscionable. Then, on top of that, to misquote firemen and itnesses and then totally ignore the airplanes in the picture (As if they werent even there or were some kind of CGI, )

The amount of coordination and effort to carry out something like what these idiots believe in is just ludicrous, and they just go on like they know what they are talking about.

"Screws loose" is too mild a diagnosis.

I guess I see it as a simple wackiness in which "believing anything" and unquestionably accepting silly science is symptomatic of the disease. The"ideaological dimension" would require some kind of acculturation no? Its like radicalization of marginalized kids to become terrorists. So maybe our A2k "truthers society" hd parents who believed strongly against anything our govt did.

Its Mark Bowdens thesis in his new book "Hue 968" where he shows that because of the way this entire war was presented as a lie to the folks at home, some people just failed to ever believe anything the govt said after tht. Maybe our truthers parents were of that ilk.

I find it very interesting , rather than investigating a piece of data further to try to see it for what it really is and how its facts are limited, these guys just buy the whole thing and try to convince us with the correctness of their bent-up views.
Then they try to mount some ladder of scientific objectivity by ignoring all the tons of evidence that counters their BS.

I think JTT was one who denied that we had some moon landings,and Japan were the "good guys" in WWII .

Sorry, but comparing the collapse of a horizontal structural expanse to the collapse of a vertical core structure is ridiculous. And your comparison doesn't even take into account the fact that the lower intact core structure was not fire damaged.

But since you brought up the bridge, what caused the explosions beneath that bridge just before collapse?

Where did I make this claim? If you refuse to answer this for the third time, we'll just have to assume that you were once again barking out your ass and hoping no one would notice your lie.

You're playing dumb about the fact that the lower intact core structure and perimeter columns were not exposed to such heat. Why are you playing dumb?

Uh huh. I've often wondered how it is that proponents of the government-sanctioned theory can accept the idea that the upper, fire-damaged block can fall through the undamaged lower block at a rate just forty feet shy of freefall for an observed 360 feet drop. Obviously, psychology plays a major role in such blind acceptance of the ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark, and 1:12 mark.

And if you still don't get it, here is something a little more instructive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

No mention from the scientist about the size of the steel. No mention from the scientist about the fact than there has never been a total collapse of a steel frame high rise before or after 911.

And if there were to be one, NOT THREE IN ONE DAY, they could never happen at free fall speed [wtc7] and accelerating speed. Those collapses can only occur in controlled demolitions, which is what happened to WTCs 1, 2 & 7 on 911.

No science from farmerman the "scientist" in this post either. What is going on? Are you all so blind to the fact that the "scientist" can't discuss the science?

I can find it for you, Roger. Would you like that? Will you then be willing to discuss it?

Yeh, Roger. Don't you wonder why farmerman didn't get into a discussion of the bridge fire/collapse?

Tell ya the truth, It may have been JTT before I ignored her. If I blamed you erroneously I apologize> SO does that man that you agree with me about the fireman who was really angry at being misquoted?

ALSO, You say the forces on the vertical columns were not enough to initiate gravity collapse? even with 85 to 90% of structural strength of the beam was removed by thermal "softening"?? Youve done the modeling so that you know this as a fact or RE YOU JUST PULLING STUFF OUTTA YOUR BROWN ROUND FILE once more??.

since the vertical beams were there in the core, do you doubt that they were BEARING?? Do you think the forces acting on these beams were mostly uniaxial?? Therefore youd better come up with some convincing evidence that 10 stories of building lying atop vertical (and horizontal) beams was strong enough to withstand this event.

Therefore we boil wverything down to your group assertion that things were initiated by explosives??
Howcome then, whenever NIST asked Dr Jones to provide them the QA data on his groups (the "truthers") sampling of what youve called equal to
"deflegration melting", thetruthers did not comply or would not??? YA think they possibly coulda just made all that **** up for publicity (or whatever reasons they perped these improbable tales) . REAL SCIENCE makes it possible to follow the entire act of sampling and analyses by using marked samples, Chains of custody, field and lab blanks and field and lab knowns, and duplicates . All this was carefully avoided so easily impressed folks like you and the other truthers would think youve been given scientific data.
If you rely on ANY of the TRUTHERS data, you should demand the QA packge nd you should question any data in which QA data hs been ignored.
We know they lie about the fireman (Louie Chialmini sp?) who was supposed to have said that it"was a bomb"

We know they lie about the supportive seismic data that does NOT EVEN EXIST.

We know theyve practiced deceit about carrying out their own chemical sampling

We know that they are totally incompetent in deciding that a steel beam that lost much of its bearing strength due to extreme heating would NOT INITITE A GRVITY COLLAPSE

Those are four key data areas that you guys have relied upon that I question seriously their validity(I dont know anything for sure (As you seem to claim) bcause I havent reviewed data in depth but Ive reviewed enough of what Im familiar with and the "Scientific method" which WAS NOT followed to the letter in collecting and analyzing lab samples). There is so much bogus science being paraded by these truthers that any high school science teacher would give F's to any student that tried to post as fact.

I know you will come back with insults at me and my "abilities and reputation as a scientist" but that matters not what you guys post bcause my reputation in the science of applied geology is waaaaay more sound than what you boys (n girls) try to make others believe.

I took an interest in this subject many years ago qhen the Truthers first started to make believe that seismic dta supported their case. The palisades Station hs n array of geophones that are very sensitive to NYC trffic subways , nd any explosions. So much so that squelching is added post production based upon pattern sound dynamics. They have to "Scrub" some of the garbge off the seismic records to hear the earth. In this case, the directional patterns of P and S and L waves did NOT support anything that even remotely supported the "inside job" BULLSHIT.
Sveral papers in AGU hve been presented at conferences over the past 16 years and your beliefs have been soundly proven to be false.

I dont know what else I can say , its just a shame you cant devote your time to something constructive in life. This is a silly waste of your time, youre being buffaloed and puppeted by these professional "truthers" hove turned this **** into a revenue generating scam.

Now Im gonna put you on ignore, like JTT, sleep well.

Mental health issues are everywhere too. And there seems to be a non-trivial overlap between them.

Must admit I'm somewhat fascinated by the "species". I have been doing some reading, different from yours evidently, more in the realm of philosophy of science. The irruption of ideology in science is of course nothing new. The most significant achievement of Popper, Khun and later the "French theory" (late structuralism and postmodernism, eg Barthe, Derrida, Foucault, 1960s-70s) is to have stated that science itself is of course not "the truth" but a discourse, or a discussion, about the truth, made by men with all their personal foibles and subjectivity. A discourse that can be "deconstructed", as they say, that can be colored by ideology, and that offers no certainty ever. Science can historically be "wrong" (aka later superseeded by better theories).

I think of this "non-naive" view of science as an asset, a productive idea, a useful framework, but it also lends itself to a facile, incorrect and dangerous interpretation: "Science is a bunch of hooey". Especially in its postmodernist expression. While Popper was optimistic about science getting ever closer to better and better theories about reality, the French postmodernists adopted a more pessimistic posture, and IMO their work (amply tought in US universities in the 80s and 90s) laid the ground for the current post-truth BS.

The matter is further complicated by the recognition or branding of history or sociology or economics as "social sciences". I happen to agree that history is a science, because it fits the faslifiability criteria of Popper: historic narratives can very well be contradicted, revised, updated and modified based on newly discovered facts. But as highlighted here by many, history and other "social sciences" are of course more subjective than "exact sciences" because they speak of Man in his cultural dimensions. We speaks of ourselves when telling history, of our own past, and depending on each historian's political and ideological views, the story may be somewhat different.

So the question of "what constitutes historic truth" (eg on the Holocaust, or 9/11) is even more thorny than "what constitutes physical or biological truth".

It's complicated. That's why it's not easy to debate them.

You are right that a certain insecurity is among their motivations, a fear of being fooled, a fundamental distrust for certain people and their supposed treachery (the MSM, climate scientists, politicians, the Jews, etc.) is often present. People doubt their favorite vilains I guess, and when they think of their vilain as something inflated, hugely evil and nightmarish (JTT re. America, antisemitics re. the Jews, current Republican re. the MSM), then they become paranoid hyperdoubters, and switch into an alternative reality.


[The historian] must not adopt in front of witnesses from the past the sullen, cantankerous and finicky attitude of the bad cop who treats any person who is summoned to appear as a priori suspect and held to be guilty until proven innocent; such [an attitude], far from being a quality, would be for the historian a radical defect, making him virtually unable to recognize the real meaning, scope, and value of the documents he studies; Such an attitude is as dangerous in history that in everyday life, the fear of being fooled, this trait that Stendhal likes to lend to his characters ("I always assume that the person talking to me wants to fool me ..." ). […]

No one can be compelled to faith [in any particular set of evidence]: hence (each generation of historians have experienced this) the passionate character, the bitterness, the infinitude of the discussions triggered by such hypercritical assumptions: we can not 'get through', and no argument can prevail.

-- Henri Irénée MARROU, De la connaissance historique, 1975.

farmerman pretends to ignore me so he doesn't have to see all his terrible science. Max, Olivier, ... do the same.

Let's say that there is such a fireman. We don't know this for sure because the scientist never provides sources. That still leave 117 or more firemen who described, on the record, to a NYC fire commissioner, that they had heard and witnessed explosions, after the plane had hit.

George W Bush described those same bombs and explosions at the twin towers in March of this year in PEOPLE Magazine.

I do hope that you are seeking help, rosborne.