Interesting RD (hope you're doing well)....
No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode [7] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paranoia#Clinical_indicators), a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism).
Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Above_Top_Secret) , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.
....but it doesn't work. My simple easy to understand graphical analysis of WTC7 that definitively concludes intentionally placed energetic materials brought down the building has been sitting there empirically unassailed in any way shape or form (with over 50,000 views) for about a year and a half and to date none of you (Dr. Calverd, Bored chemist, Dr. Smith, Don_1, PmbPhy, CliffordK, JP, evan_au or any other members here) can seem to manage to even address it let alone break it or show any aspect or feature of it to be incorrect by simply copying and pasting even one of the many simple animations (formatting guided by Dr. Calverd) along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any kind of simple cogently elucidated explanation of some perceived error or needed correction, nor have any of you provided any other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the buildings videographically documented destruction that supercedes it.... yet here you are, continuing (at least it appears to me) to personally attack people, make derisive remarks and post insulting links that include references to people being cranks, mental instability, paranoia, nutty conspiracy theorists etc.
The analysis (of WTC7) is either correct or it's not, it's just as simple as that. If no one can break it or show some aspect of it to be incorrect in the above described manner.... then it is in fact proponents of the official narrative like you that are actually exhibiting all the mental defects you are attributing to others here.... it is proponents of the official narrative who continue to irrationally argue against Isaac Newtons immutable Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body.... it is proponents of the official narrative who flatly refuse to recognize the veracity of a simple high school level graphical empirical analysis.... it is proponents of the official narrative who are in complete denial as to what really happened and who delusionally continue to refuse to accept reality.... and it is proponents of the official narrative who revoltingly continue to maliciously attack people with cowardly name calling and invented stigmatizing labels like "mentally unstable conspiracy theorist nut case" amidst the endless repetition of the same suspiciously formulaic unscientific nonsense mixed with insults over and over again without ever providing any empirically verifiable support for their point of view or any rationally structured objection to the empirically verifiable data cited by others in support of their views either.
That's the definition of mental instability my friend, and unless or until you or someone else meets me over there and clearly refutes some aspect of that analysis, it remains correct.... and as long as it remains correct, it is in fact proponents of the official narrative that are the nutty mentally unstable tin foil hat science denier cranks....
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497)
....so come on and bring it. I challenge any and all of you, come on and prove me to be an idiot.
Interesting interview all about the chemisty of 9/11...
Don't know about all that really but, as I've learned here, just as with some physicists, some chemists, like Dr. Frank Legge PhD for example, are a little smarter than others....
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2Fp9ey71ICjWetMTm1-psuK1ughKX7TncWQjT4ZdBvsAtV2oJ3w57SeoycvIiHV53EOM7-S0HtgglVr5Vaqz9x%2AuC2cIh9CSgK%2FCapturennnnnnnnnn.JPG&hash=25dd3f1b03caf41d94f9c39139b0f237)
http://scienceof911.com.au/#comment-83088
Anyway I tried to ask Mr. Harrit about the issue of gravitational acceleration on his blog but my posts were quietly removed without any response. Doesn't have any impact on the analysis though so.... Who cares? The prima facie analysis continues to stand empirically unassailed in any way....
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497)
....and for as long as it continues to stand empirically unassailed it is considered to be correct, and for as long as it continues to be considered correct it will remain empirically established fact, and for as long as it remains empirically established fact it will continue to be true that the building was brought down by intentionally placed energetic materials.
That's the scientific method.
None of this....
The towers of the world trade center collapsed because molten aluminium, being explosive, caused the upper support structure to fail. It is simple physics. However, shame on me for spoiling all that fun you are having.
....changed any of this....
The prima facie analysis continues to stand empirically unassailed in any way....
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497)
....and for as long as it continues to stand empirically unassailed it is considered to be correct, and for as long as it continues to be considered correct it will remain empirically established fact, and for as long as it remains empirically established fact it will continue to be true that the building was brought down by intentionally placed energetic materials.
Since no aircraft struck WTC7 molten aluminum can't be used to explain its destruction. So really, the only thing you've spoiled here is the chance of anyone taking your remarks on that issue seriously.
Interesting RD (hope you're doing well)....
No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode [7] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paranoia#Clinical_indicators), a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism).
Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Above_Top_Secret) , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.
....but it doesn't work. My simple easy to understand graphical analysis of WTC7 that definitively concludes intentionally placed energetic materials brought down the building has been sitting there empirically unassailed in any way shape or form (with over 50,000 views) for about a year and a half and to date none of you (Dr. Calverd, Bored chemist, Dr. Smith, Don_1, PmbPhy, CliffordK, JP, evan_au or any other members here) can seem to manage to even address it let alone break it or show any aspect or feature of it to be incorrect by simply copying and pasting even one of the many simple animations (formatting guided by Dr. Calverd) along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any kind of simple cogently elucidated explanation of some perceived error or needed correction, nor have any of you provided any other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the buildings videographically documented destruction that supercedes it.... yet here you are, continuing (at least it appears to me) to personally attack people, make derisive remarks and post insulting links that include references to people being cranks, mental instability, paranoia, nutty conspiracy theorists etc.
The analysis (of WTC7) is either correct or it's not, it's just as simple as that. If no one can break it or show some aspect of it to be incorrect in the above described manner.... then it is in fact proponents of the official narrative like you that are actually exhibiting all the mental defects you are attributing to others here.... it is proponents of the official narrative who continue to irrationally argue against Isaac Newtons immutable Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body.... it is proponents of the official narrative who flatly refuse to recognize the veracity of a simple high school level graphical empirical analysis.... it is proponents of the official narrative who are in complete denial as to what really happened and who delusionally continue to refuse to accept reality.... and it is proponents of the official narrative who revoltingly continue to maliciously attack people with cowardly name calling and invented stigmatizing labels like "mentally unstable conspiracy theorist nut case" amidst the endless repetition of the same suspiciously formulaic unscientific nonsense mixed with insults over and over again without ever providing any empirically verifiable support for their point of view or any rationally structured objection to the empirically verifiable data cited by others in support of their views either.
That's the definition of mental instability my friend, and unless or until you or someone else meets me over there and clearly refutes some aspect of that analysis, it remains correct.... and as long as it remains correct, it is in fact proponents of the official narrative that are the nutty mentally unstable tin foil hat science denier cranks....
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497)
....so come on and bring it. I challenge any and all of you, come on and prove me to be an idiot.
Pssst, hey Drifty.... You hear that sound? It's TheNakedSilence!
In a society of lies telling the truth is an act of treason.
It is an act of patriotism when you're defending your country for honor.
And we mustn't forget academic silence, the most despicable form of betrayal and intellectual cowardice imaginable. I would rather shoot myself than trade shoes with any of the people mentioned below.
Interesting RD (hope you're doing well)....
No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode [7] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paranoia#Clinical_indicators), a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism).
Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Above_Top_Secret) , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.
....but it doesn't work. My simple easy to understand graphical analysis of WTC7 that definitively concludes intentionally placed energetic materials brought down the building has been sitting there empirically unassailed in any way shape or form (with over 50,000 views) for about a year and a half and to date none of you (Dr. Calverd, Bored chemist, Dr. Smith, Don_1, PmbPhy, CliffordK, JP, evan_au or any other members here) can seem to manage to even address it let alone break it or show any aspect or feature of it to be incorrect by simply copying and pasting even one of the many simple animations (formatting guided by Dr. Calverd) along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any kind of simple cogently elucidated explanation of some perceived error or needed correction, nor have any of you provided any other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the buildings videographically documented destruction that supercedes it.... yet here you are, continuing (at least it appears to me) to personally attack people, make derisive remarks and post insulting links that include references to people being cranks, mental instability, paranoia, nutty conspiracy theorists etc.
The analysis (of WTC7) is either correct or it's not, it's just as simple as that. If no one can break it or show some aspect of it to be incorrect in the above described manner.... then it is in fact proponents of the official narrative like you that are actually exhibiting all the mental defects you are attributing to others here.... it is proponents of the official narrative who continue to irrationally argue against Isaac Newtons immutable Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body.... it is proponents of the official narrative who flatly refuse to recognize the veracity of a simple high school level graphical empirical analysis.... it is proponents of the official narrative who are in complete denial as to what really happened and who delusionally continue to refuse to accept reality.... and it is proponents of the official narrative who revoltingly continue to maliciously attack people with cowardly name calling and invented stigmatizing labels like "mentally unstable conspiracy theorist nut case" amidst the endless repetition of the same suspiciously formulaic unscientific nonsense mixed with insults over and over again without ever providing any empirically verifiable support for their point of view or any rationally structured objection to the empirically verifiable data cited by others in support of their views either.
That's the definition of mental instability my friend, and unless or until you or someone else meets me over there and clearly refutes some aspect of that analysis, it remains correct.... and as long as it remains correct, it is in fact proponents of the official narrative that are the nutty mentally unstable tin foil hat science denier cranks....
WTC7 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A complete Prima Facie Empirically Verifiable Scientific Method Driven Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion arrived at by Process of Elimination (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497)
....so come on and bring it. I challenge any and all of you, come on and prove me to be an idiot.