@DecassyJake Why when you clearly state: "There is no such thing as a concept.."?
You want him to define something you don't believe in? Whatever he says you will not accept it.
This is why your Science is so cocked-up, you claim consistency of terms is vital, but your definitions change to suit your current mental state and the line of argument. You are also happy to outright deny the existence of concepts when you are cornered.
Dollars to doughnuts, you hav'nt seen this article, pointing out the true strength of WTC1 and 2, enjoy! 911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/they-lied-about-trusses.htm
@DecassyJake Are you suggesting that I put no thought into the making of my videos? Do you think I'm incapable of evaluating evidence and thinking things through to their logical conclusion?
Why don't you try to apply some of your own advice to the way you follow and support Gaede?
Don't you think that your view of 'the establishment' is a little paranoid?
@DecassyJake Not at all. I used to be into all kind of conspiracy theories, re-incarnation, karma and was highly critical of science. But part of me wasn't content to simply accept what the 9/11 truthers, the Alex Jone's, the Alan Alfords, etc word for it without checking and checking again. I found that the quality of the research of the non-orthodox was very often seriously flawed. There was a lot of cherry picking and side stepping of important objections...
...So slowly, gradually I revised and refined my position, and it is currently aligned a lot closer to the mainstream than it used to be. There is a lot wrong with the mainstream, but I submit that there is a lot MORE wrong with the likes of Gaede, the fundamentally religious, the hollow earthers, the moon landing deniers, the chemtrail believers etc etc etc...
@finlarg Secrecy in gov is the norm, false flags and coverups are the tools of the establishment, political and scientific- even in fringe groups like the Electric Universe, they suppress dissent. Conspiracy around 911 isn't a theory, it's a fact. Hiding info, like the U.S Gov did around the collapse of Building 7, saying it was because of "national security", that is a conspiracy to hide pertinent information which would EXPLAIN, what happened.
@DecassyJake So how do YOU explain the fact that most conspiracy videos don't show pictures or footage of the side of WTC7 which was badly damaged by fire and falling debris, but instead they concentrate on the other side and make noises about a 'few small fires'?
I'm not saying the official account of what happens is 100% accurate and complete, but many of the 'truthers' are experts in no more than cherry picking information to fit their conspiracy and ignoring all that doesn't.
@finlarg You are nit-picking cherries around 911 here..Fact; 2 planes could not have achieved the taking down of 3 buildings that day..because of all of the secrecy and inadequate inquiry..what could have really conceivably happened, will have to wait till the U.S is ready for an independent scientific inquiry. How two planes never even slowed down as they melted into a steel building..and people just accept that..blame shitty physics ed..as your vid and thread so obviously displays!
@DecassyJake Nit picking? Come on now Jake... I cited one example of WHY I became skeptical of the 911 conspiracy claims and you have avoided addressing it! I already said that we still don't know EXACTLY what happened.
I don't see how you can claim that 2 planes could NOT have caused the observed destruction, yet you cite shitty physics education to SUPPORT your claims!
@finlarg I make no claims, I deny the "claims" of the "Planer" conspiracy theory..I say nope. Propose something more plausible than two planes knocking down 3 (and more) buildings, because the official MAINSTREAM explanation aint cutting it!!
@DecassyJake Since you mentioned plausibility how do you think planting large numbers of explosives in 2 buildings and detonating them in such a way that it looks like the plane damage caused the collapse, sounds?
@finlarg Aluminum tail and wing tips slicing thru steel beams sounds plausable to you..? Roll the tape back..can a hijacked 767, (or 2!) be left un-molested in U.S airspace for long enough AND perform such insane manoeuvres.. staying intact enough at near macht speed at near sea level..to melt into a steel matrixed double walled (wtc1 and 2 were effectively 4 buildings) structure??? EVEN if it were possible for planes to cause such damage and fly like high performance tungsten tipped missiles..
@DecassyJake are you seriously believing that these buildings were weak enough to lose totally their integrity within hrs and fall like dried up sandcastles in the direction of most resistance..the official conspiracy story was a coverup from start to finish...QUESTION AUTHORITY!! I aint even mentioned nuclear blast-(from the side)"proofed",WTC7 !!
2. A building doesn't have to 'totally lose it's integrity' to collapse. You should be aware of the huge mass of the portion of building above the impact damage. Once that starts to collapse, what else would you expect to happen?
@DecassyJake You can't just avoid my question and counter it with one of your own, and still retain credibility.
"Aluminum tail and wing tips slicing thru steel beams sounds plausable to you..?" Not as an isolated sentence - where did you get this nugget of an account from?
Precisely WHAT 'insane manoeuvres'?
WHO is saying that the planes flew 'like high performance tungsten tipped missiles'?
"...melt into a steel... structure..." This is a vague description, to say the least.
@finlarg Watch the vids and learn...the wings and tail themselves could not make a wing and tail shaped HOLE...As for insane manoeuvres, ask a pilot of an airliner whether they can go as fast at near sea level as at 30 thousand ft..and why not..!!? The "planes" entered the buildings with no resistance, the holes occurred AFTER they entered, not as the planes entered...Below the impact zones the buildings were fully intact and stronger than the top stories..total integrity was lost, WHY?
@DecassyJake I got plenty of arguments. the main one being you can't come up with a theory that doesn't have more holes than the one you don't like.
You don't like the "plane theory" so I'm assuming you think they used explosives but you can't even begin to explain how the explosives got there or how they prevented them from going off while the fires burned...
@justintempler You claim plane, I say how? you say a whole building or 3 collapsed because jet fuel weakened 3 or 4 floors..and the whole thing went POUFF...I don't have to make any counter claim, I just say bullshit, tell me another!!?..OH, building 7 didnt even get hit and went the same way..that proves your first claim.RIGGHHHT! I make no claim...I percieve the BS in the standard CLAIM tho!!
@DecassyJake The link I just showed you explained building 7 but because YOU are too busy trolling you didn't even look at it.
And again, fine you don't want to believe the planes caused the twin towers collapse but anything you can't come up with any reasonable alternative. Anything you can come up with is going to have have more holes in it than the theory you reject.
How did they get the explosives up there? How did they prevent the explosives from from igniting with all the fires burning?
@justintempler You have decided to accept the conspiracy theory as per the Government version of what happened..congrats, you have checked your brain at the gate..and the authorities have x-rayed and impounded it..!
@DecassyJake You are the one that has his mind made up it's a conspiracy theory but yet you don't have ANY alternate explanations. You are the one that left his brain at the door.
You even want a new "scientific" investigation but you CLAIM to be an anarchist and a libertarian. Who do you propose to do this scientific investigation and who is going to pay for it. Obviously it can't be the government.
@justintempler If and when the people want it, and organise and pay for it, It will happen! I don't think you know what an anarchist or libertarian is...I'm getting a feel for people who don't know what a conspiracy IS!! When government keeps secrets- it's called a CONSPIRACY DOOFUS! People must CONSPIRE to hide information..the dogs that follow, are the apologists for the conspiracy of silence- they might not know what really happened, but they accept the scraps tossed them, and attack skeptics
@DecassyJake "If and when the people want it, and organise and pay for it"
EXACTLY Jake, so where is this fund to pay for a new 911 investigation? Where can we send our contributions? Oh that's right it doesn't exist.
The conspiracy I see is a bunch of cranks getting PAID to go on lecture tours selling books, t shirts and DVDs and using ignorant people like you to get rich. They don't want to pay for a new investigation. It's all about preying on the ignorance of people like you to make money.
@justintempler It's amazing how many folk delude themselves into believing they are capable of judging the merits of claims involving expertise WAY beyond them!
@DecassyJake The longer you avoid addressing specific questions such as: Why didn't the fires set off the alleged explosives? -the less credible your arguments are.
@DecassyJake "Watch the vids and learn..." I have watched a VERY large number of videos about 9/11 over the last 11 years. The thing I have done, which you appear not to have done, is that I kept asking the question: Could the 9/11 'truthers' be wrong? I found that many of the claims made do NOT stand up to scrutiny. For example you still haven't acknowledged my question regarding WHY the conspiracists only show ONE side of building 7?
@finlarg Dimitri Khalosov has some interesting information about how those buildings could be brought down without explosives in them..but I will say without seeing any video tapes, if you tell the story of how two planes demolished 3 super tough modern steel framed building, as per the Governmental conspiracy theory..it sounds like horse shit right there..the Madrid building fire is a good case to compare 911 with.
@DecassyJake "...the Madrid building fire is a good case to compare 911 with." You're having a laugh, aren't you? How can a realistic comparison be made when airliners crashed into one, but not the other? Don't you think that it's plausible that the impact of the planes caused structural damage which was worsened by the ensuing fires?
@finlarg To bring down a building..demo experts don't usually blow a hole near the TOP of a building do they..!?? They usually under cut the bases don't they??!!..The relative light weights of the tops would have probably just slid off the lower section..when have you ever heard of a building being demolished or collapsing because of damage at the top of it..??
@DecassyJake Firstly I don't subscribe to the WTC demolition theory. The twin towers both collapsed with the top section crumbling at the point of impact, then as the tremendous mass of the top part of the towers fell, the remaining parts of the towers collapsed from the point of impact down. This is unlike any demolition.
If the plan was to demolish the towers with explosives, why go to the trouble of ALSO crashing planes into them?
"The relative light weights of the tops would have probably just slid off the lower section..." The keyword here is 'probably'. Are you a structural engineer? Or a physicist? You need to bear in mind the enormous weight of the top section, the force of gravity and then ask yourself WHAT would cause it to 'slide off'?
Seriously dude, I'm not a physicist either, but I've looked long and hard at the plausibility of many conflicting accounts and theories about what happened.
@finlarg I'm not the guy who KNOWS exactly how or precisely why buildings fell on 911..he who accepts the mainstream conspiracy theory- that's what it is, omissions and all, to overlook the over-performance of two civil airliners,(by the accounts of engineers and pilots who fly them) and the under-performance of 3 steel framed buildings which fell with virtually no resistance in the direction of most resistance. U might not imagine why or how it really happened..but the original scenario is BS.
@DecassyJake "which fell with virtually no resistance in the direction of most resistance."
Jake we have this thing called GRAVITY things are supposed to fall straight down into their own footprint. Try lifting a 300 pound barbell and see which direction it falls when your weak muscles give out.
@justintempler Right..and hundreds of ft of steel offer no resistance to the lightweight in comparison TOPS of the buildings..stick a fork in it already, it's DONE!!
@justintempler You are of no interest, it's your arguments that I take issue with..what where they AGAIN..?? Trying to destroy reasoned arguments with strawmen and appeals to authority and personal attacks..? If after you act like this I call you a sleazeball..without knowing anything of your previous record on the net..i think it justified! ;-)
@DecassyJake "Trying to destroy reasoned arguments.."
You don't have any reasoned arguments. You don't have any theories. If pointing out your contradictions is a personal attack here's another.
On your Facebook wall you post the YouTube video
Did "Blowback" Cause 9/11? by the Southern Avenger. watch?&v=sjqGBBFiowE
So not only do you believe in conspiracy but you believe in a conspiracy where the Muslim attackers made it "look" like airplanes and fires took down the towers?
@DecassyJake This is not done - you don't seem to appreciate the fact that dozens of floors ABOVE the point of impact had a considerable mass, which when falling PULVERIZED the concrete and sheared much of the steel below. And before you say how could that happen at free-fall speed - it didn't. There was a lot of friction and a lot of mass, which could only go one way. Downwards. No explosives required.
@finlarg CONCRETE may be pulverised..but not STEEL! Dozens and hundreds and hundreds of welded thick steel frame panels, not to mention a core composed of hundreds of steel beams in virtually independently structured towers in both WTC1 and 2...did I even suggest that thermite or conventional explosives could have brought down ALL 3 buildings..?? Dimitri Khalosov has the best reason HOW...Why is a different matter, and that deserves dozens and dozens of cases being brought to court..IMHO.
@finlarg The steel below the impact zone was essentially turned to dust, offering NO RESISTANCE to the tops, check this.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0
@justintempler Who's talking about "mini nukes"?..Not I or Dimitri..this is the strawman...only full sized devices coupled to the ground and supporting structures of 1, 2 and 7..could have taken them down in such a way-according to Dimitri. not to say that it wasn't a botched job, somewhat..because of the holes in 1 and 2. In this scenario, perhaps, the gov brought down at least 2 of the buildings at the THREAT of mini nukes being in the buildings and detonating high above Manhatten...
You idiot you throw his name out there based on one YouTube video and you haven't even investigated what his theory says? Use your brain for a second.
@DecassyJake ".only full sized devices coupled to the ground"
If explosions happened at the ground level, the bottom of the building would explode and the collapse would begin at the bottom and work their way up the building which exactly the OPPOSITE of what we see with the top down collapse in the videos.
@justintempler YOU haven't looked at Dimitri's testimony, if you had, you would know what happens when an underground nuclear explosion connects- is channelled, by rock..and STEEL..rock and metal..anything is turned to gas and microscopic dust, and pulverised material, in fractions of a second. IONISING radiation is absorbed underground. The relatively intact tops fell at near free fall mainly onto DUST...
Could you pinpoint individual building in the WTC complex? nope
I could go on but it's pointless. Now I can see why you got banned and had your posts deleted from FDR. You aren't capable of having a rational discussion.
@justintempler Temp, keep taking the psyc-medicine!!, You are lying, you haven't looked at Dimitri's stuff at all..or you would know that all of your points are answered in his videos and books, jeff prager also has some books out as well on the topic!! The tops were intact, more or less until they crashed to the ground..since what was below them offered NO resistance...I have no idea what you mean by "pinpointing individual buildings" Plus your URL doesn't work..strawmen mini nukes not either!
@DecassyJake Watch out for FDR, they tend to be extremists. They are a bit like the scientologists of philosophy...they treat athiesm and science as religion, and censor and clamp down on any real dissent...Thru them I was introduced to anarchism and libertarianism..but they spin it and brand it according to their leader Stef's preferences and approach to psycology and his controlling nature. It's groupthink in action..thanks, but no-thanks!!
My link works fine. Maybe I have to explain that you have to remove the spaces? I figured you were smart enough to figure that out.
"We know that a 150 kiloton deep underground nuclear explosion creates a cavity of final “secondary” size roughly 100 meters in diameter"
The distance between the North Tower and the South Tower is only 50 meters so any detonation would affect multiple buildings.The WTC buildings were spaced too close together.
@justintempler Your just not looking and listening are are you..? The charges were placed at the CORNERS, far enough away from delivery tunnels and the other buildings so as not to damage the individual towers..if you had watched his video series and read his book, you would know this!!
@justintempler No it still just means that you havn't looked at Dimitri's diagrams, still havn't looked or read any of his material more than one vid, and a Steve Jones strawman hatchet job..try again!!
@DecassyJake "Demolition of very tall buildings is more problematical. The “crushed zone” of a 150Kt nuclear detonation will only extend to a height of about 300 Meters."
The Twin Towers were over 400 Meters. So your hypothetical 150kt blast leaves untouched the top quarter of the building. Bigger blast = bigger crater = the more buildings affected.And tell us genius how did they plant these bombs underground?
You can't even see the contradictions in your own conspiracy theory.
@DecassyJake Ignoring the fact that the 911 collapses don't show any of the symptoms of a nuclear underground detonation...
What part of the buildings being too close together do you not understand?
You have a paranoid obsession with a mistrust of government to the point of denying reality. Which explains what attracted you to FDR and subsequently your new buddy Gaede.
@DecassyJake You helped me out all right. You keep showing how ignorant you are
"the delivery tunnels" would mean that any nuclear device under one building would mean any blast would be directed to all buildings at the same time!
@justintempler Now you are rambling...and not looking at Dimitri's diagrams. Don't you think that if the nuclear demo scheme was arranged, this wasn't sorted out?? In this case the 911 operation, was a botched job. I'm not 100% sure about Dimitri's idea's on why and even exactly how the 911 demolitions took place..but it remains the most feasable method I have heard of yet.
@DecassyJake but it remains the most feasable method I have heard of yet.
I can't help you there, if that's what you want to believe, knock yourself, write a song about it and invite Bill to play along You can form a new group Dueling Idiots.
@justintempler You are the one who BELIEVES(what he's told by the government and mainstream media, uncritically, it seems)...where's the skeptic, wherfore art the open minded??...Don't worry Temp, go back to sleep.. reactionary's like you, don't like doubt, stay cosy snug in your cotton brained ignorance!
@DecassyJake "CONCRETE may be pulverised..but not STEEL!"
That would be true Einstein. The steel wasn't pulverized. I found the explanation for you on page 2 of a thread entitled "BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories"
tiny . c c / p4mfm
The problem is you start out with a strawman theory that steel was pulverized which goes to show you don't even have a clue what the "mainstream" explanation is.You are arguing against your own ignorance.
@DecassyJake Well, what is so remarkable is just how 'they' managed to set the explosives to PERFECTLY correspond to what would happen if the buildings were hit at different heights. AMAZING. As it happens, the second building was hit much lower down than the first. Strangely, this would tend to make it fall BEFORE the first building. Yes, and that is EXACTLY what happened. Still, you stay in your twilight zone of evil geniuses and keep taking your medication.
@ritchloui Don't straw man me man..I deny the claim of the plane..Look into the design of the buildings and check Dimitri Khalosov out..whatever brought down those behemoths, had to be a little more special than c4 and thermite..let alone aluminium tubes and jet fuel! HA! Why.. might be a twisty tail..for sure!
@DecassyJake "..let alone aluminium tubes and jet fuel! HA!"
Some more education for you Jake
A 767 is made from 7075 aluminum alloy which has a tensile strength of 67-78 ksi.
The perimeter columns that broke were made from various grades of steel ranging from 50 to 65 ksi. So the 767 aluminum was stronger than the majority of the steel in the perimeter columns."
Ref NIST NCSART 1-3A, section 2.1.5.
tiny . c c / yqzqf
Damage to the structural supporting core + fire is all that was needed
@DecassyJake You are very stupid. I presume you think the aircraft were really diversionary tactics. LOL. As I said, what extraordinary foresight for the bombs to go off so as to PRECISELY match what would have happened if the buildings were hit at different heights. Your idiotic view is just as idiotic as those who think a child molesting, rapist mass murderer and racketeer established a religion of peace. LOL.
@DecassyJake There is always a problem when dealing with imbeciles and you are one. You probably think the moon landings were fake and that aliens have been abducting people and that the Jews are behind it all and that the holocaust was faked too. You are an idiot and being led by the nose by people making money and fame out of gullible twats. Look at a map why don't you; perhaps you'll see how off the mark you are.
@DecassyJake Presumably you think the thousands of Imams screaming 'death to America' and are all US agents or maybe Zionists. Face it, there is no work ethic in Islam, it is a mafia system that relies on blackmail, dhimmis and slaves. The dhimmis of the ME have been bled dry so now the Muslims need another golden goose. They haven't produced anything for 1,000 years and counting. Islamocretinous countries are ALL madhouses. A herd of mad elephants and you wonder where the noise is coming from.
@justintempler Yup. But then, when he starts looking like the fool he is he'll start squealing about it be 'deserved'. His logic is a bit like the holocaust deniers who at the same time call for one.
@ritchloui Making a lot of ass-umptions there guys..work out your own "worldviews".. Independent thinkers scare sheep like you...keep chewing the green grass, and don't worry your woolly little heads. Beware the big bad islamic boxcutter terrorists!!..They don't hate you because you are free dumbasses..you don't even know what freedom IS..
@DecassyJake The trouble is you are the dog barking up the wrong tree. You just look stupid, but like people who smell bad or can't spell, they don't realize that everyone else knows who's got the problem.
@DecassyJake LOL. 'independent thinking' doesn't mean believing in utter garbage. I doubt you've got an education beyond base level and as a result you are fodder for charlatans.
@ritchloui The sad thing is that there ARE so many charlatans about. The one's who reprt 90% accurately and then slip in their own 10% of garbage are the really insidious ones. It's a minefield out there and our friend Jake has blown himself up so many times!
@DecassyJake "Making a lot of ass-umptions there guys."
You're not even smart enough to look at people's profiles before "ass-umpting".
I've actually took the time look at your profile. You feature videos from Ron Paul about him predicting that the US will become a target for terrorists and one where he talks about "blowback" with his spat with Giuliani so must be proud of him for that but then you turn around contradict yourself & ramble on about insane 911 conspiracies.
@DecassyJake " So I should check out what you watch on netfix[sic]..
Jake if I had created a playlist of favorites on Netflix the answer would be YES. When you create a public profile and share it with strangers on the internet it's obviously there so people can understand "how you think" and to share things you are interested in.
@justintempler YAWN, You are a douche, you have no idea what I think about the videos, or why I like them..unless I comment, grasping at straws, you flounder. YOU have hit a brick wall in your brain, when it comes to trying to understand and critique the establishment..so you are turning inwards like Ed the ball Current, and bashing those who DON'T just accept modern narratives, contemporary scientific fashions. You are PATHETIC, Temp. Get a life!
@DecassyJake Any term u might use to explain the workings of the U, needs refining away from the ambiguous multiple defs you get in a common dictionary. Not to define, suggests a conspiracy of sorts, like practised liars, hiding behind vague terms, the establishment attempt to trick you with word games, all the time. Some fall for it...have you fallen for it Fin?? Are you making excuses for your "elders and betters?"Even Einstein questioned the foundations of his "castle in the sky."
@DecassyJake You make it sound like I don't question authority at all. Far from it. The most important part of being skeptical is to question frequently. Including one's own assumptions.
Of course there are conspirators, charlatans and liars in all walks of life, but the thing about real science is that it is accountable. Claims are tested and verified. Or falsified. Try explaining that your buddy Bill.
@finlarg Yes i'm suggesting you put little rational thought into the making of your videos. You have a fantasy wizards approach to idealising mainstream thinking, politics and science..and use it as a brick to put down those who think outside the box and get to the heart of the matter!! You remind me of Edward Curran, he has nothing new to add to the discussion but instead just tries to assert some sort of muddle headed common sense acceptance of the powers that be."Don't worry about the gov!"
So, Bill doesn't get Relativity? I didn't hear Finlarg dispute the notion that space is supposed to "warp", only that time and space are COMBINED! So, we also supposedly have time "warping"? Is this the same as time travel?
@kc0itf Yes, both space and time are flexible (as far as we know) and it makes sense to combine them into spacetime. As far as time-travel is concerned, we are travelling through time already at a rate of 60 minutes per hour, as daft as that sounds. The presence of massive objects with strong gravity slows time down, just as it bends space. In other words it curves spacetime. But the slowing of time is only something we can observe happening to someone else. Our own clocks always run at the...
...same rate. So if we could see the clock of someone far from the solar system's gravity, we'd see their clock running a little faster. But as far as they're concerned, their clocks are running at the normal speed of 60 mins per hour.
@finlarg As you've already proved on Bill's vid, you're STILL an idiot!
"The slowing of time is only something we can observe happening to someone else." So you of course have a PICTURE of this occurring?
"So if we could see the clock of someone far from the solar system's gravity, we'd see their clock running a little faster." Huh? Why is that? If indeed the case, we're SLOWER than them, in which case you've just said we can't see OURSELVES! Could you clarify?
@finlarg As you've already proved on Bill's vid, you're STILL an idiot!
"The slowing of time is only something we can observe happening to someone else." So you of course have a PICTURE of this occurring?
"So if we could see the clock of someone far from the solar system's gravity, we'd see their clock running a little faster." Huh? Why is that? If indeed the case, we're SLOWER than them, in which case you've just said we can't see OURSELVES! Could you clarify?
A facile, vague analysis..which you could well apply to mainstream science as to any so called "psuedo-scientist." Finlarg doesn't know what an assumption is..an assumption, doesn't necessarily mean a "belief"..it just means "to take for granted certain facts or occurrences in order to explain a theory."Also if you don't define what you mean by an object, or existence, or concept..your explanation will not be clear..clear communication is the objective
@DecassyJake This video deals with a number of topics, but doesn't go into any of them in huge depth. It's only 10 minutes long. I have made other videos which explore some of the themes further.
I know that assumptions are not the same as beliefs. My point (which you seem to have missed) is that in order to make sense of the world it is best to start out without assumptions or preconceptions. Allow reality to help build up your understanding.
@finlarg Assumptions are inescapable..pre-conception may be premature, but what ever conceptions you conceive, they are all based upon ASSUMPTIONS...otherwise it's a religion, and your priest whispered in your ear THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Before you go-on to talk about REALITY-syn- existence, wouldn't it be useful to define what YOU mean by it.. objectively, first of all??
@DecassyJake The whole point of experiments in science is to test your assumptions to make sure your assumptions agree with reality. Hypotheses & theories are BOTH explanations. In science, in order to graduate from a hypothesis to a theory, your hypothesis has to withstand an experiment where your hypothesis can be falsified & subjected to the peer review so it can be duplicated & verified.
Bill has done none of this all he has are ASSUMPTIONS, a bunch of hand waving & wordplay. Gaede fails.
@justintempler By what standard can you test an un-provable- an hypothesis...? Underneath all your posturing or your theories is ASSUMPTION.. If you say Hawkings sayeth, or Gaede, and that proves an assumption, or that I ran an experiment, and that proves my assumption..so what, that's your opinion Are you listening..? Once you have made assumptions, set your defs, then you explain reality..verification from your favourite scientist, be it Einstein or Gaede, or an experiment, is not the point.
@DecassyJake "By what standard can you test an un-provable- an hypothesis...?"
You can't even construct a logical question? If it is unprovable, asking for a standard is nonsensical. You don't use the word proof in science. All you can to is test if your assumption is true/false. If your assumptions are true then your hypothesis becomes a theory.
If everything is built on assumptions & you throw out the mechanism to test the truth of falsity of your assumptions then you aren't doing science.
@justintempler Truth or falsity..basically comes down to your OPINION..all of science is built upon assumptions...What is YOUR def of assumption..? Or Hypothesis..rather??
@DecassyJake My hypothesis is you are disconnected from reality.
You went from dedicating songs to Stef, talking about Stefgasms, & organizing meetups for FDR, to getting banned from their forums after you became obsessed with Gaede.
I go to your Facebook page and you claim to have studied at Muirhead Community College. small problem, you seem to be their only fan and student. As far as I can tell the school doesn't exist.
My opinion is you are incapable of having a rational conversation.
@justintempler HAhaha..! Dude..jeezus..I dedicated songs,, met up with FDR peops, posted vids that FDR peops didn't like..so what..?? I'm glad to have been associated with FDR...(up to a point!!!)But I realised that the term "Stefgasm" which I'm (hilariously)ashamed to have coined, has COME to mean to me, a rather unhealthy cultish pavlovian response!!!...so what..?My college- bulldozed away many years ago..original name- Northeast Technical College..around the Croxteth Park area of Liverpool..
@DecassyJake Stick to the original points, the whole point of my responding to Fin's video!!..You think I am an uncritical supporter of Bill Gaede..this is simply not true..When he visited me last year, we took up contrary positions when it came to his human extinction theory..I appreciate his methodology concerning physics/philosophy, not so much when it comes to anthropology/economics..on my Rational Science facebook group we had QUITE a debate concerning those matters..since you don't even..
@DecassyJake Define what you mean by "reality"..or don't understand what you mean.. You like to dig up unrelated non-contextual background information on people to "WIN" arguments..Stef likes doing that as well, I have noticed..if he can't win fair,accuses people of mental unsoundness..this dirty trick.he attempted onthe messy hatchet job on fatfist's article "there are no absolutes.." Dude..I don't follow Bills style, and I don't follow Stif's, I like to take the piss out of preists tho!!
@DecassyJake "You like to dig up unrelated non-contextual background information..."
It is very contextual. It explains why the person I'm trying to communicate with seems incapable of having a rational conversation.
You seem intent on redefining words so you can create your own individual version of reality, Having a conversation with you, (just like Bill) quickly devolves into a word game & when you have settled on a definition you can't even follow through without contradicting yourself.
@DecassyJake You're amusing. You make fun of Brian Cox 4saying he can make predictions about the end of the universe but when Gaede rambles on about the "fact" (making predictions) that we are the last humans & that we will soon be extinct you ignore it. HYPOCRITE much?
Your whole "rational" science movement is built on the foundation of SMEARING people like Einstein & Hawkings. Any science you don't like you SMEAR and your solution is to construct new definitions & see conspiracies everywhere.
@justintempler I don't agree with Bill on everything, on his approach to methodology in physics I do tho!! Einstein and Hawkings, etc..don't define, and are idiots..for their absurd explanations for phenomena..If you look into Bill's vids, fatfists articles etc..and think for yourself, instead of simply embracing contradictory thinking, you might agree...otherwise..define or be damned..
@DecassyJake Gaede's main problem is he contradicts himself, he can make all the definitions he wants but if he contradicts his own definitions it's the same as not having any definitions.
Gaede's 2nd problem is his rejection of evidence so he has no way to separate fact from fiction so he ends up believing in imaginary objects that don't exist.
Gaede's 3rd problem is he's an asshole
So whatever "truth" Gaede may have is destroyed & he gives people MORE reasons to believe in Einstein et al
@DecassyJake I have to do research how else would I know that I'm ".. one of fin's slobbering lap-dogs.."
You should less time being a hypocrite and smearing people and more time trying to develop a legitimate scientific theory to replace the ones you don't like.
@justintempler Dude, Stick to the point..this is about the methodology behind science, and the crap you talk when that methodology doesn't define clearly..The fact that you are a douchebag..you yourself present, by being a slobbering lapdog, smear merchant in action. Legitimate, is what you think you are by trusting your mother and sucking up the likes of Brian Cox...
@DecassyJake Dude, I happy to start with the methodology. I read YOUR paper about your inability to define shape which lies at the heart of your definition of object.
I'm also point to Gaede contradicting himself when he calls air an object, when he calls his imaginary ropes objects. Exposing the hypocrisy of criticizing Brian Cox 4 doing something that you yourself are guilty of is not sucking up 2 Brian Cox.
The point is you FAIL at logic, your history is just a confirmation of expectations
@DecassyJake Labeling me a smear merchant when I deal with FACTS makes you a smear merchant.
I research facts when I want to judge the credibility of sources.You were born around 1972. Your profile has you graduating high school Class of 1983 and graduating college Class of 1988 and you can't spell or get the name of either school correct. you believe in conspiracy theories, your obsessive behavior gets you banned from FDR when you flip flop on Stef after being obsessed with Gaede
@justintempler Temp..I have no interest in you...who the fuck are you anyway??..You act like a low life tabloid scumbucket..Having no arguments..you attempt to muck-rake and insinuate..your trolling is all on show here. Rabid lap dog flunky..at least you appear to delete, what I assume, even you are ashamed to type, before we can read it!!
@justintempler You don't really have any argument..and you have proved that by trying to attack character, not the points I raised..you loooose! What a pathetic strategem!
@DecassyJake I'm interested in how you would define; object and assumption/hypothesis. As you seem to be implying standard definitions are inadequate or wrong.
It seems, like bill, you wriggle out of supporting your argument by decrying others for not understanding or being ignorant. Yet you do nothing to enlighten them.
@SKELTER1SKELTER Check out, youstupid relatavist out..Bill doesn't wriggle, he DEFINES. I'm not IMPLYING standard defs are wrong..they are not even coherent definitions.."enlighten" yourself!
@DecassyJake That's what I'm trying to do. I thought I'd start by asking someone who purports to be an expert. But bill couldn't help so I thought I'd ask you ;)
I am genuinely interested in 'the explanatory scientific method'. Dubious but interested, and I'm about to watch the vid on it.
@SKELTER1SKELTER No-body is an expert, no-one is an authority, the Brian Cox's of the world..would have you believe that however. Fin and Templer just follow them..they don't understand what they are talking about..they are pissed at Bill's calling a spade a spade attitude, and his general impatience and bellicose response at people quoting authoritative opinion at him. I don't bow down to Bill uncritically...either!!
@DecassyJake ", the Brian Cox's of the world..would have you believe that however. Fin and Templer just follow them."
I didn't even know who Brian Cox was until I saw the RS post. Your jump to the conclusion that I follow Brian Cox and think of him as an authority, shows you have difficulty in rationally understanding other people's arguments. The only thing I was pointing out was the HYPOCRISY of doing the exact same thing that you accuse Brian Cox of doing.
@DecassyJake "What is a concept..pray tell..define it for us..?"
We don't "pray" in science Jake. Who is this "us"?
Are you speaking for other ignorant people like yourself?
Concepts are what separate us from animals, your inability do understand concepts reflects on your lack of intelligence and the constant need to have people tell you what it is.
@DecassyJake Any person with more experience, knowledge/information, skill or insight than the person asking questions, possess valuable expertise. Even if they reject the label/term 'expert'.
I do think Brian Cox is an expert and we come from the same city. So avoid pressing my Mancunian buttons :)
What are your thoughts on things that are both 'objects' and 'concepts'? Specifically Art, which can be defined as 'the embodiment of concept'?
@SKELTER1SKELTER Concepts are only in your head..specifically neuronal behaviour..the NEURONE is the object for it has shape. I like to think of the bike being the object, and cycling the concept. The more you look into Bill's and Fatfist's stuff..etc, the more you see characters like Brian Cox, for what they are..preists mouthing scripture. But don't take my word for it, look for yourself! ;-)
@DecassyJake The analogy of a cycle does not apply to art. If it did then painting or sculpting would be the concept. They are not. They are in fact the method used to visualize/actualize concepts. The result is an object that transfers a concept from the mind of the artist into that of the observer. Art is more than mere shape, and inseparable from the concepts it embodies.
@SKELTER1SKELTER A word is a concept..the neurones and their chemical processes are actions that the objects-the neurones- go thru when they receive signals down wires in the brain(more movement) in response to signals related thru ropes, atoms(and/or particle balls if you like) from an object, a painting, sculpture, bookpage, music player, whatever..Movement is not an object, it's what an object does. As cycling is to a bike.
@DecassyJake Sorry, I can't make sense of your comment after "...atoms(and/or particle balls if you like)...". I agree "...Movement is not an object, it's what an object does." As long as you define movement -in this case- as ; the transmission of a concept from a work of art to an observers mind. But I see no relevance to the subject of whether art is both concept and object simultaneously.
The cycle analogy is inadequate as art does not fit neatly into this binary categorization.
@SKELTER1SKELTER Concepts don't exist...concepts are a set of relations, or the repeated positions of neurons in a brain.Think of a concept like information on a chip, or harddrive, Definitions; Object- that which has the simple property of shape, distinguishing the object from it's surroundings. Exist-Concept concerning the relations objects to each other. A picture of sunflowers is stored information- objects that have been so arranged that when a human see's it they translate the information.
@DecassyJake You are so nearly there. "A picture of sunflowers is stored information- objects that have been so arranged that when a human see's it they translate the information." Ergo; Art is the embodiment of concept. Thus concept can exist sans-brain.
The information is encoded into the fabric of the object and 'exists' (though intangibly) regardless of observation and translation. Therefore it is consistent to define Art as both concept and object.
@DecassyJake Your definitions are wrong. An IDEA is your brain in motion. A concept is the realization of that idea. Conceptualization does not occur until the idea is acted upon.
Hence the phrase 'conceptual art'. The object (work of art) is the concept.
Concepts can exist in an active (motion/brain) state or a static (unobserved/storage) state. Ideas need a brain, concepts do not.
@SKELTER1SKELTER There is no such thing as a concept..only an object..you may call it art if you like, but that doesn't make it anything more or less than an OBJECT!
@SKELTER1SKELTER Define "concept"..who cares about art other than humans..? What does concept add to an object..to make it different than what an object is defined as-that which has shape..or boundary, surface,..Atoms stay atoms..we see meanings in their re-configurations..that's all.
@DecassyJake Who cares about science/Science but humans? The whole point is we are sentient. The universe is coloured by our perceptions. Art would not exist without us.
Therefore it cannot be neatly categorized as a simple thing of shape. It is more than that because we made it so. Even without a human brain to ascribe meaning (observer) the created piece still contains concept encoded as shape.
@DecassyJake Bill, is that you? Or has DecassyJake appropriated your whispering priest analogy?
I don't deal with absolute truth and neither does science. Before I define (for you) what I mean by reality and existence, perhaps you could expand upon your 'syn' abbreviation?
@finlarg" I don't deal with absolute truth and neither does science." FINALLY some sanity..i'm curious, if you looked into Bill's work a BIT deeper, you would have found his def for existence-syn-reality. ..but first, you should have a decent def for OBJECT. SYNONYM's won't do!
@DecassyJake Funnily enough I haven't had time to trawl though ALL of Gaede's material! This is why I don't comment on ALL aspects of his claims. I stick to what I'm familiar with. My main issue with him is his blatant straw-manning of the theories he claims to demolish.
"...you should have a decent def for OBJECT..." Why? What's wrong with the existing definitions which most people understand? If you and Bill want to invent a new word for something he's dreamed up, then DO IT!
@finlarg "What's wrong with the existing definitions which most people understand?" If you want to communicate clearly what you mean, in you hypo-theory, in english..then allowing equivocation, ambiguousness, to muddy your terms, defeats your aim. If that was it..?..I.E when asked what pulls a pencil to the floor..if you say "gravity"..that is not an object- it's concept meaning "attraction". It is a non answer..You should have said "I have no idea!" if you want to be HONEST!?
@DecassyJake A concept like attraction..is no better than saying "LOVE"...honesty, "hate"..physics is about why objects behave in such manners..logically simply, it is about the shape of them..not magic power "love" or "attraction."
The title "making no assumptions" implies that you know the truth about reality..or at least I ASSUME you do..please tell me how you can make such a statement..r u a GOD..? ;-P
@DecassyJake The title of the video refers to the METHOD of enquiry, ie not being prejudiced or jumping to conclusions. I make no claim to know the absolute truth of reality, but this method is MORE likely to make real progress than, for example, insisting that everything in the universe must be either a concept or an object and NOTHING else!
What's YOUR def of a concept..Finbar?
DecassyJake 1 week ago
@DecassyJake Why when you clearly state: "There is no such thing as a concept.."?
You want him to define something you don't believe in? Whatever he says you will not accept it.
This is why your Science is so cocked-up, you claim consistency of terms is vital, but your definitions change to suit your current mental state and the line of argument. You are also happy to outright deny the existence of concepts when you are cornered.
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 week ago
Dollars to doughnuts, you hav'nt seen this article, pointing out the true strength of WTC1 and 2, enjoy! 911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/they-lied-about-trusses.htm
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8&feature=share Check this, debunkers!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
Use your brain Fin. Before you attempt to debunk watch out that you're not just been confidence tricked by the establishment...
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Are you suggesting that I put no thought into the making of my videos? Do you think I'm incapable of evaluating evidence and thinking things through to their logical conclusion?
Why don't you try to apply some of your own advice to the way you follow and support Gaede?
Don't you think that your view of 'the establishment' is a little paranoid?
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg Don't you think that your acceptance of the mainstream, a little knee jerk..?
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Not at all. I used to be into all kind of conspiracy theories, re-incarnation, karma and was highly critical of science. But part of me wasn't content to simply accept what the 9/11 truthers, the Alex Jone's, the Alan Alfords, etc word for it without checking and checking again. I found that the quality of the research of the non-orthodox was very often seriously flawed. There was a lot of cherry picking and side stepping of important objections...
finlarg 3 weeks ago
...So slowly, gradually I revised and refined my position, and it is currently aligned a lot closer to the mainstream than it used to be. There is a lot wrong with the mainstream, but I submit that there is a lot MORE wrong with the likes of Gaede, the fundamentally religious, the hollow earthers, the moon landing deniers, the chemtrail believers etc etc etc...
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg Secrecy in gov is the norm, false flags and coverups are the tools of the establishment, political and scientific- even in fringe groups like the Electric Universe, they suppress dissent. Conspiracy around 911 isn't a theory, it's a fact. Hiding info, like the U.S Gov did around the collapse of Building 7, saying it was because of "national security", that is a conspiracy to hide pertinent information which would EXPLAIN, what happened.
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake So how do YOU explain the fact that most conspiracy videos don't show pictures or footage of the side of WTC7 which was badly damaged by fire and falling debris, but instead they concentrate on the other side and make noises about a 'few small fires'?
I'm not saying the official account of what happens is 100% accurate and complete, but many of the 'truthers' are experts in no more than cherry picking information to fit their conspiracy and ignoring all that doesn't.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg You are nit-picking cherries around 911 here..Fact; 2 planes could not have achieved the taking down of 3 buildings that day..because of all of the secrecy and inadequate inquiry..what could have really conceivably happened, will have to wait till the U.S is ready for an independent scientific inquiry. How two planes never even slowed down as they melted into a steel building..and people just accept that..blame shitty physics ed..as your vid and thread so obviously displays!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Nit picking? Come on now Jake... I cited one example of WHY I became skeptical of the 911 conspiracy claims and you have avoided addressing it! I already said that we still don't know EXACTLY what happened.
I don't see how you can claim that 2 planes could NOT have caused the observed destruction, yet you cite shitty physics education to SUPPORT your claims!
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg I make no claims, I deny the "claims" of the "Planer" conspiracy theory..I say nope. Propose something more plausible than two planes knocking down 3 (and more) buildings, because the official MAINSTREAM explanation aint cutting it!!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Since you mentioned plausibility how do you think planting large numbers of explosives in 2 buildings and detonating them in such a way that it looks like the plane damage caused the collapse, sounds?
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg Aluminum tail and wing tips slicing thru steel beams sounds plausable to you..? Roll the tape back..can a hijacked 767, (or 2!) be left un-molested in U.S airspace for long enough AND perform such insane manoeuvres.. staying intact enough at near macht speed at near sea level..to melt into a steel matrixed double walled (wtc1 and 2 were effectively 4 buildings) structure??? EVEN if it were possible for planes to cause such damage and fly like high performance tungsten tipped missiles..
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake are you seriously believing that these buildings were weak enough to lose totally their integrity within hrs and fall like dried up sandcastles in the direction of most resistance..the official conspiracy story was a coverup from start to finish...QUESTION AUTHORITY!! I aint even mentioned nuclear blast-(from the side)"proofed",WTC7 !!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake 1. I DO question authority.
2. A building doesn't have to 'totally lose it's integrity' to collapse. You should be aware of the huge mass of the portion of building above the impact damage. Once that starts to collapse, what else would you expect to happen?
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You can't just avoid my question and counter it with one of your own, and still retain credibility.
"Aluminum tail and wing tips slicing thru steel beams sounds plausable to you..?" Not as an isolated sentence - where did you get this nugget of an account from?
Precisely WHAT 'insane manoeuvres'?
WHO is saying that the planes flew 'like high performance tungsten tipped missiles'?
"...melt into a steel... structure..." This is a vague description, to say the least.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg Watch the vids and learn...the wings and tail themselves could not make a wing and tail shaped HOLE...As for insane manoeuvres, ask a pilot of an airliner whether they can go as fast at near sea level as at 30 thousand ft..and why not..!!? The "planes" entered the buildings with no resistance, the holes occurred AFTER they entered, not as the planes entered...Below the impact zones the buildings were fully intact and stronger than the top stories..total integrity was lost, WHY?
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You're deluded. You've been listening to Gaede for too long.
watch?v=UULUQfEQFuU
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler You have no argument Temp, just trollish, naysayin!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake I got plenty of arguments. the main one being you can't come up with a theory that doesn't have more holes than the one you don't like.
You don't like the "plane theory" so I'm assuming you think they used explosives but you can't even begin to explain how the explosives got there or how they prevented them from going off while the fires burned...
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler You claim plane, I say how? you say a whole building or 3 collapsed because jet fuel weakened 3 or 4 floors..and the whole thing went POUFF...I don't have to make any counter claim, I just say bullshit, tell me another!!?..OH, building 7 didnt even get hit and went the same way..that proves your first claim.RIGGHHHT! I make no claim...I percieve the BS in the standard CLAIM tho!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake The link I just showed you explained building 7 but because YOU are too busy trolling you didn't even look at it.
And again, fine you don't want to believe the planes caused the twin towers collapse but anything you can't come up with any reasonable alternative. Anything you can come up with is going to have have more holes in it than the theory you reject.
How did they get the explosives up there? How did they prevent the explosives from from igniting with all the fires burning?
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "I make no claim...I percieve the BS in the standard CLAIM tho!!"
What makes you think you have any qualifications to decide anything pertaining to aviation, engineering and explosives? Do you do brain surgery too?
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler You have decided to accept the conspiracy theory as per the Government version of what happened..congrats, you have checked your brain at the gate..and the authorities have x-rayed and impounded it..!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You are the one that has his mind made up it's a conspiracy theory but yet you don't have ANY alternate explanations. You are the one that left his brain at the door.
You even want a new "scientific" investigation but you CLAIM to be an anarchist and a libertarian. Who do you propose to do this scientific investigation and who is going to pay for it. Obviously it can't be the government.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler If and when the people want it, and organise and pay for it, It will happen! I don't think you know what an anarchist or libertarian is...I'm getting a feel for people who don't know what a conspiracy IS!! When government keeps secrets- it's called a CONSPIRACY DOOFUS! People must CONSPIRE to hide information..the dogs that follow, are the apologists for the conspiracy of silence- they might not know what really happened, but they accept the scraps tossed them, and attack skeptics
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "If and when the people want it, and organise and pay for it"
EXACTLY Jake, so where is this fund to pay for a new 911 investigation? Where can we send our contributions? Oh that's right it doesn't exist.
The conspiracy I see is a bunch of cranks getting PAID to go on lecture tours selling books, t shirts and DVDs and using ignorant people like you to get rich. They don't want to pay for a new investigation. It's all about preying on the ignorance of people like you to make money.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler It's amazing how many folk delude themselves into believing they are capable of judging the merits of claims involving expertise WAY beyond them!
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake The longer you avoid addressing specific questions such as: Why didn't the fires set off the alleged explosives? -the less credible your arguments are.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Watch the vids and learn..." I have watched a VERY large number of videos about 9/11 over the last 11 years. The thing I have done, which you appear not to have done, is that I kept asking the question: Could the 9/11 'truthers' be wrong? I found that many of the claims made do NOT stand up to scrutiny. For example you still haven't acknowledged my question regarding WHY the conspiracists only show ONE side of building 7?
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@finlarg Dimitri Khalosov has some interesting information about how those buildings could be brought down without explosives in them..but I will say without seeing any video tapes, if you tell the story of how two planes demolished 3 super tough modern steel framed building, as per the Governmental conspiracy theory..it sounds like horse shit right there..the Madrid building fire is a good case to compare 911 with.
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "...the Madrid building fire is a good case to compare 911 with." You're having a laugh, aren't you? How can a realistic comparison be made when airliners crashed into one, but not the other? Don't you think that it's plausible that the impact of the planes caused structural damage which was worsened by the ensuing fires?
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@finlarg To bring down a building..demo experts don't usually blow a hole near the TOP of a building do they..!?? They usually under cut the bases don't they??!!..The relative light weights of the tops would have probably just slid off the lower section..when have you ever heard of a building being demolished or collapsing because of damage at the top of it..??
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Firstly I don't subscribe to the WTC demolition theory. The twin towers both collapsed with the top section crumbling at the point of impact, then as the tremendous mass of the top part of the towers fell, the remaining parts of the towers collapsed from the point of impact down. This is unlike any demolition.
If the plan was to demolish the towers with explosives, why go to the trouble of ALSO crashing planes into them?
finlarg 2 weeks ago
Continued:
"The relative light weights of the tops would have probably just slid off the lower section..." The keyword here is 'probably'. Are you a structural engineer? Or a physicist? You need to bear in mind the enormous weight of the top section, the force of gravity and then ask yourself WHAT would cause it to 'slide off'?
Seriously dude, I'm not a physicist either, but I've looked long and hard at the plausibility of many conflicting accounts and theories about what happened.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@finlarg I'm not the guy who KNOWS exactly how or precisely why buildings fell on 911..he who accepts the mainstream conspiracy theory- that's what it is, omissions and all, to overlook the over-performance of two civil airliners,(by the accounts of engineers and pilots who fly them) and the under-performance of 3 steel framed buildings which fell with virtually no resistance in the direction of most resistance. U might not imagine why or how it really happened..but the original scenario is BS.
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
justintempler 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "which fell with virtually no resistance in the direction of most resistance."
Jake we have this thing called GRAVITY things are supposed to fall straight down into their own footprint. Try lifting a 300 pound barbell and see which direction it falls when your weak muscles give out.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Right..and hundreds of ft of steel offer no resistance to the lightweight in comparison TOPS of the buildings..stick a fork in it already, it's DONE!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Temp..I have no interest in you.." a few minutes later "Right..and hundreds of ft of steel ..."
See you're a hypocrite just like your pal Gaede.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler You are of no interest, it's your arguments that I take issue with..what where they AGAIN..?? Trying to destroy reasoned arguments with strawmen and appeals to authority and personal attacks..? If after you act like this I call you a sleazeball..without knowing anything of your previous record on the net..i think it justified! ;-)
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Trying to destroy reasoned arguments.."
You don't have any reasoned arguments. You don't have any theories. If pointing out your contradictions is a personal attack here's another.
On your Facebook wall you post the YouTube video
Did "Blowback" Cause 9/11? by the Southern Avenger. watch?&v=sjqGBBFiowE
So not only do you believe in conspiracy but you believe in a conspiracy where the Muslim attackers made it "look" like airplanes and fires took down the towers?
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake This is not done - you don't seem to appreciate the fact that dozens of floors ABOVE the point of impact had a considerable mass, which when falling PULVERIZED the concrete and sheared much of the steel below. And before you say how could that happen at free-fall speed - it didn't. There was a lot of friction and a lot of mass, which could only go one way. Downwards. No explosives required.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@finlarg CONCRETE may be pulverised..but not STEEL! Dozens and hundreds and hundreds of welded thick steel frame panels, not to mention a core composed of hundreds of steel beams in virtually independently structured towers in both WTC1 and 2...did I even suggest that thermite or conventional explosives could have brought down ALL 3 buildings..?? Dimitri Khalosov has the best reason HOW...Why is a different matter, and that deserves dozens and dozens of cases being brought to court..IMHO.
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Did I say steel was pulverized? Please go back and read my comment again.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@finlarg The steel below the impact zone was essentially turned to dust, offering NO RESISTANCE to the tops, check this.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" theory? Seriously?
That theory is so crazy even Steven "Thermite" Jones tore it apart.
"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers"
tiny . c c / ut9p1
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Who's talking about "mini nukes"?..Not I or Dimitri..this is the strawman...only full sized devices coupled to the ground and supporting structures of 1, 2 and 7..could have taken them down in such a way-according to Dimitri. not to say that it wasn't a botched job, somewhat..because of the holes in 1 and 2. In this scenario, perhaps, the gov brought down at least 2 of the buildings at the THREAT of mini nukes being in the buildings and detonating high above Manhatten...
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Who's talking about "mini nukes"?..Not I or Dimitri."
Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [1/26] watch?v=eAV_BUQoGBw
You idiot you throw his name out there based on one YouTube video and you haven't even investigated what his theory says? Use your brain for a second.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake ".only full sized devices coupled to the ground"
If explosions happened at the ground level, the bottom of the building would explode and the collapse would begin at the bottom and work their way up the building which exactly the OPPOSITE of what we see with the top down collapse in the videos.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler YOU haven't looked at Dimitri's testimony, if you had, you would know what happens when an underground nuclear explosion connects- is channelled, by rock..and STEEL..rock and metal..anything is turned to gas and microscopic dust, and pulverised material, in fractions of a second. IONISING radiation is absorbed underground. The relatively intact tops fell at near free fall mainly onto DUST...
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "YOU haven't looked..."
Yes I have tiny . cc / nffz1
Did we have relatively intact tops? nope.
Did building collapse from the bottom up? nope
Do we have radioactive craters? nope
Could you pinpoint individual building in the WTC complex? nope
I could go on but it's pointless. Now I can see why you got banned and had your posts deleted from FDR. You aren't capable of having a rational discussion.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Temp, keep taking the psyc-medicine!!, You are lying, you haven't looked at Dimitri's stuff at all..or you would know that all of your points are answered in his videos and books, jeff prager also has some books out as well on the topic!! The tops were intact, more or less until they crashed to the ground..since what was below them offered NO resistance...I have no idea what you mean by "pinpointing individual buildings" Plus your URL doesn't work..strawmen mini nukes not either!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Watch out for FDR, they tend to be extremists. They are a bit like the scientologists of philosophy...they treat athiesm and science as religion, and censor and clamp down on any real dissent...Thru them I was introduced to anarchism and libertarianism..but they spin it and brand it according to their leader Stef's preferences and approach to psycology and his controlling nature. It's groupthink in action..thanks, but no-thanks!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "pinpointing individual buildings"
My link works fine. Maybe I have to explain that you have to remove the spaces? I figured you were smart enough to figure that out.
"We know that a 150 kiloton deep underground nuclear explosion creates a cavity of final “secondary” size roughly 100 meters in diameter"
The distance between the North Tower and the South Tower is only 50 meters so any detonation would affect multiple buildings.The WTC buildings were spaced too close together.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Your just not looking and listening are are you..? The charges were placed at the CORNERS, far enough away from delivery tunnels and the other buildings so as not to damage the individual towers..if you had watched his video series and read his book, you would know this!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "The charges were placed at the CORNERS,"
Duh the corners means they are CLOSER to the adjacent buildings. You fail at logic.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler No it still just means that you havn't looked at Dimitri's diagrams, still havn't looked or read any of his material more than one vid, and a Steve Jones strawman hatchet job..try again!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Demolition of very tall buildings is more problematical. The “crushed zone” of a 150Kt nuclear detonation will only extend to a height of about 300 Meters."
The Twin Towers were over 400 Meters. So your hypothetical 150kt blast leaves untouched the top quarter of the building. Bigger blast = bigger crater = the more buildings affected.And tell us genius how did they plant these bombs underground?
You can't even see the contradictions in your own conspiracy theory.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Check Dimitri out, before you go off half cocked AGAIN!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Ignoring the fact that the 911 collapses don't show any of the symptoms of a nuclear underground detonation...
What part of the buildings being too close together do you not understand?
You have a paranoid obsession with a mistrust of government to the point of denying reality. Which explains what attracted you to FDR and subsequently your new buddy Gaede.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Tut tut Templer, you are not looking at Khalosov's stuff....your nickname now is Justindenial...! LOL
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Khalosov's stuff..."
You can't even spell his name right Khalezov.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Let me give u a hand.. youtube.com/watch?v=VheHGcDHzyk&feature=related
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You helped me out all right. You keep showing how ignorant you are
"the delivery tunnels" would mean that any nuclear device under one building would mean any blast would be directed to all buildings at the same time!
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Now you are rambling...and not looking at Dimitri's diagrams. Don't you think that if the nuclear demo scheme was arranged, this wasn't sorted out?? In this case the 911 operation, was a botched job. I'm not 100% sure about Dimitri's idea's on why and even exactly how the 911 demolitions took place..but it remains the most feasable method I have heard of yet.
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake but it remains the most feasable method I have heard of yet.
I can't help you there, if that's what you want to believe, knock yourself, write a song about it and invite Bill to play along You can form a new group Dueling Idiots.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler You are the one who BELIEVES(what he's told by the government and mainstream media, uncritically, it seems)...where's the skeptic, wherfore art the open minded??...Don't worry Temp, go back to sleep.. reactionary's like you, don't like doubt, stay cosy snug in your cotton brained ignorance!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "CONCRETE may be pulverised..but not STEEL!"
That would be true Einstein. The steel wasn't pulverized. I found the explanation for you on page 2 of a thread entitled "BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories"
tiny . c c / p4mfm
The problem is you start out with a strawman theory that steel was pulverized which goes to show you don't even have a clue what the "mainstream" explanation is.You are arguing against your own ignorance.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Well, what is so remarkable is just how 'they' managed to set the explosives to PERFECTLY correspond to what would happen if the buildings were hit at different heights. AMAZING. As it happens, the second building was hit much lower down than the first. Strangely, this would tend to make it fall BEFORE the first building. Yes, and that is EXACTLY what happened. Still, you stay in your twilight zone of evil geniuses and keep taking your medication.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui Don't straw man me man..I deny the claim of the plane..Look into the design of the buildings and check Dimitri Khalosov out..whatever brought down those behemoths, had to be a little more special than c4 and thermite..let alone aluminium tubes and jet fuel! HA! Why.. might be a twisty tail..for sure!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DecassyJake "..let alone aluminium tubes and jet fuel! HA!"
Some more education for you Jake
A 767 is made from 7075 aluminum alloy which has a tensile strength of 67-78 ksi.
The perimeter columns that broke were made from various grades of steel ranging from 50 to 65 ksi. So the 767 aluminum was stronger than the majority of the steel in the perimeter columns."
Ref NIST NCSART 1-3A, section 2.1.5.
tiny . c c / yqzqf
Damage to the structural supporting core + fire is all that was needed
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You are very stupid. I presume you think the aircraft were really diversionary tactics. LOL. As I said, what extraordinary foresight for the bombs to go off so as to PRECISELY match what would have happened if the buildings were hit at different heights. Your idiotic view is just as idiotic as those who think a child molesting, rapist mass murderer and racketeer established a religion of peace. LOL.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui You presume..I look at the facts.No PLANES could do this job..at least on their own...keep trusting the nightly news dumbass!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "...keep trusting the nightly news dumbass!"
Cuz trusting YouTube videos makes so much more sense!!! LuLz
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake There is always a problem when dealing with imbeciles and you are one. You probably think the moon landings were fake and that aliens have been abducting people and that the Jews are behind it all and that the holocaust was faked too. You are an idiot and being led by the nose by people making money and fame out of gullible twats. Look at a map why don't you; perhaps you'll see how off the mark you are.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui It kinda sounds like you are talking to the mirror there bub...go back to sleep!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Presumably you think the thousands of Imams screaming 'death to America' and are all US agents or maybe Zionists. Face it, there is no work ethic in Islam, it is a mafia system that relies on blackmail, dhimmis and slaves. The dhimmis of the ME have been bled dry so now the Muslims need another golden goose. They haven't produced anything for 1,000 years and counting. Islamocretinous countries are ALL madhouses. A herd of mad elephants and you wonder where the noise is coming from.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui Jake lives in the UK, I wonder if he thinks the London Bombings were an inside job too?
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler Yup. But then, when he starts looking like the fool he is he'll start squealing about it be 'deserved'. His logic is a bit like the holocaust deniers who at the same time call for one.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui Making a lot of ass-umptions there guys..work out your own "worldviews".. Independent thinkers scare sheep like you...keep chewing the green grass, and don't worry your woolly little heads. Beware the big bad islamic boxcutter terrorists!!..They don't hate you because you are free dumbasses..you don't even know what freedom IS..
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake The trouble is you are the dog barking up the wrong tree. You just look stupid, but like people who smell bad or can't spell, they don't realize that everyone else knows who's got the problem.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake LOL. 'independent thinking' doesn't mean believing in utter garbage. I doubt you've got an education beyond base level and as a result you are fodder for charlatans.
ritchloui 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui You have no leg to stand on there..who said I "believed" in anything here..keep taking the meds "freethinker"!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@ritchloui The sad thing is that there ARE so many charlatans about. The one's who reprt 90% accurately and then slip in their own 10% of garbage are the really insidious ones. It's a minefield out there and our friend Jake has blown himself up so many times!
TheMemeSpreader 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "Making a lot of ass-umptions there guys."
You're not even smart enough to look at people's profiles before "ass-umpting".
I've actually took the time look at your profile. You feature videos from Ron Paul about him predicting that the US will become a target for terrorists and one where he talks about "blowback" with his spat with Giuliani so must be proud of him for that but then you turn around contradict yourself & ramble on about insane 911 conspiracies.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler So I should check out what you watch on netfix, to work out out what you think??..Tempilton pecker-head!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake " So I should check out what you watch on netfix[sic]..
Jake if I had created a playlist of favorites on Netflix the answer would be YES. When you create a public profile and share it with strangers on the internet it's obviously there so people can understand "how you think" and to share things you are interested in.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@justintempler YAWN, You are a douche, you have no idea what I think about the videos, or why I like them..unless I comment, grasping at straws, you flounder. YOU have hit a brick wall in your brain, when it comes to trying to understand and critique the establishment..so you are turning inwards like Ed the ball Current, and bashing those who DON'T just accept modern narratives, contemporary scientific fashions. You are PATHETIC, Temp. Get a life!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Any term u might use to explain the workings of the U, needs refining away from the ambiguous multiple defs you get in a common dictionary. Not to define, suggests a conspiracy of sorts, like practised liars, hiding behind vague terms, the establishment attempt to trick you with word games, all the time. Some fall for it...have you fallen for it Fin?? Are you making excuses for your "elders and betters?"Even Einstein questioned the foundations of his "castle in the sky."
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You make it sound like I don't question authority at all. Far from it. The most important part of being skeptical is to question frequently. Including one's own assumptions.
Of course there are conspirators, charlatans and liars in all walks of life, but the thing about real science is that it is accountable. Claims are tested and verified. Or falsified. Try explaining that your buddy Bill.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg Yes i'm suggesting you put little rational thought into the making of your videos. You have a fantasy wizards approach to idealising mainstream thinking, politics and science..and use it as a brick to put down those who think outside the box and get to the heart of the matter!! You remind me of Edward Curran, he has nothing new to add to the discussion but instead just tries to assert some sort of muddle headed common sense acceptance of the powers that be."Don't worry about the gov!"
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
So, Bill doesn't get Relativity? I didn't hear Finlarg dispute the notion that space is supposed to "warp", only that time and space are COMBINED! So, we also supposedly have time "warping"? Is this the same as time travel?
kc0itf 3 weeks ago
@kc0itf Yes, both space and time are flexible (as far as we know) and it makes sense to combine them into spacetime. As far as time-travel is concerned, we are travelling through time already at a rate of 60 minutes per hour, as daft as that sounds. The presence of massive objects with strong gravity slows time down, just as it bends space. In other words it curves spacetime. But the slowing of time is only something we can observe happening to someone else. Our own clocks always run at the...
finlarg 3 weeks ago
...same rate. So if we could see the clock of someone far from the solar system's gravity, we'd see their clock running a little faster. But as far as they're concerned, their clocks are running at the normal speed of 60 mins per hour.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
@finlarg As you've already proved on Bill's vid, you're STILL an idiot!
"The slowing of time is only something we can observe happening to someone else." So you of course have a PICTURE of this occurring?
"So if we could see the clock of someone far from the solar system's gravity, we'd see their clock running a little faster." Huh? Why is that? If indeed the case, we're SLOWER than them, in which case you've just said we can't see OURSELVES! Could you clarify?
kc0itf 3 weeks ago
@finlarg As you've already proved on Bill's vid, you're STILL an idiot!
"The slowing of time is only something we can observe happening to someone else." So you of course have a PICTURE of this occurring?
"So if we could see the clock of someone far from the solar system's gravity, we'd see their clock running a little faster." Huh? Why is that? If indeed the case, we're SLOWER than them, in which case you've just said we can't see OURSELVES! Could you clarify?
kc0itf 3 weeks ago
A facile, vague analysis..which you could well apply to mainstream science as to any so called "psuedo-scientist." Finlarg doesn't know what an assumption is..an assumption, doesn't necessarily mean a "belief"..it just means "to take for granted certain facts or occurrences in order to explain a theory."Also if you don't define what you mean by an object, or existence, or concept..your explanation will not be clear..clear communication is the objective
DecassyJake 4 weeks ago
@DecassyJake This video deals with a number of topics, but doesn't go into any of them in huge depth. It's only 10 minutes long. I have made other videos which explore some of the themes further.
I know that assumptions are not the same as beliefs. My point (which you seem to have missed) is that in order to make sense of the world it is best to start out without assumptions or preconceptions. Allow reality to help build up your understanding.
The video is not just about Gaede.
finlarg 4 weeks ago
@finlarg Assumptions are inescapable..pre-conception may be premature, but what ever conceptions you conceive, they are all based upon ASSUMPTIONS...otherwise it's a religion, and your priest whispered in your ear THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Before you go-on to talk about REALITY-syn- existence, wouldn't it be useful to define what YOU mean by it.. objectively, first of all??
DecassyJake 4 weeks ago
@DecassyJake The whole point of experiments in science is to test your assumptions to make sure your assumptions agree with reality. Hypotheses & theories are BOTH explanations. In science, in order to graduate from a hypothesis to a theory, your hypothesis has to withstand an experiment where your hypothesis can be falsified & subjected to the peer review so it can be duplicated & verified.
Bill has done none of this all he has are ASSUMPTIONS, a bunch of hand waving & wordplay. Gaede fails.
justintempler 4 weeks ago
@justintempler By what standard can you test an un-provable- an hypothesis...? Underneath all your posturing or your theories is ASSUMPTION.. If you say Hawkings sayeth, or Gaede, and that proves an assumption, or that I ran an experiment, and that proves my assumption..so what, that's your opinion Are you listening..? Once you have made assumptions, set your defs, then you explain reality..verification from your favourite scientist, be it Einstein or Gaede, or an experiment, is not the point.
DecassyJake 4 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "By what standard can you test an un-provable- an hypothesis...?"
You can't even construct a logical question? If it is unprovable, asking for a standard is nonsensical. You don't use the word proof in science. All you can to is test if your assumption is true/false. If your assumptions are true then your hypothesis becomes a theory.
If everything is built on assumptions & you throw out the mechanism to test the truth of falsity of your assumptions then you aren't doing science.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler Truth or falsity..basically comes down to your OPINION..all of science is built upon assumptions...What is YOUR def of assumption..? Or Hypothesis..rather??
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake My hypothesis is you are disconnected from reality.
You went from dedicating songs to Stef, talking about Stefgasms, & organizing meetups for FDR, to getting banned from their forums after you became obsessed with Gaede.
I go to your Facebook page and you claim to have studied at Muirhead Community College. small problem, you seem to be their only fan and student. As far as I can tell the school doesn't exist.
My opinion is you are incapable of having a rational conversation.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler HAhaha..! Dude..jeezus..I dedicated songs,, met up with FDR peops, posted vids that FDR peops didn't like..so what..?? I'm glad to have been associated with FDR...(up to a point!!!)But I realised that the term "Stefgasm" which I'm (hilariously)ashamed to have coined, has COME to mean to me, a rather unhealthy cultish pavlovian response!!!...so what..?My college- bulldozed away many years ago..original name- Northeast Technical College..around the Croxteth Park area of Liverpool..
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Stick to the original points, the whole point of my responding to Fin's video!!..You think I am an uncritical supporter of Bill Gaede..this is simply not true..When he visited me last year, we took up contrary positions when it came to his human extinction theory..I appreciate his methodology concerning physics/philosophy, not so much when it comes to anthropology/economics..on my Rational Science facebook group we had QUITE a debate concerning those matters..since you don't even..
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Define what you mean by "reality"..or don't understand what you mean.. You like to dig up unrelated non-contextual background information on people to "WIN" arguments..Stef likes doing that as well, I have noticed..if he can't win fair,accuses people of mental unsoundness..this dirty trick.he attempted onthe messy hatchet job on fatfist's article "there are no absolutes.." Dude..I don't follow Bills style, and I don't follow Stif's, I like to take the piss out of preists tho!!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "You like to dig up unrelated non-contextual background information..."
It is very contextual. It explains why the person I'm trying to communicate with seems incapable of having a rational conversation.
You seem intent on redefining words so you can create your own individual version of reality, Having a conversation with you, (just like Bill) quickly devolves into a word game & when you have settled on a definition you can't even follow through without contradicting yourself.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler I haven't heard ONE definition from you yet...YOU are not following thru. Except in your creepy research n smear style!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You're amusing. You make fun of Brian Cox 4saying he can make predictions about the end of the universe but when Gaede rambles on about the "fact" (making predictions) that we are the last humans & that we will soon be extinct you ignore it. HYPOCRITE much?
Your whole "rational" science movement is built on the foundation of SMEARING people like Einstein & Hawkings. Any science you don't like you SMEAR and your solution is to construct new definitions & see conspiracies everywhere.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler I don't agree with Bill on everything, on his approach to methodology in physics I do tho!! Einstein and Hawkings, etc..don't define, and are idiots..for their absurd explanations for phenomena..If you look into Bill's vids, fatfists articles etc..and think for yourself, instead of simply embracing contradictory thinking, you might agree...otherwise..define or be damned..
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Gaede's main problem is he contradicts himself, he can make all the definitions he wants but if he contradicts his own definitions it's the same as not having any definitions.
Gaede's 2nd problem is his rejection of evidence so he has no way to separate fact from fiction so he ends up believing in imaginary objects that don't exist.
Gaede's 3rd problem is he's an asshole
So whatever "truth" Gaede may have is destroyed & he gives people MORE reasons to believe in Einstein et al
justintempler 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake I have to do research how else would I know that I'm ".. one of fin's slobbering lap-dogs.."
You should less time being a hypocrite and smearing people and more time trying to develop a legitimate scientific theory to replace the ones you don't like.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler Dude, Stick to the point..this is about the methodology behind science, and the crap you talk when that methodology doesn't define clearly..The fact that you are a douchebag..you yourself present, by being a slobbering lapdog, smear merchant in action. Legitimate, is what you think you are by trusting your mother and sucking up the likes of Brian Cox...
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Dude, I happy to start with the methodology. I read YOUR paper about your inability to define shape which lies at the heart of your definition of object.
I'm also point to Gaede contradicting himself when he calls air an object, when he calls his imaginary ropes objects. Exposing the hypocrisy of criticizing Brian Cox 4 doing something that you yourself are guilty of is not sucking up 2 Brian Cox.
The point is you FAIL at logic, your history is just a confirmation of expectations
justintempler 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Labeling me a smear merchant when I deal with FACTS makes you a smear merchant.
I research facts when I want to judge the credibility of sources.You were born around 1972. Your profile has you graduating high school Class of 1983 and graduating college Class of 1988 and you can't spell or get the name of either school correct. you believe in conspiracy theories, your obsessive behavior gets you banned from FDR when you flip flop on Stef after being obsessed with Gaede
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler Temp..I have no interest in you...who the fuck are you anyway??..You act like a low life tabloid scumbucket..Having no arguments..you attempt to muck-rake and insinuate..your trolling is all on show here. Rabid lap dog flunky..at least you appear to delete, what I assume, even you are ashamed to type, before we can read it!!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Jake than ignore me & stop responding to me.
As long as you keep defending Gaede you're fair game. You've even developed his habit of insulting people instead of addressing the argument.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "at least you appear to delete"
If you must know, I delete when I make spelling mistakes so my corrected post doesn't get marked as spam.
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You like to call yourself rational.
You describe yourself as an Anarchist, Libertarian and you're from Liverpool in the UK
You're convinced 9/11 was an inside job and you want a new "scientific" investigation because you disbelieve the "official" story.
If you are an ANARCHIST and LIBERTARIAN, who is going to do this investigation and pay for this? The US government and US taxpayers?
Besides redefining science, it seems you have redefined the words anarchist, libertarian too :p
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler You don't really have any argument..and you have proved that by trying to attack character, not the points I raised..you loooose! What a pathetic strategem!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake "You don't really have any argument.."
It wasn't meant to be an argument, it was an explanation which according to you qualifies as a scientific theory.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake I'm interested in how you would define; object and assumption/hypothesis. As you seem to be implying standard definitions are inadequate or wrong.
It seems, like bill, you wriggle out of supporting your argument by decrying others for not understanding or being ignorant. Yet you do nothing to enlighten them.
So please, enlighten me.
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER Check out, youstupid relatavist out..Bill doesn't wriggle, he DEFINES. I'm not IMPLYING standard defs are wrong..they are not even coherent definitions.."enlighten" yourself!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake That's what I'm trying to do. I thought I'd start by asking someone who purports to be an expert. But bill couldn't help so I thought I'd ask you ;)
I am genuinely interested in 'the explanatory scientific method'. Dubious but interested, and I'm about to watch the vid on it.
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER No-body is an expert, no-one is an authority, the Brian Cox's of the world..would have you believe that however. Fin and Templer just follow them..they don't understand what they are talking about..they are pissed at Bill's calling a spade a spade attitude, and his general impatience and bellicose response at people quoting authoritative opinion at him. I don't bow down to Bill uncritically...either!!
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake ", the Brian Cox's of the world..would have you believe that however. Fin and Templer just follow them."
I didn't even know who Brian Cox was until I saw the RS post. Your jump to the conclusion that I follow Brian Cox and think of him as an authority, shows you have difficulty in rationally understanding other people's arguments. The only thing I was pointing out was the HYPOCRISY of doing the exact same thing that you accuse Brian Cox of doing.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler I never thought you liked Cox..stop being para! What is a concept..pray tell..define it for us..?
DecassyJake 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DecassyJake "What is a concept..pray tell..define it for us..?"
We don't "pray" in science Jake. Who is this "us"?
Are you speaking for other ignorant people like yourself?
Concepts are what separate us from animals, your inability do understand concepts reflects on your lack of intelligence and the constant need to have people tell you what it is.
justintempler 1 week ago
@DecassyJake Any person with more experience, knowledge/information, skill or insight than the person asking questions, possess valuable expertise. Even if they reject the label/term 'expert'.
I do think Brian Cox is an expert and we come from the same city. So avoid pressing my Mancunian buttons :)
What are your thoughts on things that are both 'objects' and 'concepts'? Specifically Art, which can be defined as 'the embodiment of concept'?
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER Concepts are only in your head..specifically neuronal behaviour..the NEURONE is the object for it has shape. I like to think of the bike being the object, and cycling the concept. The more you look into Bill's and Fatfist's stuff..etc, the more you see characters like Brian Cox, for what they are..preists mouthing scripture. But don't take my word for it, look for yourself! ;-)
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake The analogy of a cycle does not apply to art. If it did then painting or sculpting would be the concept. They are not. They are in fact the method used to visualize/actualize concepts. The result is an object that transfers a concept from the mind of the artist into that of the observer. Art is more than mere shape, and inseparable from the concepts it embodies.
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER A word is a concept..the neurones and their chemical processes are actions that the objects-the neurones- go thru when they receive signals down wires in the brain(more movement) in response to signals related thru ropes, atoms(and/or particle balls if you like) from an object, a painting, sculpture, bookpage, music player, whatever..Movement is not an object, it's what an object does. As cycling is to a bike.
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Sorry, I can't make sense of your comment after "...atoms(and/or particle balls if you like)...". I agree "...Movement is not an object, it's what an object does." As long as you define movement -in this case- as ; the transmission of a concept from a work of art to an observers mind. But I see no relevance to the subject of whether art is both concept and object simultaneously.
The cycle analogy is inadequate as art does not fit neatly into this binary categorization.
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER Concepts don't exist...concepts are a set of relations, or the repeated positions of neurons in a brain.Think of a concept like information on a chip, or harddrive, Definitions; Object- that which has the simple property of shape, distinguishing the object from it's surroundings. Exist-Concept concerning the relations objects to each other. A picture of sunflowers is stored information- objects that have been so arranged that when a human see's it they translate the information.
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake You are so nearly there. "A picture of sunflowers is stored information- objects that have been so arranged that when a human see's it they translate the information." Ergo; Art is the embodiment of concept. Thus concept can exist sans-brain.
The information is encoded into the fabric of the object and 'exists' (though intangibly) regardless of observation and translation. Therefore it is consistent to define Art as both concept and object.
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER A Concept is your BRAIN in motion..nothing more, nothing less.
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Your definitions are wrong. An IDEA is your brain in motion. A concept is the realization of that idea. Conceptualization does not occur until the idea is acted upon.
Hence the phrase 'conceptual art'. The object (work of art) is the concept.
Concepts can exist in an active (motion/brain) state or a static (unobserved/storage) state. Ideas need a brain, concepts do not.
I maintain that concepts can also be objects.
SKELTER1SKELTER 3 weeks ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER There is no such thing as a concept..only an object..you may call it art if you like, but that doesn't make it anything more or less than an OBJECT!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Nice way to contradict yourself. So now your binary concept/object view of the universe has been reduced further to only objects.
Remember what I said about wriggling? Your all a-squirm mate!
You can call Art what you like but that does not alter the fact it is concept and object combined. Sorry you can't see that. You are so missing out.
If you think I am wrong then EXPLAIN why. Scientifically and in a consistent easy to understand way. As a Scientist should.
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 week ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER Define "concept"..who cares about art other than humans..? What does concept add to an object..to make it different than what an object is defined as-that which has shape..or boundary, surface,..Atoms stay atoms..we see meanings in their re-configurations..that's all.
DecassyJake 1 week ago
@DecassyJake Who cares about science/Science but humans? The whole point is we are sentient. The universe is coloured by our perceptions. Art would not exist without us.
Therefore it cannot be neatly categorized as a simple thing of shape. It is more than that because we made it so. Even without a human brain to ascribe meaning (observer) the created piece still contains concept encoded as shape.
You have failed to EXPLAIN anything.
PS: show me the shape of gravity.
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 week ago
@DecassyJake "A Concept is your BRAIN in motion.."
Like when you go cycling? (make sure you wear a helmet, mkay?)
or
Maybe you could just attach a vibrator to your head?
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@justintempler No argument, no dick, all pussy..Temp, that's how you come across!
DecassyJake 2 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Bill, is that you? Or has DecassyJake appropriated your whispering priest analogy?
I don't deal with absolute truth and neither does science. Before I define (for you) what I mean by reality and existence, perhaps you could expand upon your 'syn' abbreviation?
finlarg 4 weeks ago
@finlarg" I don't deal with absolute truth and neither does science." FINALLY some sanity..i'm curious, if you looked into Bill's work a BIT deeper, you would have found his def for existence-syn-reality. ..but first, you should have a decent def for OBJECT. SYNONYM's won't do!
DecassyJake 4 weeks ago
@DecassyJake Funnily enough I haven't had time to trawl though ALL of Gaede's material! This is why I don't comment on ALL aspects of his claims. I stick to what I'm familiar with. My main issue with him is his blatant straw-manning of the theories he claims to demolish.
"...you should have a decent def for OBJECT..." Why? What's wrong with the existing definitions which most people understand? If you and Bill want to invent a new word for something he's dreamed up, then DO IT!
finlarg 4 weeks ago
@finlarg "What's wrong with the existing definitions which most people understand?" If you want to communicate clearly what you mean, in you hypo-theory, in english..then allowing equivocation, ambiguousness, to muddy your terms, defeats your aim. If that was it..?..I.E when asked what pulls a pencil to the floor..if you say "gravity"..that is not an object- it's concept meaning "attraction". It is a non answer..You should have said "I have no idea!" if you want to be HONEST!?
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
@DecassyJake A concept like attraction..is no better than saying "LOVE"...honesty, "hate"..physics is about why objects behave in such manners..logically simply, it is about the shape of them..not magic power "love" or "attraction."
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DecassyJake 3 weeks ago
The title "making no assumptions" implies that you know the truth about reality..or at least I ASSUME you do..please tell me how you can make such a statement..r u a GOD..? ;-P
DecassyJake 1 month ago
@DecassyJake The title of the video refers to the METHOD of enquiry, ie not being prejudiced or jumping to conclusions. I make no claim to know the absolute truth of reality, but this method is MORE likely to make real progress than, for example, insisting that everything in the universe must be either a concept or an object and NOTHING else!
I'm bemused that I needed to explain that!
finlarg 1 month ago