Are real scientists expected to believe NIST?

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by elsyarango, Dec 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    If what your saying is true then why would you say it out loud? If a secret organization had the power to destroy the twin towers and cover it up. I wouldn't want to mess with them.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No. To debunk means to make nonsense clear as nonsense and help laymen understand scientific explanations. James Randi is the quintessential debunker. When we were members of CSICOP many years ago he often came to meetings of the L.A. chapter (one of the largest and held at Caltech) and demonstrated how the tricks of faith healers and other charlatans could be easily done using the people skills, technologies and other methods of professional magicians. The negative connotation of "debunker" is an attempt by those who have been debunked to discredit him. He damaged the careers of some very successful charlatans and they used their considerable resources to go after him, at one point suing CSICOP so he had to step down as an officer to avoid bankrupting the organization.

    It's a frustrating crusade. One of the high-profile faith healers, Peter Popoff, had his own UHF TV show (in the days before cable) and lost it after he was exposed. His "hearing aid" was a radio receiver and his wife was reading the data on pledge cards to him backstage. The conversations were played by a friendly TV reporter. Nonetheless after lying low for a few years he came back on the air without even changing his name.
    I see you used one of mine as an illustration--which was also ignored. I did not mean to give the impression that I had ignored yours. Sometimes it helps to have the same thing said in different voices. As for your credentials, you need to state them clearly. Most of us on SciForums are not professionals in the subjects we discuss so the members are not in the habit of assuming that, for example, someone who writes authoritatively about architectural engineering is a practicing architectural engineer. Sorry, but that's life on the internet.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Aliens?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    692
    the governments in-ability or unwillingness to give a decent investigation on the matter is probably the main reason I consider 9-11 conspiracy highly probable.

    They could end the whole damned conflict by releasing the various footage of the pentagon attacks. But they dont....they hide it under "classified"

    their actions do not support their claims
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2007
  8. Watcher Just another old creaker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    365
    Read-only, you said it... not AGAIN. I thought this conspiracy theory had been debunked long ago. I see absolutely nothing inconsistent about the NIST findings of how the buildings collapsed. It's completely consistent. I do know quite a bit about the mechanics of materials since I deal with the strength and fatigue of metals every day of my life. So, I have a hard time wasting any energy refuting these silly arguments. Not that I am a Bush apologist in any sense, but these conspiracy theories have no place in any sort of forensic evaluation of the WTC tower failures.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page