0
0

[–] DarkMath ago  (edited ago)

"I call you a liar"

In science you don't get to call people "liars". Actually the whole idea behind science is to have differing opinions. Right now as I write this brilliant physicists are researching things like Super Symmetry, String Theory, High Temperature Super Conductivity etc etc. There are a panoply of opinions about all of them. Just those 3 examples may total to 20+ differing theories. All but 3 of those you would call "lying". Is that even a useful accusation? Can you imagine Professor Jim Gates opening a lecture at CERN accusing Professor Mikhail Shifman of "lying"?

The worst I ever heard was Newton accusing Leibniz of plagiarism but that's not in the same ball-park. Scientists don't dismiss competing theories with the accusation their opponent is "lying". Even the thought is comical. You would get laughed out of a conference. By your definition AreWeSure

ABOUT 99% OF SCIENCE IS LYING.

Full Stop.

Grow the fuck up. Rewrite your response to me and please remove your accusation that I'm "lying".

:-D

0
0

[–] RweSure ago 

You know you were being intentionally deceptive. You know because I had already pointed it out.

You know that you argued perfect symmetry equaled a controlled demoliton and when I pointed out it was actually a highly asymmertrical collapse, you pretended you never made that argument.

How does that happen without you intentionally lying? Did you forget you using a deceptive video YET AGAIN?

0
0

[–] DarkMath ago  (edited ago)

"How does that happen without you intentionally lying? "

Easy. In my theory of the collapse I'm not lying. For example asymmetry vs symmetry. While you are certainly correct not all building implosions are symmetric or are engineered to collapse within their on own footprint that outcome is VERY common. Yes I shouldn't have said virtually every implosion is like that but you get my point.

Also in my theory of the collapse of WTC 7 the penthouse on the roof situated "on the left" is a demolished first while the building is still rigid to nullify its effect on an otherwise highly symmetrical building. It collapsing first isn't enough to make any rational observer think the entire collapse was asymmetrical at least from my perspective that the collapse was a controlled demolition. Yes that penthouse indicated the core was collapsed "left side" first if you will. But the core is not the exterior. By the time the outer shell is brought down both left and right of the core have been compromised. The outer shell goes down symmetrically with just a slight inward tilt to make it collapse in its own footprint.

Two different theories of the collapse will have wildly different explanations for things. That's just how science and engineering work. For some reason as an example I think of when U.S. weapon designers reverse engineered German technology after WWII. There are several examples of pieces of weapons copied lock stock and barrel but had no purpose because they were missing a crucial piece. The US engineers had mistaken its function and added completely useless non-existent "feature" and unnecessary weight for no reason. You would probably say either the US or German engineers were "lying".

:-D