Chander

Jun 15 2010, 12:16 PM

I'm glad that you're glad. Now since we agree, that means you concur in my observation that the Hez vid, "does not show an event that is physically possible."

Now that we've got that straight, how is it that you rely on this vid to support your belief in planes?

Quote:

 

I was waiting for him to respond to what you had to say.

Quote:

 

The apparent problem with Chander is that he's cocky to begin with,and then he takes additional comfort in "popular mechanics". He also indulges in rhetorical devices, seemingly for expedient resolution (and gratification?), with little concern for consensus and objectivity. Now, if he wants to exercise physical intuition, it's fine by me. But that ATTITUDE of his... we're NOT here to pwn each other, are we? We're here to get our COLLECTIVE story straight, and for the scientific method to work at all, one MUST open up to teachers and peers.

In Chander's case, he needs to acknowledge that he still has a LOT to learn. When the general public tries to "do physics", it is naturally prone to misconceptions and false analogies. I am totally willing to discuss these matters with you guys (either give you an authoritative lecture, or have a peer-to-peer Q&A session) -- but it won't work if the good will on the other side is lacking. Not like it's about me, anyway. It's a general matter of getting along, and getting things done TOGETHER.

Most people suck at it (and all the moreso when it comes to controversial matters such as 9/11), and that's why our society and culture is such a mess. But if it's "science" that we're talking about here, then cockiness is RIGHT OUT. Just watch where you're going, and watch each other -- there needs to be a zero tolerance policy on trolling in the community (or at least in those parts of it where you can make a difference).

Now, Jeff, do you want me to specifically address Chander's post, as if I was replying to him? Or maybe you can sort this out all by yourself? You CAN see what he's doing wrong, right? This paragraph is a description that's supposed to go with the Sandia documentary video(Phantom jet impacting a block of concrete at 480 mph).

I provided this illustration in my writeup because the experiment is very well documented, and MUCH more relevant to the "fake plane" controversy than generic car crashes. What Chander did is, he left out the video link, and tried to make it look like this paragraph was about the WTC impacts. It is NOT.

This misrepresentation of my writeup is the ONE thing that I shall take issue with right now. It defeats the whole purpose of the paragraph -- which was to provide a relevant description of some key features of high-velocity impacts that can be clearly seen in this particular documentary video. Also, it has allowed Chander to make queries that are essentially non sequitur. I have a bad feeling about this situation. I can totally address Chander's post, in as much detail as will be needed. But -- let's face it -- wouldn't I be feeding the proverbial troll?

There are two ways to go from here -- either Chander acknowledges his confusion and amends his queries accordingly, or I go ahead and address them in their present state. It's all written up already, in my longer draft. But first off I'd like to give Chander a chance to reformulate his queries -- and I'd also like to give YOU a chance,Jeff, to step up and do your job as a moderator.

This is not a matter of Chander "insulting" me -- that's the least of my worries, actually.We're talking about YOUR ability to deal with such posts and people. I don't ask you to challenge his elaboration on flour and ball bearings-- that's perhaps a bit out of your league -- but you CAN enforce the integrity of my writeup, can't you?

That Sandia's test is a VERY well documented example of an aluminium airframe ACTUALLY impacting a much stronger and more massive structure at a high, 9/11-relevant velocity? that in this VERY well documented example you can ACTUALLY see the plane "disappearing into the obstacle", yada yada, "like knife through butter", in slow motion and in great detail that you can actually SEE, in this video, that a high-energy impact produces a lot of small-sized debris, which arevisibly scattered at much higher velocities than larger chunks?

I'll always be here to help. But this,man, THIS -- this "fight" with Chander that you're letting me in on --this is just ridiculous. Don't feed the troll, for sake's sake. Don't tolerate such cocky attitudes -- just RULE THEM OUT, because they ruin the scientific method, and have the effect of driving off the serious and/or competent.

If you feel like you have to answer, pause to think,ask me, whatever suits you. If the troll's point is confusing, then there's probably a misrepresentation or other form of fallacy somewhere. Try to identify the one key fallacy that's causing the whole confusion, and take issue with that one point.

You can, of course, try and come up with point-by-point rebuttals -- by if I were you I'd do it only as an exercise, sort of like homework. You've seen my thread on seriouszone.com, so you know I've been there, done that-- feed them, and they come right back at you, ignoring or misrepresenting everything you say, and eventually accusing YOU of trolling.

It sure builds character, but in the big scheme of things it's probably counter-productive. Don't take it from me, though.Trolling is as old as the internet, and by now, with that forum of yours, you should be able to identify such disruptive behaviour and take appropriate action.

Quote:

 

However, it is possible that the rather thin walls of the box make such a beam quite vulnerable to being hit from the side, in a cutting motion.

Quote:

 

Chander where is your proof?