Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. 4. Use a strawman. 17. Change the subject. You are again confusing two distinct scientific principles. There is no fire present in the picture you offer of a person near the impact zone. So NO, this area does not have to be too hot to touch. That is flawed logic regarding Young's Modulus. You are inferring a different concept which is heat transfer of steel. The heat transport properties of a metal are fundamentally different than its rigidity and ability to handle loads (Young's Modulus). Obviously since there is no fire in the photo, in order for them to be too hot to touch, you would have to consider the TIME it would take for heat to propagate from where a fire exists up to that point in the photo. That is heat transfer. I am talking exlusively about Young's Modulus. Cease and desist in your attempts to change subjects. Like I said above, I will always call you on it. And yes, it applies. Again, you are either trying to change the subject, or your are showing your ignorance of these structural concepts. Both of these relate to heat transfer, not Young's Modulus. Therefore, they are irrelevant questions. Heat does not have to propagate to a specific portion of a column under stress to being to weaken its Young's Modulus. This is because compressive stress is equal along the length of the column from the point of the load. Any point where there is fire in existence, that spot will weaken due to temperature effects. Heat transfer has no bearing on this. Incorrect use of technical terms. The fact is, even at nominal temperatures (no fire), steel is already "elastic" and exhibits "elasticity". The term "elastic" refers to a linear range of a plot of stress vs. strain. When steel is loaded such that it remains in this linear region, steel is elastic. Once steel is loaded beyond this linear region, steel has been said to be stressed beyond the "plastic limit". This means when the load is removed, a permanent deformation will still exist. What I hope you are referring to above when you use the incorrect term "elasticity" is the reduction in Young's Modulus when exposed to heat. That is the main topic we are addressing here, despite your attempts to change the subject. If this is what you mean, then the answer to your question of "how long" is: When a piece of steel at a nominal temperature is exposed to a higher temperature, it's Young's Modulus begins to weaken immediately at the surface that is exposed to the heat. The steel will continue to weaken from the surface inward to the center of the steel specimen as the heat remains constant or its temperature increases. So contrary to what you are implying, there is no appreciable "wait time" for steel to begin weakening when exposed to high temperatures. This is precisely why structural steel is required to have fireproofing applied to the exposed surfaces, because that fireproofing works to insulate the steel from the heat of the fire, thus preventing immediate weakening.
  2. First I must say I will not engage in the Pentagon debate, as that gives in to the "change the topic" tactic. Besides, it is an airplane issue which is RMT's area and he is doing fine, even though some don't wish to research his facts. Second, we should look at a tally here of where we have been. You, Mr. titorite, have presented two faulty pieces of analysis that I have proven to be incorrect: 1) You presented someone else's information about steel weakening at certain temperatures, and I have clearly shown that analysis to be incorrect, especially that the first Young's Modulus critical point occurs at 600 Deg F. I referenced an engineering website which shows the plots for the actual decrease in Young's Modulus for carbon steel over temperatures. This debunking speaks to the credibility of your sources and the fact that you do not appear to check their veracity. 2) I have shown how you attempt to use analogies which have no basis in fact nor are they valid comparisons (i.e. the silly notion that a screen door is like a load bearing set of steel columns). This again speaks to the credibility of what you believe, and how you will use invalid analogies to try to convince people. Taken together these two are enough to show that there is a serious character issue here, and at a minimum anyone else reading should take anything you present as "compelling evidence" with a serious grain of salt. But there is much more as we shall now see: Here we see a clear example that you violate your own tag line of "Even if you ignore the facts it doesn't change the truth." I have seen you berate RMT for not reading information you offer on other people's websites. Yet we shall now see that you are clearly not even reading all the information available in the NIST reports and factual evidence. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf This is a set of 36 viewgraphs from NIST that are chock full of evidence that perimeter columns were indeed bowing, which is evidence that catastrophic buckling is approaching. But I will not take the cheap way out that you do and say "scroll down and read for yourself". No, I will direct you to the specific pages of evidence that you have apparantly, to-date, ignored. Slides 5-6 shows clear evidence of inward bowing (as much as 55 inches). And it is interesting to note that the maximum bending occurs directly below the largest part of the fires. Slide 11 shows more inward bowing on WTC2. Slide 12 shows the sagging floor slab in WTC2 floor 82. The transverse (shear) loads of these hanging floor slabs are what is causing the perimeter columns to bow inward. The compressive stresses in thes same perimeter columns of the building mass above are the destabilizing forces that ultimately drive the catastrophic Euler buckling phenomenon. Slide 13, more clear evidence of inward bowing, which leads to buckling (that is, if you understand the differential equation of Euler column buckling). Slide 15 is seconds before collapse, and is the best evidence that Euler column buckling is imminent. It is hard to argue that entire segments of that face are all bowed inward. And we must not forget that Euler buckling differential equation. The greater the deflection of bowing, the more quickly it induces the final buckling. It is an unstable derivative condition. (Look it up) Slide 16 clearly debunks many conspiracy theorist charges that "the buildings fell straight down". It is obvious in the picture on the right side of this slide that the top of the building is tilted. This is, yet again, clear evidence that the columns on the "low side" of the tilt buckled as one would expect from the primary failure mode of vertical columns under load. Later in these slides you will see other evidence that dispels notions you have floated here before about how the inner columns were "hardly damaged". But this is enough for this source, as it is now clear there is plenty of evidence to support the most likely failure mode of vertical columns under load, namely Euler column buckling. You have simply ignored it. That does not change the truth. That is merely an opinion. One which you cannot factually support, but I would welcome you to try. What you must now do is refute the evidence I have shown is in existence. And to refute Euler column buckling you must show me your math. By the way, that math would also have to refute the math calculcations by the civil engineers in the paper I quoted in my last reply to you. You've got some work to do. And what evidence, pray tell, would you possibly have to support that claim? 4. Use a strawman. The version from NIST is based on evidence, as they outline. I do not "defend" it. I merely point out the factual engineering that supports it. And the primary factual evidence that supports it is the differential equation of Euler column buckling. Once again, no one has been able to scientifically refute this primary failure mode, and I will continue to bring it up until you do. It is a must. 7. Question motives. Claiming I am not honest, when you have no evidence to support this, is essentially questioning my motives. I point to data and scientific fact. That is honest. 4. Use a strawman. 17. Change the subject. For at least the 5th time now, the issue is NOT about steel melting (although I see how you wish to change the subject and make that strawman stick). The issue is about weakening of steel. This is specifically known as Young's Modulus. All the assertions by you that you are not using disinformation tactics in maneuvers like this do not make it so. Please stay on the topic that is associated with Euler column buckling, which is Young's Modulus, NOT steel melting. One happens well before the other in temperature, as I have adequately shown. Not one word of this refutes the scientific fact laid out by that wikipedia page, which is based on the evidence that all can see and agree to: There was a larger mass above the damage zone in the building that was hit second. Force = mass*acceleration (in this case "g"). Larger mass above the damage zone means larger forces (and thus larger stresses) in the remaining load bearing column. Wiggle as much as you wish, and fool yourself into thinking you have refuted this evidence, but you have not. 4. Use a strawman. Not even once have I made a remark about your intelligence. This is a strawman. What I have remarked about is your ignorance of scientific facts, especially of Euler column buckling and structural engineering concepts. And I have shown that ignorance in more ways than one. Do not make the mistake of confusing general intelligence with ignorance on a specific topic, in much the same way you confuse melting steel with weakening of its Young's Modulus. I have not ignored the message. I have, in fact, disputed it and in many ways debunked it. However, you have certainly ignored evidence, especially that which indicates Euler column buckling. And the times you do not provide links, such as in the case of your claim about Wikipedia and iron (which is not steel), is when you cannot support your statements. I am now asking you to give me the SPECFIC LINK for that statement of yours that you are ignoring, and I would like you to quote the words in that link that support your original claim. Here: 4. Use a strawman. Fact: Iron is not steel. Fact: The Young's Modulus of iron is significantly smaller (weaker) than carbon-steel. Here is a link that supports that fact: http://www.engineersedge.com/manufacturing_spec/average_properties_structural_materials.htm Compare the values of "Cast Iron" with "Carbon Steel". Fact: Even if you do as you say above (which is not providing a link, nor showing exactly where you claim is supported) you will not find any statements that will support this claim of yours: One reason you won't find it is because you point me to a page about iron, yet your vague statement you attribute to Wikipedia is about steel. I am sure others reading now see how you are indeed using disinformation diversionary tactics to avoid admitting you are incorrect in your knowledge (or even Wikipedia's statements) about steel weakening. 17. Change the subject. None of those questions are pertinent to your incorrect analysis and facts that I have pointed out several times now. Your questions are merely an attempt to change the subject. Each of my assertions of your use of disinformation tactics stand on their own. You may not accept them, but again I will say that just because you say it is so, does not make it so. Stay on the topic of WTC towers 1 and 2, and do try to refute Euler column buckling in the face of the clear evidence. That is the topic, and each time you try to change it I will call you on it with "#17".
  3. Hello Mr. Darby: Wow, you're throwing me the softball questions, eh? :) No need to set me up for the answer you already know! ;) But of course you are correct that the shear modulus is much lower than the tensile or compressive stress modulus for virtually all metals. The shear modulus for carbon steel is only 11.5 million lb-inch^2, as compared to the equivalent units for the values you define above in GPa for the compressive Young's modulus (29 million lb-inch^2). You can find these at the following link: http://www.engineersedge.com/manufacturing_spec/average_properties_structural_materials.htm Another very good point, Mr. Darby. Certainly there is an effect on Young's Modulus due to impact. However, in my professional opinion it is at least an order of magnitude smaller than both the heating effects of the fire and any plastic deformation experienced by columns that were not completely severed. So yes, it had a degrading effect, albeit a small one. Good to point out all the sources of weakness. And don't you worry, Mr. titorite, I will be back to deal some more with you. You have again exhibited your ignorance and that you, yourself, have been ignoring evidence that is clearly available. And I also find it a bit self-serving that you so easily dismissed Mr. Darby's excellent presentation on fuel-air mixtures, and how that jet fuel could not possibly have all burned off in a fireball without bringing down the towers. Your response was, once again, ignoring technical facts that don't fit your beliefs. It exhibits your own hypocrisy given the tag line you wish everyone to think is true about yourself.
  4. By the way... since you are the one incessantly asking RMT for links to prove his points: How about you provide a link for that? I notice you conveniently will cite a source but will not provide the link. So please show me on Wikipedia where is says these exact words you have stated above. I provided you a link to an engineering web page with the Young's Modulus that does, indeed show a critical point for carbon steel weakening as low as 600 Deg F (by the way, you do not tell us which system of temperature units you are using). So unless you can show us where Wikipedia says this, so far you look to be wrong. Please show us...
  5. More selective use of sources by you: You appear to enjoy using Wikipedia to answer some of your questions. And yet in the classic sense of using a source only insofar as it supports your beliefs, you conveniently ignore the fact that Wikipedia also provides the logical and coherent answer to another one of your questions that you pretend cannot be answered but by controlled demolition. Your question: "Why not give me your thoughtful explaination for why tower that was hit second indirectly fell first." And here we see where Wikipedia provides the answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_collapse_mechanism So why do you not believe this answer? What is most instructive to understand your application of disinfo tactics is that you refer to this source for some things, but do not quote it where its information counters your belief. That is disinformation tactic #15 - Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. Go ahead... please explain why Wikipedia is good for some answers but not for others.
  6. Precisely the way you continue to refuse to address the primary structural failure mode of a vertical column under load (Euler buckling). I am glad you are catching on. Address this and we can talk. Each one of my applications of your referenced tactics of disinformation to your tactics is completely accurate and appropriate. Your saying they are incorrect does not make them so. I hate to be so blunt, but you are not as crafty as you think you are. All you can do is focus on what you think is evidence (which it is not). Neither you nor any "scholars for truth" have presented any mathematical refutation for the single biggest failure mode of ALL vertical columns which bear loads. Address that fact that you and all the other posers ignore and you will be that much closer to the actual truth, instead of your partial-blind version of it. You see, YOU are the one who is on the hook here. YOU need to provide evidence for your assertions, which you have yet to do. I know you will think you have, but I assure you, none of it is scientific evidence. Here, I have a very simple task for you: Please produce one, SINGLE paper that contains calculations that show Euler column buckling could NOT have been the failure mechanism for the WTC columns... and oh yes, that paper should be written by civil engineers and have appeared in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal. To be clear, a list of people who joined a website (no matter what their occupation) does not cut it. I want to see civil engineers putting their reputation on the line and showing their calculations. On the flipside, here is a link to a paper which does include calculations, based on real physical mechanics, that anyone else can review and dispute. To-date, I should point out that not one single person can dispute these even rudimentary calculations: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf A quote from this paper's conclusions which you should take note of: and You have simply shown no competence nor expertise to make, nor support, the claims you have made. None.
  7. 4. Use a strawman. 5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule. 17. Change the subject. 7. Question motives. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad. (Tip: It works best when you are a good speller) Because it is a wholly invalid comparison that is without merit. Because it says absolutely nothing about the outer perimeter columns of the WTC. 20. False evidence. And a screen in a porch door is not. Ergo your attempt at backwards logic did not work. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. 20. False evidence. 19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that there was other combustible material that caught fire and sustained the fire.) 19. Ignore facts. (In this case the facts and evidence for Euler column buckling) 19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that steel weakening at temperature can induce the onset of Euler column buckling, thereby foregoing the necessity for steel melting temperatures) 19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that it was not only the structural damage that caused the collapse. Ignore that it was a compounding effect. Continue to ignore Euler column buckling) 5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule. 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. You are vapid and transparent in your incessant drone of half-facts, non-facts, invalid analogies, and expressions of pseudo-expert opinions ("it should of collapsed" the way I say it should have). On top of that you use the exact same disinformation tactics that you accuse others of, as can be seen from my accounting above. Grow up, go to school, and stop ignoring those facts that don't suit what you wish to believe.
  8. I was wondering when you were going to make some sort of claim in my area of expertise, Mr. Titorite. I noticed you were not able to refute any of the facts I put forth about how wrong your sources were in their structural analysis of steel and the weakening of its Young's Modulus. But as a result of your latest post, I am afraid I have to inform you that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about in the realm of structural engineering. Period. I could actually show you wrong on several of the things you say, but why bother when I can make you look truly foolish by addressing one, choice analogy you put forward. Clearly RMT knows way more about structural engineering than you do. But I am more the expert in this area than he, which is why we decided that it was more appropriate for me to respond to your nonsense: This is positively the most ridiculous (and highly incorrect) analogy that was ever floated about the WTC external structural skeleton. And I notice you do not even reference the silly fools who first floated it. Are you aware that it only took about 2 microseconds when someone first put forth this dreadfully wrong analogy for someone to point out what is obviously wrong with it? I shall now destroy any credibility you may have had in making claims about structural engineering concepts: The external structural skeleton of the WTC towers was nothing like a "screen on a porch door" for one fundamentally simple reason: A screen on a porch is not a load bearing structure!It is NOT under compressive stress like the WTC exoskeleton was. This is precisely why a screen on a porch door does not deform, you nincompoop, because there are no compressive loads to do so! To draw this analogy shows how little you not only understand the concepts of structural stress and strain, but it also shows you are willing to parrot someone else's ignorant analogies, thinking they are valid. I know for a fact that RMT got a good laugh out of this silly analogy of yours, which isn't even yours, and I can also bet Mr. Darby was also smiling waiting for either RMT or myself to point out how poor of an analogy it is. So as I see it, you can now either admit how foolish (and incorrect) that analogy is, and at the same time admit you know nothing about structural analysis to be able to make the kinds of claims you have, or you can ignore that you have once again been proven foolish, and try to change the subject yet again. The choice is yours. But if you don't cop your ignorance and admit you were wrong, I assure you that you left several other gems in this last post of yours that will make you look even more silly if I choose to address them.
  9. Thanks Darby, Wow, you really know your stuff. Now I can see why Ray always says you are the smartest guy on this site. I was holding back discussing shear stress and torsion to see if Mr. Titorite was going to try and deny the truth of my statements. But you're quite correct in what you say, and those transverse loads that induce shear stress and torsion in the vertical columns only serve to increase the lateral deflections which eventually induce the column buckling failure mode. And it is the lateral deflections of the columns in the WTC towers that are the greatest evidence that column buckling was eventually going to bring them down. You can see it in so many photos, especially in the columns right below where the biggest fires were concentrated. Of course this only makes logical sense since this is where the heating effect was reducing the Young's Modulus of the steel columns in that area. I have yet to see a civil engineer, much less anyone else, write a technical paper wherein they attempted to show that Euler column buckling could not have been the failure mode. I'm certain with your knowledge you know it's a simple (1/2)*Mass*Velocity-Sqaured calculation, but yeah, we'll let RMT present that analysis, seeing how he is the airplane yahoo in our family. Well, him and my dad, but my dad works mostly missile systems for Raytheon in Tucson. I've also got a cousin in San Diego who's an aero engineer, and his sister Molly is working to become a mechanical engineer back in Ohio. All in the family, I guess.
  10. First off: I am a civil engineer and I possess my EIT-Engineer In Training certificate, and I am only 3 years away from taking the PE test. Second: There's a lot of errors in what you have posted here. I'm only going to address the fallacy of structural steel and its weakening related to Young's Modulus. "Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm " That page doesn't load. But here is a page that will show the rigidity (Young's Modulus) for various materials, including carbon steel: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html The thing to note in this graph is the "knee" in the curve for carbon steel (dark blue line). It occurs at 600 Deg. F. I will mention why it is significant in a short while. First another quote: "Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers." Yeah, that means it has lost 40% of its load-bearing strength by this temperature. But the second sentence is an icomplete statement. It was not only the weakening of the steel due to temperature that caused the collapse. It was also the additional loads that the remaining columns had to absorb when a great number of columns were severed by the aircraft impact. Every column that was severed essentially "gave its part of the load" to the columns that remained. This means that the remaining columns were under greater stresses than in a normal condition. The more columns that were severed, the greater the stresses in the columns that remained. So to correct the incomplete statement above, the collapse was due to: a) Weakening of steel rigidity due to increased temps. AND b) MUCH greater loads on the load-bearing steel columns that remained intact. "To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). " No, this is wrong, and looking at the chart I provided above shows it is wrong. The "knee" in the chart that I pointed out is the first critical threshold in structural steel (not 1022 F)because at that temperature the steel begins to lose rigidity at a much faster rate as the temperature increases. In other words, the slope of the line is greater. So while "in his mind" it may be the definitive answer, he doesn't know what he is talking about. In fact, 1022F is not even the second critical point! The second critical point can also be seen on the chart I referenced: It occurs at about 800F where the slope increases again. The 1022F number he is referring to is actually the THIRD critical point! Facts don't lie, but this guy did. Another thing which this person writing this article never addressed in the enire article is something that my uncle brought up earlier in this thread: Euler column buckling. This is the primary failure mode of a pinned (stationary) column that is bearing a vertical load. It must be addressed and analyzed, and the two critical parameters that govern the onset of Euler column buckling are: a) Young's Modulus b) Column lateral (horizontal) deflection. It is already well known that many columns were missing on one whole face of each WTC tower. That is not in dispute, and this pertains to the remaining columns having to share the total load as I described above. Now we add to this the significant descrease in load-bearing rigidity (Young's Modulus) that I have shown begins to decrease even more rapidly beyond temps of 600F. Finally, when you examine the diferential equation for column buckling you can see that the derivative (rate of change) of lateral deflection is positive. What this means is that as the deflection gets larger, the tendency to buckle increases. This is an unstable situation and is what directly leads to the ultimate, catastrophic buckling failure that was seen in the WTC columns. You can argue with me and RMT all you want, Mr. Titorite, but the simple fact is you cannot adequately analyze or come to conclusions about the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 without addressing the points I have made above. And I have pointed out that your sources never discuss the physics of Euler column buckling, not to mention that their reading of the Young's Modulus chart for the first critical point in steel weakening is just plain wrong. I know you won't accept this, as I have seen your type of logic, but frankly I don't care. I am a civil engineer, you are not. I am confident that I am right, and the theory of controlled demolition has not been proven by any means.
  11. Hey RMT, Maybe we should get Molly on here to ask this new guy some questions? Since she grew up in Columbus and has been going to OSU for her mechE degree for the last two years, she could at least verify he knows Columbus and OSU. Whaddya think? How did those soils tests go in Colorado? Make sure you send me the soils report and I can get started on the foundation design.
  12. You are confusing the distinction between the story itself, and who told the story. What you are suggesting would not necessarily falsify the story. It would merely let you ascertain who told the story. And the very fact of the way the story was setup with "only Pamela" knowing Titor's "special song" is one form of unfalsifiability built into the story. If this is your criteria for falsification (which is really not falsifying, given the other loopholes), this has already been done. You see, you wish to ignore the fact of the timing that Titor used for when CERN would create microsingularities. His own statements of that timeline already show he was wrong. If he was in this timeline, he could have done a little homework to figure out that even while he was posting it was well-known that the LHC at CERN would not be completed and online any time before 2007. But that is not the only place where the Titor story itself has already been tripped up. The next "official Olympics" did, actually, occur. There was no massive civil disobedience surrounding the last presidential election. There has been no civil war in 2004 or 2005. And no weekly Waco-like events. How many more missed predictions do you need (or wish to ignore)? Honestly, I think you need to spend some time studying falsifiability, because you are clearly not understanding the scientific definition or its application. I'd bet Darby would even validate what I am saying with regard to Titor's story not being falsifiable. There is a loophole for anything, with the grandaddy of them all being "timeline divergence" (which he never defined). And as if all the above were not enough, then we have "true believers" like you who insist upon modifying Titor's predictions, which it seems you attempt to do right here. Could you please show me anywhere Titor said that the USA will not attend the 2008 Olympics? Hell, even show me where Titor said "2008 Olympics". He didn't. His precise words that referenced the end of the Olympics were as follows: "there were no official Olympics after 2004." So for a person such as yourself, who seems to wish to point to mathematics and science (which you cannot quote nor explain), you seem awfully loosy goosy with Titor's precise words. In fact, I would even suspect that you are trying to re-interpret his words to give them more leeway. But that just won't work. You need much more attention to detail if you expect reasonable people to believe what you are putting out there on this forum.
  13. You are wrong. Yes it is. You still don't understand that Titor's story is technically unfalsifiable (that is a scientific term, look it up on wikipedia). I wonder why? But he went further than that. He ensured his story could not be falsified. That means he story cannot be proven false, which means it is nothing more than a story and can never be true. I don't expect you to understand, but at least try, huh? How poetic. Show me the explicit math. You're right, I am not a quantum physicist, but I am a civil engineer. I understand math. Since you continue to argue without understanding Titor's story is unfalsifiable you also qualify as neither a deep thinker, nor a quantum physicist. But you certainly think you are a deep thinker. ;) Again, you are flat-out wrong, and the posts on this site stand as testament to you being wrong. You see, plenty of people have offered evidence, but the very fact that some other yahoo then addresses that evidence and employs the classic unfalsifiable part of Titor's story "yeah, but he told us not all timelines are the same, so maybe this is different from what he told us in our timeline" means the story can never be falsified. You go on believing all you want, but it does not make you correct. Fact, Jack. You have already missed out on great opportunities to make $ in the stock markets, as I assume since you believe Titor you have stayed away from them. Or are you still daytrading?
  14. Pal, For all your allusions to "the science being there" (or is that illusions?), this statement of yours pretty much sums up your lack of knowledge about science. I think you need to spend more time at a site with a little more veridical science than wikipedia, especially in the area of logic and attempting to prove a negative. You might learn something. Start here: Look up "falsifiability" in regards to scientific claims. There was absolutely no math in Titor's Tale. This he conveniently skirted with the "hey, I am not a physicist" line whenever he got cornered. One hallmark of a crackpot is when they claim "the science is out there and backs what I am saying" but when pressed for them to explain that science all they can do is say "go research it, it is out there, you will see." If you are so certain the science backs Titor, then you should be able to explain it, right? And you should be able to prove it is true, right? I mean, seeing as how it does not logically follow to try and prove a negative! I guess you don't understand just how silly this is! You seem to find it amazing that Titor "predicted" that the next president COULD be a him or a her. As if there was some other choice? That is called hedging his bet. BTW, Hillary had the gleam of wanting to be Prez in her eyes when she first talked about Bill's sexual transgressions before even Bill got the job. I'll make you a deal. I will meet you back here, on this site, on the very day of the 2008 Olympics opening ceremonies. Deal? I will be here...will you? This even ignores the fact that the "next Olympics" as far as Titor's timeline already occurred in Turino, Italy.
  15. I, for one, would love to see your logical deduction. It is a very formal process, as I would think you should be aware. If you lay it out for others it should be able to be factually verified. http://bovination.com/cbs/logicalDeduction.jsp Perhaps the most important part of logical induction you should keep in mind when analyzing the Titor hoax is the following: "Note that just because it derived this way doesn't make it true." Of course, if all this is just your belief which really cannot be supported by a proper logical deduction, then there is probably little hope for ever convincing you that it is a non-sequitor, even if it actually is. Here is a logical deduction that you may wish to take into consideration: Non-specific statements can be applied to many specific events. Titor's story contained many non-specific statements. Therefore, Titor's story can be applied to many specific events. Q.E.D.
  • Create New...