[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

You can just read the last 4 lines if you have limited attention.

He's an intelligent, credentialed person who had a managerial position with Underwriters Laboratories, a NIST contractor, before getting fired for blowing the whistle. He's a Yale graduate. He was elected a fellow of the Yale Corporation in 2012, long past when he became a prominent 9/11 researcher. You can read his research which is pretty easy to follow because he's a good writer and presenter. He's not a kook. Even if you don't agree with him, he's just not a kook.

And btw, when you see a contingent of credentialed non kooks promote a conspiracy theory, they are always going to be right. For example, Corona virus came from the lab. One way to know that is that there is a contingent of credentialed non kooks who say this and give their reasons, willing to risk their careers. If you are going to just judged the authority instead of doing your own analysis, at least learn a little about how to know when the authorities are wrong.

Imagine living in Deuces'/Victor's world where physics is kinda based on opinions ...

Deuces cares about credentials when he's finds the occasional conspiracy wingnut with an advanced degree, he'll just handwave away the expert consensus on things like 9/11, COVID, etc. etc.

That's exactly it. And when those "experts" are fired, it's because they are hiding the truth, not because they are saying things so mind-numbingly stupid that it actually tarnishes the reputation of the institutions that credentialed them.

Just as a reminder, this is one of those experts trying to demonstrate how the top block couldn't have crushed the rest of the building WITH CARDBOARD BOXES.

I can see Deuce's point - how did that section crush anything underneath it when it's levitating in mid-air? Is that what happened after the space lasers turned the rest of the tower to dust?

As we're being pedantic I should point out that gravity is not a force.

Wat

A physicist will be able to explain it better than me, if there's one here.

If you're thinking of the definition of gravity as the curvature of spacetime, that is accurate, but it is also a force. Much like electromagnetism both a wave and a force. Or the weak force is both radioactive decay and a force.

Or if that's wrong, your physicist can explain it to me, and to NASA: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-grav....

I thought that calling gravity a force is like calling a curved road a force when your car is pushed sideways. It's a convenient way to think of gravity but it's not accurate.

edit. That NASA webpage is obviously designed for kiddies, come on.

You are thinking of centrifugal force perhaps. No, it's not the same thing. Gravity is one of the 4 fundamental forces (well, 3 really, since electromagnetism and the weak force were unified). A quick read on the subject will confirm this if you don't believe me.

No, I'm not. I think this is to do with technical definitions of what a force is.

Gravity is geometry really, isn't it? It might be labelled a force because it's easier to understand that way but the fact that it can vary according to the frame of reference means it can't be a force.

And friction is just electromagnetism, really. And electromagnetism is just waves/photons, really.

Everything that's labelled as a force is labelled that because it's easier to understand that way. "Force" is an emergent phenomenon.

Source for gravity varying with frame of reference?

I'm about 95% on this but perhaps e d'a can chip in at some point.

Well the first thing I said was that I was being pedantic!

Gravity acts as a force. I would not recommend anyone to try and disprove this by leaping off Beachy Head.

Nope. There is no expert consensus on 9/11. Where it has been studied by experts, the results break with the social consensus. Well, not even that really as most of the world doesn't believe the official story. Where 9/11 has been studied by experts, the results break with the PMC-smarty pants-kiss ass-conformist set. Can't wait for you guys to be economically ruined by inequality because that is when it will make more sense for you to choose reality over state propaganda. We've got accommodations waiting for you.

Do you think Corona came from bat soup or something? It's kinda like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. If the guest polls the audience and there is an odd spike of votes for an answer that goes against the grain, that is going to be the right answer. If the question is what is Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" about, and everyone knows Marvin Gaye is a soul singer from the 70s, but there is a spike in votes saying the song is about the environment (not a typical song topic for black soul singers), then you can bet the song is about the environment. The number of experts saying Corona came from a lab is too high for any other truth to be possible. And there are way too many experts calling the official 9/11 story false for it to be true, and no experts I know of validating the official story that I know of. I don't count the stooges at NIST who refuse to disclose their data.

Terrible example with Whats Going On clearly not about the environment.

Is this mother****er actually physically incapable of writing a post that is not a ****ing essay?

It's a visual aid. Are you going to bust into a first year physics class and say "OMG you're demonstrating gravity using A BLANKET LOLOLOL"

What's your point Gorgo? All the back and forth I've been through on that particular issue and I've never seen any of you dispute it competently and the only expert on your side I know of going into any detail is Bazant, the originator of the top-crush-through-remainder-then-crush-itself theory of the collapse of both towers. But he doesn't go into much detail, granted he outlined the theory 2 days after the buildings went down in the absence of any data or intimate knowledge of the buildings. There is to date no detailed description of how this is supposed to happen such to match the observations (that I've heard of anyway you are welcome to contradict me).

Well I find it hard to argue against the contention that every assertion is an opinion no matter the route taken to arrive at it.

Whatever world I'm in I prefer it to the world where you conflate your feelings that physicists have signed on on something with the actuality of them doing so, especially when given that, as in this instance, they haven't.

I like that he still thinks I'm in here to read anything he's saying. I'm not. I'm here to make fun of you. You've had DECADES to figure this out, and if you still haven't, you just deserve ridicule. And that's all you're getting from me. If you want my arguments, go back to my posts from like 15 years ago.

Yeah. we get it, Deuces/Victor, you really enjoy being an uneducated conspiracy loon.

Yeah, people say gravity isn't a force because it seems to couple universally (not just to charge, flavor, isospin etc) and is locally equivalent to free fall/straight lines on a geodesic in a classical theory. But at the end of the day forces aren't really fundamental, fields are. And there is widely expected to be an effective quantum field theory version of gravity like there is for electro/weak and strong interactions.