Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #560396 > unrolled thread

9/11 video- CIA operative spills all

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:21 -0800
    9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:02 -0800
      9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:16 -0800
        9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:44 -0800
      Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-08 20:21 +0000
        Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:31 -0800
          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-08 20:53 +0000
            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 23:00 -0500
              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:51 -0800
                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 12:11 -0500
              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 17:36 +0000
                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 10:34 -0800
                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 19:45 +0000
                  hoo-yoo noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:22 -0800
          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:53 -0800
            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:01 -0800
              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-08 21:43 +0000
                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 14:00 -0800
                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 14:09 -0800
                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:34 -0600
          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:37 -0600
            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-09 02:31 +0000
                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 19:05 -0800
                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 19:32 -0800
                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:25 -0600
                      Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:42 -0800
                        Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:05 -0600
                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:08 -0800
                            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 09:27 -0600
                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:19 -0800
                                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:32 -0600
                                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:57 -0600
                                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 23:04 -0800
                                      Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 03:46 -0800
                                        Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:35 -0600
                                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:37 -0800
                                            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 21:45 -0500
                                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 23:27 -0800
                                                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 23:42 -0800
                                                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:40 -0500
                                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:07 -0800
                                                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 12:10 -0500
                                                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 09:31 -0800
                                                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 09:57 -0800
                                                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 16:46 -0500
                                      Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:23 -0600
                                        Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 05:44 -0800
                                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:49 -0600
                                            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 05:57 -0800
                                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:15 -0600
                                                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 10:24 -0500
                                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:19 -0600
                                                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:50 -0800
                                                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:57 -0600
                                                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 10:19 -0500
                                                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 07:22 -0800
                                                      Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:41 -0600
                                                  Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-11 16:04 +0000
                                                    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:25 -0800
                                                      Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 11:08 -0600
                                                        Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 09:16 -0800
                                                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 01:17 -0500
                                                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 13:55 -0500
                                                            march first noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 12:11 -0700
                                                Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 10:22 -0500
                                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:49 -0800
                                            Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 10:39 -0500
                                              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 08:30 -0800
                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 12:13 -0500
                        Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:11 -0800
                          Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 12:14 -0500
              Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 08:17 -0600
    Re: 9/11 video- CIA operative spills all Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:36 -0600

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#562298

On 3/12/2016 1:42 AM, john wrote:
> On 03/11/2016 10:37 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin  (Wrote: but HVAC hasn't the intelligence to actually properly
> reference other posts. Shit, He's gotten at bad as Glazier. Next he will
> be putting the post he's referencing in different posts from the replies
> like Herb does. Dance kook Dance.)
>
>    What fascinates me is how someone like John can in one
>> breath rant that money spent on fundamental, nonapplied physics is a
>> waste of resources when the problems of the world need immediate
>> attention, and then in the next breath present his own ideas for
>> fundamental, nonapplied physics and hope for interest in them. This
>> is an indication of internal torment -- wanting to be part of
>> something he claims to despise.
>
> I know reason and logic have no place in Odds or HVAC's fantasy life,
> but it takes a pretty big moron to not notice the gigantic amount of
> money spent on toys like Cern and the Super Collider when the world is
> overflowing with pollution that is threatening our very food chain.

Which, note, is why you present your ideas for LeSage gravity, particles 
too small to be detected, fractals at all scales, and life on protons, 
none of which -- I repeat, NONE -- do anything for solving pollution and 
fossil fuel energy problems.

Doesn't it bother you, John, that you whisper out both sides of your mouth?

> Playing with particle nonsense may be fun and even worth while at some
> level, but wasting huge budgets on it is like spending the family
> grocery money on liquor and lottery tickets. I presume, HVAC, that is
> how you ran your imaginary family.
>
>> What fascinates me is how John can say that any scientific method
>> that validates an idea he doesn't think makes sense can't be any good
>> as a method at all, and yet he spends a LOT of time on a newsgroup
>> devoted to fans of the scientific method. It's like someone who
>> thinks crystal worship is nonsense, spending all day visiting with
>> crystal worshipers and telling them that it's all nonsense. More
>> indication of internal conflict.
>
> What fascinates me is how HVAC thinks anyone not agreeing with his ego
> trip fantasies and amateur science is a "kook" yet the only people you
> post to are people you imagine are "kooks". And all Odd trolls (are you
> listening Odd? Oh he's got his fingers in his ears singing: La LA La I
> can't hear you!!!!) are people who find problems with all the
> establishment "stories" that are supposed to be science. You'd think if
> you wanted to show someone was a true "kook" you'd spend some time
> producing some evidence.

John, the evidence has been pointed to in the form of references 
(including pages, titles, authors) to reading material. But what's 
noticeable is that kooks like you don't want that. You want things 
spoonfed to you here on usenet? Why?
1) It's convenient to you and involves no work.
2) If it's on usenet, it's disputable as far as you're concerned, 
whereas if it's actually in print, you know you'd look like an idiot 
saying it's nonsense.

> Instead all we get is personal opinion which we
> are all (We means everyone here that isn't HVAC) suppose to blindly
> swallow hook line and sinker.

Nonsense. If it's documented, then it's fact, not opinion.
That's why you want it here on usenet, so that you can CALL IT just opinion.

>
>> Ben is a different kind of nut. He just says that ALL ideas should
>> be given equal effort of investigation, that ANY moderation or
>> editorial control is criminal oppression and censorship, and that
>> anything he has experienced is therefore the most important things
>> for science to investigate (ESP and UFOs and whatever included).
>
> Odd is so honest and sane he believes that all facts must be checked for
> establishment imprimatur and if they don't have it they must be censored
> and ridiculed.

I have no desire to censor them. Ridicule, yes, especially if they are 
CLEARLY full of holes (like photos of aliens that turn out to be photos 
of toys). Ridicule is not censorship.

> Needless to say this political nonsense has no place in
> real science. Both HVAC and Odd have censored themselves to the point
> where even when given precise references to million dollar government
> ESP research that produced positive results, they won't even admit it
> exists, let alone read it so they can debunk it.

Millions of dollars?? How is that solving pollution and world hunger, 
John??

Speaking out of both sides of your mouth again?

> Real professional. NOT!
>
>> ----------------
>>
>> Obviously BJ has a deep seated resentment against science and the
>> methods science uses to differentiate between fact and fuckwadism.
>> What this is exactly I don't know. I have speculated that his
>> interest/obsession with the paranormal caused him to be (rightfully
>> so) fired from his job. This could easily lead to his resentment. But
>> whatever the cause, the results are obvious in his abject hatred of
>> true science.
>
> HVAC if you were a journalist and not on the internet (where libel and
> slander is considered proper etiquette) I'd sue your ass from here
> Washington. I've never been fired from any job. And obviously as a
> scientist I love science just as you became a writer because you love
> fantasy. PS. I'm NOT mad. :-)
>
>> As for John... Well clearly John has had no science education
>> whatsoever, unless you include visits to 911truth.com.
>>
>> I'm sure that if I was to investigate a bit I could find the source
>> for his 'fractal' brand of science. But, while I support the
>> legalization of all drugs, I would never advocate their use. John is
>> a perfect example of why one should avoid mind altering drugs or
>> alcohol.
>
> More slander and libel. Where is your evidence that John uses drugs or
> the proof that you aren't lying about not using them. I say you are the
> most perfect example of a stoner I've ever seen.
>
> You and Odd sure are a waste of time. At least Odd and I are in
> agreement about conversations between him and me as being a waste of
> perfectly good bandwidth. Unlike you, HVAC, who are a waste of perfectly
> good skin.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561836

BJ quacked
HVAC if you were a journalist and not on the internet (where libel and 
slander is considered proper etiquette) I'd sue your ass from here 
Washington. I've never been fired from any job. And obviously as a 
scientist I love science just as you became a writer because you love 
fantasy. PS. I'm NOT mad. :-) 

> As for John... Well clearly John has had no science education 
> whatsoever, unless you include visits to 911truth.com. 
> 
> I'm sure that if I was to investigate a bit I could find the source 
> for his 'fractal' brand of science. But, while I support the 
> legalization of all drugs, I would never advocate their use. John is 
> a perfect example of why one should avoid mind altering drugs or 
> alcohol. 

More slander and libel. Where is your evidence that John uses drugs or 
the proof that you aren't lying about not using them. I say you are the 
most perfect example of a stoner I've ever seen. 

You and Odd sure are a waste of time. At least Odd and I are in 
agreement about conversations between him and me as being a waste of 
perfectly good bandwidth. Unlike you, HVAC, who are a waste of perfectly good skin. 
------------

Froth!

A lawsuit threat Froth!

Gee, its been almost 2 months since I was last threatened with a lawsuit. I thought I was losing my touch. Thanks BJ!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561886

On 03/12/2016 06:07 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> HVAC if you were a journalist and not on the internet (where libel and
> slander is considered proper etiquette) I'd sue your ass from here
> Washington. I've never been fired from any job. And obviously as a
> scientist I love science just as you became a writer because you love
> fantasy. PS. I'm NOT mad. :-)
>
>> As for John... Well clearly John has had no science education
>> whatsoever, unless you include visits to 911truth.com.
>>
>> I'm sure that if I was to investigate a bit I could find the source
>> for his 'fractal' brand of science. But, while I support the
>> legalization of all drugs, I would never advocate their use. John is
>> a perfect example of why one should avoid mind altering drugs or
>> alcohol.
>
> More slander and libel. Where is your evidence that John uses drugs or
> the proof that you aren't lying about not using them. I say you are the
> most perfect example of a stoner I've ever seen.
>
> You and Odd sure are a waste of time. At least Odd and I are in
> agreement about conversations between him and me as being a waste of
> perfectly good bandwidth. Unlike you, HVAC, who are a waste of perfectly good skin.
> ------------
>
> Froth!
>
> A lawsuit threat Froth!
>
> Gee, its been almost 2 months since I was last threatened with a lawsuit. I thought I was losing my touch. Thanks BJ!

No forth. You are lying again.
I Threatened so such lawsuit.
Do you ever tell the truth about ANYTHING?

In fact, I pointed out you are following Usenet etiquette to a T. Good 
job Harlow. You must really be a low bureaucrat and really really short 
the way you desperately want to be someone important that everyone must 
kiss ass and listen to...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561902

BJ quacked
No forth. You are lying again. 
I Threatened so such lawsuit. 
Do you ever tell the truth about ANYTHING? 
---------

Only when I say that I don't lie about never telling the truth that I don't lie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561911

I can see why she was not fit to
stand trial. She's way to eloquent and
knows all the names and all the
dates.
Fascinating watch!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561949

On 03/12/2016 12:31 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> No forth. You are lying again.
> I Threatened so such lawsuit.
> Do you ever tell the truth about ANYTHING?
> ---------
>
> Only when I say that I don't lie about never telling the truth that I don't lie

Epimenides paradox

"This sentence is false".

You're welcome.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561492

On 3/11/2016 1:04 AM, john wrote:
> Odd said:
> "john, stop pulling my head out of my ass it
> hurts my eyes just stop it now no more
> YouTube no more anything my brain has
> had enough"
>

Have at it, John. You love pig slop. You want everyone to swallow the 
same pig slop you love. You say anyone who doesn't eat pig slop is 
missing the best thing ever.

What fascinates you doesn't interest most people. What you suffer from 
in the way of future dread and conspiracy anxiety, most people do not 
suffer from. Deal with it.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561496

Odd
The premises behind your science are wrong.
Sorry.
No smallest.
No dimensionless .
No ride-for-free.
No BHs form from gravity.

You're just wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

I know that's hard to take.
And I'm sorry.

But you make no attempt to think for
yourself, or to use logic.

Again- I feel sorry that you won't allow
anyone to help you.
And now that you won't watch any
more Youtubes, or look at anything that
your handlers don't agree with, well....
what can anyone do?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561500

On 3/11/2016 7:44 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> The premises behind your science are wrong.

First of all, this is not MY science. It is science.
You claim that they are wrong, but your judgement about what's right and 
what's wrong is based on your COMMON SENSE, which has absolutely nothing 
to do with how science tests right and wrong -- that is, by comparison 
with experiment.

To a scientist, if a model that features smallest, dimensionless, and 
motion without energy consumption AGREES WITH MEASUREMENT, then it is 
not wrong. To YOU, it's wrong anyway and the agreement with experiment 
is irrelevant.

So you do not think like a scientist thinks, period. You do not judge 
right and wrong the way a scientist does, period. You think the 
scientific method for judging what's right and what's wrong is trash, 
period. So John, why do you post endlessly to a group devoted to fans o 
of the scientific method? Answer the fucking question, John.

> Sorry.
> No smallest.
> No dimensionless .
> No ride-for-free.
> No BHs form from gravity.
>
> You're just wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
>
> I know that's hard to take.
> And I'm sorry.
>
> But you make no attempt to think for
> yourself, or to use logic.
>
> Again- I feel sorry that you won't allow
> anyone to help you.
> And now that you won't watch any
> more Youtubes, or look at anything that
> your handlers don't agree with, well....
> what can anyone do?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561504

Odd
No other steel building EVER has
come down in near-free fall after
burning for a few hours. THREE
of them did on 9/11.

Despite ALL evidence to the contrary,
you believe an official story like that.

You are a brainless twat or WORSE a
government shill.

Which is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561509

On 3/11/2016 7:57 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> No other steel building EVER has
> come down in near-free fall after
> burning for a few hours. THREE
> of them did on 9/11.
>
> Despite ALL evidence to the contrary,
> you believe an official story like that.
>
> You are a brainless twat or WORSE a
> government shill.
>
> Which is it?
>

Notice you have not answered the question asked of you.
Why do you post a LOT to a group devoted to fans of the scientific 
method, when you think the scientific method is trash?
Answer the fucking question, John.

Or do you even know?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561539

On 03/11/2016 09:15 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 7:57 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> No other steel building EVER has
>> come down in near-free fall after
>> burning for a few hours. THREE
>> of them did on 9/11.
>>
>> Despite ALL evidence to the contrary,
>> you believe an official story like that.
>>
>> You are a brainless twat or WORSE a
>> government shill.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
>
> Notice you have not answered the question asked of you.
> Why do you post a LOT to a group devoted to fans of the scientific
> method, when you think the scientific method is trash?
> Answer the fucking question, John.
>
> Or do you even know?
>
Odd, are you so ignorant that you don't know that a candle is needed 
most in dark places not in bright sunlight?  Are you really THAT stooopid?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561510

On 3/11/2016 7:57 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> No other steel building EVER has
> come down in near-free fall after
> burning for a few hours. THREE
> of them did on 9/11.
>
> Despite ALL evidence to the contrary,
> you believe an official story like that.
>
> You are a brainless twat or WORSE a
> government shill.
>
> Which is it?
>

It is a common feature of the delusionally paranoid that they believe 
that if THEY are worried about conspiracies and cataclysms, then 
EVERYONE should be worried about conspiracies and cataclysms. When they 
find out that most people are in fact not frantic about conspiracies or 
cataclysms, it doesn't occur to these few that maybe they are 
delusionally paranoid. Instead, they believe that they know the truth, 
and that others are blind sheep. They feel like they are the chosen few 
that know that the REAL news is in supermarket tabloids and YouTube videos.

Blather all you want, John. You're not "in the know", no matter how much 
you'd like to think you are.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561518

Odd
That you believe the airplane fuel in
ONE plane can turn tons of steel
molten says to me that you
don't question anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561521

On 3/11/2016 8:50 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> That you believe the airplane fuel in
> ONE plane can turn tons of steel
> molten says to me that you
> don't question anything.
>

John, you still haven't answered this question:
Why do you, who thinks the scientific method is trash, spend so much 
time posting to a group devoted to fans of the scientific method?

Answer the fucking question, or confess that you don't know why.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561534

On 03/11/2016 09:57 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 8:50 AM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> That you believe the airplane fuel in
>> ONE plane can turn tons of steel
>> molten says to me that you
>> don't question anything.
>>
>
> John, you still haven't answered this question:
> Why do you, who thinks the scientific method is trash, spend so much
> time posting to a group devoted to fans of the scientific method?
>
> Answer the fucking question, or confess that you don't know why.

Actually Odd, you believe that the airplane fuel in NO PLANE can turn 
tons of steel molten. I do believe the scientific explanation of that is 
called "magic".

So with people like you promoting "magic" as science how is there any 
question as to why those of us who know better are here to try to spread 
a little education of the savages around?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561536

When did I say that the scientific method 
is trash?
Can you cite?

Standard Model is not right. It views
things as being made from "fundamental 
particles". This is not a logical, same line
of reasoning. Anyone who can think
will call bullshit right there.

Now, are we clear?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561592

On 3/11/2016 9:22 AM, john wrote:
> When did I say that the scientific method
> is trash?
> Can you cite?

You said that if the scientific method leads people to believe in point 
particles or black holes or the like, then the scientific method 
produces trash.

>
> Standard Model is not right. It views
> things as being made from "fundamental
> particles". This is not a logical, same line
> of reasoning. Anyone who can think
> will call bullshit right there.

I disagree John. The scientific method says that EVERY SINGLE CLAIM can 
be questioned, and that models can be constructed that dispense with 
those claims, and as long as those models can be TESTED against 
experiment, then there is nothing wrong with those models. And moreover, 
if the experiments AGREE with the predictions of the model, then the 
model that has dispensed with the claim cannot be considered wrong.

So here, the claim that has been questioned is whether everything has 
structure and whether everything has volume. And models have been 
created that have bodies that have neither -- models involving 
fundamental particles. And those models agree with experimental 
observation. So as far as science is concerned, those models cannot be 
considered wrong.

On the contrary, you say there are certain statements that must be 
considered HOLY and INVIOLABLE. Statements like "Everything has 
structure" and "Everything has volume". To you, if a model is proposed 
that doesn't respect those, then it's wrong, period, end of story, and 
no agreement with experiment even matters, because it was bullshit to 
begin with.

You have holy and inviolable beliefs that you cannot conceive letting go 
of. But scientists do let go, and those models that come from that are 
experimentally successful.

You do not think like a scientist thinks.

>
> Now, are we clear?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561557

On 3/11/2016 8:50 AM, john tarded
:
> Odd
> That you believe the airplane fuel in
> ONE plane can turn tons of steel
> molten says to me that you
> don't question anything.

It is another characteristic of kooks that when presented an uncomfortable
question, to avoid the issue by jumping to a completely unrelated
topic.  (In this case, from the validity of the scientific method/why
is John hanging around in a science group, to a typical kooktarded 9/11
claim)

It is also characteristic of kooks to come up with an absurd strawman
and then shoot it down. For example, nobody but kooks believes that
any steel melted on 9/11.  Or more accurately, nobody but kooks believes
that anyone believes or claims that jet fuel melted any steel on 9/11.


Why won't you answer Odd's question, John? I'd like to know myself.

>John, you still haven't answered this question:
>Why do you, who thinks the scientific method is trash, spend so much 
>time posting to a group devoted to fans of the scientific method?

>Answer the fucking question, or confess that you don't know why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#561564

Michael Moroney said
It is also characteristic of kooks to come up with an absurd strawman 
and then shoot it down. For example, nobody but kooks believes that 
any steel melted on 9/11.  Or more accurately, nobody but kooks believes 
that anyone believes or claims that jet fuel melted any steel on 9/11.
-------------

I enjoyed THIS strawman used by BJ earlier in this thread...

"Comman sense has everything to do with science. Theories that violate 
common sense means they violate logic and reason. "probability waves in nothing at all" is simply babbling nonsense. It is not science by any stretch".

Lol BJ is so transparent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web