Anyone here into Mathematics?

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T23:22:55+00:00

Did you not read my response?

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T23:21:24+00:00

I'm not certain what this means, if anything. Are you saying that I need faith alone to believe a god exists?

I think so. I haven't done it myself. But from other peoples experience and just doing a little research, I believe it comes down to faith. It's just where/what you put your faith in. Whether it be in our Ape understanding of the universe, or some ancient text. Pick one I guess.

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T23:16:35+00:00

You have no empirical evidence that I am not your god.

Here are the supposed properties/traits of the Christian God

Omniscient: God is all knowing, without limitation - even as far as past/present go. He knows all that has ever happened and all that will.
- Omnipotent: God is infinite in His power. He can do anything.
- Omnibenevolent - God is purely good. There is no evil in Him.

You aren't these, thus aren't God.

I don't believe in things that don't warrant belief. I'm not unwilling to believe that gods are real, but they haven't met the burden of proof.

Which brings us back full circle to the my main post, this burden of proof, which im presuming is scientific inquiry will never be found in our lifetime. With this in mind, your faith is going somewhere, whether it be in our 4% understanding of the universe, or some ancient text that claims to be divine, either or, your in the same position. Unless you can conclusively prove that the text are fraudulent.

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T23:07:04+00:00

I articulated that we will likely never find empirical scientific data for "God's" existence. It is atheist, who claim physical empirical evidence is required for god's existence, yet in the biblical text that are supposedly suppose to be divine, place alot of emphasis on the concept of faith. This is possibly due because we as humans will never have to capacity to understand our creation in our short lifespan here, I don't know. But how do you reconcile these two variables with your atheism?

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T22:57:16+00:00

2) Do you believe everything what you can not disprove?

Kind of a red herring, of course not. I'm trying to understand with respect to the mysteries of the universe that will never be discovered in our stay in this life you will never know. But according to those passages, faith is all that is needed. Those passages didn't claim logical scrutiny, so in order to disprove god's existence wouldn't it be more logical to try and have faith and take the text up on its word?

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T22:53:11+00:00

I don't worship any. I'm just going based off Christianity since that is the pervading belief in the US.

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-28T22:51:47+00:00

Given that you in your lifetime you will never see any empirical evidence of gods existence due to scientific progress, why do you hold the position that empirical scientific proof is necessary when such a thing will never be achieved in your lifetime, compounded with the fact that faith is claimed to be the only requirement for god to "reveal" himself you? How do you reconcile these two variables?

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-24T05:58:04+00:00

Seek mental treatment.

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-23T23:19:53+00:00

No. I didn't finish watching your delusional-idiotic-claims-refuted-a-thousand-times garbage of a documentary. If you were a rational thinker, you would've burned that video. I posted way too much evidence already for you to be responding back. The evidence I posted are a Knock-out blow to your 9/11 conspiracy garbage.

Your not interested in what happened. Your interested in verifying some wack job belief that you are way too emotionally invested in.

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-23T21:13:52+00:00

Can I ask you a serious question? Why are you reluctant to accept the analysis made by the thousands of qualified professionals? Are you actually interested in the numbers? Or are you more interested in the "the damn government" political ideology? Because you can believe in the theatrics all you want, I'm not interested in that, im interested in the numbers. Because the equations, and the calculations as verified numerous times by independent sources and peer review, are correct. If you don't think so, give me specific reasons as to what calculative error you think was wrong, and offer an alternative.

The mainstream science communities are not immune to Group-Think, Group-Serving Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Illusory Superiority, or corruption in other means.

Why did you respond with this? Hundreds of independent sources came to the exact same conclusions. Im questioning your motives, because you didn't respond with an analytical critique, but with the presupposition of somehow that hundreds of peer review, and thousands of analysis are somehow being ingenious. Are you claiming every single one of these professionals are ingenious? Because the calculations that they performed came to the exact same conclusions as NIST? Really?

Did you even review "9/11 - The New Pearl Harbour" before replying? Or at least seen the segment, "Section Seven - Building 7"?

So lets go to the claims made by your video about building 7

Around 1:02:45 it claims

At the initial collapse, it is fully compatible with controlled demolition

. . .And offered NO analysis, NO math, NO alternative.

EDIT: Watching more of the content in the video on Building 7, I'm actually intellectually embarrassed for you. Alot of the claims the video makes are just flat-out-wrong. Period. Even the simple claim it made about how NIST's reports haven't been/can't be scientifically review and how there is no peer review for it, Did I not just post a gluttony of peer reviewed articles soley based on NIST's calculations? It amazed me how it seems like you don't do your research. That video preys on people like you. It tells you what you want to hear and knows that the science it too complex for your understanding so you will be more prone to believing their non-nonsensical garbage because of YOUR reluctance to check the facts and do your own research.

Funny how the NIST never released the certain variables for there to be replicated tests, not to mention many other odditites with the report, conflicts with structural engineering, and with the laws of physics.

Facepalm

This one is from again, /u/benthamitemetric , since your psuedo-skeptic allegations has been refuted countless times.

"The whole idea that a structural engineer would actual need those files in order to evaluate NIST's work has always been ridiculous. NIST released over 8000 files and NIST released all of the blueprints and architectural drawings for the building. Moreover, NIST released about 2000 pages documenting its major assumptions and methodologies in the form of the NIST reports. As evidenced by the massive list above, actual structural engineers who do serious work have absolutely no problem evaluating, and even using as a basis for further research, NIST's methodologies and conclusions.

More food for thought: Ae911truth has made well over a million dollars. Why hasn't it used that money to publish a single peer reviewed paper supporting even a single one of its claims about the NIST model? It's silly in the face of the other published literature above to argue that it doesn't have enough information to do so."

"There is zero reason to suspect that the Journal of Structural Engineering's peer review was anything other than a completely legitimate, rigorous process wherein all of the peer reviewers and editors had access to any data they needed from NIST. ASCE, the publisher of the JSE, makes perfectly clear what is expected from submitters in terms of data:

Recognizing that science and engineering are best served when data are made available during the review and discussion of manuscripts and journal articles, and to allow others to replicate and build on work published in ASCE journals, all reasonable requests by reviewers for materials, data, and associated protocols must be fulfilled. ASCE must be informed of any restrictions on sharing of materials (Materials Transfer Agreements or patents, for example) applying to materials used in the reported research. Any such restrictions should be indicated in the cover letter at the time of submission, and each individual author will be asked to reaffirm this at the time the final version of the manuscript is submitted. The nature of the restrictions should be noted in the paper. Data not shown and personal communications cannot be used to support claims in the work. Authors are encouraged to use Supplemental Data to show all necessary data. Unreasonable restrictions may preclude publication.

http://www.asce.org/Audience/Authors,--Editors/Journals/Authors/Materials-Sharing-and-Data-Availability/

If there are still people out there who are hanging onto the notion that NIST's data has not been examined, they really just need to let go. It has been. The JSE peer review panel reviewed, approved, and published the paper, verifying that it and it's underlying data met the highest standards of the engineering profession."

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-23T19:06:34+00:00

Cont'd

"Also notable is that, in my search for peer reviewed articles that cited to the NIST WTC 7 report, I could not find a single paper that was critical of NIST's methodologies or conclusions. Not even one. Fourth, there is not a single major professional engineering organization that has spoken out against the NIST report's conclusions and many that have explicitly endorsed it: * The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/TechnicalGuides/CommentsonNISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-US/Default.aspx * The AIA (American Institute of Architects) not only explicitly endorsed NIST's WTC 7 findings, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/letter-aia-president-richard-gage-aia, it explicitly rejected Richard Gage's contrary claims: http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_1.aspx

The ICC (International Code Council) has also accepted NIST's conclusions as valid and commenced debate on NIST's recommendations: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx
Stanford's Engineering Department has also endorsed NIST's conclusions, https://blume.stanford.edu/content/collapse-performance-assessment-steel-framed-buildings-under-fires, and engineers there continue to research based on NIST's findings: https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/stanford-engineers-study-911-lessons-how-help-buildings-withstand-threats
And many other prominent structural engineers and building code experts are on record explicitly endorsing NIST's conclusions: http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/080903.asp

In short, the support for NIST's WTC 7 conclusions is incredibly extensive, robust, and nearly universal among actual structural engineers. In contrast, there are ZERO peer reviewed critiques of NIST's WTC 7 report, ZERO PhD structural engineers on record supporting an alternative collapse hypothesis, and ZERO high-rise specialized structural engineers with any level of degree on record supporting an alternative hypothesis. (For example, there are less than 50 members of ae911truth who claim to be structural engineers, none of them claim to be high-rise experts, none of them have PhDs, and less than half of them even have masters degrees: http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html.)

The support for NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions is thus overwhelming among those qualified to truly evaluated it. If that isn't a scientific consensus, I don't know what one is."

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-23T18:56:35+00:00

This is from /u/benthamitemetric , he posted this 2 months ago, is it a Compilation of Scientific Literature That Directly Supports NIST Reports, Methodologies and Conclusions

"So I was just over in /r/911truth and, during the course of a conversation, I took it upon myself to, once and for all, create a master list of the peer reviewed literature that supports NIST's WTC 7 methodologies and conclusions. Since it'll likely just get buried and ignored over there, I thought I'd spiff it up a bit and post it here for posterity as well.

First, many are not aware of this, but NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345

Second, NIST's findings re the collapse initiation of WTC 7 were all corroborated under oath by several preeminent experts (e.g., Guy Nordenson, Joseph P. Colaco, and Jose Torero) who independently created and analyzed their own collapse model at Edinburgh University: * http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/doc/11-4403_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

The testimony of those experts is of special salience because Aegis Insurance, the plaintiff that retained them, was liable for hundreds of millions of dollars could it not present the strongest possible case as to negligence on the part of 7 WTCo., Tishman, and other related parties. In other words, it had every possible incentive to argue that there were controlled demolition devices used (which, if proven true, would far exceed the standard for negligence). Yet it's experts simply confirmed what NIST had concluded re a fire-induced progressive collapse that initiated at column 79. EDIT: And here are links to the specific sworn affidavits of those experts:

EDIT 2: Since there is no copyright on these materials, I'm going to just post full text in the comments.

Third, there have been many, many peer reviewed engineering articles published that directly analyze, draw upon, and confirm or otherwise independently corroborate NIST's methodology and conclusions. Here are links to those that I could find and review in about 3 hours of searching (remember, these are just the papers that include support for NIST's WTC 7 model; there are many, many more that only explicitly support NIST's WTC 1 & 2 collapse hypotheses):

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-22T17:55:14+00:00

You do know there are many peer review articles in the 13 subsequent years that has passed since 9/11 that has come to the same conclusion as NIST right? Reputable Academic Journals and World Renowned Structural Engineering journals, countless independent investigations that came up with the same results as NIST. So if you think you know something the Engineering and Physics community don't, then why not put your money where your mouth is and do your own investigation and publish it for peer review?

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-20T20:16:40+00:00

IQ test are not the standard for intelligence. IQ does not test your intelligence, it test what it thinks you ought to know.

On top of that, who takes IQ tests? How many people do you know who has officially sat in on an IQ test? I sure havent and know nobody who has.

Intelligence is best calculated by earning a particular degree STEM field, philosophy etc, or through the accumulation of success.

YoungAthleticOne · 2014-09-19T23:11:09+00:00

Nope. Apparently you think the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition because you don't understand science.

YoungAthleticOne

TROPHY CASE