Is the BP thread Dead?

zoktoberfest

29th June 2006 - 11:31 PM

I'm assumming, that the "Basic Physics" thread is locked down, to all others, as well. If that is the case, I'm not surprised considering the blatant disregard for available bandwidth. Do we start up another thread and pick-up from where we left off, or just let it go?

If this is a temporary condition, will there be any spam control imposed, or at least considered?

We have discussions about soft science issues like religion vs. intelligent design.

Why can't we have an open ended 9/11 forum with out the imposed constraints of hard science over-riding all the peripheral issues?

adoucette

29th June 2006 - 11:48 PM

Its locked, as are some other 9/11 threads.

I guess the moderators got tired of scolding the spammers and inappropriate posters and chasing them down across multiple threads.

They have created one thread for all 9/11 material.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=103830

Arthur

zoktoberfest

30th June 2006 - 01:09 AM

Thanks arthur,

I can't say, that I'm thrilled with the restrictions and constraints, imposed on the RANGE of material allowed to be discussed. Your job will be a lot easier, without the "usual suspects" stretching the boundaries of "The Event" past the qualities of steel and the capabilities of gravity.

My vision of the new thread was in the other direction. It would have included strict moderation of behavior and spam control, but LESS restrictions on posted material. Anything in the ball park, such as intent, opportunity, negligence, beneficiary, improbable coincidence, etc.... would be considered if a reasonable case could be made to show relevancy. My thread would more court room oriented, using science, when dictated by circumstance.

Although the die has been cast, and certain members have already been de-facto designated to lurker status, I would still like to propose a twin thread approach. Let's set up a controlled experiment in the interest of science. Both are moderated strictly for behavior and spam. One is the already established narrow topic thread and the other has expanded parameters with in the realm of 9/11. Give them both a period to get established and impose an evaluation point some where in the near future.

Lets see which thread commands the most posts, replies and viewers. Science depends, ultimately, on numerical data, let's generate some.

If the wider topic thread holds it's own or blows away the other away, it stays. Especially if there is a one way cross over of members, as I suspect there will be, in droves. Who would want to experience Newton in anything less than his full techno/poetic grandeur.

I rest my case.

GeneSplicer

30th June 2006 - 12:49 PM

QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jun 29 2006, 09:09 PM)

My thread would more court room oriented, using science, when dictated by circumstance.

I just have to comment on this and ask a question. If your pursuit was and still remains to introduce alternative explanations to the cause of the collapse of the WTC, why would take an approach of a court room?

The legal system and courts have never been a friend of science and is not the proper forum in which to discuss any science. Science is concerned with the verifiable while our modern courts are more concerned with legal maneuvers and nothing approaching the “truth” as some would label it.

zoktoberfest

30th June 2006 - 08:40 PM

GeneSplicer,

I welcome your question.

There are two kinds of logic on earth. Hard and soft. I mentioned our planet, because soft logic is more compatible with the abstract nature, of the human condition. Human enterprise conceived, designed, constructed, occupied, conspired (against), destroyed and perished in, the WTCs. Your inquiry suggests, that with sufficient de-conconstruction, modeling, and 1st order logic, the events of 9/11 can be reconstituted above the threshold of disputed certainty. Lets say, that I agree, to disagree, with you on this. Allow me, however, to invite you, to a most lucid article on soft logic, which by the way, goes far beyond my limited application of it, here. When I first came across it, my thinking was altered, in not so, subtle ways. If you have the time, then drop me a line, about it. If not, thanks for the interest in the first place.

http://members.tripod.com/vismath1/gor/index.html

zoktoberfest

GeneSplicer

30th June 2006 - 10:46 PM

I don’t need to enter into a discussion about logic. What I asked was specific and not open to interpretation.

Why would you operate an inquiry into the WTC collapse in the approach of a court room which is nothing more than an adversarial system not designed to investigate anything let alone address matter of physics?

adoucette

30th June 2006 - 11:01 PM

QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Jun 29 2006, 09:09 PM)

Well this is their board, they can do what they like.

I got a "warning" on my first post, just because I commented that a post by Foxx (which they deleted in its entirety) seemed that he was morphing into a version of MMC.

Assuming the moderatores stick to their guns the posts will most likely go WAY down, since so many of the posts were about non-physics issues.

In anycase, since I post on many other parts of the physics board, I'm not willing to risk posting privliges in one more rehash of why "pull it" didn't mean to blow up WTC 7, that "only a few fires on 78" was not an indication of the fires overall severity, that Molten does not mean Melted etc etc etc.

Arthur

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.