Pseudoscience is anything that purports to be science but has no objective, testable evidence supporting its claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00
:lol:
Of course if most people believe it then it cannot be pseudoscience.
psik
Oh lordie, what the fuk was that snow job all about? Providing me with an example of pseudoscience in action, thanks I need that like a hole in my head, but here you go - the response:
citizenschallengeYT
Jan 8, 2018
2:30 of course Feynman's unspoken requirement is that the "experiment" needs to be done correctly or all bets are off!
3:15 interest the guy points out that we use computer models to build complex jet airplanes, and you come with an analogy that computer models can make pigs fly, CON-JOB. 4:20 - you're model is a phony, that those hinges are NOT analogous to the structural components of the towers! 6:15 - phony experiment, your weight didn't grow as it fell. Also your single boards are not at all analogous to beam (shit that should have been TRUSS), pan, concrete floor structures. NOT AT ALL REALISTIC.
The upper lighter structure - above the impact zone. Where the hell do you get off implying that was light weight unit. What about gravity and inertia? 7:59 in NO WAY does your structure simulate the actually structural complexity and the many connections that the real towers consisted of! TOTALLY UNREALISTIC. 8:15 of course it didn't simulate the actually collapse, it is in NO way similar - apple and peanuts buddy, don't pass the stink test.
8:45 - Why not point out the difference in scale and what a difference that makes to a collapsing object? 9:12 Another model that in no way is analogous to the tower's structures. 9:25 - Well yes, once you calculate the actual loads the way the serious experts did. 9:42 Your models keep getting further and further from the reality of the towers. 10:03 of course you didn't see what happened to the towers, you we're foolish to expect that your model with paper which when properly configured can be strong as hell, think corrugated card board. Your ring of paper, why not do some modeling math scale it up to WTC sized and see how much stronger the WTC would be than actually decided. Of course, then look at weights and sizes and not window and ponder the silliness of that analogy.
10:09 What "out motion" ??? 10:30 here it really goes off the deep end. You also need evidence of explosives - make-believe doesn't accomplish that in the real physical world.
11:08 WOW, models with lots of fireworks, now can we look at that video of the collapse, . . . hmmm what's missing? 11:23 NO you weren't, not even.
13:30 Must have used powerful explosives, WHY??? Weight, gravity, inertia, structural complexities and weakness accelerate to tremendous forces.
13:45 What a sick joke. Don't speak for nature when you IGNORE so many PHYSICAL REALITIES.
Show less
REPLY
citizenschallengeYT
1 second ago
psikeyhackr, very disappointed. When are you going to share something serious and substantive. Oh yeah, I know, 9/11 Hoaxers don't have anything serious or internally consistent.
Maybe next COLE PE will explain to us how manmade global warming is also a media hoax.
: - (