Be Reasonable: Episode #052 – Michael Fullerton


Joining Marsh this month is researcher and 9/11 Truther Michael Fullerton from Skeptopathy.com.

Play
  1. #1 by Joris on May 28, 2018 - 23:10

    I wish they went into detail as to why the molten metal couldn’t be aluminium.

  2. #2 by Luke on May 28, 2018 - 23:51

    Thank you for the podcast, awesome as always.

    Thanks for beginning the podcast by asking for a brief summary of Mr. Fullerton’s belief and arguments.

  3. #3 by Davey on May 29, 2018 - 18:33

    You questioned a lot more in this episode then usual Marsh, good to see!
    It seems that on multiple occasions Michael was a bit stumped and couldn’t see the flaws in his argument, i think he needs to really prepare for questions that surely he’s been asked before.

  4. #4 by Chris on May 30, 2018 - 22:32

    I am afraid that Mr. Fullerton’s education did not include the material science required for most mechanical and civil engineers. He probably has never seen molten metal of any sort, especially aluminum. I also doubt he has solved any problem in a statics* class, nor calculated the moment of inertia for any structure, much less the center of gravity.

    As a former structural engineer my head explodes when someone who thinks they know “science” just because they have a Bachelors of Science degree in Computer Science. I usually avoid the truthers because of the way they distort the actual equations of motion and structural models. Especially when they neither understand the vocabulary nor the math.

    My former job description was literally doing computer models of structures with forcing functions that changed over time. I used finite element analysis, eigenvalue/eigenvector calculations, basic equations of motion, Fourier transforms and even a funky program called “Language for Structural Dynamics.”

    He kept repeating “science”, when it is clear he does not have a clue about engineering analyses. Which is why I do not engage with truthers, and perhaps why most other structural engineers also ignore them.

    By the way, in June/July of 2014 he had an online debate with Dr. Steve Novella at Neurologica. Molten aluminum was discussed.

    * It has been over forty years since I took statics as a college sophomore. I still see the tiny force arrows whenever I encounter a truss bridge.

  5. #5 by Erik on May 31, 2018 - 01:38

    I’m forever impressed by your patience! I found the endless loop of “if I say ‘science’ often enough, people will believe my claim is scientific” to be incredibly frustrating. I found myself getting really tense as I listened to this.

  6. #6 by Matt on May 31, 2018 - 03:14

    “I’m not dealing with absolutes”
    At least we know Michael is not a Sith Lord.

    If we use “science” to analyse this though I’m not so sure we can accept this with out an experiment being done. Its possible Sith Lords would lie about using absolutes. There is zero evidence that Michael is not a Sith Lord.

    Michael is clearly a Sith Lord.

  7. #7 by Kit on May 31, 2018 - 16:54

    Listening to this chap arguing about correlation. I want to hear his evidence that his ‘molten iron’ has any correlation to the buildin falling. He seems to understand neither evidence nor the scientific method.

  8. #8 by Michael Fullerton on June 2, 2018 - 21:59

    Joris :
    I wish they went into detail as to why the molten metal couldn’t be aluminium.

    Joris :
    I wish they went into detail as to why the molten metal couldn’t be aluminium.

    People have done experiments and no one yet has been able to reproduce the behavior of the metal seen with molten aluminum. Feel free to experiment yourself.

  9. #9 by Michael Fullerton on June 2, 2018 - 22:01

    Davey :
    You questioned a lot more in this episode then usual Marsh, good to see!
    It seems that on multiple occasions Michael was a bit stumped and couldn’t see the flaws in his argument, i think he needs to really prepare for questions that surely he’s been asked before.

    Luke :
    Thank you for the podcast, awesome as always.
    Thanks for beginning the podcast by asking for a brief summary of Mr. Fullerton’s belief and arguments.

    I wasn’t stumped by any of the questions and have been asked all of them countless times before. Exactly what are the “flaws” in my arguments?

  10. #10 by Michael Fullerton on June 2, 2018 - 22:05

    Kit :
    Listening to this chap arguing about correlation. I want to hear his evidence that his ‘molten iron’ has any correlation to the buildin falling. He seems to understand neither evidence nor the scientific method.

    As I explained on the show, molten iron is a byproduct of thermite reactions. I think we’d all be interested in exactly why you believe I don’t understand either evidence or the scientific method. Faith-based pronouncements just don’t ct it for me.

  11. #11 by Davey on June 27, 2018 - 11:36

    Michael Fullerton :

    Davey :
    You questioned a lot more in this episode then usual Marsh, good to see!
    It seems that on multiple occasions Michael was a bit stumped and couldn’t see the flaws in his argument, i think he needs to really prepare for questions that surely he’s been asked before.

    Luke :
    Thank you for the podcast, awesome as always.
    Thanks for beginning the podcast by asking for a brief summary of Mr. Fullerton’s belief and arguments.

    I wasn’t stumped by any of the questions and have been asked all of them countless times before. Exactly what are the “flaws” in my arguments?

    From memory, you stated that a passenger aircraft hitting a buildimg has no relation to said building falling down. That is demonstrably false.

  12. #12 by Chris on July 5, 2018 - 23:57

    Of course he wasn’t stumped by the questions, mostly because his answers were nonsense. He just does not understand why they are nonsense.

  13. #13 by Chris on July 26, 2018 - 07:19

    I noticed that on his blog Mr. Fullerton did not like my comments because I did not post my qualifications. If you must know, it is an undergraturate degree in aeronautics and astronautics engineering with an emphasis in structural engineering, specifically dynamics with an emphasis on random vibration (bouncy bouncy bouncy, at various frequencies, which can be qualified).

    The fact that you would question this is further proof you have no idea about eigenvalues, eigenvectors, moments of inertia, heat’s effect* on shear and stress (ever hear of Young’s Modulus or Poisson’s Ratio?), material science nor in the mechanical equations of motion. How good are you at dealing with multi-variable nonlinear differential equations? (hint it involves several matrices).

    You probably gave no idea who Stephen Timoshenko was. That is just pitiful.

    If you do not understand what I am saying, that means you have no qualifications in structural engineering.

    By the way, deer sir: I am not a “he.”

    * Which is understood by all blacksmiths.

(will not be published)