|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
4th February 2011, 04:34 PM | #1601 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
|
Good points Dave. So, suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?
Let's go back to your definition: "A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more." The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory". |
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. |
|
4th February 2011, 05:05 PM | #1602 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
Well, except for the fact that the building was damaged, caught fire and fell down. Except for that, sure.
|
4th February 2011, 08:48 PM | #1603 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
|
Could you do me a favor, and stop putting words in my mouth?
NIST explained the free fall period. Therefore, I don't agree that "the NIST theory cannot explain the free fall period." I'll say it again. Your strawman model has WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage. That is indeed a "wacky theory", and bad physics. NIST does not adhere to your straw "theory." NIST has buckling in stage 1, and freefall in stage 2. May I remind you of this verifiable fact from mathematics:
Quote:
The only one around here espousing this obviously incorrect physics explanation is YOU, CMATRIX. The fact that you believe in an absurd, physically impossible "theory" does not prove NIST does, it does not prove that I do, it only exposes you as a pathetic purveyor of polemic pablum. It does not prove 9/11 was in inside job, WTC7 was imploded, or anything else. [cynicism]Sorry[/cynicism]. |
__________________
Ergo beedunked here. #FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth |
|
5th February 2011, 06:33 AM | #1604 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
1 is not equal to 2. Woa.
I love this forum; I'm always learning something. |
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
5th February 2011, 08:27 AM | #1605 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
|
|
__________________
Ergo beedunked here. #FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth |
|
5th February 2011, 08:38 AM | #1606 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
|
|
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein |
|
5th February 2011, 08:51 AM | #1607 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
13x7=21.
I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so. |
5th February 2011, 09:25 AM | #1608 | |||
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
|
Sorry, Tri, but you are wrong!
13x7 = 28.
|
|||
__________________
Ergo beedunked here. #FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth |
||||
5th February 2011, 10:23 AM | #1609 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Oops!!
|
5th February 2011, 07:43 PM | #1610 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
"Did you go to school stupid?" A much more appropriate quote, methinks.
Oh, and 6x7=42 |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
5th February 2011, 07:49 PM | #1611 | |||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
|||
5th February 2011, 10:13 PM | #1612 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th February 2011, 11:54 AM | #1613 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
|
No NIST has never ever explained the free fall period. At first they claimed the falling building broke up the structure below. They claimed free fall was impossible. Then when confronted with the fact of free fall they merely stated that it occured but provide no explanation whatsoever of why or how it happened. They claim buckling occured in the stage before free fall but don't claim this buckling caused the free fall period or how it could cause free fall. All have have to support your theory that buckling caused the free fall period are unsupported claims. Are you trying to say making unsupported claims is good science?
In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage. This "fact" is something you have fabricated out of thin air and then attack as if it is an argument of mine. IOW you are attacking a straw man by falsely claiming I am using a straw man argument. Again, it is you committing the straw man logical fallacy. This is what, the third time I have exposed this incredibly bizarre reasoning process of yours. Instead of pathetically attempting to misdirect attention can you just deal with my arguments from the last post like a mature adult. Again: ...suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables? Let's go back to your definition: "A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more." The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory". |
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. |
|
7th February 2011, 11:59 AM | #1614 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
|
|
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. |
|
7th February 2011, 12:30 PM | #1615 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
cmatrix, here's the problem:
1) The NIST did in fact explain the free fall period, but you refuse to accept the explanation. So it would be correct to say 'I don't agree with their view' instead of 'they didn't explain it'. You're just wrong about that. 2) They did not claim freefall was impossible. That is false. Please correct your error. 3) Wrong again. They did explain, in detail, how the initial stage represented buckling, and how the second stage was the resulting freefall. This is outlined in NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse and p 602, chapter 12.5.3 Timing of Collapse Initiation and Progression: 'In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12–62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.' In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s. ' cmatrix, the problem with your claims is that they are fairly easy to disprove by referring to the NIST documents directly. Perhaps you feel you can misrepresent the NIST, but this isn't the place to do it - people here aren't so gullible as to take the word of an anonymous forum poster.... |
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
7th February 2011, 12:32 PM | #1616 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
|
OK, so you didn't mention "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage" in the previous post... But, you've mentioned it many, many times, here, in this very thread... I could go on, but what's the point? You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data... Good luck on trying to trick me into that "killer confession" you're hoping for! How's that working out for ya? |
__________________
Ergo beedunked here. #FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth |
|
7th February 2011, 01:04 PM | #1617 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
|
LOL. You completely misunderstand my intentions Dave. I am not attempting to extract a "killer confession" from you. I am merely here to show that you continually ignore inconvenient scientific facts and make wild completely unsupported pronouncements. For example, you make the follwing bold claim: "You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." yet provide absolutely no support for it. This is prime evidence of your thoroughly unscientific faith-based approach to 9/11. You sidestep and refuse to acknowlege arguments that completely obliterate your case like the following:
...suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables? Let's go back to your definition: "A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more." The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory". |
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. |
|
7th February 2011, 01:20 PM | #1618 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
|
|
7th February 2011, 01:21 PM | #1619 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
|
I don't think my claim that"You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." is "bold" at all.
For the curious, I made the claim here. See for yourself! Dave |
__________________
Ergo beedunked here. #FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth |
|
7th February 2011, 02:22 PM | #1620 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th February 2011, 02:36 PM | #1621 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
|
So I didn't understand your explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data even though I admitted it was a good point:
"Good points Dave. So, suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?" Maybe you had trouble understanding what I meant here. I am saying for example, someone attempting to use a scientific theory like Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity to explain quantum-level phenomena would be able to explain little if any of the observables. That wouldn't be very scientific would it? Scientific theories like Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity do explain all the observables in a specific domain. You cannot however apply them to domains they were never intended for. |
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. |
|
7th February 2011, 02:51 PM | #1622 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
|
I agree - you didn't understand my explanation.
Quote:
Progress! |
__________________
Ergo beedunked here. #FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth |
|
7th February 2011, 03:09 PM | #1623 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
|
7th February 2011, 03:23 PM | #1624 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
7th February 2011, 03:25 PM | #1625 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
7th February 2011, 06:48 PM | #1626 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
7th February 2011, 07:28 PM | #1627 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
|
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
7th February 2011, 09:20 PM | #1628 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
Well, sure. For certain values of "sense." I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points. If only we'd focus on the strong points, like how thrillingly seditious it all would be if it were only true, we'd find it much more convincing. Respectfully, Myriad |
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
7th February 2011, 09:34 PM | #1629 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
|
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
8th February 2011, 03:23 AM | #1630 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
Hey Cmatrix... have you even bothered to look at what making scale models entails? Have you done even basic research, or are you still trying to do arguments from ignorance and incredulity?
after you have done your remedial work, come on back and explain how to make a scale model for wtc7. I (and the rest of the engineering world) would LOVE to see it. Pretty please. |
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers) |
|
8th February 2011, 08:31 AM | #1631 |
The Clarity Is Devastating
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 20,891
|
|
__________________
"*Except Myriad. Even Cthulhu would give him a pat on the head and an ice cream and send him to the movies while he ended the rest of the world." - Foster Zygote |
|
16th February 2011, 12:35 PM | #1632 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
|
Well someone certainly took a powder from our discussion but it wasn't me. Would you care to respond to my reply to your post here? Three weeks should be sufficient for you to craft an intelligent rejoinder unless you can't, that is.
|
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. |
|
16th February 2011, 12:54 PM | #1633 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
|
Actually in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 p 602 NIST says:
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed…" So NIST does claim bucking was still occurring during free fall, a clear violation of the laws of physics. Again I have to ask why you, as a physicist, defend NIST's crackpot foolery. Also for one more time I ask for a direct non-evasive response to this statement of mine: Let's go back to your definition: "A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more." The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory". |
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. |
|
16th February 2011, 01:20 PM | #1634 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
21st February 2011, 05:07 AM | #1635 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9
|
|
21st February 2011, 05:14 AM | #1636 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
21st February 2011, 05:25 AM | #1637 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
|
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
21st February 2011, 10:27 AM | #1638 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9
|
|
21st February 2011, 05:14 PM | #1639 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
|
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
21st February 2011, 05:31 PM | #1640 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|