Aversion of the Scientific Method and its effect on the 911 OS

Recently I have seen a few references to this chart here on ATS. They made a reference to intentionally averting the scientific method to catch the culprit on one of those CSI shows I recently watched. As you can see by looking at the chart below, it limits most internet arguements to deductive and inductive logical arguements as the nature of 911 limits the reality of constructing a reliable arguement based on the scientific method. i.e. the lack of any constructive experiment to conduct.



This is quite damning the OS. Yes, I realize that it is quite damning to every CT, also. I however choose to support no CT including the OS so I notice that this logical fallacy is overlooked quite often. e.g. Every CT is false therefore the OS is true.

In the NIST report they admit to excluding much of the evidence that could imply CD was used. This does not imply that CD was or was not used, however it is illustrates that the scientific method was averted. In other words admitting that the steel was shipped off and not tested rules out the possibility that an experiment was undergone to determine the chemical composition of the steel.

The second scenario I must point out is the computer recreations that showed the initiation of the collapse actually required several reworkings to bring the simulation to collapse initiation. This averts the scientific method in that no new hypothesis was cunstructed upon failure of the experiment.

And finally, I look at the trickery in the question that is being asked in the first place. The question I want to know is "Were the twin towers broght down by and as a direct result of the jetliners that crashed into them?" The question that the NIST asks is "Was it possible for the airliners to initiate global collapse?"

7 years later there is no excuse to have not solved this crime with the resources we have. The OS by its own admittance is inconclusive. Just becasue you have 'debunked' every CT you have ever heard does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that you have proven the OS.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420


Don't forget that NIST did do physical experiments. But, of course instead of re-hypothesising after they failed, they "made excuses" as Ryan Mackey would say.

I don't know about anyone else but 911 was the biggest event in my life. It floored me, and sometimes still does. It amazes me that so many people are OK with such a sham of an ivestigation. That goes for 'twoofers' and 'Official CTers' alike.

I notice that when I make a post about something involving 911 I am instantly labeled as a 'truther' and my post is dealt with as if I have the mentality of an Alex Jones groupie (no offense Alex). There are a handfull of people here that treat all posts with respect, thank you.

I also notice that when I make a thread about the event as a whole and point out how the whole story does not jive, It gets pushed into the archives.

I made the mistake of using the word 'proof' once in a thread and I was ripped to shreds for it. I don't mind, I learn from my mistakes. I never posted 'proof' in a title again, but when I ask people for their proof, it vanishes quicker than bigfoot taking a picture of a UFO hovering over Nessie.

However, I am not here for post count, flags, or stars. I came here to look into the anomalies of 911. At first I was gung ho that it was a conspiracy. I joined the bandwagon. That was more than 3 years ago. I have since learned much and have left the bandwagon to rot. The conclusion I have come to is that the events of September 11th, 2001 were not consistant with the story portrayed by neither the media nor government.

This does not stand well with me. The debunkers have debunked everything, yet not been able to prove the scenario as a whole. No one has, and its for a reason. Its because it is false. I dare anyone to prove different.

Now that I have looked into these anomalies and drawn a logical conclusion based on the scientific method (or the lack thereof to be precise) my mission has changed. I feel that it is my duty to use logical reasoning and research to help others understand what I now do. I'm sure you notice the several Matrix references in my profile and I truly feel that it is my job to get people to question the 'reality' that has been placed before them.

I doubt that I will convert anyone from 'one side of the fence' to 'the other', but if I am able to get one single person to open their eyes I will feel as tho my mission is successful.

I do not present much research in this thread. If anyone is truly interesed u2u me and I will link you to one of my research threads. Like i said im not looking for a bigger e-ego, I'm looking to answers.

Originally posted by jprophet420
The debunkers have debunked everything, yet not been able to prove the scenario as a whole.

Well, I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion.

The debunkers haven't explained why none of the "hijackers" appeared on any airline passenger flight manifest or government autopsy report. Or why six or seven of them are reportedly still alive.

The debunkers haven't explained why WTC 7 collapsed. Neither has NIST for that matter. They're still trying to make everyone believe that there were enormous fires and damage.

The debunkers haven't explained why Flight 93 was shot down. They spend their time trying to assure everyone that it came down in one piece and disappeared into a narrow smoking hole.

The debunkers haven't explained the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon. They're still trying to make people believe that Flight 77's wings folded back and the entire plane disappeared into a narrow smoking hole.

The debunkers haven't adequately explained a lot of things.

Originally posted by jprophet420 Now that I have looked into these anomalies and drawn a logical conclusion based on the scientific method (or the lack thereof to be precise) my mission has changed. I feel that it is my duty to use logical reasoning and research to help others understand what I now do. I'm sure you notice the several Matrix references in my profile and I truly feel that it is my job to get people to question the 'reality' that has been placed before them.

I doubt that I will convert anyone from 'one side of the fence' to 'the other', but if I am able to get one single person to open their eyes I will feel as tho my mission is successful.

Thanks, but I really don't know what you're looking to accomplish, except to teach others how to straddle a fence. What exactly are you trying to get anyone to open their eyes to? More than anything else, determining that 9/11 was an inside job has made me question the reality of this world. But this is just my own personal experience.

I think that one way or another, most people have made up their minds by now.

The debunkers have debunked everything, yet not been able to prove the scenario as a whole...
Well, I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion.
A bit of sarcasm, as it is not literally possible. Also realize that CT'ers debunking the OS are still debunkers.


Thanks, but I really don't know what you're looking to accomplish, except to teach others how to straddle a fence.
I stated it directly so I assume you are familiar with the art of sarcasm also
What exactly are you trying to get anyone to open their eyes to?
The fact that while people take shots at the CT's all the time the OS is a 7 year old unsolved crime that we invaded nations over
More than anything else, determining that 9/11 was an inside job has made me question the reality of this world. But this is just my own personal experience.
Wouldn't you rather be able to make that determination with the scientific method backing you rather than armchair investigation?

I think that one way or another, most people have made up their minds by now.
As I stated its the ones that havent been made up that I am concerned with.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by jprophet420]

I think it is a great idea to emphasize the scientific method when talking to the undecided about the 9/11 event. If a person sticks to observable, verifiable, undisputable facts, it automatically gets rid of attacks on personalities, speculative theories, etc. That is a great place to start to look at 9/11. Many conspiracy theorists started that way.

When you have determined what the undeniable facts are, you can decide what needs to be done next, from your own personal perspective. That's where theories, investigations, character assessments, logical inferences etc. enter the picture.

In my own case a concern about the leap George Bush took toward the attack on Iraq, a country that on the face of things did not seem to have any connection to 9/11, (Absence of employment of the scientific method, in your terminology.) led me to look more closely at 9/11 and to find other anomalies.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


The debunkers haven't explained why none of the "hijackers" appeared on any airline passenger flight manifest or government autopsy report.

You are sadly mistaken. Have you seen the manifests? I tell you what, post a copy on here. You may be confusing the victims list with the manifest.

In regards to the DNA identification process, not all the hijackers were identified for the simple reason there was nothing to match the DNA with on all of them. If you look at flight 77, at the Pentagon, DNA was found that did not match any of the passengers or anyone at the Pentagon. The tissue remains were found to be that of brothers. Remember the hijackers on flight 77? The al-Hazmi brothers?

Or why six or seven of them are reportedly still alive.

No, none of them are reported alive. (except on truther websites without any evidence)

The debunkers haven't explained why WTC 7 collapsed. Neither has NIST for that matter. They're still trying to make everyone believe that there were enormous fires and damage.

Although I am not holding my breath, the report is rumored to be released this month. We can fight till dooms day about the fires. (or lack there of)

The debunkers haven't explained why Flight 93 was shot down. They spend their time trying to assure everyone that it came down in one piece and disappeared into a narrow smoking hole.

Flight 93 was not shot down. There is not one shred of evidence. In all the witness statements and FDR show that the plane was not shot down. Do you have any evidence to show it WAS?

The debunkers haven't explained the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon. They're still trying to make people believe that Flight 77's wings folded back and the entire plane disappeared into a narrow smoking hole.

You have been shown literally thousands of pounds of wreckage in photographs. There have been many witness statements speaking of it. You choose not to believe it.

The debunkers haven't adequately explained a lot of things.

You should pay closer attention.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt
What does all this have to do with the lack of scientific method in the original story?

Jprophet- it would probably be impossible at this time to use the scientific method to peer review the NIST report or form a new hypothesis because some of the most important evidence to proving how buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed has long been destroyed. NIST even admitted to not testing any steel from WTC 7 and very little from 1 and 2.
The hardest part is going to be getting a hold of some of the documents NIST had access to such as original blueprints and structural documents that could prove the buildings were not made of toothpics, straws, cards or whatever else they wanted us to believe.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I was replying to a post by GoldenFleece.

Sorry for the one liner.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Yes, I am sorry, I should have replied to both of you because Goldenfleece was off topic as well. I was just trying to get things rolling again in the right direction by mentioning the lack of scientific method in the OS and how it would be difficult, if not impossible, to use the scientific method to prove it right or wrong. Especially after the government admitting destroying and misshandling evidence...

I did mention 3 points specifically that they averted the scientific method. The steel is an issue that I am afraid they probably cant get around. I'm sure its been melted down and re used by now. However, they could change the question they are asking. They could also ask new questions. For example, 2 of the biggest anomalies are the flights outside of NY that day. They could run rather advanced computer simulations. I know for a fact that there are a good number of supercomputers out there, I used to make the chips for them.

Throat, there is evidence for both cases in flight 93, in other words crashing or being shot down. Evidence is not proof.

The ultimate point is that with the technology and minds we have behind us, there is no reason we should have spent more resources on the OJ trial than this invsetigation. 20 million is roughly a dime from everyones taxes. 7 years is toooo long. We can do better than that, we know it and the world knows it. The only reason I can think of to not want a propper analysis the fear of being wrong (in ones assumptions of what really happened).

Can somebody please try to submit the op to digg? I tried but keep getting an "unknown fatal exception error" on their page. Do they have a filter that attempts to block 9.11 articles or could this be a legitimate problem every time?

I've been researching a bit more since the debunkers are on vacation this week, found out something that I never knew...

Interestingly the 9/11 commission report fails to even mention the collapse of WTC 7. The NIST report on WTC7 is long overdue. NIST does have photos and videos of the collapse of WTC 7 which they have refused to release despite Freedom of Information Act requests. The excuse is that while they are still studying this, they will not release the videos and photos of WTC 7. These videos and photos were obtained mainly from the public at tax payer expense and I strongly suggest the public should have a chance to look at all the data and we can study this ourselves, thank you.

How is this related to the scientific method? Well, not allowing the public to attempt to draw a conclusion using the scientific method even after its been FOIA'd? thats pretty damning...

The collapse time of the South Tower was stated to be 10 seconds in the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 322). The free fall time of a brick dropped from the roof of the tower, which is 1368 feet high, would be 9.2 seconds. The NIST final report avoids all issues that occur after the tower is “poised for collapse”,23 including the remarkably short collapse time. By ignoring all observations that occur after the towers are “poised to collapse.” 23 NIST inherently ignores molten metal evidence, collapse features which are not well described by the hypothesized failure mode, and most of the forensic evidence contained in the rubble, dust, and aerosols which were collected in the days and months after the collapses. Clearly, NIST is ignoring a lot of data, and that is not good science.

I've mentioned many of these points but this puts it so much more eloquantly. This next one is a great counter point to many debunkers. The case being "More people would speak out if it was true." This man lost his job for speaking out and pointing out something circumvents the scientific method...

Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, analyzed the question “were fires sufficient to cause complete failure in the steel columnar supports in the Towers?”24 He specifically demonstrates that NIST used overreaching assumptions, in some cases blatant assumptions which contradicted physical evidence, in arriving at the conclusion that the towers were “poised to collapse”. By the way, Kevin was fired from Underwriters Laboratories when he publicly disclosed that NIST commissioned UL to perform experiments to test the steel.

I've said this also and it seems to be the consensus, except among 'Official Story Conspiracy Theorists'.

‘Pancaking’, the collapse hypothesis issued in the FEMA report, is not a viable hypothesis which even NIST explicitly states in their report.23 The ‘pancake-collapse’ hypothesis has been flatly rejected. I want to emphasize that the NIST report23 could be called the official “pre-collapse theory.” Unbelievably, they explicitly state, “it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”, and “the results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse.” 23 For twenty million dollars, one would think that NIST could have carried the collapse analysis 15 seconds further.

Here is another debunker fallacy put to the test...

NIST found no steel which exceeded about 600 °C, according to the NIST report.23 Steel does not melt until it reaches temperatures over 1500 °C.

1. The steel does not have to melt to cause failure.
2. 600°C would cause the steel to fail.

Where did the molten steel come from?
(continued)

I decided some time ago to do experiments with thermite mixtures. My colleagues and I observed the liquid iron-sulfur mix (including some entrained aluminum oxide) glowing orange as it was poured from the reaction vessel, a simple clay pot. Also, droplets thrown into the air were found to solidify into tiny spheres, which I collected in a pan. EDS analysis showed that the microspheres thus produced were predominately iron, aluminum, sulfur and oxygen. So what’s happening in this reaction is that oxygen is transferred from the metal oxide to the aluminum:
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe , ∆H = − 853.5kJ/mole.
The aluminum “wants” oxygen a lot more than does iron, and there’s a huge energy release which results in molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron (especially when mixed with sulfur) is hot enough to cut through steel! For example, there’s a video showing a thermite “torch” which produces a blast of molten metal which cuts through a metal rod, at any orientation.35 Spectre corporation sells these “focused jet
torches for penetrating or cutting,” including for demolition purposes.35. In an instructive video clip36, the “Brainiac” team places thermite in a clay pot with a hole in
the bottom to allow the molten iron to escape. Notice the color of the molten-iron product and the aluminum oxide plume coming off. We see the flowing orange-yellow hot metal as it quickly melts its way through the engine of this car. The characteristics of this demonstration are of course to be compared with the molten material seen flowing from the South Tower along with a white-ash plume just before its destruction.
We also did this experiment: we cut through a steel cup with thermate. Thermate is defined here as thermite with sulfur added, and in this case we also added potassium permanganate because KMnO4 is such a good oxidizer. The evidence of high temperature corrosion was evident.

We have seen this report before, why has it been debunked ONLY by character assassination? Why has no NIST believer done an experiment to produce the orange glow with aluminum? Why has no one recreated the oxidization on the cars in an experiment? Because Jones is wacky and its so obvious that the OS is correct that we dont need to apply the scientific method?

Source

My apologies for making this post out of order, but I was running an unstable web browser and it crashed a few times. This is the 'continuation' post.

In regards to the molten metal flowing from wtc2...

“NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 °C and 640 °C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 °C) in the vicinity of the fires. “However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.”

So the hypothesis was put to test...

The very next day after reading the NIST fact sheet in August 2006, a colleague and I performed experiments with aluminum mixed with organic materials, mostly wood chips. The flow was silvery and simply did not resemble the orange liquid which poured from the south tower. The organics burned quickly when added to the molten aluminum. The ash floated on top of the aluminum liquid.

And he tested it again with another colleague...

This time we used wood ash from my wood-burning stove, pieces of carpet, plastic chips, later glass, and melted it all together with molten aluminum. [By the way, my wood-burning stove is made of steel and I don’t worry a bit that it will melt!] The young physicist doggedly stirred and stirred the mix with a long-bladed screwdriver. He tried to mix the organics in with the molten aluminum, but they would not mix in! It’s like oil and water, the organics tend to float and separate from the molten aluminum. And then in the end we poured the concoction out and the flow still looked silvery.

He even offers to try the experiment again to settle the issue...

If NIST can tell us how to do this trick, we will do the experiment again to test their suggestion. Meanwhile, we have observed that the organics float to the surface but do not make a uniform orange glow. Conclusion: poured out molten aluminum looks silvery (even if heated to the point where iron glows yellow/orange) and does not give the orange glow seen at the South Tower in the flowing material (even when mixed with organic materials).

Again I have yet to see this debunked in any way besides character assassination.

Again, I’m setting a background -- that experiments determine what is true and correct, not someone’s theoretical notions, even someone famous like J. David Jackson.

So again, the missing debris cannot be tested to this day, agreed, however it is obvious that the scientific method can be applied in the investigation to answer many questions. Questions that remain unanswered to this day, for no good or obvious reason.

In closing, I wish to emphasize that there are now many capable individuals who are contributing to the quest for the truth about what happened on 9/11/01 and the possibility of insider involvement. For example, there are already over thirty-five peer-reviewed papers at journalof911studies.com...

Dare we try to debunk this by character assassination? I hate to keep bringing it up but it is the primary methodology I have observed. I wonder if people actually believe in that stuff? I bet there are lots of people that had a link to something, read a thread here, and didn't follow the link because the 'anti-truthers' smeared the name of the author thereby 'debunking' the paper before it is even read.

I wonder how many people actually care about forensics and the scientific method and such? As stated many times minds are made up. My mind was made up. I haven't seen anyone 'debunk' what I am saying here, It seems a theory that kills the OS is unpopular, but a thread that questions the CT's spawns equal malcontent.

Write your congressman or woman today and demand a better investigation. Don't be dogmatic and keep an open mind. If you believe in the OS it should be worth a dollar to you to have the government prove it scientifically, which hasn't happened yet. If you believe in a CT it should be worth 2 dollars to you. If we all kicked in a buck we would have a 200+million dollar investigation, and maybe some acceptable answers.