This is how normal people discuss 9/11

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Varemia

 

Do not rework your entire argument. Just provide written support for the erroneous statement. Good luck.

Yeesh, grow up. I owe you nothing. I'm just here to try to make sense of things.

The facts on WTC 7 are that the penthouse caved in first, with windows busting on its half of the building as it collapsed down. Then, the rest of the building fell. The only thing we could possibly be arguing about is the why.

reply to post by Varemia


You made a blanket statement about controlled demolitions. See my edited post.

reply to post by totallackey


I already explained in detail why this is nonsense. I even showed the work of researchers that did just that, create a model of a WTC floor to see if NISTs conclusions would hold up. That proves that you do not need NISTs input data or models to prove them wrong. All you need is you own input data and models. I earlier already asked what input data is still missing to do that. Maybe you can answer, and be specific.

reply to post by totallackey


Its basically the argument that is used in the truth movement to conclude it was CD. So the answer is, most truthers.

reply to post by -PLB-


First, your answer to the issue at hand was to provide a link to a paper dealing with WTC 1, not WTC 7. This effort was an attempt to mislead, derail, and further obfuscate the point of the thread. If you cannot read this thread (where this question has been answered OVER AND OVER AGAIN) then what are you doing here?

You have been directed and presented to the FOIA missing data request. As well as the NIST reply.

Since the input data is withheld and not provided, anyone attempting to model the NIST results utilizing their chosen computer modeling software, are left to choose their own input data. Any outcome demonstrating the NIST conclusions are false would be summarily dismissed as FAULTY. The NIST would simply state, "The test was performed utilizing inaccurate input data."

So, the data used by the NIST cannot be tested for accuracy. What if they used faulty data? Would this make a difference?

Aside from the huge amounts of time it would take to SIMPLY GUESS at what inputs were used by the NIST, it is apparent this stance taken by the NIST to withhold this data is ABSURD!!! "...might jeopardize public safety," is not a sufficient explanation. If it was, then ALL DATA from ALL COLLAPSE MODELS from ALL BUILDINGS would be sequestered.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by totallackey

 

Its basically the argument that is used in the truth movement to conclude it was CD. So the answer is, most truthers.

edit on 1-9-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Funny...WTC 7 did not collapse in any odd way...This is an odd collapse!



The WTC 7 building collapse resembled (at least to me) EXACTLY what I would EXPECT TO SEE in a CD...I think THAT is what most intelligent, reasoned, and open-minded, people find to be odd...

It may be your use of the word, "odd," is simply because you have no real counter-arguments to the facts at hand. Therefore, you feel the need to label the perceptions of those who disagree with you, even though you have no clue of what these people are capable of perceiving.

reply to post by totallackey

Since the input data is withheld and not provided, anyone attempting to model the NIST results utilizing their chosen computer modeling software, are left to choose their own input data. Any outcome demonstrating the NIST conclusions are false would be summarily dismissed as FAULTY. The NIST would simply state, "The test was performed utilizing inaccurate input data."

I think that if this must be pointed out again on page 16, there is very little chance that he will understand what this means or admit that he does. At this point, replying to him is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

reply to post by Varemia

If you observe my signature, I have linked to a post full of people who expected the building to come down and were warned that it was going to collapse.

You might want to bring -PLB- up to date, he thinks nobody predicted it would collapse at all.

Originally posted by -PLB-

This is a silly and extremely unreasonable request. If the building had collapsed slowly, asymmetrical and in an hour I could also not comply. Nobody made a prediction at all.

reply to post by totallackey


You really are clueless about how science works. If you come with good scientific publications, it will, at least eventually, be accepted. Claiming you are at the mercy of NIST to ever be able to show that 911 was an inside job is just confirming that the truth movement is a collection of incompetent people. Its fine by me when you want to represent it like that, and I agree with it. Compotent people would be able to prove, independently, that they are right, not depending on people they don't trust in the first place.

reply to post by -PLB-

Compotent people would be able to prove, independently, that they are right, not depending on people they don't trust in the first place.

Its impossible to prove someone right and its not how science works.

You need to make up your mind there, mr.scientist.

reply to post by -PLB-

You really are clueless about how science works. If you come with good scientific publications, it will, at least eventually, be accepted. Claiming you are at the mercy of NIST to ever be able to show that 911 was an inside job is just confirming that the truth movement is a collection of incompetent people. Its fine by me when you want to represent it like that, and I agree with it. Compotent people would be able to prove, independently, that they are right, not depending on people they don't trust in the first place.

Regardless of your protest, incredulity, amazement, and your nonsensical repetition of this utterly insane characterization of how science works, it will never change the fact that science does work with this way. Every model, test, experiment, etc., ever offered in support of a hypothesis must be subjected to falsification. The only way to do this is to exactly recreate the model, test, experiment, etc. If this cannot be done, then the hypothesis remains open and not fact. Period.

reply to post by whatsecret


Very well put. This sole issue demonstrates clearly how twisted it is to support any theory offered by any entity refusing to pony up the very data with which they arrive at their findings.

Their supporters get more twisted than a flailing kite...

reply to post by whatsecret


This cherry picking kind of response that totally ignores the main argument of my post is kind of typical in these kind of discussions. The "gotcha" on an irrelevant side issue. Which I can easily refute by pointing out that they can prove that they are right about their claim that NIST is wrong.

But I am glad that you have followed up on the lecture I posted and learned a thing or two, so its not all bad.

reply to post by totallackey


Do you have any source backing your claims up? Can you link me to say, 5 papers that include the used models? Or are you just making this up?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

This cherry picking kind of response that totally ignores the main argument of my post is kind of typical in these kind of discussions. The "gotcha" on an irrelevant side issue. Which I can easily refute by pointing out that they can prove that they are right about their claim that NIST is wrong.

But I am glad that you have followed up on the lecture I posted and learned a thing or two, so its not all bad.

Cherry picking? Are you saying I took something you said out of context? Please explain.

reply to post by whatsecret


Focusing one a small, rather insignificant issue you found in my post and reply just to that can be categorized as cherry picking. In no way in invalidates my main argument, which is that if the experts in the truth movement rely on NIST in order to prove them wrong (worded differently so it won't confuse you) they are incompetent. It is really a cop out. Competent people rely on their own expertise (like the example I linked to).

Unless of course your goal wasn't to refute my argument. Then its indeed not cherry picking, but trolling.

Metal conducts heat. A skillet on a fire is approximately equal in temperature across its surface.

To deform metal by heat would require heating all of the contiguous metal, or a separation of a given piece -- in which case the damage was done before the fire weakened anything, and the fire is irrelevant.

Weakening of a metal structure by localized fire is extremely unlikely.

Fire is easy to see, so it is easy to blame.

reply to post by -PLB-

Do you have any source backing your claims up? Can you link me to say, 5 papers that include the used models? Or are you just making this up?

I could simply take the stance you take, with your weak analogies, such as the square root of 2 when it comes to answering this question. But I will not. My position on this issue is well known and adhered to by all reputable scientists, universities, and researchers.

First, take a look at the dates of the paper you submitted. What do you think was occurring in the time frames between submission and acceptance? Do you truly believe the paper was just lying face down on someone's desk the entire time?

Then, read this.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation (emphasis mine) is to document, archive and share all data and methodology (emphasis mine) so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure(emphasis mine), also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

Now, take a look at these papers, all from your website:
Paper 2
Paper 3
Paper 4
Paper 5
Look at the dates of submission.
Look at the dates of publication.
It is evident that all papers underwent a testing and verification process prior to publication. And you know what? The methods of analysis used, including ALL OF THE DATA VARIABLES, were made available in order to test the author(s) conclusions.
Now, for the sake of everyone reading this and future threads, please put a sock in it.

reply to post by totallackey


Data and methodology is not the same as models. But I will put a sock in it as it is useless to talk with peope who know very little about a subject but think they do.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Focusing one a small, rather insignificant issue you found in my post and reply just to that can be categorized as cherry picking. In no way in invalidates my main argument, which is that if the experts in the truth movement rely on NIST in order to prove them wrong (worded differently so it won't confuse you) they are incompetent. It is really a cop out. Competent people rely on their own expertise (like the example I linked to).

Unless of course your goal wasn't to refute my argument. Then its indeed not cherry picking, but trolling.

It might be insignificant to you but to me it's a very confusing contradiction.

When I told you to prove that NIST is right you said that it is impossible to prove somebody right, you said that's not how science works. You told me that I need to prove them wrong instead.

But then you said that any competent person should be able to prove himself.or other scientist to be right without any help from anybody else. So which is it? Can you prove NIST right or are you not competent enough to do that?