ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags Dave Thomas , Michael Fullerton , wtc 7

Reply
Old 4th February 2011, 04:34 PM   #1601
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
I'm unable to answer the question you're asking because it's ill-posed. It's a loaded question, and is also full of ambiguous terminology.

In the unlikely event that you're actually asking me to define what I think the term "Scientific Theory" means, here goes:


Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity are an example of a Scientific Theory. This doesn't explain all observables, however, such as behavior of objects at very high velocities.

The Special Theory of Relativity is an example of a Scientific Theory. This too doesn't explain all observables, however, such as behavior of objects near very large masses.

So, Scientific Theories are well-developed, validated bodies of knowledge. As new theories are developed, older theories are incorporated into the newer theories, or discarded.

Not all Scientific Theories explain All the Observables.
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.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2011, 05:05 PM   #1602
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,745
Well, except for the fact that the building was damaged, caught fire and fell down. Except for that, sure.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th February 2011, 08:48 PM   #1603
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Good points Dave. ... 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?
...
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:
1 is not equal to 2
I do not adhere to your straw "theory."

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].
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 06:33 AM   #1604
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
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
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 08:27 AM   #1605
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
1 is not equal to 2. Woa.

I love this forum; I'm always learning something.
For grins, here's a proof that 1 DOES equal 2.
Quote:
  • Let a = b.
  • Multiply both sides of the equation by a:
  • a*a = a2 = ab.
  • Now subtract b2 from both sides:
  • a2-b2 = ab - b2.
  • Now factor as follows:
  • (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b).
  • Now you can factor out the common term, (a-b):
  • (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b).
  • a+b = b.
  • Recall that a=b:
  • a+a = a.
  • Combine terms:
  • 2a = a.
  • Divide out the common factor, a:
  • 2 = 1.
Now you've learned something!
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 08:38 AM   #1606
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
For grins, here's a proof that 1 DOES equal 2.


Now you've learned something!
Hey now, no dividing by zero!
__________________
"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
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 08:51 AM   #1607
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
13x7=21.

I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 09:25 AM   #1608
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
13x7=21.

I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so.
Sorry, Tri, but you are wrong!

13x7 = 28.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 10:23 AM   #1609
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Oops!!
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 07:43 PM   #1610
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,426
"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
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 07:49 PM   #1611
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th February 2011, 10:13 PM   #1612
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
13x7=21.

I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so.
They would make wonderful figureheads for the Truther movement,or maybe the Three Stooges.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 11:54 AM   #1613
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
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:


I do not adhere to your straw "theory."

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].
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.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 11:59 AM   #1614
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
They claimed free fall was impossible.
they did? When?
__________________
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?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 12:30 PM   #1615
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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.
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'

Last edited by alienentity; 7th February 2011 at 12:32 PM.
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 12:32 PM   #1616
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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".

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...

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE available to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
No because I am not a crackpot. Again you go back to C7's point that you apparently believe WTC 7 was magically suspended in the air, the 58 columns buckle simultaneously at one floor and buckle again simultaneously 8 floors up and then the building falls.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
No one here has ever ever dealt with the WTC7 2.25 second free fall, period. ...
Now let's analyze the monumentally absurd WTC 7 buckling theory. For the 2.25 second free fall period you need to completely get rid of eight stories of structure. There appears to be only two possibilities. All 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time or all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously floor by floor. The columns could not buckle simultaneously floor by floor and still result in free fall. When the first floor buckled building would be crashing down and meet resistance with resulting slow down. In this scenario there could be no free fall. So you are left with all 58 perimeter columns buckling simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time, the accordion theory. The odds of this happening are so astronomical that they could never be computed.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Oh did someone explain how eight stories of structure were completely removed by all 58 perimeter columns buckling simultaneously at the same locations? I must have missed it.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
All 58 perimeter columns had to be cut precisely so that the building would fall straight down. Some of the columns in the middle could be cut a fraction of a second from the others but the rest had to be cut so close together that the time difference couldn't even be measured. It is impossible for fire to be so meticulously precise. A "chain of causality" requires gravitational potential energy which you don't have in free fall. Your theory is extraordinarily ridiculous and therefore requires extraordinary proof. A true skeptic would know that. You have absolutely no proof to support your theory whatsoever. All you have is faith. Faith-based theories are crackpot pseudo-science. This is something you all need to come to terms with.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.
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?
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 01:04 PM   #1617
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
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?
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.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 01:20 PM   #1618
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Mine's bolded:

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone.

Correct! And with the evidence provided they came to the conclussion that it was fire.

This has never happened before in the history of the world.

Wrong! Just because Rosie O'Donnell said it doesn't mean you can take it literally. Hello, she's an actress, remember?

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".

But you have no evidence for your claims or theories. Keep on babbling like Stundie!
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 01:21 PM   #1619
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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. ...
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
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 02:22 PM   #1620
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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".
This is where (one of the many places) your wrong. There is a "well validated body of knowledge". Buckling is very well understood in structural engineering.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 7th February 2011 at 02:38 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 02:36 PM   #1621
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
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
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.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 02:51 PM   #1622
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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?"
I agree - you didn't understand my explanation.

Quote:
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.
Well, at least you're no longer saying that "In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage," and are admitting that your position on the matter indeed is that "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage."

Progress!
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 03:09 PM   #1623
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,270
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
They would make wonderful figureheads for the Truther movement,or maybe the Three Stooges.
I favor Inspector Closeau, because of the quality of the Truthers investigations......


dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 03:23 PM   #1624
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I favor Inspector Closeau, because of the quality of the Truthers investigations......


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0f617f071f.jpg
Doesn't Inspector Closeau actually always get it right (In a round about way)?

__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 7th February 2011 at 03:32 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 03:25 PM   #1625
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,588
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 06:48 PM   #1626
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,801
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This is where (one of the many places) your wrong. There is a "well validated body of knowledge". Buckling is very well understood in structural engineering.
I envision he does the following equation:

Assert that no high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire
....
.....
......
.......
SCREW ENGINEERING
.....
.......
........

PROFIT!
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 07:28 PM   #1627
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
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...














Did any of the stuff there make any sense to anybody who can get the correct answer to 2+2 best of 3 tries?
Quote:


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?
__________________
"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
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 09:20 PM   #1628
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,686
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Did any of the stuff there make any sense to anybody who can get the correct answer to 2+2 best of 3 tries?

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
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2011, 09:34 PM   #1629
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
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
May I use that as my new sig line?
__________________
"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
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2011, 03:23 AM   #1630
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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".
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." ĖNoam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2011, 08:31 AM   #1631
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,686
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
May I use that as my new sig line?

Be my guest, Sir.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2011, 12:35 PM   #1632
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
CM,



Every time I show up to discuss something with you, you take a powder.

tk
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.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2011, 12:54 PM   #1633
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
I agree - you didn't understand my explanation.



Well, at least you're no longer saying that "In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage," and are admitting that your position on the matter indeed is that "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage."

Progress!
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 progressedÖ"

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.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2011, 01:20 PM   #1634
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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..
A building has never fallen at "free-fall" from a demolition either. Should we conclude the days events didn't happen?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:07 AM   #1635
EvilPoet
New Blood
 
EvilPoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Oh, and 6x7=42
The Hitchhiker's Guide told me that 6x9=42
EvilPoet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:14 AM   #1636
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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.
What would be the point in responding? You handwave away all the answers.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:25 AM   #1637
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,426
Originally Posted by EvilPoet View Post
The Hitchhiker's Guide told me that 6x9=42


Wow, I must have been pretty drunk when I typed that.....
__________________
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
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 10:27 AM   #1638
EvilPoet
New Blood
 
EvilPoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Wow, I must have been pretty drunk when I typed that.....
hmmmm ... was it the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster or were you preparing for hyperspace and thought you were drunk? WAIT! Don't answer that. We're getting dangerously off topic.
EvilPoet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:14 PM   #1639
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,426
Originally Posted by EvilPoet View Post
hmmmm ... was it the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster or were you preparing for hyperspace and thought you were drunk? WAIT! Don't answer that. We're getting dangerously off topic.


I swear I'll never be cruel to a gin&tonic again!
__________________
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
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 05:31 PM   #1640
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
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.
Lets say it was, why do you defend Richard Gage's (AE911) crackpot foolery?
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.