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.
Reply
Old 17th September 2016, 12:00 PM   #121
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,536
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you bothered to watch the ~16 minute presentation you would know that Dr. Hulsey's investigation is still a work-in-progress.

His initial goal was to determine whether or not it was possible for fire to accomplish what the NIST claimed.

At this point in time he and his research assistants have made the certain determination that there was a zero percent chance that fire led to a the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

His current goal is to find a science-based explanation that does explain the collapse.

He was strongly encouraged to speculate that CD was the cause but he refused, insisting that it was necessary to make a determination based solely on science.
Wait a minute. A clarification here: are you saying his results are that thermal expansion could not have walked the girder off its seat plate or that fire/heat could not have caused the final global release of the building? Because NIST does not state this is what occured.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 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 17th September 2016, 01:21 PM   #122
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you have an issue about the fire conclusions, I suggest you focus on where you believe the study was flawed.


So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
Have you skipped over a good 30% of the posts in this thread?
Neither you or TSz gave even mentioned the fact that this study simply cannot be examined in any detail.
Hulsey has basically given a speech about his study but has not actually made his study available to, it seems, anyone at all.

Hard to "pin point flaws" when one is disallowed from viewing the research and findings. The only info available is from dang near a year ago now! The issue was brought up in post #3.

Care to comment on that yet, keeping in mind the openness and transparency promised in the beginning?



Now it has been noted that the video is 35 minutes long, Gage takes the stage at 30 minutes in. Yet inexplicably you and TSz have characterized the video as being 16 minutes long. It seems to indicate that while trying to deride debunkers for nit watching this video, you haven't bothered to do so yourselves.

I watched it myself but did not bother watching the clock. I admit I skiped over the parts with Gage at the podium.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th September 2016 at 01:37 PM.
jaydeehess 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 17th September 2016, 01:54 PM   #123
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How can we verify or find flaws in a study that has shown none of it's data.
Well, for starters, there's a flaw of logic: the conclusion doesn't follow from the results. We don't need the data that led to these results in order to determine that.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 17th September 2016, 01:55 PM   #124
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What he needs to do, in order to replace the incumbent hypothesis ("fires made floor assemblies around columns 79-81 fail, leaving thos col's unsupported...") with a new hypothesis, is to actually spell out such an alternative hypothesis ("x pounds of high exexplosives placed on col's/girders/... Y to Z went off and at times t1 to tn and triggered") and demonstrate its viability and plausibility and compatibility with observed reality (e.g. the total lack of audible explosions with high brisance; the absence of any and all steel members showong signs of having been subjected to high explosives; a reconciliation with the exsistance of uncontrolled, fully involved fires in the very areas where many of the heat-sensitive explosive charges and their detonators would have been placed, etc etc etc).
There is one etc. that is important: it must replicate the early motion observed prior to the EPH collapse.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 17th September 2016, 01:59 PM   #125
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, for starters, there's a flaw of logic: the conclusion doesn't follow from the results. We don't need the data that led to these results in order to determine that.
That's not necessarily true. The conclusion does not follow from results as we know.
__________________
"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 online now   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 17th September 2016, 03:05 PM   #126
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, for starters, there's a flaw of logic: the conclusion doesn't follow from the results. We don't need the data that led to these results in order to determine that.

In fact the conclusion doesn't follow from the overall logic - the structure of the foundation logic is wrong.

He is following T Szamboti's "New Strategy" of "false dichotomy" - "If I prove you wrong I MUST be right". Proof of "I am right" needs affirmative proof.

Last edited by ozeco41; 17th September 2016 at 03:06 PM.
ozeco41 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 17th September 2016, 03:06 PM   #127
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
What research and finding? When he finally posts his findings or writes a paper, I will be sure to post my comments.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 17th September 2016, 03:15 PM   #128
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That's not necessarily true. The conclusion does not follow from results as we know.
No, per Oystein's post.

ETA: and Oz' follow up.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 17th September 2016 at 03:19 PM.
LSSBB 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 17th September 2016, 03:25 PM   #129
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,720
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif
In fact the conclusion doesn't follow from the overall logic - the structure of the foundation logic is wrong.

He is following T Szamboti's "New Strategy" of "false dichotomy" - "If I prove you wrong I MUST be right". Proof of "I am right" needs affirmative proof.
I wouldn't even mind that--Their proof that " ..you are wrong.." consists of pointing toward the sky and hollering "Look at that!" then running away when you glance up...
__________________
"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 17th September 2016, 07:33 PM   #130
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
who let non-engineers into an elite engineering forum

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
ZERO chance that the fires caused the collapse of WTC7!

All you non-engineers ...
Are you an engineer? I am an engineer, and your statement is BS. A claim based on bias, paranoia, and gullibility. What engineering school did you go to? Most engineers understand fire and steel, and 9/11 truth has what appears to be a subset of the insane, complacent, or nutcase engineers; with less than 0.1 percent of all engineer.

It only takes a grade school education to know CD is a fantasy born in ignorance. Does the, http://cem.uaf.edu/ , college of engineering know the CD head, http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx , is a CT BS artist.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 17th September 2016 at 07:45 PM.
beachnut 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 17th September 2016, 07:37 PM   #131
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That's not necessarily true. The conclusion does not follow from results as we know.
No, per Oystein's post.

ETA: and Oz' follow up.
Thanks LSSBB - and a partial apology/explanation for DGM.

DGM I wasn't ignoring your comment which is correct at the level of debate you are addressing. Your point is moot at the more fundamental level of false argument I have been identifying.

In the metaphoric language of your (DGM's) sig:
1) It is "not necessarily true" because, at this stage, all the trees in the forest may not have been identified. There could well be more "trees" in that wrong forest. AKA in - plain English - there could be more "results" not yet known but they will be in Hulsey's wrong setting.
BUT
2) Pgimeno, Oystein and I in varying "styles" are saying "Hulsey is in the wrong forest" there is "no point discusing his description of one or more specific trees" which are in the wrong forest.
ozeco41 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 18th September 2016, 11:58 AM   #132
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
The other day, I had started to scan the video, by looking at short snippets and jumping ahead in steps of 1 minute. I was looking for something (forgot what), and stopped shortly before the 19 minutes mark when I was distracted by a bit of real life.

So today, I am starting to watch at just before 19:00 - and the "whoa" moments come flying fast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7IVCSpalbA&t=19m

1.) 19:01 min: Slide reads:
"NIST, 2004 - Outside the selected area, commcetion failure were not modeled (used as Fix or Pin). Connections were not modeled in the exterior moment frame"
He is somehow bemoaning the fact that the Chapter 11 model (ANSYS, 16 floors) only has the east floors in much detail, and considers the west part as rigid.
Why does he quote from the 2004 draft??? The final (2008) version of NCSTAR 1-9 provides reasons for that engineering choice (page 475):
"Outside the selected area, structural damage–such as buckling of the steel frame and crushing and cracking of the concrete slab–was modeled over the entire floor, but connection failures were not modeled. The extent of the area with detailed connection models was based on the results of single floor fire simulations, where connection damage west of Columns 73 through 76 were not found to contribute to an initial failure event on the east side of the structure. The area where break elements were modeled was selected to reduce the model size without biasing the results for simulating the initial failure event.
Framing connections outside of the selected area, or on other floors not subjected to fire, were modeled as either fixed or pinned, using typical modeling approaches. Connections were not modeled in the exterior moment frame, as no failures were observed there prior to the onset of global collapse. Column splices were also not modeled for interior columns, as the purpose of the ANSYS model was to accumulate local failures up to the point of buckling in a column. When column buckling appeared to be imminent, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47 story model."
He doesn't really explain why he brings up that issue.
We'll return to it in a minute!

2.) 19:16: Slide reads (bolding by Hulsey):
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 525 [this is an error; actually page 527; Oy], 2008
"A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in., it was no longer supported by the bearing seat."
This very sentence, specifically the numbers "11 in." and "5.5 in.", have been identified as a mere typo by NIST in the Errata, January 2009. The actual model used the correct numbers (12 and 6.25, respectively) It can be no coincidence that Hulsey quotes this of all passages, but not the correction. It has to be a deliberate misrepresentation?!


3.) 19:45: He now jumps to the dynamic collapse model (Chapter 12, 47-story LS-DYNA) without saying so.
He shows next to each other a video of the collapsing building and a Chapter 12 animation by NIST of the same. The caption reads:
"There is no connection modeled in outside frame, and it will enhance the rigidity of outside frame. Which makes the comparison similar."
This is not a quote from NIST, it's bad English, and it's FALSE: Of course the full 47-story LS-DYNA model included all connections, including outside frames (Chapter 12.2.3 has details).


4.) At 20:05, he runs the collapse video and the NIST animation alongside one another and points out, (fairly - if he uses the correct animation, which I haven't checked), that they don't look very much the same.
Then, after 20:23, he provides an explanation: The slide shows a snippet from a floor of the 16-floor ANSYS model (Chapter 11) next to an image of the full 47-story LS-DYNA model (Chapter 12), and a caption:
"Outside the selected area [east of col. 76 in ANSYS] connection failures were not modeled; separated progressive collapse into two part"
Oh my goodness! They are conflating the properties and boundary conditions of two separate models! The Hulsey team failed at reading and understanding the NIST-report!!
Hulsey speaks (20:30):
"The left [east in the ANSYS model] side is where the springs are [i.e. non-pinned connections], the right side is where the springs are not, and if that building began to fail, the left side went down faster than the right side ... which means that their model was not accurate."
Moron. It means Hulsey doesn't understand what NIST did.


With this, there is no need to watch any further.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 18th September 2016 at 12:00 PM.
Oystein 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 18th September 2016, 01:10 PM   #133
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Hulsey is explicit on how they are seeking peer-review - at 10:37 min:
"Once the results are tested, the information will be evaluated by our peers, and we intend to put together a peer-evaluation committee prior to completion of this work, and once that has been reviewed and scrutinized, then we intend to put it out and publish it in the literature."
I notice he doesn't say he wants to go to a peer-reviewed engineering journal of any prestige. He merely talks about peers he apparently plans to pick himself. Who will those peers be? Any critics? Anyone from NIST perhaps, or ARUP? Or from any of the many major university engineering departments that have not gone bonkers? I doubt it.
I am sure he'll ask Korol and Cole (both Coles perhaps, including the non-engineer David Cole), Szamboti and perhaps Coste. And Jones and Harrit for good measure
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 18th September 2016, 01:16 PM   #134
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I notice he doesn't say he wants to go to a peer-reviewed engineering journal of any prestige. He merely talks about peers he apparently plans to pick himself. Who will those peers be? Any critics? Anyone from NIST perhaps, or ARUP? Or from any of the many major university engineering departments that have not gone bonkers? I doubt it.
I am sure he'll ask Korol and Cole (both Coles perhaps, including the non-engineer David Cole), Szamboti and perhaps Coste. And Jones and Harrit for good measure
More than likely. It seems it will be a "biased peer"-reviewed political pamphlet.

At this point I start to wonder why is Hulsey doing this to his reputation.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 18th September 2016, 02:18 PM   #135
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,992
Oh ok, Hulsey somewhat dispells a couple of my concerns regarding peer review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlwjteSZiUk

At 3:40 explains that their "peers" shall be independent from AE911T, and that they then want to submit to a peer-reviewed journal.


At 4:53:
"We're in the process of writing our third quarterly report which will have in it the first quarterly report summary and the second quarterly report summary. That will then go for review by AE911Truth. We will then, once that's completed, they'll go on our website and also will probably go on AE911Truth's website, so people can read it and it will be available"
Aha! Quarterly reports? Where are they? Why are they only writing a third quarterly report yet, the study ought to be in its sixth quarter, if I count correctly!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 19th September 2016, 05:44 PM   #136
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Oh ok, Hulsey somewhat dispells a couple of my concerns regarding peer review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlwjteSZiUk

At 3:40 explains that their "peers" shall be independent from AE911T, and that they then want to submit to a peer-reviewed journal.


At 4:53:
"We're in the process of writing our third quarterly report which will have in it the first quarterly report summary and the second quarterly report summary. That will then go for review by AE911Truth. We will then, once that's completed, they'll go on our website and also will probably go on AE911Truth's website, so people can read it and it will be available"
Aha! Quarterly reports? Where are they? Why are they only writing a third quarterly report yet, the study ought to be in its sixth quarter, if I count correctly!
Do you really have such little interest in Dr. Hulsey's investiigation that you feel it necessary to constantly obsess on the minutiae?
Criteria 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 19th September 2016, 06:04 PM   #137
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,653
We've now heard a series of people go on about the NIST bit about the girder at 79 floor 13. How many more of these will be done?

Now that he seems to have concluded that fire cannot lead to the collapse of a building because he could not confirm the NIST col 79 stuff... does this mean that something other than fire led to the collapse? And what did he find out? Or wasn't that what he was supposed to do... study the collapse?

Let's imagine...

What would a new investigation do?
JSanderO 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 19th September 2016, 06:07 PM   #138
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Do you really have such little interest in Dr. Hulsey's investiigation that you feel it necessary to constantly obsess on the minutiae?
There really is no minutia. Need a certain level of results for that, I think.

Then again, it's interesting you blow right by the point of why the whole exercise is pointless as far as proving anything regarding controlled demolition.

Stick to that script!
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 19th September 2016, 06:52 PM   #139
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,720
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
There really is no minutia. Need a certain level of results for that, I think.

Then again, it's interesting you blow right by the point of why the whole exercise is pointless as far as proving anything regarding controlled demolition.

Stick to that script!
Typical trufers. Get caught, run like hell.
C'mon, guys. Just a little help. Show us a free body of Girder 79 with the loads you say were there...
__________________
"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 19th September 2016, 09:44 PM   #140
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If you have an issue about the fire conclusions, I suggest you focus on where you believe the study was flawed.

As is all to common in this forum, when dealing with a non-member, the man is attacked but not his argument.


So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

At 4:53:
"We're in the process of writing our third quarterly report which will have in it the first quarterly report summary and the second quarterly report summary. That will then go for review by AE911Truth. We will then, once that's completed, they'll go on our website and also will probably go on AE911Truth's website, so people can read it and it will be available"
Aha! Quarterly reports? Where are they? Why are they only writing a third quarterly report yet, the study ought to be in its sixth quarter, if I count correctly!
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Do you really have such little interest in Dr. Hulsey's investiigation that you feel it necessary to constantly obsess on the minutiae?
I'm confused as to what you woulf like debunkers to do, Criteria. You say we should look at the study to see if it has flaws but when we ask to see it you call that "minutia".
jaydeehess 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 20th September 2016, 01:20 AM   #141
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,728
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I'm confused as to what you woulf like debunkers to do, Criteria. You say we should look at the study to see if it has flaws but when we ask to see it you call that "minutia".
It's the classic bait-and-switch. If we criticize the conclusion, Criteria appeals to authority. If we address the authority by criticizing the methodology, Criteria accuses us of focusing on minutiae and says we've failed to address the conclusion. Rinse and repeat.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 20th September 2016, 01:29 AM   #142
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
So are we to conclude that no one here can pin point flaws in Dr. Hulsey's research and findings?
From experience we know that you will "conclude" whatever suits your goal.

HOWEVER one fatal flaw in Hulsey's project is easy to identify.

He is playing the "false dichotomy" trick which is also T Szamboti's current strategy.

It goes this way - the Szamboti version:

"I claim there was CD, I have proved that [some expert] is wrong THEREFORE I am right."

And in recent months we have seen T Szamboti work through several experts - Nordenson, ARUP will serve as examples.

The Hulsey version is even sillier.

Now this is where both Szamboti and Hulsey seem to know how to play - jerk the chains of - "debunkers".

Just about every opponent seeks to prove that Szamboti or Hulsey are wrong in details.

Why bother? Why waste the effort? The fatal error lies in the false dichotomy "If I prove you wrong it means that I am right." His claim is dead BEFORE we even look at whether or not he has falsified some other party. Even if true the fact that some other person's hypothesis is wrong does NOT make Hulsey right.

In Hulsey's case - and depending which version of his moving goalpost claims we address (I'm picking one - but they are all false.)

He claims that he will show what did NOT happen.

And the implication Hulsey relies on is that something else did happen. BUT he wont say CD. Is there any other possibility than additional MHI?

At least Szamboti is honest - he says "CD". Hulsey plays "pea and thimble" tricks. He says he will be scientific and not speculate CD.

Utter bleeding nonsense.
1) He is in blatant and unprofessional opposition to the Scientific Method; PLUS
2) If it wasn't fire - what was it if not some form of additional MHI? AND
3) No matter how many other explanations he claims he has proved wrong HIS claim is NOT MADE OUT until he proves it RIGHT by an affirmative hypothesis.

Other members here can no doubt find errors in this technical details and his procedural dishonesties. I'll stay with my normal practice and identify the fatal errors of framing logic and false starting point assumptions.

There is no point arguing about the leaves on a tree if it is the wrong tree in the wrong forest.

Last edited by ozeco41; 20th September 2016 at 01:41 AM.
ozeco41 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 20th September 2016, 01:36 AM   #143
boggis the cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
There really is no minutia. Need a certain level of results for that, I think.
Maybe you need some special glasses to be able to see the minutia properly. They're probably quite expensive, and available exclusively from your usual 'truther' outlet.

If you do buy the special glasses, and still can't see the minutia properly, then clearly you don't reach the minimum IQ requirements to use them.

If you can find "thermitic compounds" in paint chips, and understand that this can only mean that thermite was used to create those paint chips (there is no other explanation possible -- ignore those lying chemists, everyone knows they work for the lizard people), then you're getting near the required IQ mark.

Try huffing some glue for a few months, and you might manage to get there.
boggis the cat 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 20th September 2016, 02:26 AM   #144
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
...Then again, it's interesting you blow right by the point of why the whole exercise is pointless as far as proving anything regarding controlled demolition...

The exercise is also pointless as far as proving "it wasn't fire" which is (or was given the moving goalposts) Hulsey's goal.

AFAIK the ONLY way to "prove a negative" is to prove the converse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

And Hulsey has specifically taken CD out of "speculation".

The only way to "prove Controlled Demolition" is to prove controlled demolition.

No matter how many examples Hulsey claims he has proved "fire only" hypotheses wrong it will NOT prove any alternate hypothesis or claim correct.
ozeco41 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 20th September 2016, 03:05 AM   #145
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,728
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Why bother? Why waste the effort? The fatal error lies in the false dichotomy "If I prove you wrong it means that I am right." His claim is dead BEFORE we even look at whether or not he has falsified some other party. Even if true the fact that some other person's hypothesis is wrong does NOT make Hulsey right.
And this is why Hulsey's claim of 100% certainty that WTC7 was a CD is complete nonsense. He has addressed a single specific collapse initiation scenario; his conclusion is a classic case of denying the antecedent.

P1: If NIST's conclusion is correct, then WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
Hulsey's P2: NIST's conclusion is incorrect.
Hulsey's fallacious C: WTC7 did not collapse due to fire.

To give an analogy, suppose a tree is found lying on its side in the forest. A conspiracy theorist happens to see it and asks a forest ranger for the details of how it fell. The forest ranger replies that, as far as he believes, it was cut down with a 1kg felling axe. The conspiracy theorist then argues that the tree was actually blown up with dynamite. He points to the axe marks on the tree and explains that they are 20% too large to have been made by a 1kg felling axe, that therefore the official explanation provided by the forest ranger is incorrect, and claims that he is 100% certain that the tree was blown up.

That's nonsense even if the tree is in the right forest.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 20th September 2016, 06:14 AM   #146
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Do you really have such little interest in Dr. Hulsey's investiigation that you feel it necessary to constantly obsess on the minutiae?
If NIST does it, it's an unforgivable lack of transparency.

If Hulsey does it, it's minutiae.

Got it. It's called double standards.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 20th September 2016 at 06:15 AM.
pgimeno 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 20th September 2016, 06:21 AM   #147
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,720
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And this is why Hulsey's claim of 100% certainty that WTC7 was a CD is complete nonsense. He has addressed a single specific collapse initiation scenario; his conclusion is a classic case of denying the antecedent.

P1: If NIST's conclusion is correct, then WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
Hulsey's P2: NIST's conclusion is incorrect.
Hulsey's fallacious C: WTC7 did not collapse due to fire.

To give an analogy, suppose a tree is found lying on its side in the forest. A conspiracy theorist happens to see it and asks a forest ranger for the details of how it fell. The forest ranger replies that, as far as he believes, it was cut down with a 1kg felling axe. The conspiracy theorist then argues that the tree was actually blown up with dynamite. He points to the axe marks on the tree and explains that they are 20% too large to have been made by a 1kg felling axe, that therefore the official explanation provided by the forest ranger is incorrect, and claims that he is 100% certain that the tree was blown up.

That's nonsense even if the tree is in the right forest.

Dave
Which is why, despite Oz and oy bellyakin about us getting trapped talking about a tree when the forest is wrong, I keep harping on a free body.
If they have proved NIST wrong on an inconsequential detail, they ought to be able to show it, right?
They can't even make that case.
__________________
"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 20th September 2016, 06:30 AM   #148
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I'm confused as to what you woulf like debunkers to do, Criteria. You say we should look at the study to see if it has flaws but when we ask to see it you call that "minutia".
When Criteria returns, I really would like a response.

TSZ may also comment on this. After all AE911T did, and has, complained long and loud about the WTC 7 final report having taken several years to come out, and about NIST not making their full data set available. Yet Hulsey's report displays an even worse case of making the report available. At least NIST published interim reports and a final report. All we have so far is a verbal presentation. Imagine the hue and cry and gnashing of teeth if all that was released for a NIST interim or final report was a speech by Shyam Sunder.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 20th September 2016 at 06:32 AM.
jaydeehess 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 20th September 2016, 06:34 AM   #149
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And this is why Hulsey's claim of 100% certainty that WTC7 was a CD is complete nonsense. He has addressed a single specific collapse initiation scenario; his conclusion is a classic case of denying the antecedent.

P1: If NIST's conclusion is correct, then WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
Hulsey's P2: NIST's conclusion is incorrect.
Hulsey's fallacious C: WTC7 did not collapse due to fire.

To give an analogy, suppose a tree is found lying on its side in the forest. A conspiracy theorist happens to see it and asks a forest ranger for the details of how it fell. The forest ranger replies that, as far as he believes, it was cut down with a 1kg felling axe. The conspiracy theorist then argues that the tree was actually blown up with dynamite. He points to the axe marks on the tree and explains that they are 20% too large to have been made by a 1kg felling axe, that therefore the official explanation provided by the forest ranger is incorrect, and claims that he is 100% certain that the tree was blown up.

That's nonsense even if the tree is in the right forest.

Dave
The forest is only right if the tree is blown up, and makes no sound.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 20th September 2016, 06:47 AM   #150
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,728
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The forest is only right if the tree is blown up, and makes no sound.
Well, according to Zen, if nobody was there to hear it...

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 20th September 2016, 06:57 AM   #151
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,588
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, according to Zen, if nobody was there to hear it...

Dave
My thought momentarily, and then I remembered:

This particular forest had tons of recording devices and the eyes and ears of the world on it.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 20th September 2016, 07:17 AM   #152
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, according to Zen, if nobody was there to hear it...

Dave
As LSSBB says, there was no shortage of persons there to hear it.
jaydeehess 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 20th September 2016, 05:04 PM   #153
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Are you an engineer? I am an engineer, and your statement is BS. A claim based on bias, paranoia, and gullibility. What engineering school did you go to? Most engineers understand fire and steel, and 9/11 truth has what appears to be a subset of the insane, complacent, or nutcase engineers; with less than 0.1 percent of all engineer.

It only takes a grade school education to know CD is a fantasy born in ignorance. Does the, http://cem.uaf.edu/ , college of engineering know the CD head, http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx , is a CT BS artist.
How do we know what you are?

Self-proclaimed credibility from a nameless source means nothing more than hot air.

Bias is a meaningless point. Who doesn't have bias?

Paranoia? I do not recall that as a subject covered in engineering. Do you have professional qualifications as a psychologist as well?

Gullibility? Who is more gullible? The person waving the flag or the person concerned that the flag is being waved for the right reasons?

Since when did the engineering school I went to matter? Are you arguing that Dr. Hulsey lacks credibility because he is not associated with a school that meets your standards?

Since when do "most" engineers have a forensic knowledge of "fire" and "steel"?
You do know there are a lot of different types of engineering do you not?

Dr. Hulsey would appear to be especially qualified to make the determination that he reached.

Did you learn your understanding of engineering in grade school?

Insult me all you want but I feel much more trusting of someone with Dr. Hulsey's proven credentials making a no-fire determination than some anonymous flag waver smearing everyone that disagrees with them.
Criteria 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 20th September 2016, 05:37 PM   #154
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
no evidence for damage from thermite or explosives, big fail

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
How do we know what you are?

Self-proclaimed credibility from a nameless source means nothing more than hot air.

Bias is a meaningless point. Who doesn't have bias?

Paranoia? I do not recall that as a subject covered in engineering. Do you have professional qualifications as a psychologist as well?

Gullibility? Who is more gullible? The person waving the flag or the person concerned that the flag is being waved for the right reasons?

Since when did the engineering school I went to matter? Are you arguing that Dr. Hulsey lacks credibility because he is not associated with a school that meets your standards?

Since when do "most" engineers have a forensic knowledge of "fire" and "steel"?
You do know there are a lot of different types of engineering do you not?

Dr. Hulsey would appear to be especially qualified to make the determination that he reached.

Did you learn your understanding of engineering in grade school?

Insult me all you want but I feel much more trusting of someone with Dr. Hulsey's proven credentials making a no-fire determination than some anonymous flag waver smearing everyone that disagrees with them.
Gee, most engineers understand fire and steel, we were taught how to do research, we did research papers, etc... Hulsey spews BS opinons about steel which fool you into thinking he is qualified.

Clemson 74, AFIT 82, engineering and masters in engineering. My point is, all we need to debunk 9/11 truth is a grade school education; we taught cause and effect to first graders; did 9/11 truth faith based followers in woo miss that day? Are you going to say I am not an engineer? You will not win, you believe 9/11 truth, you don't believe engineers who say 9/11 truth is wrong. At least you have less than 0.1 percent of all engineers who signed the idiotic Gage petition, and that is worth, BS.

Dr. Hulsey is not a qualified structural engineer, and he spews BS about steel, and fire. He appears to be another failed 9/11 truth pusher of some idiotic CD conspiracy theory, and he is trying to fool people to think he is using science. Did he fool you?

9/11 truth followers blindly believe in the fantasy of CD, a dumbed down claim made by old men who got fired, or have some thinking disorder, or just plain old BS artist spreading their biased fantasy to people who refuse to think for themselves.

19 terrorists did 9/11, no explosives, no thermite was used. If I wave a flag it is the flag of reason, knowledge, physics, math, science; all the flags you burnt long ago, as your and 9/11 truth retreat to the dark ages in knowledge and make up lies about 9/11. What flag are you accusing me of waving? Why do you wave the flag of woo, the false flag of CD? Got some evidence? No.

Where is the damage to WTC steel due to thermite? Explosives?

Yes, you are gullible, I don't care if you believe I am an engineer... My mom and dad made sure I was prepared to be an engineering by making sure I took the higher math, and physics, and chemistry, etc. in high school. Being an engineer made me more valuable to the USAF if I failed to complete pilot training... a good card to have in reserve, since I owed the USAF for 3 years of college. I love flying and got my wings, and then the air force sent me to Grad school years later to get my masters in engineering. I don't lie, 9/11 truth lies. I can prove I am engineer, Hulsey has proved he is a conspiracy theorist; maybe he has some issues with reality. Call him up, have him come here and explain why fire, the effects of fire can't do it?

Unfortunately I am not nameless, you are, I am not; I made the mistake of presenting my credentials to insane nuts in 9/11 truth, and thus, they know my name, stalk my kids on line (know their names etc.). Thus if you can't figure out who I am, then it follows that a lack of research abilities has you fooled by liars in 9/11 truth, falling for the dumbest claims like CD.

I am a pilot, I have the PhD of flying so to speak, an ATP... Was it you who looked me up on that education net? Someone is stalking me lately, checking my background. Could be the guys I owe a ton of beer.

Your claims reflect great insult on you, not me. It takes willful ignorance to believe 9/11 truth claims. Not an insult, a fact.

19 terrorists did it, Hulsey failed to study 9/11 to see there is no damage to steel due to explosives or thermite. Big failure for an old man who spreads BS. Gage lied about CD, will Hulsey wave his hand and support Gage's lie, or wake up and expose Gage as a liar?

What engineering school did you go to... Clemson and AFIT, where did you go? My fellow engineering student at AFIT put a chip in a dog's brain... the chip was fabricated at AFIT too...
Why has Hulsey turned to woo and joined 9/11 truth? What makes less than 0.1 percent of all engineers sign a bogus petition? Ignorance or complacency, or feeling sorry for Gage and his group of failed paranoid conspiracy theorists.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 20th September 2016 at 05:42 PM.
beachnut 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 20th September 2016, 05:38 PM   #155
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
How do we know what you are?

Self-proclaimed credibility from a nameless source means nothing more than hot air.

Bias is a meaningless point. Who doesn't have bias?

Paranoia? I do not recall that as a subject covered in engineering. Do you have professional qualifications as a psychologist as well?

Gullibility? Who is more gullible? The person waving the flag or the person concerned that the flag is being waved for the right reasons?

Since when did the engineering school I went to matter? Are you arguing that Dr. Hulsey lacks credibility because he is not associated with a school that meets your standards?

Since when do "most" engineers have a forensic knowledge of "fire" and "steel"?
You do know there are a lot of different types of engineering do you not?

Dr. Hulsey would appear to be especially qualified to make the determination that he reached.

Did you learn your understanding of engineering in grade school?

Insult me all you want but I feel much more trusting of someone with Dr. Hulsey's proven credentials making a no-fire determination than some anonymous flag waver smearing everyone that disagrees with them.
I don't care what degrees someone has, only that the Ideas he has are not ludicrousness.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 20th September 2016, 09:10 PM   #156
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And this is why Hulsey's claim of 100% certainty that WTC7 was a CD is complete nonsense. He has addressed a single specific collapse initiation scenario; his conclusion is a classic case of denying the antecedent.
Of course that is ONE reason why he is wrong. There are many of them INCLUDING the (also) fatal error of foundation structure of logic.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
P1: If NIST's conclusion is correct, then WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
Hulsey's P2: NIST's conclusion is incorrect.
Hulsey's fallacious C: WTC7 did not collapse due to fire.

To give an analogy, suppose a tree is found lying on its side in the forest. A conspiracy theorist happens to see it and asks a forest ranger for the details of how it fell. The forest ranger replies that, as far as he believes, it was cut down with a 1kg felling axe. The conspiracy theorist then argues that the tree was actually blown up with dynamite. He points to the axe marks on the tree and explains that they are 20% too large to have been made by a 1kg felling axe, that therefore the official explanation provided by the forest ranger is incorrect, and claims that he is 100% certain that the tree was blown up.
Sure. Just because I deliberately focussed the fatal error of foundation logic doesn't imply that I don't comprehend errors in those specific detailed examples.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's nonsense even if the tree is in the right forest.
True - not that I ever said otherwise. My point still stands SINCE the foundation logic is fatally flawed THEN whether or not his one or more examples are true or false is moot - doesn't change the fatal error.
ozeco41 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 20th September 2016, 09:39 PM   #157
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Which is why, despite Oz and oy bellyakin about us getting trapped talking about a tree when the forest is wrong, I keep harping on a free body.
Interesting point but why the innuendo?

I have said that:
1) Hulsey claims to be showing one or multiple explanations wrong (his story has changed over time)
2) No matter how many other explantions he shows wrong will not make his claim right; AND
3) The only valid way to "prove the negative" is to prove the "opposite" hypothesis is true. AKA to prove it "wasn't fire" he has to "prove" what it actually was.

AND the combination of those three means his foundation logic is wrong.

You are "harping" (your word) on one aspect - and it is valid AFAICS - I've been identifying the many detailed critiques without necessarily assessing them. Yours is one of them. But even if by some miracle he persuades you that he understands and agrees your claim .. so what? The overall structure IMO remains false.

Are you claiming that I am wrong on that assessment of false overall logic? If so please show me the error.

Do you disagree with my assertion that - whether Hulsey is right or wrong on any specific example e.g. NIST - his overall structure of argument is fatally flawed?

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
If they have proved NIST wrong on an inconsequential detail, they ought to be able to show it, right?
They can't even make that case.
Agreed AND understood respectively. Those are not aspects that I have disputed or would dispute.
ozeco41 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 20th September 2016, 10:23 PM   #158
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,813
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
How do we know what you are?
Dr. Hulsey lacks credibility because he is not associated with a school that meets your standards?

One reason why Dr. Hulsey lacks credibility is because he is now sleeping with AE911 Truth, a discredited organization.
skyeagle409 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 September 2016, 06:06 AM   #159
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,776
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Have you skipped over a good 30% of the posts in this thread?
Neither you or TSz gave even mentioned the fact that this study simply cannot be examined in any detail.
Hulsey has basically given a speech about his study but has not actually made his study available to, it seems, anyone at all.

Hard to "pin point flaws" when one is disallowed from viewing the research and findings. The only info available is from dang near a year ago now! The issue was brought up in post #3.

Care to comment on that yet, keeping in mind the openness and transparency promised in the beginning?



Now it has been noted that the video is 35 minutes long, Gage takes the stage at 30 minutes in. Yet inexplicably you and TSz have characterized the video as being 16 minutes long. It seems to indicate that while trying to deride debunkers for nit watching this video, you haven't bothered to do so yourselves.

I watched it myself but did not bother watching the clock. I admit I skiped over the parts with Gage at the podium.
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Do you really have such little interest in Dr. Hulsey's investiigation that you feel it necessary to constantly obsess on the minutiae?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I'm confused as to what you woulf like debunkers to do, Criteria. You say we should look at the study to see if it has flaws but when we ask to see it you call that "minutia".
Still no reply.

pm'd
jaydeehess 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 September 2016, 06:35 AM   #160
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,720
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Interesting point but why the innuendo?

I have said that:
1) Hulsey claims to be showing one or multiple explanations wrong (his story has changed over time)
2) No matter how many other explantions he shows wrong will not make his claim right; AND
3) The only valid way to "prove the negative" is to prove the "opposite" hypothesis is true. AKA to prove it "wasn't fire" he has to "prove" what it actually was.

AND the combination of those three means his foundation logic is wrong.

You are "harping" (your word) on one aspect - and it is valid AFAICS - I've been identifying the many detailed critiques without necessarily assessing them. Yours is one of them. But even if by some miracle he persuades you that he understands and agrees your claim .. so what? The overall structure IMO remains false.

Are you claiming that I am wrong on that assessment of false overall logic? If so please show me the error.

Do you disagree with my assertion that - whether Hulsey is right or wrong on any specific example e.g. NIST - his overall structure of argument is fatally flawed?

Agreed AND understood respectively. Those are not aspects that I have disputed or would dispute.
Hence the phrase "inconsequential detail"
I live in a world of System. They live in a world of unrelated, individual entities. In keeping with the current analogy, they can't see the forest because of all the trees blocking their view.
I don't disagree with you on the general view of their idiocy. I am merely dropping down (or attempting to drop down) to their level of comprehension and demonstrate that they don't even have a clue of that level of analysis.
If nothing else, the non-engineer/non-technical lurkers can see that if they run away from their own details, they obviously can't be all that rigorous in their approach...
__________________
"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
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 03:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.