IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 30th May 2016, 02:55 PM   #41
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Bazant's papers contributed to the science of collapses. Furthermore, they helped NIST by not needing to extend their analysis further than collapse initiation.

In general, most of the papers that do not disagree with reality do contribute to science in one way or another.

In general, truther papers do not contribute to science. They are *bad* science, usually walking backwards from the conclusion.

I think Spanx's question is legitimate.
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 30th May 2016, 02:59 PM   #42
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post

I think Spanx's question is legitimate.
It is legitimate

As is the Millette thread I have just started.

Last edited by Spanx; 30th May 2016 at 03:00 PM.
Spanx 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 30th May 2016, 03:07 PM   #43
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Perhaps instead of letting you guess, and instead of asking gotcha-questions, Spanx should express straight and honestly what is point is - make a specific claim of some sort. If he has a point, of course.
If there is no point to this thread, then we can as well all abandon it now.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I think this post is dishonest and deceptive.
I think you know it is.
So why don't you stop it.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You deliberately misrepresent my criticism. You erect a strawman.
I do not believe you are unaware of this.
You pile this dishonesty on top of the dishonesty that is the OP.
Oystein, with all due respect. The vast majority of peer reviewed papers are intended to improve safety in various areas and have been used to do so. Truther papers are intended to prove their wacky CD theories and are not useful at improving safety whatsoever, which is why the have such difficulty getting peer reviewed and why the question is being asked.

What about that is so hard to understand?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 31st May 2016, 06:24 AM   #44
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Oystein, with all due respect. The vast majority of peer reviewed papers are intended to improve safety in various areas and have been used to do so. Truther papers are intended to prove their wacky CD theories and are not useful at improving safety whatsoever, which is why the have such difficulty getting peer reviewed and why the question is being asked.

What about that is so hard to understand?
It's not whether or not I understand these vague, unspecific claims.

It's whether or not they are verifiably true.
I haven't seen the evidence that any of these claims is verifiably true for any specific individual paper or any specific collation of papers. Besides, this is now really more off-topic than my request to be shown by way of example on a "mainstream" paper what sort of answer the OP expects.

A truther might answer with the same sort of vague, unspecific, generalized and unproven assertion that the mainstream papers, because their conclusions are wrong, do not in fact benefit the safetey of future buildings, and thus the benefit of the truther papers is that they provide the relevant professional, regulatory and academic bodies to avoid the costs that come with invalidly changed codes.

I would dismiss such an answer as begging the question - and I do dismiss your answer as begging the question.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
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 31st May 2016, 11:31 AM   #45
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

A truther might answer with the same sort of vague, unspecific, generalized and unproven assertion that the mainstream papers, because their conclusions are wrong, do not in fact benefit the safetey of future buildings, and thus the benefit of the truther papers is that they provide the relevant professional, regulatory and academic bodies to avoid the costs that come with invalidly changed codes.
And if a Truther were to answer in the way you are suggesting, he/she would not be answering the question I asked.

In fact he/she would be doing exactly what you were doing changing the subject and asking about mainstream papers.

Until a truthers does answer the question nobody knows what they will say.

It would appear your speculation is based on nothing and about as much use as Tony's magical explosives.

Last edited by Spanx; 31st May 2016 at 11:34 AM.
Spanx 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 31st May 2016, 08:40 PM   #46
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It's not whether or not I understand these vague, unspecific claims.

It's whether or not they are verifiably true.
I haven't seen the evidence that any of these claims is verifiably true for any specific individual paper or any specific collation of papers. Besides, this is now really more off-topic than my request to be shown by way of example on a "mainstream" paper what sort of answer the OP expects.

A truther might answer with the same sort of vague, unspecific, generalized and unproven assertion that the mainstream papers, because their conclusions are wrong, do not in fact benefit the safetey of future buildings, and thus the benefit of the truther papers is that they provide the relevant professional, regulatory and academic bodies to avoid the costs that come with invalidly changed codes.

I would dismiss such an answer as begging the question - and I do dismiss your answer as begging the question.
What vague and unspecific claims are you referring to?

Are you claiming there aren't many peer reviewed papers out there that were created to improve public safety and have in fact done so. There are quite a few links and examples in this sub forum, would you like me to present you with some?
I thought you were already well aware of these, I guess I overestimated your knowledge as it pertains to this area.

Yes truthers could claim that except anyone with a functioning brain would know what the "real" purpose behind those papers would be and it has nothing to do with public safety. I'm surprised someone like you would be this this gullible.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 31st May 2016, 09:35 PM   #47
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
What vague and unspecific claims are you referring to?...
Yours.
You only need to read the text I quoted above my reply.
If you don't realize your claims were vague and unspecific, there's no use debating this. It ought to be glaringly obvious
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
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 1st June 2016, 01:53 AM   #48
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Gawd!!!

Talk about reading comprehension....

The Thread Title:
"Truther peer reviewed papers"

The OP - which clearly refers to the Topic Title - i.e. "Truther peer reviewed papers":
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
A simple question........

When have they ever been used in the real world and who has benefitted from them?

I would love to know, thanks
..where "they" and "them" refers to "Truther peer reviewed papers"

So the OP requests examples of papers. Doesn't say who should provide the examples BUT Post #2 decides to limit it to "truthers":

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Silence speaks volumes......

Hey truthers! Bring forth your trusted and peer reviewed experts!
(And it was the papers that were to be peer reviewed - not the experts...)

The O Poster joins the push:
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Don't forget Tony Sz
So Oystein (beating me to it - I wasn't tracking the thread...) ....asks a simple question "WTF are you looking for?"
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I don't quite get what sort of answer you expect. To help me, can you illustrate this by giving a specific example of a paper that supports the commonly accepted narrative and who, specifically, has benefitted from it? And how, exactly? Thanks
A neat, concise request "Please show me the sort of layout/content you are seeking.

The risk of course being that Oystein asked a "meta-process" question and most members don't "do" meta process....so - sorry Oystein - my sympathy - but it was odds on that most members would miss the point. And Spanx obliged:
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
There is no specific peer reviewed article.

"Truthers" like to mention peer reviewed articles about 911 as some form of evidence of the "inside job". As of yet I personally have not seen any evidence of an "inside job" and do not see these peer reviewed articles of any use at all.

I would expect these article to improve on building control and benefit future building projects on a safety aspect.
So no answer to the question Oystein asked... ...and drives further off topic with this:
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
My question is not about the "good" papers. You are welcome to tell me the benefit of these if you like.
...when the point of the OP was surely to identify any "good" AND "beneficial" papers from Truther sources.

And I only referenced the first 7 posts. It got worse.


I think Oystein has mentioned "begging the question" a couple of times...
No wonder he said this - at Post #8:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Color me baffled.
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 1st June 2016, 01:54 AM   #49
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yours.
You only need to read the text I quoted above my reply.
If you don't realize your claims were vague and unspecific, there's no use debating this. It ought to be glaringly obvious


It is.
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 1st June 2016, 02:26 AM   #50
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Oz,
At what point has Oystein answered the question which I have asked?

All I have seen is Oystein going off topic and asking for information of mainstream papers.

If I knew what any Truther would feel was beneficial from these Truther peer reviewed papers in the outside "real world" I would have no need to ask the question.

Last edited by Spanx; 1st June 2016 at 02:33 AM.
Spanx 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 1st June 2016, 04:17 AM   #51
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
So no answer to the question Oystein asked...
That's not right. I gave an answer in post #41, citing an example of papers, together with who benefited from them and how, as Oystein requested.
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 1st June 2016, 04:56 AM   #52
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yours.
You only need to read the text I quoted above my reply.
If you don't realize your claims were vague and unspecific, there's no use debating this. It ought to be glaringly obvious
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post


It is.
Specific claim- 9/11 peer reviewed papers meant to improve safety

Specific claim- Above papers have in fact improved safety

Source- this sub-forum

You both might try using the search function if you've missed them in the past.

Glad to be of help.

Now if you come across a truther paper with above characteristics be sure to let us know. Thanks in advance!
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 1st June 2016, 05:04 AM   #53
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Specific claim- 9/11 peer reviewed papers meant to improve safety

Specific claim- Above papers have in fact improved safety

Source- this sub-forum

You both might try using the search function if you've missed them in the past.

Glad to be of help.

Now if you come across a truther paper with above characteristics be sure to let us know. Thanks in advance!
A Truther may think that the demolition industry has benefitted from these Truther papers ?

Only the person answering can be specific as to what they think is beneficial.

Last edited by Spanx; 1st June 2016 at 05:06 AM.
Spanx 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 1st June 2016, 05:42 AM   #54
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Back to the topic, here's an article that can be considered to have contributed to science. It can be questioned whether it counts as a "truther" article, but I've seen the name of Korol in some other, more woo-loaded papers like a couple under discussion in another thread.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate whether this paper constitutes good science, but on the surface it seems to be.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jstruc/2014/795257/
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 1st June 2016, 07:04 AM   #55
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
A Truther may think that the demolition industry has benefitted from these Truther papers ?

Only the person answering can be specific as to what they think is beneficial.
This is true, but said "truther" would need to show how and why. I've yet to see any of them do this, ever.

The opposite is true for the papers I'm referring to in my post.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 1st June 2016, 10:43 AM   #56
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Back to the topic, here's an article that can be considered to have contributed to science. It can be questioned whether it counts as a "truther" article, but I've seen the name of Korol in some other, more woo-loaded papers like a couple under discussion in another thread.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate whether this paper constitutes good science, but on the surface it seems to be.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jstruc/2014/795257/
Thanks pgimeno,

I can see how this could be of use for someone.

I'm not so sure why it needed such emphasis on bazant and 911 when it's about H beams, but I don't claim to be an expert on these things, Rather like false flag.
Spanx 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 1st June 2016, 11:26 AM   #57
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I'm not so sure why it needed such emphasis on bazant and 911 when it's about H beams, but I don't claim to be an expert on these things, Rather like false flag.
I agree on that point. That's the part that makes it look more like a Truther paper.
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 1st June 2016, 11:30 AM   #58
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Oy!

Ok, as far as mainstream papers on 9/11 events: If any of the investigations or papers have been cited or led to changes in safety or building codes then the question of who has benefited is addressed.
IIRC they have, though I cannot recall specifics.

On the flip, OP side: Have any papers or investigations done by those who do not accept the commonly accepted history of 9/11 events been used or cited by anyone for any reason. For instance; has Chris Sarns' WTC 7 fire spread investigation been used by any forensic fire science group? Has the thermite-in-the-dust paper been cited in any other papers outside of 9/11 truth hunting?
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 1st June 2016, 04:34 PM   #59
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
On the flip, OP side: Have any papers or investigations done by those who do not accept the commonly accepted history of 9/11 events been used or cited by anyone for any reason. For instance; has Chris Sarns' WTC 7 fire spread investigation been used by any forensic fire science group?
It might have been used by Adobe to improve Photoshop. Maybe Chris Sarns can provide more information.

Quote:
Has the thermite-in-the-dust paper been cited in any other papers outside of 9/11 truth hunting?
I think Oystein himself cited a study a few years ago, that referred to the ATM paper as an example of poor science or something like that.
Africanus 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 1st June 2016, 08:17 PM   #60
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Oz,
At what point has Oystein answered the question which I have asked?
Your question was unclear on at least two aspects viz:
1) what scope of answer you were after; AND
2) What you meant by "benefit".

Oystein asked that you clarify your request at his Post #4. You have not explicitly done so.

The result being that contributing members have aligned into two groups viz:
(a) Those including me and Oystein who prefer to be explicitly clear as to what is the topic of discussion - avoiding risks such as conflating ambiguity and topic drift.

(b) Those - the majority - who don't appear to require such clarity and prefer to discuss a vaguely defined topic which they can then interpret as per their own opinions and preferences.

The phenomenon is not uncommon. Neither "side" is "right" provided all accept the "ground rules". Causes me no problem - I'm not likely to take part and I suspect that Oystein also would have a similar lack of interest in unfocussed wandering discussion. And both of us would probably try to bring some clarity - as we have been doing.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
All I have seen is Oystein going off topic and asking for information of mainstream papers.
What topic has he "gone off"? several members including yourself have let or made the topic drift. I don't know that Oystein has drifted further than several other members.

My post #48 listed the various "drifts" in posts #2 thru #7. It is your OP - if you do not wish to define your question - its context and target participants so be it.

Now here are some additional "drifts" since you responded to my expression of shared concern with Oystein. In sequence not order of "seriousness":


First on "benefit":
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
If I knew what any Truther would feel was beneficial from these Truther peer reviewed papers in the outside "real world" I would have no need to ask the question.
That wasn't the topic of your OP question. The question was about benefit - undefined as to what is "benefit" or who is the "beneficiary".

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
That's not right. I gave an answer in post #41, citing an example of papers, together with who benefited from them and how, as Oystein requested.
Apart from the scene setting quote mine misrepresenting it as a response to me - pgimeno's comments are a reasoned first attempt to define your OP for you.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Specific claim- 9/11 peer reviewed papers meant to improve safety

Specific claim- Above papers have in fact improved safety

Source- this sub-forum

You both might try using the search function if you've missed them in the past.

Glad to be of help.

Now if you come across a truther paper with above characteristics be sure to let us know. Thanks in advance!
Three debating tricks in that bit of nonsense:
(a) The OP did not limit "benefit" to "improve safety" - ProBonoShill is defining his own scope - not yours.
(b) Two or three snide personal comments - tolerable if his foundation is right but insulting others based on his own misunderstanding....
(c) The final "glad to be of help" ludicrous in the setting - lesson don't try sarcasm when (i) you have missed the point; and (ii) You haven't helped.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
A Truther may think that the demolition industry has benefited from these Truther papers ?
Could well be true but it was not the topic of the OP.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Only the person answering can be specific as to what they think is beneficial.
Now you are abdicating from your own OP. YOU asked for benefits YOU didn't specify what they should be and YOU are now implicitly redefining the OP. I don't object BTW provided you openly state you are changing the focus of the OP. So do you now want members to individually define "benefit"?

OK - I'll buy that. Try these two:
(a) The Harritt "thermXte paper" was beneficial. Indirectly beneficial in that debunker research has now established that those mystery chips were paint. Who benefits? The"debunker" community has another tool for battles with truthers.

(b) The "Missing Jolt" paper was beneficial to T Szamboti and the truth movement because discussion of it by debunkers has firmly implanted Szamboti's parody of Bazant's "drop to impact" mechanism which never happened into the mindset of many debunkers. Possibly T Sz's biggest "win" for trutherdom. Who benefits? Truthers "sort term" tho "short" is questionable. Tony's MJ nonsense should have been put to rest years back. The debunker side benefit is even harder to assess - either way - the "big picture" could well be "Would we have been better off if B&Z 2002 had not been published?" (Because Tony could not have misused it.) There no easy answer to that hypothetical.

So those are a couple of quick contributions as examples of benefits.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st June 2016 at 08:27 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 1st June 2016, 09:20 PM   #61
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
So... do you guys do this all the time?

MicahJava 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 1st June 2016, 09:56 PM   #62
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Your question was unclear on at least two aspects viz:
1) what scope of answer you were after; AND
2) What you meant by "benefit".

Oystein asked that you clarify your request at his Post #4. You have not explicitly done so.

The result being that contributing members have aligned into two groups viz:
(a) Those including me and Oystein who prefer to be explicitly clear as to what is the topic of discussion - avoiding risks such as conflating ambiguity and topic drift.

(b) Those - the majority - who don't appear to require such clarity and prefer to discuss a vaguely defined topic which they can then interpret as per their own opinions and preferences.

The phenomenon is not uncommon. Neither "side" is "right" provided all accept the "ground rules". Causes me no problem - I'm not likely to take part and I suspect that Oystein also would have a similar lack of interest in unfocussed wandering discussion. And both of us would probably try to bring some clarity - as we have been doing.

What topic has he "gone off"? several members including yourself have let or made the topic drift. I don't know that Oystein has drifted further than several other members.

My post #48 listed the various "drifts" in posts #2 thru #7. It is your OP - if you do not wish to define your question - its context and target participants so be it.

Now here are some additional "drifts" since you responded to my expression of shared concern with Oystein. In sequence not order of "seriousness":


First on "benefit":
That wasn't the topic of your OP question. The question was about benefit - undefined as to what is "benefit" or who is the "beneficiary".

Apart from the scene setting quote mine misrepresenting it as a response to me - pgimeno's comments are a reasoned first attempt to define your OP for you.
This is pedantic nonsense, his intentions weren't that hard to figure out.

Quote:
Three debating tricks in that bit of nonsense:
(a) The OP did not limit "benefit" to "improve safety" - ProBonoShill is defining his own scope - not yours.
(b) Two or three snide personal comments - tolerable if his foundation is right but insulting others based on his own misunderstanding....
(c) The final "glad to be of help" ludicrous in the setting - lesson don't try sarcasm when (i) you have missed the point; and (ii) You haven't helped.
"Debating tricks "and now personalizing the discussion, is that your way of admitting you can't address my assertions? Please show how the statements I made are false. Again, thanking you in advance.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 2nd June 2016, 12:31 AM   #63
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Your question was unclear on at least two aspects viz:
1) what scope of answer you were after; AND
2) What you meant by "benefit".

Oystein asked that you clarify your request at his Post #4. You have not explicitly done so.

The result being that contributing members have aligned into two groups viz:
(a) Those including me and Oystein who prefer to be explicitly clear as to what is the topic of discussion - avoiding risks such as conflating ambiguity and topic drift.

(b) Those - the majority - who don't appear to require such clarity and prefer to discuss a vaguely defined topic which they can then interpret as per their own opinions and preferences.

The phenomenon is not uncommon. Neither "side" is "right" provided all accept the "ground rules". Causes me no problem - I'm not likely to take part and I suspect that Oystein also would have a similar lack of interest in unfocussed wandering discussion. And both of us would probably try to bring some clarity - as we have been doing.

What topic has he "gone off"? several members including yourself have let or made the topic drift. I don't know that Oystein has drifted further than several other members.

My post #48 listed the various "drifts" in posts #2 thru #7. It is your OP - if you do not wish to define your question - its context and target participants so be it.

Now here are some additional "drifts" since you responded to my expression of shared concern with Oystein. In sequence not order of "seriousness":


First on "benefit":
That wasn't the topic of your OP question. The question was about benefit - undefined as to what is "benefit" or who is the "beneficiary".

Apart from the scene setting quote mine misrepresenting it as a response to me - pgimeno's comments are a reasoned first attempt to define your OP for you.

Three debating tricks in that bit of nonsense:
(a) The OP did not limit "benefit" to "improve safety" - ProBonoShill is defining his own scope - not yours.
(b) Two or three snide personal comments - tolerable if his foundation is right but insulting others based on his own misunderstanding....
(c) The final "glad to be of help" ludicrous in the setting - lesson don't try sarcasm when (i) you have missed the point; and (ii) You haven't helped.

Could well be true but it was not the topic of the OP.

Now you are abdicating from your own OP. YOU asked for benefits YOU didn't specify what they should be and YOU are now implicitly redefining the OP. I don't object BTW provided you openly state you are changing the focus of the OP. So do you now want members to individually define "benefit"?

OK - I'll buy that. Try these two:
(a) The Harritt "thermXte paper" was beneficial. Indirectly beneficial in that debunker research has now established that those mystery chips were paint. Who benefits? The"debunker" community has another tool for battles with truthers.

(b) The "Missing Jolt" paper was beneficial to T Szamboti and the truth movement because discussion of it by debunkers has firmly implanted Szamboti's parody of Bazant's "drop to impact" mechanism which never happened into the mindset of many debunkers. Possibly T Sz's biggest "win" for trutherdom. Who benefits? Truthers "sort term" tho "short" is questionable. Tony's MJ nonsense should have been put to rest years back. The debunker side benefit is even harder to assess - either way - the "big picture" could well be "Would we have been better off if B&Z 2002 had not been published?" (Because Tony could not have misused it.) There no easy answer to that hypothetical.

So those are a couple of quick contributions as examples of benefits.
It would appear a simple question to some is not simple to others.

If you want to write a running commentary on this thread that's up to you.

At least you have answered the question which you may or may not have understood.

Last edited by Spanx; 2nd June 2016 at 01:29 AM.
Spanx 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 2nd June 2016, 12:33 AM   #64
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So... do you guys do this all the time?

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/upload...n-Seinfeld.gif
I wouldn't say all the time but this is not the first.

Do you fancy having a go at the question? Do you understand it ?
Spanx 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 2nd June 2016, 05:01 AM   #65
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
delete

Last edited by pgimeno; 2nd June 2016 at 05:08 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 2nd June 2016, 05:07 AM   #66
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: 34,249
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So... do you guys do this all the time?
No, it's just an act to try and counter the truther observation that we're a single-opinion bloc marching in lockstep to defend a uniform predetermined Official Conspiracy Theory. How's it doing?

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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 2nd June 2016, 05:39 AM   #67
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Back to the topic, here's an article that can be considered to have contributed to science. It can be questioned whether it counts as a "truther" article, but I've seen the name of Korol in some other, more woo-loaded papers like a couple under discussion in another thread.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate whether this paper constitutes good science, but on the surface it seems to be.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jstruc/2014/795257/
Yes, it is a Truther paper.

Meaning, it is Junk Engineering, produced by a couple of true believing Truther bozos, whose specific purpose was to support their other Junk Engineering report that com\ncluded "the collapse should have immediately arrested".

There are numerous fallacies in the methodology, but the biggest, the one that most obvious & most conclusive is "did they accurate replicate the true failure mode"?

The answer is, "Hell, no"!

Look at their Test specimens after the testing, in Fig 5. Folded over on themselves.

How many WTC columns in the debris pile looked like this? Zero.

The proper failure mode was fracture of the (relatively) tiny bolts & welds that joined columns to the ones above & below. THAT is what they need to model.

Other idiotic flaws:

Using soft aluminum instead of the proper steel alloy.
Using 1 floor height as the basis for their length.
Using slenderness ratios that "that would be typical of floor-to-ceiling heights in buildings, ranging from 33 to 42", rather than the actual ones used in the towers.
Welding aluminum angles to the flanges, thereby shortening the effective length.
Using the one shape column to represent all the columns (core & external) of the failed floor.
None of these test columns actually failed in the manner of "short columns", which is nearly impossible to achieve (except with absurdly short SRs).

This is what a true short column compression failure looks like:



This is what they had to do to the column, & how they had to restrain it at both ends, in order to get it to collapse in this manner.



They had to machine “weakening grooves” into the ends, in the specific offset pattern shown. And they had to use those funky "end capture" plates.

How many columns in the debris pile looked like this? Zero.
__

Look at this column. Imagine that it is retained at both ends by tiny, weak bolts & nuts, or small welds.



What is going to happen long before the column reaches this configuration?
Can this column bend into this shape & not deform the columns above & below? This is the unstated assumption built into the “one floor buckling” criteria upon which the results are based.

Korol has produced about 4 papers. All crap.
tfk 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 2nd June 2016, 07:22 AM   #68
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
@Spanx - I think I'm right in thinking you are looking for direct benefits? Things like:

The paper in question...

...has been used by engineers to adapt construction methods
...has been used to adapt safety procedures, e.g., x, y, z...
...has been cited as a source in this paper, which...

rather than comments like, 'They are all so unbelievably wrong and incompetent it benefits real scientists by showing how not to write and research scientific papers' or '...well I could fold one in half and use it as a toothpick!!! lol!!', as I first thought?

If so I think it would be helpful if you listed specifically all the possible benefits you were thinking of when you wrote the OP.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio 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 2nd June 2016, 08:03 AM   #69
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
@Spanx - I think I'm right in thinking you are looking for direct benefits? Things like:

The paper in question...

...has been used by engineers to adapt construction methods
...has been used to adapt safety procedures, e.g., x, y, z...
...has been cited as a source in this paper, which...

rather than comments like, 'They are all so unbelievably wrong and incompetent it benefits real scientists by showing how not to write and research scientific papers' or '...well I could fold one in half and use it as a toothpick!!! lol!!', as I first thought?

If so I think it would be helpful if you listed specifically all the possible benefits you were thinking of when you wrote the OP.
Out of interest, would you need the same questions if it was for non Truther peer reviewed 911 papers ?

Last edited by Spanx; 2nd June 2016 at 08:14 AM.
Spanx 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 2nd June 2016, 08:13 AM   #70
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Yes, it is a Truther paper.

Meaning, it is Junk Engineering, produced by a couple of true believing Truther bozos, whose specific purpose was to support their other Junk Engineering report that com\ncluded "the collapse should have immediately arrested".

There are numerous fallacies in the methodology, but the biggest, the one that most obvious & most conclusive is "did they accurate replicate the true failure mode"?

The answer is, "Hell, no"!

Look at their Test specimens after the testing, in Fig 5. Folded over on themselves.

How many WTC columns in the debris pile looked like this? Zero.

The proper failure mode was fracture of the (relatively) tiny bolts & welds that joined columns to the ones above & below. THAT is what they need to model.

Other idiotic flaws:

Using soft aluminum instead of the proper steel alloy.
Using 1 floor height as the basis for their length.
Using slenderness ratios that "that would be typical of floor-to-ceiling heights in buildings, ranging from 33 to 42", rather than the actual ones used in the towers.
Welding aluminum angles to the flanges, thereby shortening the effective length.
Using the one shape column to represent all the columns (core & external) of the failed floor.
None of these test columns actually failed in the manner of "short columns", which is nearly impossible to achieve (except with absurdly short SRs).

This is what a true short column compression failure looks like:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=10764

This is what they had to do to the column, & how they had to restrain it at both ends, in order to get it to collapse in this manner.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=10765

They had to machine “weakening grooves” into the ends, in the specific offset pattern shown. And they had to use those funky "end capture" plates.

How many columns in the debris pile looked like this? Zero.
__

Look at this column. Imagine that it is retained at both ends by tiny, weak bolts & nuts, or small welds.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=10766

What is going to happen long before the column reaches this configuration?
Can this column bend into this shape & not deform the columns above & below? This is the unstated assumption built into the “one floor buckling” criteria upon which the results are based.

Korol has produced about 4 papers. All crap.
I'm no expert on these things.

If the H beams had brackets welded on all four sides (both ends) would we expect to see them deform in the same way as the crushed columns you have shown.
Spanx 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 2nd June 2016, 08:49 AM   #71
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Out of interest, would you need the same questions if it was for non Truther peer reviewed 911 papers ?
I wrote a paragraph length reply asking for the clarification you have now provided in your edit! So my reply is now shorter - 'yes'.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio 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 2nd June 2016, 09:01 AM   #72
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I wrote a paragraph length reply asking for the clarification you have now provided in your edit! So my reply is now shorter - 'yes'.
I guess the thread is not for you if a you can't provide a specific Truther paper which you find provides any benefit.

The same would apply to non truthers 911 papers.
Spanx 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 2nd June 2016, 09:25 AM   #73
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I guess the thread is not for you if a you can't provide a specific Truther paper which you find provides any benefit.

The same would apply to non truthers 911 papers.
Fair enough - it's not for me as a contributer of papers, but I'm interested in whether such papers can be provided. However, the nature of the benefits surely needs to be properly defined before anyone can provide any papers that they think have initiated them.

I agree that the question is legitimate but the wording in the OP is so vague someone could come along and say, 'The Bentham paper benefits everyone by outlining the fact that there is evidence for thermite in the WTC dust' or, 'The Missing Jolt paper benefits everyone by showing how the WTC could not have collapsed as it did without the use of explosives', or similar - and then the familiar circular arguments would begin. What's the use of another thread like that?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio 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 2nd June 2016, 09:53 AM   #74
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post

I agree that the question is legitimate but the wording in the OP is so vague someone could come along and say, 'The Bentham paper benefits everyone by outlining the fact that there is evidence for thermite in the WTC dust' or, 'The Missing Jolt paper benefits everyone by showing how the WTC could not have collapsed as it did without the use of explosives', or similar - and then the familiar circular arguments would begin. What's the use of another thread like that?
I think this could be said about any thread on this 911 forum.

Perhaps what you have said will happen now?

As of yet, no truthers has contributed, perhaps they are thinking about it ? Who knows ?

It's a shame it developed into a bickering contest.
Spanx 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 2nd June 2016, 10:46 AM   #75
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
It's a shame it developed into a bickering contest.
I agree but I think the vagueness of the OP is what's caused the confusion and thus the bickering. Being more specific with a list like I suggested would help the thread recover.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio 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 2nd June 2016, 06:31 PM   #76
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Fair enough - it's not for me as a contributor of papers, but I'm interested in whether such papers can be provided. However, the nature of the benefits surely needs to be properly defined before anyone can provide any papers that they think have initiated them.
Thanks Georgio. That is one of the specific issues I raised. What does "benefit" mean and who is the beneficiary.

Since Spanx continues to leave the definition of "benefit" open - unlimited - these two examples of mine meet his OP requirement. And I have identified some of the benefits:
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
OK - I'll buy that. Try these two:
(a) The Harritt "thermXte paper" was beneficial. Indirectly beneficial in that debunker research has now established that those mystery chips were paint. Who benefits? The"debunker" community has another tool for battles with truthers.

(b) The "Missing Jolt" paper was beneficial to T Szamboti and the truth movement because discussion of it by debunkers has firmly implanted Szamboti's parody of Bazant's "drop to impact" mechanism which never happened into the mindset of many debunkers. Possibly T Sz's biggest "win" for trutherdom. Who benefits? Truthers "short term" tho "short" is questionable. Tony's MJ nonsense should have been put to rest years back. The debunker side benefit is even harder to assess - either way - the "big picture" could well be "Would we have been better off if B&Z 2002 had not been published?" (Because Tony could not have misused it.) There no easy answer to that hypothetical.

So those are a couple of quick contributions as examples of benefits.
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I agree but I think the vagueness of the OP is what's caused the confusion and thus the bickering. Being more specific with a list like I suggested would help the thread recover.
Thanks again. There are actually two options identified in my previous posts:
A) Be more specific; OR
B) Remain vague.

Either is workable provided we know which one sets the ground rules.

AND:
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I agree that the question is legitimate but the wording in the OP is so vague someone could come along and say, 'The Bentham paper benefits everyone by outlining the fact that there is evidence for thermite in the WTC dust' or, 'The Missing Jolt paper benefits everyone by showing how the WTC could not have collapsed as it did without the use of explosives', or similar - and then the familiar circular arguments would begin. What's the use of another thread like that?
I agree that both those are legitimate "on topic' with the current OP - I also suggested those two papers - I identified different benefits and beneficiaries. Both yours and mine are IMO legitimate.

Here's another one for Spanx to consider:

The Szuladzinski; Szamboti and Johns paper: "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" is without doubt a truther paper. It has been of benefit: (a) to me in that it rebuts one of the premises underpinning Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" paper (With T Sz as co-author disagreeing with a premise or two of MJ. ); and of potential benefit because (b) it presents a legitimate and AFAIK so far unresolved criticism of Bazant & Zhou's 2002 "Limit Case" paper.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I guess the thread is not for you if a you can't provide a specific Truther paper which you find provides any benefit.

The same would apply to non truthers 911 papers.
I've already identified two papers AND the benefit. Plus the third one with further potential and so far under utilised benefits.

What do you think of those three Spanx?
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 2nd June 2016, 09:57 PM   #77
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Oz,

It's good to see that you feel you have benefitted from them.

I'm guessing your next question will be, what is the real world.

Last edited by Spanx; 2nd June 2016 at 11:06 PM.
Spanx 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 3rd June 2016, 01:35 AM   #78
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Oz,

It's good to see that you feel you have benefitted from them.
Great. So we now have three examples of papers that you accept.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I'm guessing your next question will be, what is the real world.
I doubt it. I'll wait to see if anyone other than me meets your undefined criteria. So far you have three examples - provided by me - of Truther papers which have produced benefits. Which was your OP request.

Originally Posted by Spanx OP
Truther peer reviewed papers
A simple question........

When have they ever been used in the real world and who has benefitted from them?

I would love to know, thanks
So you have three examples which:
(a) Are truther papers - tick all three;
(b) Which have been used in the real world - tick all three; AND
(c) Beneficiaries identified - tick all three.

So - you now "love knowing" .

Good progress I think despite some difficulties.

BTW have you noticed that ProBonoShill agrees with my two key points:
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
....his intentions weren't that hard to figure out.
Point #1 - Your "intention" wasn't explicitly clear; and
Point #2 - needed to be "figured out"

So that is progress - me and ProBonoShill agreed on the main points of procedural critique.

Last edited by ozeco41; 3rd June 2016 at 01:55 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 3rd June 2016, 04:20 AM   #79
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
I'd say that "Been used in the real world" is quite a stretch. "Been used in futile debate about 9/11 CT" would be more like it.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
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 3rd June 2016, 07:34 AM   #80
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Oz

I will except any Truther peer reviewed paper that anyone has benefitted from.

So far it would appear to be you, Tony Sz, and debunkers who have benefitted from them.

I'm not sure if I come in the debunker category? I don't think I have benefitted from them.
Spanx 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

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 07:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.