|
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. |
30th May 2016, 02:55 PM | #41 |
Illuminator
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. |
30th May 2016, 02:59 PM | #42 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
30th May 2016, 03:07 PM | #43 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
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 |
|
31st May 2016, 06:24 AM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
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) |
|
31st May 2016, 11:31 AM | #45 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
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. |
31st May 2016, 08:40 PM | #46 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
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 |
|
31st May 2016, 09:35 PM | #47 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
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) |
|
1st June 2016, 01:53 AM | #48 |
Philosopher
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": ..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": (And it was the papers that were to be peer reviewed - not the experts...) The O Poster joins the push: So Oystein (beating me to it - I wasn't tracking the thread...) ....asks a simple question "WTF are you looking for?" 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: So no answer to the question Oystein asked... ...and drives further off topic with this: ...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: |
1st June 2016, 01:54 AM | #49 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
1st June 2016, 02:26 AM | #50 |
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. |
1st June 2016, 04:17 AM | #51 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
1st June 2016, 04:56 AM | #52 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
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 |
|
1st June 2016, 05:04 AM | #53 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
1st June 2016, 05:42 AM | #54 |
Illuminator
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/ |
1st June 2016, 07:04 AM | #55 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
1st June 2016, 10:43 AM | #56 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
1st June 2016, 11:26 AM | #57 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
1st June 2016, 11:30 AM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
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? |
1st June 2016, 04:34 PM | #59 |
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
|
|
1st June 2016, 08:17 PM | #60 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
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. |
1st June 2016, 09:20 PM | #61 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
So... do you guys do this all the time?
|
1st June 2016, 09:56 PM | #62 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
This is pedantic nonsense, his intentions weren't that hard to figure out.
Quote:
|
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag |
|
2nd June 2016, 12:31 AM | #63 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd June 2016, 12:33 AM | #64 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd June 2016, 05:01 AM | #65 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
delete
|
2nd June 2016, 05:07 AM | #66 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
2nd June 2016, 05:39 AM | #67 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
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. |
2nd June 2016, 07:22 AM | #68 |
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 |
|
2nd June 2016, 08:03 AM | #69 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd June 2016, 08:13 AM | #70 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd June 2016, 08:49 AM | #71 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
|
|
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy |
|
2nd June 2016, 09:01 AM | #72 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd June 2016, 09:25 AM | #73 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
|
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 |
|
2nd June 2016, 09:53 AM | #74 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
2nd June 2016, 10:46 AM | #75 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
|
|
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy |
|
2nd June 2016, 06:31 PM | #76 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
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: 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: 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. 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? |
2nd June 2016, 09:57 PM | #77 |
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. |
3rd June 2016, 01:35 AM | #78 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Great. So we now have three examples of papers that you accept.
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
(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: 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. |
3rd June 2016, 04:20 AM | #79 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
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 |
|
3rd June 2016, 07:34 AM | #80 |
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|