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.
View Poll Results: Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?
Yes 20 13.07%
No 128 83.66%
Undecided 5 3.27%
Voters: 153. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 25th May 2015, 07:30 AM   #3241
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,765
Actually, to do experiments, you just need to know how to construct a proper experiment. It is a process that can be learned by anyone. Interpreting the results properly can also be learned. Experiments can be designed and used in all sorts of areas of interest.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 25th May 2015, 07:51 AM   #3242
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Actually, to do experiments, you just need to know how to construct a proper experiment. It is a process that can be learned by anyone. Interpreting the results properly can also be learned. Experiments can be designed and used in all sorts of areas of interest.
Agreed. However, the time it takes to learn properly how to construct experiments in a particular field, and the time it takes to acquire the experience and knowledge necessary to interpret the outcomes alongside practitioners in that field, is lengthy enough to require making that field one's full-time occupation. Nearly every knowledge field uses the same hypothetico-deductive framework and methods of differential empiricism. But having mastered it in, say, medicine doesn't immediately qualify a person to construct valid experiments in engineering. Experiment design is predicated on second-nature knowledge of the detailed mechanisms that apply within the field. Where the experiment means to test a happenstance event, it must also base itself on experience of how the events normally play out among its human, natural, and constructed elements.

Jones isn't a chemist or an engineer. He has never been involved in designing or constructing a building, much less any of the special techniques employed in the WTC towers. He is not a field investigator. Prior to his involvement in 9/11 he had zero experience in the relevant sciences. As I said, I had the opportunity to observe Jones before he became nationally known. Watching him attempt to empirically validate his crackpot claims was just ... sad.
JayUtah 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 25th May 2015, 08:04 AM   #3243
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,765
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Agreed. However, the time it takes to learn properly how to construct experiments in a particular field, and the time it takes to acquire the experience and knowledge necessary to interpret the outcomes alongside practitioners in that field, is lengthy enough to require making that field one's full-time occupation. Nearly every knowledge field uses the same hypothetico-deductive framework and methods of differential empiricism. But having mastered it in, say, medicine doesn't immediately qualify a person to construct valid experiments in engineering. Experiment design is predicated on second-nature knowledge of the detailed mechanisms that apply within the field. Where the experiment means to test a happenstance event, it must also base itself on experience of how the events normally play out among its human, natural, and constructed elements.

Jones isn't a chemist or an engineer. He has never been involved in designing or constructing a building, much less any of the special techniques employed in the WTC towers. He is not a field investigator. Prior to his involvement in 9/11 he had zero experience in the relevant sciences. As I said, I had the opportunity to observe Jones before he became nationally known. Watching him attempt to empirically validate his crackpot claims was just ... sad.
Agreed that if you don't know the field, it will take longer because you will have to feel your way through several screening experiments.

Jones et al. did not do the screening, they just pop off an isolated experiment and misrepresent the results. Doesn't matter to them, as long as it sounds sciencey enough followers will try to shoehorn it into relevance, like devoted Star Trek fans trying to explain warp drive.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 25th May 2015 at 08:06 AM.
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 25th May 2015, 08:52 AM   #3244
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Agreed that if you don't know the field, it will take longer because you will have to feel your way through several screening experiments.

Jones et al. did not do the screening, they just pop off an isolated experiment and misrepresent the results. Doesn't matter to them, as long as it sounds sciencey enough followers will try to shoehorn it into relevance, like devoted Star Trek fans trying to explain warp drive.
Exactly Jones failed because his experiments were not relevant to the conditions in
the impact fires and collapses.

Just as Jay Howard failed because his experiments were in a fire not in the hot gasses produced by a fire with water in a reducing environment, another worthless Jonesofile experiment where any sulfur produced is burned in air converted back to SO2 before it can react with the steel.
What he fails to understand the reaction most likely occurs in a chimney effect of hot combustion gases such as CO, combusting with SO, in hot smoke or superheated steam rising off the burning rubble piles.
That was how I got the best sulfidication results.
It is really pointless to try to explain it to Jay Howard though, because he will just hand wave away,
Any logical responds.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 25th May 2015 at 09:19 AM.
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 25th May 2015, 09:35 AM   #3245
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Agreed. However, the time it takes to learn properly how to construct experiments in a particular field, and the time it takes to acquire the experience and knowledge necessary to interpret the outcomes alongside practitioners in that field, is lengthy enough to require making that field one's full-time occupation. Nearly every knowledge field uses the same hypothetico-deductive framework and methods of differential empiricism. But having mastered it in, say, medicine doesn't immediately qualify a person to construct valid experiments in engineering. Experiment design is predicated on second-nature knowledge of the detailed mechanisms that apply within the field. Where the experiment means to test a happenstance event, it must also base itself on experience of how the events normally play out among its human, natural, and constructed elements.

Jones isn't a chemist or an engineer. He has never been involved in designing or constructing a building, much less any of the special techniques employed in the WTC towers. He is not a field investigator. Prior to his involvement in 9/11 he had zero experience in the relevant sciences. As I said, I had the opportunity to observe Jones before he became nationally known. Watching him attempt to empirically validate his crackpot claims was just ... sad.
A very good article from a well respected university.
ADA425147.PDF
Shame Jay Howard will never read or understand it.
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
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 06:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.