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

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

Notices


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 24th July 2013, 11:55 AM   #1401
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,854
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
That my stated thesis is true.


The very first sentences in the book:
There are fact based accounts of the collapse, the thesis fails. The thesis is nonsense. Proof the thesis failed, is... Where did you get your facts? lol

Where is the list of Key Areas you disproved.

Last edited by beachnut; 24th July 2013 at 11:58 AM. Reason: posting from under the Walnut Tree, on battery, wireless, not NWO lunch break yet
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 24th July 2013, 12:17 PM   #1402
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Major_Tom
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
If we stipulate, say, that both AE911T and NIST have explanations that don't match the observables -- or, for that matter, that no one has an explanation that matches the observables -- what are the consequences?

That my stated thesis is true.
Charitably, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

If we stipulate that your stated thesis is true, that is a tautology, not a consequence. Even if we don't stipulate that, the thesis has no obvious inherent importance, as pgimeno notes -- or perhaps it is worded so vaguely that its importance is unclear.

So, are you saying that the one and only consequence of your research is that your stated thesis is true? Can you think of any other consequences? Or is that the only contribution you intend or hope to make?
MarkLindeman 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 24th July 2013, 07:31 PM   #1403
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post

If we stipulate that your stated thesis is true,
Why stipulate? Why not verify instead?



Thesis stated. Verify thesis. Why not just do that instead?



Do that first, and then we can talk about the consequences of the thesis.


Here is one consequence of the thesis: Many of you are in an identical position as Tony Szamboti.


For example, this is a general representation of the NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC1 as kindly illustrated by Ryan Mackey:




Hardfire program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk

R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50,


"We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another."



R Mackey:


"At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video."

R Mackey debating against none other than Tony Szamboti.

There is one thing many people have in common, truther and debunker alike. They have no real concept of either the visual or written record but argue as if they do.




Here is another consequence of the thesis: Many people are pretending to know more than they actually do about the WTC collapses. Many people and organizations such as the NIST regularly demonstrate that they are very poor observers and quite vulnerable to being fooled by false technical information.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 24th July 2013 at 07:54 PM.
Major_Tom 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 24th July 2013, 07:57 PM   #1404
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Why stipulate? Why not verify instead?

Thesis stated. Verify thesis. Why not just do that instead?
What a good idea. But forget the "reversed burden of proof" - it is your claim, your "Thesis" YOU verify it. I'll simply falsify it courtesy of data you have provided in the post.

This is what we are discussing:
Quote:
There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses.
Well you set yourself a problem in that third word "no". "Prove a negative?" Even worse "prove a Global negative?" No wonder you want to reverse burden of proof.

However your post debunks your own claim - you reference R Mackey. And, guess what? The link leads to a technical account of the World Trade Center collapses; AND The account is based on fact.

So we have one "..fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." And one exception is all it takes to falsify a global claim.

The thesis is falsified. Back to the drawing board. No need to even consider "consequences".
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 24th July 2013, 08:01 PM   #1405
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
What a good idea. But forget the "reversed burden of proof" - it is your claim, your "Thesis" YOU verify it. I'll simply falsify it courtesy of data you have provided in the post.

This is what we are discussing:

Well you set yourself a problem in that third word "no". "Prove a negative?" Even worse "prove a Global negative?" No wonder you want to reverse burden of proof.

However your post debunks your own claim - you reference R Mackey. And, guess what? The link leads to a technical account of the World Trade Center collapses; AND The account is based on fact.

So we have one "..fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." And one exception is all it takes to falsify a global claim.

The thesis is falsified. Back to the drawing board. No need to even consider "consequences".

My stalker is back.

I've seen no difference between your understanding of what you are looking at in the visual record and that of Tony. Based on that detachment from the subject matter, both of you take a very strong stand that your are right.

Another consequence of my thesis is that many truthers and debunkers are identical in many ways.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 24th July 2013 at 08:22 PM.
Major_Tom 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 24th July 2013, 08:29 PM   #1406
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

However your post debunks your own claim - you reference R Mackey. And, guess what? The link leads to a technical account of the World Trade Center collapses; AND The account is based on fact.

Ozeco, I have never understood where you get your facts. The similarities between this comment and something Beachnut would say is stunning.
__________________
Website
Major_Tom 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 24th July 2013, 09:46 PM   #1407
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
I've seen no difference between your understanding of what you are looking at in the visual record and that of Tony...
You are drifting a long way from the current discussion.

Only two things I have referenced

1) your 'thesis' "There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." ..which uses the 5 identified items of fact which I have colour coded. AND

2) The Ryan Mackey "account" that you linked to.

I rebutted/cautioned use of "no" and showed that R Lackey's paper is an account which is fact based and technical. So it is one of the things you claim do not exist. Since it exists your thesis is falsified. I took "World trade Centre" and "collapse" as not in dispute but I can address those if you want to disagree with them - bearing in mind that they are YOUR criteria so you would be attacking your own thesis.

I am not talking about the "visual record" OR "Tony's understanding". So that comment is a change of topic. If you want to change topic say so - I may follow.



[quote=Major_Tom;9383923]... Based on that detachment from the subject matter, both of you take a very strong stand that your are right...{/QUOTE] I am prepared to back my stance with reasoned argument. Tony' isn't - he demands "calculations" even when the difference is in logic and not amenable to "calculations"
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...Another consequence of my thesis is that many truthers and debunkers are identical in many ways.
I agree that you are right on the claim of fact BUT it is not a consequence of your thesis. It happens to be fact which is demonstrably true fact AND independent of your thesis. BTW my agreement is rare BUT you included the word "many" - I usually object because you tend to make global or exclusive claims - which are rarely true and you never present argument for "globality" or "global exclusion".

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Ozeco, I have never understood where you get your facts....
Usually because you are expecting me to use innuendo and to match your practice of telling untruths by inference. I don't what I write is what I write, I do not rely on inference and any inferences which may arise due to loose writing are generally unintended. So my approach/style diametrically opposite yours where inference is a primary tactic.
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The similarities between this comment and something Beachnut would say is stunning.
One of us may be offended. Your style is far more like beachnut's than mine 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 25th July 2013, 07:37 AM   #1408
pgimeno
Graduate Poster
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,776
So, MT has engaged in defending his thesis rather than in explaining why is it of any significance to the universe in which he frames it, in the first place?

Color me surprised. Not.
__________________
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 25th July 2013, 07:50 AM   #1409
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Why stipulate? Why not verify instead?
If you can't offer a reason why I should care about your thesis, why would I bother to verify it? My curiosity ranges pretty widely, but there are only so many hours in a day.
MarkLindeman 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 July 2013, 08:30 AM   #1410
pgimeno
Graduate Poster
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
So, MT has engaged in defending his thesis rather than in explaining why is it of any significance to the universe in which he frames it, in the first place?
Let me elaborate on that.

It's my impression (maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected if so) that the complaint about the lack of a "fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses" is aimed at, and is a criticism of, the academic world for failing to produce one.

And if it's framed in the academic world, he doesn't explain why that world should have cared in the first place. See my comparison with the car crashing.

But his target audience seems to be the "truthers" and "debunkers" arena, and such public might indeed be interested in the collapses. Why is MT telling that public something that has no significance (or none that he has explained at least)?
__________________
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 25th July 2013, 08:35 AM   #1411
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,538
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Why is MT telling that public something that has no significance (or none that he has explained at least)?
As posted here often, in various contexts:

Originally Posted by George Monbiot
The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

...

Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the “truth” movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don’t exist, they can’t fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.
MT prefers to make arguments of no significance, to pretend he is battling a "satan-like" figure, than to do anything of import in the real world. It's a feature, not a bug of the truth movement (sic).
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2013, 01:15 PM   #1412
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

However your post debunks your own claim - you reference R Mackey. And, guess what? The link leads to a technical account of the World Trade Center collapses; AND The account is based on fact.

So we have one "..fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." And one exception is all it takes to falsify a global claim.

From my own experience I have found that it is difficult to approach the claim in my thesis or the subject of the WTC collapses in an evidence-based way because of a fundamental Achille's heel found most everywhere one looks if they have the eyes to see it.

People are largely detached from the visual record of the WTC attacks and collapse events and they are largely detached from the written record of those events which followed.



This fundamental Achille's heel explains most everything I witness concerning technical literature on the subject of these collapse events.



The Ozeco quote above is only one drop in an ocean of examples. If a person is aware of the written history they would notice that R.Mackey is merely parroting what he read in the NIST publications. If they were aware of the visual record of events they would be able to notice that the stated NIST claims are untrue.



If one is divorced from both the visual and written records they often feel free to say anything that pops into their head but have no capacity, instinct, or even interest to verify whether the claim is true.


It is a fundamental ignorance of the visual and written records that leads to the breakdown of skeptical thought and evidence-based understanding of this issue.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 25th July 2013 at 01:46 PM.
Major_Tom 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 July 2013, 01:35 PM   #1413
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
As mentioned earlier the underlying question can be phrased as:


Are the claims of ________________ concerning the WTC collapses consistent with the visual record of events? Are they consistent with the written history?

In the blank one can insert

Tony Szamboti
The NIST
BV
BL
BLGB
you (whoever you are)

demolition
or anything or anyone one wants.


Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
If you can't offer a reason why I should care about your thesis, why would I bother to verify it?
If you do not care that the technical explanations of the collapse events offered by the NIST are not consistent with the visual record of events, that is fine.

This topic is not for everybody.


The book is for people who may wish to fact-check these underlying questions or wish to look at the collapse events in more detail to verify or refute various claims floating about or various suspicions they may have.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 25th July 2013 at 01:43 PM.
Major_Tom 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 July 2013, 02:41 PM   #1414
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post

It's my impression (maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected if so) that the complaint about the lack of a "fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses" is aimed at, and is a criticism of, the academic world for failing to produce one.
Best to think of it more as a verifiable fact than a complaint. I do not see any admission within the academic community that they failed to produce a fact-based technical account of the collapses.

If they try and fail, that is fine. If they admit to failure and uncertainty i have no problem with that.

I object to people making verifiably incorrect claims and presenting them as authoritative and certain. I do not care for the JREF forum for the same reason.

Quote:
And if it's framed in the academic world, he doesn't explain why that world should have cared in the first place.
Think of the information in the book as a warning to demonstrate how vulnerable the peer review process can be and how vulnerable authoritative certainty can be.



Quote:
But his target audience seems to be the "truthers" and "debunkers" arena, and such public might indeed be interested in the collapses. Why is MT telling that public something that has no significance (or none that he has explained at least)?
Think of the book as a warning to be wary of various claims being made by many truthers and debunkers.

The book is not written to flatter supporters of AE911T or the debunking community. I have no problem with how this information is received at JREF as I have no desire to be associated with the general mentality expressed in a forum like this.


The target audiences are those who are interested in a book and website like this. For those who are neither hypnotized by the NIST or AE911T, and sincerely wish to look deeper into the collapse events themselves for whatever reason.


There are people who appreciate what certain independent researchers have done. There are those who hate it. There are those who do not care.

I have no desire to convince anyone to care. The work is assembled for those who find it useful.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 25th July 2013 at 02:58 PM.
Major_Tom 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 July 2013, 02:49 PM   #1415
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
If you do not care that the technical explanations of the collapse events offered by the NIST are not consistent with the visual record of events, that is fine.

This topic is not for everybody.
Evasion noted. It's an interesting choice, Major.
MarkLindeman 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 July 2013, 05:14 PM   #1416
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,124
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The Ozeco quote above is only one drop in an ocean of examples. If a person is aware of the written history they would notice that R.Mackey is merely parroting what he read in the NIST publications. If they were aware of the visual record of events they would be able to notice that the stated NIST claims are untrue.
This is a typical example of how you destroy your own claims.

The issue under discussion is your thesis that "There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." You gave the reference to R Mackey's account. I falsified your thesis.

You now state that R Mackey's explanation is wrong. That is not the issue you raised nor the issue I responded to. I happen to agree with you that the diagram is not an accurate representation of what really happened BUT the accuracy of R Mackey's explanation is not what I was responding to. I responded to your false claim that it is not a "...fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." You are wrong in that assertion. The R Mackey material is an "account", it is about "World Trade Center collapses" it is "fact-based" and it is "technical".

Whether or not R Mackey's explanation is accurate is not under discussion. (And BTW your thesis does not refer to accuracy.)

If you want to claim "R Mackey is wrong" OR"R Mackey wrongly interprets facts" OR even "S Bloggs is lying about facts" then do so.

But don't persist in:
A) changing topic as an evasion tactic;
B) making global false generalisations; and
C) trying to pass burden of proof to prove a negative onto those who are attempting to enter discussion.

(Plus:
D) stop the gratuitous insults but I doubt you can do that.)

Status of this thread remains:
1) You have not made out your OP claim "Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas"; AND
2) Your thesis "There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." is falsified.
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 26th July 2013, 04:28 AM   #1417
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,823
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

The issue under discussion is your thesis that "There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." You gave the reference to R Mackey's account. I falsified your thesis.

You now state that R Mackey's explanation is wrong. That is not the issue you raised nor the issue I responded to. I happen to agree with you that the diagram is not an accurate representation of what really happened BUT the accuracy of R Mackey's explanation is not what I was responding to. I responded to your false claim that it is not a "...fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses." You are wrong in that assertion. The R Mackey material is an "account", it is about "World Trade Center collapses" it is "fact-based" and it is "technical".

Edited by LashL:  Removed breach.




Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
(And BTW your thesis does not refer to accuracy.)

Please explain how you perceive the difference between "fact-based" and "accurate".
__________________
Website

Last edited by LashL; 26th July 2013 at 12:23 PM.
Major_Tom 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 » 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 10:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.