Metatheory and the NIST report

[Apollo20]

Anti-Sophist:

The North Tower antenna found on Liberty Street

Heavily corroded structural steel with high surface concentrations of S and Cl

Molten metal "dripping" from the Towers

Chlorine-rich aerosols over Manhattan after 9/11

Iron-rich spherical particles...

Yes, this IS fun!

 

[Reality Believer]

Feel free to add your own. This is a fun game.

11. A video that show simultaneous cutting charges, on all floors, as in a proper CD.
12. A collapse that initiates on the ground floors, instead of the impact floors.
13. Mass confessions of planners, designers, explosive experts, secretaries, first responders, witnesses or any of the 10,000 participants that "were in on it".

 

[R.Mackey]

So what criteria would need to be met, or what evidence could demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

If it is, indeed falsifiable, there should be some unambiguous criteria that, if met would clearly show the NIST theory (specifically, the heat-induced collapse theory) to be false.

If the NIST theory does not have any criteria by which would demonstrate its falsity, then it's not a good theory to begin with.

This is getting needlessly complicated.

The falsifiability criterion for the NIST report is the same as for any other hypothesis:

1. If the NIST report can be found to be grossly inconsistent with one or more major observables, subject to consideration of the accuracy of those observables, or

2. The NIST report is found to be materially deficient compared to another, superior hypothesis in matching known observables, then​

the NIST report is "falsified."

Some key points:

If the NIST report doesn't actually articulate a given feature (e.g. molten "metal" dripping from upper floors), but that feature is not in any way inconsistent with the NIST report (or any alternate hypothesis), then the hypothesis is simply incomplete, not falsified. If we opt to embellish the NIST report, we haven't falsified it, merely expanded on it. This is a semantic point, but our OP apparently wishes to be thorough.

Argument 1. is really the same as Argument 2., in that if the NIST report is honestly that poor, then there should by definition be a better hypothesis, even if that hypothesis is largely speculative.

This is entirely consistent with what I've been saying before.

Gregory Urich has accurately articulated what I said about restricting our view to the fire: If you only want to talk about the fire, that's fine, but that means you accept NIST's post-impact condition estimate. What's that? You don't agree? Well, if so, then you have something to say about the impact, and thus you aren't restricting your view to the fire by your choice. Either way, I'm ready. Your call.

And please, let's get this started. I'm on travel next week and won't be able to respond.

Finally, more to the JREF regulars -- I won't name anyone in particular, but can we please keep the signal-to-noise as high as possible? Thanks.

 

[pomeroo]

This is getting needlessly complicated...

And please, let's get this started. I'm on travel next week and won't be able to respond.

Finally, more to the JREF regulars -- I won't name anyone in particular, but can we please keep the signal-to-noise as high as possible? Thanks.

I get the message. Now, we're over a hundred posts into the thread. Can we start seeing proof that a mathematically-impossible conspiracy blew up the Twin Towers?

 

[pomeroo]

Am I missing something or did this thread simply die?


A fantasist who prattles about falsifiability?


Did the guy just run away?


What the hell...

 

[T.A.M.]

Anti-Sophist:

The North Tower antenna found on Liberty Street

Heavily corroded structural steel with high surface concentrations of S and Cl

Molten metal "dripping" from the Towers

Chlorine-rich aerosols over Manhattan after 9/11

Iron-rich spherical particles...

Yes, this IS fun!

What are your thoughts now, on the sphericles Apollo20? Do you think they are the result of Blood Products from the victims, or Super Duper Thermite/ate?

TAM

 

[Disbelief]

Anti-Sophist:

The North Tower antenna found on Liberty Street

Heavily corroded structural steel with high surface concentrations of S and Cl

Molten metal "dripping" from the Towers

Chlorine-rich aerosols over Manhattan after 9/11

Iron-rich spherical particles...

Yes, this IS fun!

Please explain how any of these makes the NIST report false.

 

[GregoryUrich]

This is such a stunningly easy question to answer that it almost boggles my mind.

Here are some examples of evidence that would almost certainly make the NIST report false:

1. The WTC towers were to be found still, in fact, standing.
2. Steel vapor
3. Extremely high concentrations of radiation
4. Undetonated explosives
5. Obscenely high concentrations of unexplainable elements (ahem, barium?)
6. Evidence of a volcanic eruption on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
7. Evidence of a catastrophic earthquake on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
8. Evidence of a meteor strike on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
9. Maybe a video showing the space laser striking on 9/11/01
10. Maybe a video showing a glitch in the holographic planes

Feel free to add your own. This is a fun game.

Since we have agreed on the criteria for good theories, these theories fail in terms of parsimony because we are assuming NIST's theory is correct and that no other phenomena are necessary. Theories that fail in terms of parsimony are not valid as falsification criteria.

Not quite as easy or fun as you thought...

An example of a valid falsification criterium would be that the temperatures and "time at temperature" were insufficient to heat the steel to the point of weakening to the extent that NIST claims.

 

[Dave Rogers]

An example of a valid falsification criterium would be that the temperatures and "time at temperature" were insufficient to heat the steel to the point of weakening to the extent that NIST claims.

As a falsification criterion that would be fully acceptable provided it was based on observation of the fire times and temperatures during the actual events. However, a line of reasoning that simply draws the conclusion that time and temperature would be unsufficient would not, in itself, falsify NIST, because it would itself be a falsifiable counter-theory that would then need to be compared with NISTs prior theory that time and temperature were sufficient to weaken the steel to the extent claimed.

In general, valid falsification criteria must surely involve physically observed phenomena that contradict the predictions of the NIST theory, rather than counter-theories. Anti-sophist's list is a suggestion of the sort of observations that might qualify, but one would also need to produce evidence that those observations had in fact been made. If you're aware of actual, direct measurements of the fire temperatures within the WTC towers and can verify their provenance, I would say you've got an earth-shatteringly important piece of evidence that has escaped NIST's attention. If you simply have a counter-theory, then you haven't.

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

As a falsification criterion that would be fully acceptable provided it was based on observation of the fire times and temperatures during the actual events. However, a line of reasoning that simply draws the conclusion that time and temperature would be unsufficient would not, in itself, falsify NIST, because it would itself be a falsifiable counter-theory that would then need to be compared with NISTs prior theory that time and temperature were sufficient to weaken the steel to the extent claimed.

In general, valid falsification criteria must surely involve physically observed phenomena that contradict the predictions of the NIST theory, rather than counter-theories. Anti-sophist's list is a suggestion of the sort of observations that might qualify, but one would also need to produce evidence that those observations had in fact been made. If you're aware of actual, direct measurements of the fire temperatures within the WTC towers and can verify their provenance, I would say you've got an earth-shatteringly important piece of evidence that has escaped NIST's attention. If you simply have a counter-theory, then you haven't.

Dave

Actually, counter-theories are perfectly acceptable as falsification if they are more convincing than the NIST theory. Let's quit wasting our time though.

This is about the NIST theory. What claims that NIST is making, if shown to be false would falsify the NIST theory?

Is everyone here afraid to engage this?

Edit: Regarding my example--it is just an example. Such a claim would need to be substantiated by evidence or convincing theoretical arguments.

 

[Pardalis]

Somebody please wake me up when one of the twoofers actually have a valid alternate theory to propose.

 

[Totovader]

Actually, counter-theories are perfectly acceptable as falsification if they are more convincing than the NIST theory. Let's quit wasting our time though.

This is about the NIST theory. What claims that NIST is making, if shown to be false would falsify the NIST theory?

Is everyone here afraid to engage this?

This is an absurd bastardization of science. "More convincing"? To whom? The point of scientific inquiry- of the scientific method- is to eliminate as much bias as possible. To claim that one theory is "more convincing" (which we all know means that evidence is really just being ignored in favor of fantasies) is to be completely unscientific.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am not afraid to engage.

1. Medicine is my expertese. While I have extensive training in physics and mathematics due to my electronic engineering tech diploma (3 year), which I recieved prior to my medical degree, the knowledge is unused, and the gears do not turn so well wrt it.

2. R. Mackey asked us to keep all convo not related to the topic to a minimum, so I am respecting such a request from one of our top, most literate and knowledgable debunkers.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

This is about the NIST theory. What claims that NIST is making, if shown to be false would falsify the NIST theory?

If I recall didn't NIST explicitly claim no evidence of blast or CD event?

If that's the case, wouldn't actual, verified physical evidence of explosives or numerous eye witnesses claiming they saw explosives being planted falsify it?

 

[GregoryUrich]

This is an absurd bastardization of science. "More convincing"? To whom? The point of scientific inquiry- of the scientific method- is to eliminate as much bias as possible. To claim that one theory is "more convincing" (which we all know means that evidence is really just being ignored in favor of fantasies) is to be completely unscientific.

Go read the OP. "More convincing" in terms of evidence or scientific theory.

Doesn't your knee get sore from all this knee-jerk blather?

 

[GregoryUrich]

If I recall didn't NIST explicitly claim no evidence of blast or CD event?

If that's the case, wouldn't actual, verified physical evidence of explosives or numerous eye witnesses claiming they saw explosives being planted falsify it?

Not really. That would prove one of NIST's claims to be wrong but not the collapse theory. You would still have to prove the explosives caused the collapse.

 

[twinstead]

Not really. That would prove one of NIST's claims to be wrong but not the collapse theory. You would still have to prove the explosives caused the collapse.

Well, according to most conspiracy theorists, all you have to do is watch the videos, it's SO obvious

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, counter-theories are perfectly acceptable as falsification if they are more convincing than the NIST theory.

Partly true. Counter-theories are subject to the same criteria for falsification as the NIST theory. Showing that a counter-theory agreed with the experimental data better than the NIST theory would require falsification of the NIST theory. The only way a counter-theory that gave an equally good explanation of observations as NIST could supersede the NIST theory would be if it was more parsimonious. If a counter-theory is equally good at explaining phenomena but less parsimonious, Ockham would have us retain NIST. "Convincing" is not really an appropriate word to use in this context.

This is about the NIST theory. What claims that NIST is making, if shown to be false would falsify the NIST theory?

Is everyone here afraid to engage this?

No, the question has been asken and answered in considerable detail and at length - physical observations that directly contradict the NIST theory and are better explained by some other theory which also explains all the phenomena correctly predicted by the NIST theory would falsify the NIST theory and require the new theory to be preferred.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

Actually, counter-theories are perfectly acceptable as falsification if they are more convincing than the NIST theory. Let's quit wasting our time though.

This is about the NIST theory. What claims that NIST is making, if shown to be false would falsify the NIST theory?

Is everyone here afraid to engage this?

Edit: Regarding my example--it is just an example. Such a claim would need to be substantiated by evidence or convincing theoretical arguments.

The NIST theory as is passes falsifiability. If you, as an engineer, can not see it. You are a poor engineer because you let your membership in 9/11 truth bias your abilities as an engineer. This is your test and you are failing. The falsifiability of the NIST report is an easy subject. Maybe you do not understand the concept. You support ideas in 9/11 truth that mirror a religious cult and like creationism can not pass falsifiability. The NIST theory on collapse passes. You are not very good at this.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Partly true. Counter-theories are subject to the same criteria for falsification as the NIST theory. Showing that a counter-theory agreed with the experimental data better than the NIST theory would require falsification of the NIST theory. The only way a counter-theory that gave an equally good explanation of observations as NIST could supersede the NIST theory would be if it was more parsimonious. If a counter-theory is equally good at explaining phenomena but less parsimonious, Ockham would have us retain NIST. "Convincing" is not really an appropriate word to use in this context.

No, the question has been asken and answered in considerable detail and at length - physical observations that directly contradict the NIST theory and are better explained by some other theory which also explains all the phenomena correctly predicted by the NIST theory would falsify the NIST theory and require the new theory to be preferred.

Dave

No, any main claim on which the NIST theory is dependent that could be proven false would falsify the NIST theory independently of any alternate theory.

If we are left with no good alternative theories (as the majority of people here believe), the only way to falsify the NIST theory is by the above method.