Metatheory and the NIST report

[jay howard]

This photo is clear evidence that the USGS found microspheres at the WTC, and therefore the USGS endorses Jones' theory.

If they didn't find it, then you would be on firm ground with your doubt about the custody of evidence for the dust Jones analyzed.

As it stands, they happened to find very similar material. That makes it very unlikely that he "made up" the microspheres (for what conceivable reason, i couldn't fathom--so he could lose his job?)

But they did find it. So, you may take issue with his interpretation of the evidence--try to explain that it's remnants of human blood (sure, that happens, right?) or come to terms with the fact that evidence of extreme temperatures cannot be avoided, and that any serious theory must contend with this evidence.

 

[T.A.M.]

How do you know what "good science" is if you accept a proposal that must dismiss evidence by virtue of the fact that their theory cannot account for it?

Why doesn't that work with alternate theories? Because the position begs the questions at issue: namely, why did the towers collapse?

If you can't hold your own theories to the same standards by which you reject competing theories, you are protecting a belief, not participating in a scientific discussion.

So I will take that as "I don't have any evidence" then.

I didn't figure you did, but I thought it was worth a shot...

Please bring in the next so called "expert".

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

I'm not sure purple is a race, but remember this: If you question the government, you are a lying conspiracy idiot who hates America. What should be done with these people pomeroid? Orange jumpsuits for the lot of them? I hope they aren't Hugo Boss, though. His stuff never seems to fit me.

I really think this stuff should be on the "yes you are/no I'm not" thread but I couldn't resist.

Hey, Gregory, only 34 more posts before you can announce that your mathematically-impossible conspiracy blew up the Twin Towers. Way to go, disingenuous guy!

Incidentally, you don't "question the government": you promote baseless, nonsensical myths designed to absolve the jihadist murderers of all wrongdoing. In almost six years of screaming, the fantasists have yet to produce a shred of actual evidence for their moonshine.

What should be done with the conspiracy liars? Why, I think someone should try to persuade them to expose themselves publicly, preferably on cable TV, as the charlatans and crackpots they are. Yeah, someone should do that.

 

[HyJinX]

How do you know what "good science" is if you accept a proposal that must dismiss evidence by virtue of the fact that their theory cannot account for it?

Why doesn't that work with alternate theories? Because the position begs the questions at issue: namely, why did the towers collapse?

If you can't hold your own theories to the same standards by which you reject competing theories, you are protecting a belief, not participating in a scientific discussion.

What was the exact phrase you used again?

Oh yeah...Nice attempt at weaseling out.

 

[cmcaulif]

Nice attempt at weaseling out. At least we know where each other stand.

indeed we do, it is not hard to understand that TNT is used as the reference for explosions, so you are being either deliberately ignorant or deliberately disingenuous in your insistence that I was misleading, despite that I have explained this many times.

my emphasis

that is correct, the TNT, Sinkiri, RDX, or whatever you want would have had to have been drilled into small holes in the concrete floor slabs. That was one of the conclusions of the paper I mentioned, which used TNT as a reference to arrive at their number, as is common. Still not a straw man as you claim, just an offer for the CD proponents to explain their case.

 

[jay howard]

What was the exact phrase you used again?

Oh yeah...Nice attempt at weaseling out.

This would be a good place to show what exactly you claim I'm weaseling out of.

 

[rwguinn]

This would be a good place to show what exactly you claim I'm weaseling out of.

Show us you evidence that explosives were used (Hint: you can't, because there is none, zero, nada, zilch)
or your calculations which show that the yield stress never dropped below 36KSI, despite the fire, or that stress levels in all the steel of WTC1, 2 etc remained below 80,000psi until the explosives went off.
Simple enough.
Otherwise, weasel is confirmed

 

[jay howard]

indeed we do, it is not hard to understand that TNT is used as the reference for explosions, so you are being either deliberately ignorant or deliberately disingenuous in your insistence that I was misleading, despite that I have explained this many times.

The fact that you tried to rewrite the history of what you've said only speaks to your ability to delude yourself. You're not fooling me. I doubt you're fooling Greg.

Ultimately, you posed a clear example of a strawman. You did not say "equivalent to..." or even imply a measurement standard by your use of TNT. Even if the authors of the paper meant that, you deliberately said this material would have to be "drilled into small holes in the concrete floor slab...". Would small holes have to be drilled into the concrete with ANY material? Not necessarily. The fact that you pose the obstacle to overcome in this manner certainly does imply that you were not using TNT as a standard measurement.

All of you out there taking up for your buddy's failed attempt to avoid what is, in the big scheme, a minor criticism which doesn't make his original point irrelevant, are either not reading very critically or not concerned with what was said.

Own up. You made a strawman. It doesn't necessarily make your original point moot, but you did engage in deceptive argumentation. Period.

 

[jay howard]

Show us you evidence that explosives were used (Hint: you can't, because there is none, zero, nada, zilch)
or your calculations which show that the yield stress never dropped below 36KSI, despite the fire, or that stress levels in all the steel of WTC1, 2 etc remained below 80,000psi until the explosives went off.
Simple enough.
Otherwise, weasel is confirmed

Do you know what i'm claiming?

I'm NOT claiming anything about CD in this thread.

Did you read anything I've written?

 

[rwguinn]

Do you know what i'm claiming?

I'm NOT claiming anything about CD in this thread.

Did you read anything I've written?

Show us your calculations, or shut the devil up. If you've got something, show it. Otherwise, quit wasting bandwidth.

 

[jay howard]

Show us your calculations, or shut the devil up. If you've got something, show it. Otherwise, quit wasting bandwidth.

Seriously, did you just join this thread? I've presented my arguments all the way through.

If you've got a criticism with one of them, I'd be happy to entertain it.

 

[cmcaulif]

The fact that you tried to rewrite the history of what you've said only speaks to your ability to delude yourself. You're not fooling me. I doubt you're fooling Greg.

Ultimately, you posed a clear example of a strawman. You did not say "equivalent to..." or even imply a measurement standard by your use of TNT. Even if the authors of the paper meant that, you deliberately said this material would have to be "drilled into small holes in the concrete floor slab...". Would small holes have to be drilled into the concrete with ANY material? Not necessarily. The fact that you pose the obstacle to overcome in this manner certainly does imply that you were not using TNT as a standard measurement.

All of you out there taking up for your buddy's failed attempt to avoid what is, in the big scheme, a minor criticism which doesn't make his original point irrelevant, are either not reading very critically or not concerned with what was said.

Own up. You made a strawman. It doesn't necessarily make your original point moot, but you did engage in deceptive argumentation. Period.

Unbelievable jay, it has been explained numerous times, by numerous posters that using TNT as a reference is the convention, widely accepted. I would expect CD proponents, who surely have studied blast loading as other topics regarding explosives to be aware of this. I seriously cannot believe you are still accusing me of deception here. The term argumentation does not even really apply since I was merely offering GU an opportunity to explain his case, and I was not arguing with him since he had not yet presented a hypothesis that I can argue with. Can you accept that there are no ulterior motives behind this, but that I just want to hear a coherent CD hypothesis, since none has been presented?

This kind of stubbornness is baffling to me.

edit:

please read the paper in question to learn about the small holes and comminution theory, essentially since a great deal of the blast energy will be wasted, and not used for destroying the concrete, the explosive will have to be drilled into holes all aver the floor slab, no matter what blasting substance has been selected.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf

 

[beachnut]

You and the truth movement are the same a creationist. Too bad, if you had facts…

Where did I bring up thermite? Do you read anything I post? Like this:

Do you realize Jones isn't the only one who found or analyzed them? Ever heard of the USGS?

I'm not here to present an alternate theory. Seriously, after 800 + posts, you'd think everyone understood what the topic was.

I know that you still support the official theory, despite my criticisms, but do you understand that your position differs from the creationists only by degrees?

You better bring up thermite, it is your only idea. You have failed to use your own OP, or even understand the methods in your OP.

OMG, what does it mean, USGS, Yes, I saw the stuff they have; oh, what does it mean?

After 800 post I would expect you to improve and finally admit you do not understand 9/11, the NIST report, or the methods in your OP you can not apply.

No, the creationist is you. You are the religious zealot, 9/11 truth is your church and you have failed to live up to the OP. This is only based on your own posts and failure to apply the methods you set up in your OP.

No you have no facts to support your posts, and your creationist statement. I do not need the NIST report to understand how the WTC fell. I knew the first day. You are the researched challenged truther, not me.

 

[pomeroo]

Do you know what i'm claiming?

You make the thoroughly refuted claim that the NIST Report is unfalsifiable. Whenever someone explains precisely how it can be falsified, you repeat your claim.

I'm NOT claiming anything about CD in this thread.

Gregory Urich has to reach 500 posts before he can make his claim about CD. What are you waiting for?

Did you read anything I've written?

We've read too much of what you've written.

 

[rwguinn]

Do you know what i'm claiming?

I'm NOT claiming anything about CD in this thread.

Did you read anything I've written?

You remind me of a relative of mine my dad described as "someone who never shuts her mouth but never says a damn thing"
Your continued whining "NIST is wrong, but I can't say how" is very tiring.
Welcome to ignore.

 

[Myriad]

Would small holes have to be drilled into the concrete with ANY material?

Yes, if the "material" in question is a chemical explosive and its effects must include pulverizing the concrete.

Perhaps there's a material I'm overlooking. What material did you have in mind?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jay howard]

You make the thoroughly refuted claim that the NIST Report is unfalsifiable. Whenever someone explains precisely how it can be falsified, you repeat your claim.

People are quick to throw around phrases like "thoroughly refuted" around here without a lick of substance to back it up. I'm not asking for special treatment here. Just take one of my criticisms of NIST and show what exactly you find wrong about my interpretation.

If you cannot do that, then your words don't amount to much. The are just Bare Assertions. If you want to see copious examples of that, look at any of Beechnut's posts. There is not an argument to be found in his 73 posts so far on this thread.

The vast majority of your posts serve no real argument. They are only designed to avoid a debate. Would you dare bring a real criticism to one of my arguments against NIST, or is that only going to happen if I spoon feed it to you? I'm not claiming my arguments are rock solid. There are undoubtedly parts to be criticized and improved upon, but so far, no one here has anything substantive to add on this count. Just transparent fallacies, misinterpretations or just plain sloppy reasoning.

Do you have a real criticism of my arguments against NIST?

 

[jay howard]

Yes, if the "material" in question is a chemical explosive and its effects must include pulverizing the concrete.

Perhaps there's a material I'm overlooking. What material did you have in mind?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Really? One has to drill holes in concrete and cram it with explosives to powderize it? You believe explosives can only powderize concrete if it is embedded into the concrete? That seems like the more tenuous stance on this mostly unrelated issue.

As I mentioned above, my criticism doesn't necessarily invalidate cm's point that it would be a logistically difficult obstacle to overcome. But I'm not going to let sloppy little tricks of reasoning pass for real argument. Just be honest. Is that an unfair standard to hold people to? Even the ones who agree with you? It shouldn't be. Not here of all places.

I expect that kind of crap on the political "underground" sites, but we don't have to judge arguments by a popularity contest. We can judge them based on sound, valid (when possible), non-fallacious attempts at building a logically coherent case.

If this is asking too much, then put me on ignore.

 

[cmcaulif]

Really? One has to drill holes in concrete and cram it with explosives to powderize it? You believe explosives can only powderize concrete if it is embedded into the concrete? That seems like the more tenuous stance on this mostly unrelated issue.

one of the conclusions of the paper I cited is that the explosive, referenced in TNT to get the number I quoted, is that in order to produce the degree of concrete pulverization as observed on 9/11, the charges would have to be drilled into small holes in the floor slabs. You can read the paper and look up their sources on comminution theory if you want more info in this.

In an explosion, essentially stored chemical energy needs to be used to destroy the concrete. However this is quite inefficient, because much of the stored energy is lost, and will not go into pulverization. That is why the small holes will have to be drilled.

As I mentioned above, my criticism doesn't necessarily invalidate cm's point that it would be a logistically difficult obstacle to overcome. But I'm not going to let sloppy little tricks of reasoning pass for real argument. Just be honest. Is that an unfair standard to hold people to? Even the ones who agree with you? It shouldn't be. Not here of all places.

My point was NOT about a logistical difficulty, I did not even have a point, I was merely offering GU a chance to explain his case. Though, as you seem to agree from the OP, a theory should be able to explain observed events right? I had pointed out some observed events that GU's theory would need to explain. Is it an unfair standard that CD proponents offer a competing theory to evaluated by your standards in the OP? And before you give the line about me wanting to reduce CD to an absurdity, don't bother. If it can be scientifically proven that demolition charges were in the WTC towers, or if a coherent theory involving explosives explains the observed events thoroughly, I would like to know.

Why do you insist on trickery when there is none, long after your gripes have been thoroughly explained, not only by myself but by numerous other posters?

 

[GlennB]

Really? One has to drill holes in concrete and cram it with explosives to powderize it? You believe explosives can only powderize concrete if it is embedded into the concrete? That seems like the more tenuous stance on this mostly unrelated issue.

...

In terms of blast effect alone, yes.

V. M. Kuznetsov. “The Mean Diameter of the Fragments Formed by Blasting Rock.” Soviet Mining Science Vol. 9(2), 144, (1973).

A. Rustan. “The Influence of Specific Charge, Geometric Scale and Physical Properties of Homogenous Rock on Fragmentation.” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, page 114, (1983).

B. M. Luccioni et al. “Concrete Pavement Slab Under Blast Loads.” International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 32, 1248, (2006).

These papers show that explosive blast is not a particularly effective means of pulverizing concrete especially if the explosive charges are not in direct contact with the target. Thus, for example, spherical charges of 10 kg TNT-equivalent placed 0.5 m above a 3 m x 1.5 m area, 15 centimeter thick concrete slab produce a post-detonation crushed zone only about 30 cm in diameter. It is for this reason that mining and quarrying operations always use explosive charges placed into drilled boreholes to achieve maximum fragmentation.

(With thanks to EFFIGY at LCF)