Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Grizzly Bear]

You mean like NIST's magic column 79 theory?

I heard foam led to the break up of Columbia, that must mean that there's a magical foam theory. After all, there's no precedent of foam ever causing a space shuttle to break up on re-entry.

Amidoinitrite?

 

[beachnut]

You mean like NIST's magic column 79 theory?

Cool you make statements you can’t defend with evidence, and you are not qualified to declare the column 79 theory magic. You take a large report and name it inappropriately. After 7 years, you could have got a degree in engineering to see how pathetic 911Truth is. You have chosen the path of hearsay, lies and fantasy. A much easier path to take than actual research to learn what happen since you have no idea what did happen on 9/11 and prove it on regular basis.

To make your petty title stick you are short thousands of pages of research and work to show it is so. Any chance you are going to present a paper to prove you point, or is your entire shoddy research efforts limited to talk?

 

[beachnut]

I am happy to admit that I was 100% wrong just a year or so ago when I said that there was no way a black man was going put his hand on a bible and be sworn in as the President of the United States.

It all is related to physics -

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

Your great common sense that guided your failed idea on the president, must be working overtime for your 911Truth beliefs based on delusions, lies and hearsay.

 

[MikeW]

I've discovered something useful (no jokes please) - a couple of theses on "team collaboration" at NORAD during 9/11. You probably won't be interested in those, but in preparing them the authors each had a professional transcript made of one of the NORAD tapes. Well worth a look if you've not had the patience to download and listen to the lot.

Channel 2 is transcribed here (in an appendix at the back), and channel 4 is transcribed here.

I don't know how long they'll be there, so I've uploaded both to 911myths for safe keeping. See the top of the What's New page if you want permanent links for these files.

 

[johnny karate]

You mean like NIST's magic column 79 theory?

Your pathological need to display your complete lack of understanding of how scientific investigation works has gone from mildly amusing to tiresome to just sad. Please stop.

 

[RedIbis]

Your pathological need to display your complete lack of understanding of how scientific investigation works has gone from mildly amusing to tiresome to just sad. Please stop.

Since when does scientific investigation aschew physical evidence for computer simulation?

 

[Hokulele]

Since when does scientific investigation aschew physical evidence for computer simulation?

Quite often in car crash investigations. There are plenty of software programs developed specifically for this, such as this one. Google will return plenty of others as well.

http://www.edccorp.com/products.html


(And it is eschew, not aschew.)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Since when does scientific investigation aschew physical evidence for computer simulation?

First... it's "eschew", not "aschew".

Second... physical cosmology is a field based significantly on computer simulation and observation, with little or no direct contact with the object or phenomenon being studied.

 

[RedIbis]

First... it's "eschew", not "aschew".

Second... physical cosmology is a field based significantly on computer simulation and observation, with little or no direct contact with the object or phenomenon being studied.

Fascinating. And why on earth (cliche intended) would anyone apply those principles to explaining the collapse of a building, which arguably, left behind nearly all of its physical material?

 

[T.A.M.]

Since when does scientific investigation aschew physical evidence for computer simulation?

Oh boy:

Here is a list of types of evidence or supportivefacts/variables etc...

1. Physical evidence (Columns, Det Cords, Thermite, DNA, Plane parts, videos, photographs, etc..)
2. Simulations (tower collapse, plane impact, etc...)
3. Witness testimony (via print or recording or both)
4. Expert opinion (Recognized experts in a field provide a paper with scientific calculations, hopefully validated as correct, in support of a particular theses)

I could go on I suppose, but no one is saying that computer simulation or modeling is BETTER than Physical evidence (although the modeling is often based on video and photographic evidence, sometimes more), but rather in the absence of physical evidence, it is a realistic, often used substitute.

TAM

 

[Hokulele]

Oh boy:

Here is a list of types of evidence or supportivefacts/variables etc...

1. Physical evidence (Columns, Det Cords, Thermite, DNA, Plane parts, videos, photographs, etc..)
2. Simulations (tower collapse, plane impact, etc...)
3. Witness testimony (via print or recording or both)
4. Expert opinion (Recognized experts in a field provide a paper with scientific calculations, hopefully validated as correct, in support of a particular theses)

I could go on I suppose, but no one is saying that computer simulation or modeling is BETTER than Physical evidence (although the modeling is often based on video and photographic evidence, sometimes more), but rather in the absence of physical evidence, it is a realistic, often used substitute.

TAM

The one and only time I have testified before a judge, I was called up as an expert witness to explain exactly how a computer model of a situation was created and how I could tell it was accurate. Based on how well the model matched what physical evidence there was, and how well documented (and described ) the process used to develop the model was, it was accepted as valid as any other piece of physical evidence.

RedIbis' inability to accept this is disingenuous at best.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Since when does scientific investigation aschew physical evidence for computer simulation?

Fascinating. And why on earth (cliche intended) would anyone apply those principles to explaining the collapse of a building, which arguably, left behind nearly all of its physical material?

They did not "eschew" physical evidence in favor of computer simulation, Red. You've been here long enough and read enough posts to know that the physical examination and computer sims complement each other. The sims predict damage and set boundary cases, and allows researchers to make sense of highly chaotic events. The physical evidence provides both the starting information on where the fires were noted and where they were not, as well as either validation or correction for the models by reflecting the damage predicted or indicating that it didn't happen in the way they thought it did. Both lines - the examination of physical evidence and the modeling of the fires and collapse dynamics - together lead to greater understanding, and both play important roles in building that understanding. One does not supercede or replace the other.

You create a false sense of what the intent of the computer modeling was. Mackey has addressed it enough times in this forum that even a densehead like me gets it. There's not really a whole lot of reason for a reasonably intelligent fellow like you to miss it.

Reconstructing the collapse scenario from just the physical evidence without the computer modeling would be so difficult it would beg the question of why such computing aid wasn't resorted to. What would they do with the physical evidence, rebuild the towers and see where the holes and fires were? The modeling allows an understanding of the dymanics of the situation, of the progression of both the fires and the failures, things more difficult to comprehend without benefit of modeling.

It's not that hard to understand. One wonders why you choose to phrase your objection in the way you do, especially given your tenure here. You have to have seen Ryan's multiple posts explaining the modeling, yet you raise an objection based on complete misunderstanding. Yours is a boggling pair of posts, Red. It reads like obstinance for the mere sake of obstinance than it does genuine counterargument with the goal of generating understanding.

 

[Hokulele]

They did not "eschew" physical evidence in favor of computer simulation, Red. You've been here long enough and read enough posts to know that the physical examination and computer sims compliment each other.

*Sigh*

Complement.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

All that great writing, and the most you can do is spellcheck?

 

[Hokulele]

All that great writing, and the most you can do is spellcheck?

Hey, I process the nominations, I don't make 'em.

 

[Myriad]

Since the thread about the Gary Talis incident was bumped a few days ago, I read through it again. The incident in question happened only last April, but reading it now (including, especially, my own posts in it) seems like reading a time capsule from another era. Back when it seemed like there was a movement whose public reputation could be at stake.

I do still follow events here, and occasionally post regarding actual developments (such as, for a while, the progress of the 9/11 NYC ballot initiative). I appreciate those who are continuing to keep up with the details. It does seem, though, that overall there's not a lot left to say.

Of course, many others have made the same observation, and many predicted this development long before it happened. But it's still remarkable how much of its illusion of relevance the Truth Movement has managed to lose in less than a year. It appears that barring some major revelation supported by evidence, by the tenth anniversary of 9/11 in 2011, the Truth Movement will be completely overshadowed by concerns about the ancient Mayan calendar cycle turning over in 2012.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RedIbis]

Oh boy:

[...]

I could go on I suppose, but no one is saying that computer simulation or modeling is BETTER than Physical evidence (although the modeling is often based on video and photographic evidence, sometimes more), but rather in the absence of physical evidence, it is a realistic, often used substitute.

TAM

(my bold)

Oh boy is right. There was physical evidence.

 

[beachnut]

(my bold)

Oh boy is right. There was physical evidence.

There was physical evidence; you agree, but have no clue what physical evidence was used; already implied you are not capable of understanding 911 issues when you posted your thread on a paper clearly full of errors from 911Truth Scholars, who are actually paranoid cult members of Jones who make up dirt dumb ideas to fool you to post a dumb paper. A paper you never were able to discuss, a paper you presented; just like this post, no real substance, no real comments to explain your lack of evidence and failed 911 ideas.

A new paper

No clue where they got 13ms from, and no clue on evidence.

 

[T.A.M.]

(my bold)

Oh boy is right. There was physical evidence.

I agree.

So what is the response, if any that NIST gives for not collecting any?

Oh wait, that is right, NIST was not involved in the weeks or even months after the attacks were they?

So I guess you could blame FEMA, or the Clean up crews, or someone else, but you can hardly blame NIST...right?

TAM

 

[bonavada]

*Sigh*
Complement.

Both spellings are acceptable

The Pedant