Popular Mechanics: 500,000 scholars?

[Grizzly Bear]

When you are able to comprehend what physical evidence actually is

The property tables are assembled through physical documentation of physical samples of physical steel. Until you can prove otherwise, your opinion on the matter is not worth consideration. These same manuals are used to guide real construction applications. I suggest if you intend to make a point about the validity of such tables you do it soon. You're trying to reinvent the wheel. How thorough does this explanation have to be to set in red?

EDIT: to add, if you're rejecting inputs from data made out of physical documentation then having any discussion about models is fruitless. Models require real world data input to be in anyway accurate and you just handwaved the entirety of it

 

[RedIbis]

The property tables are assembled through physical documentation of physical samples of physical steel. Until you can prove otherwise, your opinion on the matter is not worth consideration. These same manuals are used to guide real construction applications. I suggest if you intend to make a point about the validity of such tables you do it soon. You're trying to reinvent the wheel. How thorough does this explanation have to be to set in red?

According to your logic if a guy is on trial for murder, you can convict him not by presenting the body or murder weapon, but a manual on how a bullet can kill a human.

The only thing more stupid than this is the fact that I'm still trying to explain this to you.

 

[DGM]

I'm sure you don't but a skeptic would.

I've looked into the collapse and talked to several SE's about it (I'm in the construction business). What have you done to satisfy your skepticism?

 

[RedIbis]

I've looked into the collapse and talked to several SE's about it (I'm in the construction business). What have you done to satisfy your skepticism?

Clearly nothing nearly as impressive as what you've done.

 

[WildCat]

Apparently not since as I said above, WPI had access to WTC 7 steel that NIST didn't bother obtaining.

And what would you test this steel for?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

According to your logic if a guy is on trial for murder, you can convict him not by presenting the body or murder weapon, but a manual on how a bullet can kill a human.

Bad analogy.

EDIT: to add, if you're rejecting inputs from data made out of physical documentation then having any discussion about models is fruitless. Models require real world data input to be in anyway accurate and you just handwaved the entirety of it

 

[DGM]

Clearly nothing nearly as impressive as what you've done.

Hey......after reading the draft reports I had questions, so I asked the pros. I got answers. (funny thing is, without exception all of my questions stemmed from misunderstanding)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Given RedIbis' bizarre obsession with "physical evidence is the only useful evidence", he must have a very, very low opinion of the science of astronomy. All that data returned from all these probes and rovers is not physical evidence; it's at best documentary evidence, yet it results in very useful knowledge about a specific subject.

Do you believe that astronomy is a useless field of science, RedIbis? If not, how are the conclusions made in this field different from the conclusion made by NIST regarding WTC7, given that the acquisition of information in both cases is very similar?

 

[jaydeehess]

OnTopic.........some minor changes to my previous post.

We could note though that the remainder....

...of engineers that did not sign the petition WOULD MOST LIKELY know about the collapses of the twin towers (d'uh), and the official explanation of how that came to be even if they do not know the details of that explanation. For instance they would know that the impact damage coupled with the heat of the resultant fires did the structures in, even if they do not know the details of the NIST report or the papers of Bazant.

We can also assume that a significant percentage of these technically trained persons would be able to discern what we are told, by the 9/11 conspiracy believers, is OBVIOUS. That the structures fell too quickly, too symmetrically and/or into their own footprint, and that they would then seek to inform others or garner support for their viewpoint.

Alas though, if we take the numbers used in this thread we have 1400 out of 500,000 who have done so. That is 0.28%. If it is that OBVIOUS I certainly would have expected a more significant percentage, and thus one could logically conclude that the contention that it is obvious to all, much less trained engineers, that the towers had to have some mechanisms introduced in order to collpase other than impact of an airliner and rapid onset large area office fires, must be in error.

 

[jaydeehess]

Given RedIbis' bizarre obsession with "physical evidence is the only useful evidence", he must have a very, very low opinion of the science of astronomy. All that data returned from all these probes and rovers is not physical evidence; it's at best documentary evidence, yet it results in very useful knowledge about a specific subject.

Do you believe that astronomy is a useless field of science, RedIbis? If not, how are the conclusions made in this field different from the conclusion made by NIST regarding WTC7, given that the acquisition of information in both cases is very similar?

Good point. I also find that a model of items or reconstructions of events is also listed as 'docuementary evidence'. By this measure the FEA is such evidence if it reasonably recreates the visible collapse, which it does.

Of course so far 9/11 conspiracists have not produced any physical or docuementary evidence of explosives or thermite, nor have they produced a model for how such elements could be used to cause the collapses seen.

 

[Oystein]

So model imputs and speculation trump physical evidence?

The correct answer would be "it depends". As you know, by the time the NIST started its investigation, most of the physical evidence had already been removed - and there are certainly good reasons to remove it. The WPI specimen were retained not because they were typical (and thus likely to shed light on the issue of collapse initiation) but rather because they were odd. Most physical evidence would have been of bent and broken steel (or steel without appreciable damage) kind.

Like I said earlier, you seem like one of the more rational posters, but you're just making stuff up as you go along.

I can't believe I'm having to argue the value of physical evidence on a skeptics forum.

I am not denying the value of physical evidence. I deny it is the "holy grail" of skepticism, and I deny it always trumps other kinds of real evidence.


To make an example: Suppose someone is shot in the heart, and as a result falls down a cliff. The scene is filmed, video available. Now you recover as physical evidence the smashed head. Which piece of evidence would be better able to tell you why the person died: The video, or the skull?

 

[RedIbis]

The correct answer would be "it depends". As you know, by the time the NIST started its investigation, most of the physical evidence had already been removed - and there are certainly good reasons to remove it. The WPI specimen were retained not because they were typical (and thus likely to shed light on the issue of collapse initiation) but rather because they were odd. Most physical evidence would have been of bent and broken steel (or steel without appreciable damage) kind.



I am not denying the value of physical evidence. I deny it is the "holy grail" of skepticism, and I deny it always trumps other kinds of real evidence.


To make an example: Suppose someone is shot in the heart, and as a result falls down a cliff. The scene is filmed, video available. Now you recover as physical evidence the smashed head. Which piece of evidence would be better able to tell you why the person died: The video, or the skull?

Hoist by your own petard: The physical evidence would be able to tell you if the guy was still alive when he smashed his head. Just because he was shot in the chest does not mean he was dead at that moment. Besides, your scenario is entirely unrealistic because you would not just recover a head, you would have recovered the whole body and you would not do an autopsy on a video, you'd do it on the physical evidence.

Try again. You're not likely to come up with a scenario in which video is going to trump physical evidence. And you're damn sure not going to find any video that recorded the internal collapse mechanism of WTC 7.

There is no logical defense for why NIST disregarded physical evidence when composing its specious collapse hypothesis for WTC 7.

 

[DGM]

There is no logical defense for why NIST disregarded physical evidence when composing its specious collapse hypothesis for WTC 7.

What "physical evidence" did they disregard and why is it important?

 

[WildCat]

And what would you test this steel for?

Red?

 

[RedIbis]

What "physical evidence" did they disregard and why is it important?

You're either asking this question out of petulance or ignorance, neither looks good for you.

 

[DGM]

You're either asking this question out of petulance or ignorance, neither looks good for you.

No, really. What physical evidence did they disregard? Maybe it's the after effect of the New-year but, I really don't recall.

 

[Oystein]

Hoist by your own petard: The physical evidence would be able to tell you if the guy was still alive when he smashed his head. Just because he was shot in the chest does not mean he was dead at that moment. Besides, your scenario is entirely unrealistic because you would not just recover a head, you would have recovered the whole body and you would not do an autopsy on a video, you'd do it on the physical evidence.

It still depends: I said the men fell down the cliff "as a result" of the shot to the heart. It wouldn't necessarily mean that he'd have to be dead.
I agree that it would be improbable to just find the head, but to make my example more like WTC7: Suppose the body was mutilated by wild animals before it was found, which compares to rubble piles smouldering for weeks before much physical evidence could be retrieved.
Then it would depend on how well preserved your body is, and how well shot the video. One could be more conclusive or the other. Neither one is "the holy grail". The advantage of the video is that it shows whatever it shows precisely at the time it happened, without the tampering by subsequent crushing during the last stages of the collapse and the fires and other environmental influences.

ETA: I agree of course that video plus more physical evidence would be better than video without or with less physical evidence. The opposite is true as well: Physical evidence plus video would be better than physical evidence without video.

Try again. You're not likely to come up with a scenario in which video is going to trump physical evidence. And you're damn sure not going to find any video that recorded the internal collapse mechanism of WTC 7.

My video of the shot man wouldn't show how the heart hot pierced and torn inside the body, still it would tell the main story. To draw the main conclusions, you don't absolutely know every minute detail.

There is no logical defense for why NIST disregarded physical evidence when composing its specious collapse hypothesis for WTC 7.

I'll leave that for others to argue.

 

[RedIbis]

It still depends: I said the men fell down the cliff "as a result" of the shot to the heart. It wouldn't necessarily mean that he'd have to be dead.
I agree that it would be improbable to just find the head, but to make my example more like WTC7: Suppose the body was mutilated by wild animals before it was found, which compares to rubble piles smouldering for weeks before much physical evidence could be retrieved.
Then it would depend on how well preserved your body is, and how well shot the video. One could be more conclusive or the other. Neither one is "the holy grail". The advantage of the video is that it shows whatever it shows precisely at the time it happened, without the tampering by subsequent crushing during the last stages of the collapse and the fires and other environmental influences.

ETA: I agree of course that video plus more physical evidence would be better than video without or with less physical evidence. The opposite is true as well: Physical evidence plus video would be better than physical evidence without video.



My video of the shot man wouldn't show how the heart hot pierced and torn inside the body, still it would tell the main story. To draw the main conclusions, you don't absolutely know every minute detail.



I'll leave that for others to argue.

You're making a very bad analogy even worse. You are scratching around looking for some way to justify NIST's lack of reliance on physical evidence, which is why you want to leave the argument about NIST's questionable reasoning to others.

 

[RedIbis]

No, really. What physical evidence did they disregard? Maybe it's the after effect of the New-year but, I really don't recall.

All of it, most notably, the steel.

 

[Oystein]

You're making a very bad analogy even worse.

I'll ignore that, as you provide no reason.

You are scratching around looking for some way to justify NIST's lack of reliance on physical evidence, which is why you want to leave the argument about NIST's questionable reasoning to others.

I am right now only making the obvious point that "physical evidence is not the holy grail of skepticism".
I did already concede that, generally speaking, more physical evidence is to be prefered over less physical evidence. So I agree that, as a general concern, the relative scarcity of documented examination of physical evidence might give rise to concerns about the strength of NIST's case. However, I admit that I haven't studied the NIST report in all detail, and am not a trained professional from any of the relevant fields, so I defer the specific discussion to those more qualified than I am. I like to spare myself the embarrassment of being caught publishing stupidity outside my own field, like most the published truthers did (S. Jones, Farrer, Gourley, Chandler...)