• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

pgimeno: "I've already made the point that the faster-than-free-fall collapse of WTC7 makes the case for simultaneous removal of supporting columns invalid."

Apparently you think 'the fire induced collapse' did not simultaneously remove the "supporting columns." Interesting. Does replacing "simultaneous" with "nearly simultaneous" change your point at all? This was discussed (a lot) much earlier in the thread.
 
david.watts said:
Apparently you think 'the fire induced collapse' did not simultaneously remove the "supporting columns." Interesting. Does replacing "simultaneous" with "nearly simultaneous" change your point at all? This was discussed (a lot) much earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...
Apparently you're wrong assuming what I think.

Simultaneous failure is just how a collapse due to overload is expected:



Faster-than-free-fall makes the case for overload strong. It renders the case for the removal of the supports invalid.

Now prove CD and we will have grounds for discussion.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno: "I've already made the point that the faster-than-free-fall collapse of WTC7 makes the case for simultaneous removal of supporting columns invalid."

Therefore, since there was "faster-than-free-fall," the removal of supporting columns was not simultaneous.

And given that you believe it was a "fire induced collapse" (let me know if I am wrong), and there was "faster-than-free-fall,"
then the "fire induced collapse" did not simultaneously remove all supporting columns.

Bottom line: to achieve faster-than-free-fall all supporting columns cannot be removed simultaneously.

Interesting. Are you sure?

If I remember correctly, ozeco agreed with me that whatever mechanism was involved that created faster-than-free-fall, could also occur with CD. (Maybe I don't recall correctly.)

Of course ozeco agreeing with me proves not a thing.
 
Last edited:
Its late and a very significant wine factor is in play, but let me see if I can interpret Richard Dawkins.

gimeno: This is how Richard Dawkins puts it:
Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."

In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before."

First, nobody knew of any "gaps" because nobody knew of any video.

(Video from camera in pantry discovered.)

Second, there was one gap in the video: between the pantry and the library.

(Video discovered: :... there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door,..."

Third: So now, there are two gaps. The 1st, from the pantry to the billiard room. The second, from the billiard room to the library.

Even though one gap was split into two, there are now twice as many gaps. And therefore, two times more reason to find the butler not guilty.

gimeno, do I have that right, somewhat right/wrong, or completely wrong?

I stayed up to look at this which is okay. The part that is not okay is that the significant wine factor became twice as significant. Kind of like one gap becoming two. I think.
 
To all of you that say, or like to hear, "Merry Christmas," Merry Christmas.

Depending on where you are, may I also say good night, or good morning, or good afternoon.
 
Last edited:
"Have a great day: I was in Perth for Christmas one year. It was closed.

Take care."

Perth, the city of which lights were seen by someone traveling around the world in "outer space."

I know your response was directed at ozeco but let me say to you as well, take care.

I hope there is nothing personal between you and me. There is not from my end anyway.

Too bad Perth was closed.

(I have not yet hit the sack, but I should have long ago.)
 
david.watts said:
tsig: Were planes involved? If CD who placed the explosive? When? How? Where are all the conspirators?

That is my point. I (we) do not have to explain any of that. No explanation is required from our side.

First, if we were able to prove -- a single one of the so many things that the official story absolutely requires for it to be true, e.g., prove any one of the collapses being a CD, to be false, the official story crumbles. But lets say we have proved not a single thing -- and we have not at least to JREF's satisfaction -- we can still explain, but maybe not absolutely prove 100%, that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event. But I think we can prove it to a level above, and I think well above, 99.999%. And if I am able to do that, you can still say that it is "possible" I/we are wrong. I give you that.

(note: I have not actually put everything together yet so I hope I don't have to eat my words, but I am very confident (99.99%) in what I am saying.)
Click to expand...

There isn't even a single Truther CD theory that's even physically possible. For example, there's few real explanations about how the charges were planted in three heavily occupied buildings in the middle of Manhattan (which would've taken months), or how they survived the fires (which would've taken conspicuous fireproofing) or the plane impacts, which literally blew things clear through the building in a random, unpredictable fashion.

I note you've stopped talking about freefall entirely.
 
david.watts said:
Even though one gap was split into two, there are now twice as many gaps. And therefore, two times more reason to find the butler not guilty.

gimeno, do I have that right, somewhat right/wrong, or completely wrong?
Click to expand...
Somewhat right. Since you don't mention it explicitly, I will: I used that metaphor to compare the gaps in the butler case with the anomalies in the 9/11 case. You seem to want to rest your case in that every little anomaly must be proved explained, when actually the overwhelming preponderance of evidence already proves the whole case (recently reaffirmed by a court), and the amount of anomalies is well within the bounds of most other events, when proportion is accounted for.

Will you now admit it's your burden to prove that anything other than 19 terrorists was the direct cause of 9/11?
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
There isn't even a single Truther CD theory that's even physically possible. For example, there's few real explanations about how the charges were planted in three heavily occupied buildings in the middle of Manhattan (which would've taken months), or how they survived the fires (which would've taken conspicuous fireproofing) or the plane impacts, which literally blew things clear through the building in a random, unpredictable fashion.

I note you've stopped talking about freefall entirely.
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of the Truther faith, though; Watts himself has said that they don't need to explain anything- apparently simply asserting the faith that "a conspiracy diddit!" is enough. As pgimeno said above, this is similar to the way creationists think saying "goddidit!" actually explains anything. They can create "anomalies" (or miracles) without ever bothering to first identify a norm that would contextually define the anomaly; they can invoke magical thinking, where the conspiracy (or the deity) is simply assumed to have whatever qualities it needs to be a conspiracy (or deity), any time the rational fails them; they can pretend their doubts or questions about evidence or science are adequate substitutes for evidence or science; they can do these things because their thought process isn't self-limiting. Even the sky is no longer the limit when faith masquerades as reason.
 
I'm trying to imagine what exactly would evidence look like that would prove "99.999% that 9-11 was an inside job".
 
twinstead said:
I'm trying to imagine what exactly would evidence look like that would prove "99.999% that 9-11 was an inside job".
Click to expand...

Judging by what passes for "evidence" on his blog, I'm going to say "imagining" does play a large part in it.
 
twinstead said:
I'm trying to imagine what exactly would evidence look like that would prove "99.999% that 9-11 was an inside job".
Click to expand...
let's not forget the goalposts - he has been claiming "CD"

...and has switched to "inside job".

THEN he was facing a challenge to prove CD to beyond reasonable doubt. Which requires that the effective sum of all the evidence against CD has to be outweighed by opposing evidence.

There are hundreds of bits of evidence so to outweigh them he needs hundreds of bits of stronger evidence ....at least.

That is not impossible when the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" BUT he willingly changes the "standard of proof" to 99.999 AND puts the "burden of disproof" on us.

By the parody of reasoning that he employs that means 100,000 bits of his evidence against the minimum hundred we claim. (If I got the arithmetic correct)

He would be on safer ground claiming "beyond reasonable doubt" AND moving the "burden of proof" back where it belongs - with him.

If we adopted his standards of proof - everyone ever accused of a crime should go straight to jail and we could avoid all the expenses of lawyers and court process.

:boggled:




:runaway
 
Last edited:
twinstead: You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Very good!

Your picture reminds me of last night in two respects.

ozeco: Don't bet on it.;) Okay, I won't. I may or may not know where you might be coming from. But I am sure it is either from here or from there or from neither. I think I've covered my bases.

pgimeno: That's not my conclusion. My conclusion is that therefore, there was no "removal", but rather, a failure under load, which is expected to be simultaneous or nearly simultaneous for any scenario where such a failure occurs. See vid.

I see it. I got it. I think.:boggled: (Have not checked the link yet.)

pgimeno: Will you now admit it's your burden to prove that anything other than 19 terrorists was the direct cause of 9/11?
No. The null hypothesis is "inside job." But, I will prove it anyway; way beyond a reasonable doubt. (God I hope I do.)

turingtest: "Even the sky is no longer the limit when faith masquerades as reason."
Well said and spot on.

tsig, Then do (prove) it. I will, I do not want to make Jack a mad boy. But my proof is not 100% in place; or even 99%. But I am close. It is Christmas and I do have to leave for a while. It will be done soon.

I was hoping more would join in. I would interested in their take on this.

Spanx: You referenced a link. I thought it was a very good article and made sense. What did you think? Anyone who cares to read it use this (original) link -- same article but easier to read:
http://www.hirhome.com/conspiracy.htm

Robrob: My imagining "floating pulverized concrete" not pushing down very hard will not play in to my proof. But it is an imagination I can't get out of my head.
Reference my point in my "conclusion." -- 'All of you think my head is full of pulverized concrete.' You might be right.

ozeco: Actually I didn't move the goal posts. I put in a brand new set.
I WAS claiming Free fall proves CD. But, in my conclusion I did say, 'I GIVE UP. I was not able to prove CD based on free fall.'

So yes, I did turn this thread in an entirely different direction. I said earlier that I should probably start a new thread and asked what anyone else thought. When I present what I am proposing, should I start a new thread?
LSSBB wanted to do that some time ago. I did PM him and asked what he thought? Have not heard back.
 
Last edited:
Dude, you really need to learn how to use the quote function.
david.watts said:
No. The null hypothesis is "inside job." But, I will prove it anyway; way beyond a reasonable doubt. (God I hope I do.)
Click to expand...
Your grasp of the "null hypothesis" concept needs quite a bit of work.

Robrob: My imagining pulverized concrete not pushing down very hard will not play in to my proof. But it is an imagination I can't get out of my head.Reference my point in my "conclusion." -- 'All of you think my head is full of pulverized concrete.' You might be right.
Click to expand...
Obsessive images of things you admit are not real generally don't get presented as evidence for a scientific theory.

: Actually I didn't move the goal posts. I put in a brand new set.
I WAS claiming Free fall proves CD. But, in my conclusion I did say, 'I GIVE UP. I was not able to prove CD based on free fall.'
Click to expand...
You failed to score a goal in the game so you quit and started a new one?

So yes, I did turn this thread in an entirely different direction. I said earlier that I should probably start a new thread and asked what anyone else thought. When I present what I am proposing, should I start a new thread?
LSSBB wanted to do that some time ago. I did PM him and asked what he thought? Have not heard back.
Click to expand...
Actually what someone would normally do after their conclusion is proven wrong, is not pretend it's still possible if they can just come up with another set of evidences.
 
Not to change the subject -- I am working on my new proof -- but back to the thermite/thermate thing for a minute. I should have changed my thermite/thermate reference to "nano-thermite." The truther side actually talks about "nano-thermite."

There is not just a difference, there is a very big difference. It might change some opinions that thermite/thermate would not do what was required. I DO understand that this changes nothing about whether or not the high surface temperatures after the collapse could be because of this stuff. I am not saying that it does. So no need to get back into that. At least not yet. My next post will once again bring that back up.

I found this very interesting and I think you will to. I just found this:

WIKI: Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2]
MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]
A thermobaric weapon is a type of explosive that utilizes oxygen from the surrounding air to generate an intense, high-temperature explosion, and in practice the blast wave such a weapon produces is typically significantly longer in duration than a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel-air bomb is one of the most well-known types of thermobaric weapon.
Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxidizer premix (gunpowder, for example, contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer), whereas thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel, so thermobaric weapons are significantly more energetic than conventional condensed explosives of equal weight. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They do however cause considerably more destruction when used inside confined environments such as tunnels, caves, and bunkers - partly due to the sustained blast wave, and partly by consuming the available oxygen inside that confined space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom