• 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.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
brumsen said:
Got to give the Scholars credit, though, for publishing Greening's piece. Peer review may not be all you like it to be, but they do publish dissenting views.

ETA: Feel the urgent need to debunk? visit http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/
Click to expand...

Peer review is not about publishing views, dissenting or otherwise, it is about publishing valid research. A paper with as many flaws as this one should never have been published because the basic maths and physics behind it are wrong (as pointed out by Greening and R.Mackey). While I don't expect referees to replicate all research to prove it right, the whole point of peer review is to catch errors like this.
 
brumsen said:
It is not just CT's who state NIST did not study the whole collapse, it is NIST who says so. So could you now answer my question, please?
Click to expand...
I already did. Once again you referenced a NIST quote about the focus of the investigation being on the events leading up to the collapse. Please show me where they say that no one at NIST studied the events after that.

ETA: And as to your second question:

Zero would have been fine by me, as long as they had not included a conclusion in their report about alternative (=CD) hypotheses. Not doing any research on it and yet drawing a conclusion is what I object to.
Click to expand...
Your evidence that they did not do any research on it? In answering both of these questions it seems to me that you're committing the same offense you accuse NIST of: jumping to conclusions without researching.
 
So I have to ask, do Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart actually support this nonsense? Have they made statements one way or the other? Because it seems that one thing all Ct's agree on is their love for both of them. Which I can fully understand, since their respective shows can get quite funny, but jesus.
 
From the Albany Times-Union story on LC this weekend:

They're currently at work on an edited version of "Second Edition" to fix what they say are minor factual errors (like having the wrong type of bomber hitting the Empire State Building in 1945).
Click to expand...
Hmm. 2 1/2 months to fix some minor factual errors, while postponing the much-heralded release of LC Final Cut? I think not.

In a conspiracist's world, any piece of evidence can be dismissed as fabrication, disinformation or naivete. So what would convince the three Oneonta filmmakers their theories are flawed?
...Rowe, the Army veteran, merely shakes his head.
"There is not one thing that they can do that can dissuade me from what I think," Rowe said. "I know they did it. ... I'm more sure of it every day."
Click to expand...
The military has made a decisive man out of young Korey. Unfortunately it didn't teach him how to decide wisely.

But here's the scary part:
Their base of operations -- shared by a pit bull named Justice -- is a house trailer (rent: $700) on 46 acres dubbed "Camp Freedom."
Click to expand...
That brings to mind an episode of Mr. Show in which different "sovereign nations" – consisting of individual paranoid militia/survivalist types who have declared their mountain retreats independent from the U.S. – compete against each other in an independent Olympics. One of the "nations" is called New Freedomland.
 
brumsen said:
So I take it that you did not ask him your question about peer review?

eta: did you send your paper marked as a submission to the journal? If so, he owes you an (motivated) editorial decision. You should insist on that.
Click to expand...

I don't normally keep on sending e-mails to people who refused to respond previously, but now that I have a reason I will have to. I didn't send it for submission because I was under the impression that you had to have some sort of academic credentials to do so, but now that they have printed articles by people who apparently have less education than I do, I will have to do so.
 
mrfreeze said:
So I have to ask, do Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart actually support this nonsense? Have they made statements one way or the other? Because it seems that one thing all Ct's agree on is their love for both of them. Which I can fully understand, since their respective shows can get quite funny, but jesus.
Click to expand...
No, those guys are far too smart for that. A while back the Loosers had a letter-writing campaign to ask Stewart to devote time to them, and we were all praying that he would. I have seen Bill Maher recently ripping into the CTs.
 
mrfreeze said:
So I have to ask, do Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart actually support this nonsense? Have they made statements one way or the other? Because it seems that one thing all Ct's agree on is their love for both of them. Which I can fully understand, since their respective shows can get quite funny, but jesus.
Click to expand...

I don't think they've made statements about it (at least not on their show.) Judging by the number of people Stewart has had on his show to explain why Islamic and Arabic people hate us I'd say he agrees middle eastern terrorists did 9-11.

I think CTers like them because they criticize the gov't. They assume anyone that criticizes the gov't is on their side. Which is why they accuse people that don't support them as on the side of the gov't even if those people voted against the current administration or criticize many gov't programs in other forums.
 
I figured as much. I just got creeped out that colbert's message board kept creeping into the discussions. Then I realized it was a fansite. But still, at least now I don't feel bad about buying their products.
 
Gravy said:
I already did. Once again you referenced a NIST quote about the focus of the investigation being on the events leading up to the collapse. Please show me where they say that no one at NIST studied the events after that.


Your evidence that they did not do any research on it? In answering both of these questions it seems to me that you're committing the same offense you accuse NIST of: jumping to conclusions without researching.
Click to expand...

A common error with CT'ers is that they NIST only studied up to the point of colapse. This is incorrect. IN fact Steven Jones had made the same mistake for a while in his paper.
For example his paper stated:
What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.”

However he had failed to read Chapter 6 pg 153: which states

"Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed."

So NIST is now stating that the antenna didn't fall first. This clearly shows that NIST did study aspects of the collapse. If you continue to read the report, there are also pictures and various other examples of NIST studing the DURING the collapse such as the tilt.
 
Last edited:
brumsen said:
No. You said

.. and I asked you to back this up by giving me a reference to where my question is answered.

To repeat, my question was: how does NIST justify the assumption that the collapse continues all the way down after what they call collapse initiation?
Click to expand...

If you can't read my posts better than that, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Or don't you know the definition of the verb "to believe" ?
 
Another current one of the MANY errors in Jones paper,... Jones states that NIST did not study the observed squibs.
However one can turn to
pg 319 titled: Events Following Collapse Initiation 9.3.3
For example "The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris out the windows as seen in several videos.

In the same section they also go on to discuss no evidence of explosives planted.

brumsen, next time you see Jones, tell him to try RESEARCHING the report before commenting on it.

Best..
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
I already did. Once again you referenced a NIST quote about the focus of the investigation being on the events leading up to the collapse. Please show me where they say that no one at NIST studied the events after that.
Click to expand...
I already did. Unless, that is, you mean to be saying that they did research it but wrote the report so as not to include that research. I've now asked you three times whether this is what you do want to say?
If so, my follow-up is of course: so why wasn't such research included in the report?


Gravy said:
Your evidence that they did not do any research on it [alternative hypotheses / CD]? In answering both of these questions it seems to me that you're committing the same offense you accuse NIST of: jumping to conclusions without researching.
Click to expand...
My evidence is that such research is nowhere to be found in the report. There is just the conclusion. My question is: what is it based on? Show me where in the report I can read about that, and I'll keep my mouth shut.
 
Belz... said:
If you can't read my posts better than that, then there's little point in continuing this conversation. Or don't you know the definition of the verb "to believe" ?
Click to expand...
hahahahaha, that's a good one:rolleyes:

So you can use the verb believe in such a way that you won't be required to back it up, whereas any CT'er coming here would constantly have to back up the beliefs he states by means of evidence? Come on now. When you state your beliefs, you can be asked to justify them by means of evidence.
 
brumsen said:
I already did. Unless, that is, you mean to be saying that they did research it but wrote the report so as not to include that research. I've now asked you three times whether this is what you do want to say?
If so, my follow-up is of course: so why wasn't such research included in the report?



My evidence is that such research is nowhere to be found in the report. There is just the conclusion. My question is: what is it based on? Show me where in the report I can read about that, and I'll keep my mouth shut.
Click to expand...

Because it is a waste of space in the report to explain why every other hypothesis is wrong, when they are presenting their hypothesis and the evidence that supports it. There was no existing hypothesis to disprove in addition to proving their hypothesis. The report is already massive, and you want them to make it larger by including all the work they did to cross ideas of their list in addition to the work they did to end up with the item off their list that they present.

If you feel there are problems with the evidence/logic used to obtain the conclusions that they did then please present it, otherwise you are left with agreeing that their assessment is accurate and other hypothetical explanations for the events are moot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom