Metatheory and the NIST report

[twinstead]

At least Mackey attempted to make honest counterarguments.

Not only did Mackey attempt to make honest counter arguments, he actually DID make honest and effective counter arguments.

What else could anybody else add?

 

[T.A.M.]

So you predictably don't have a single criticism of my arguments, but would rather prefer to discredit me.

No surprising.

Fortunately this is a very transparent attempt at avoiding having a debate in which you know you don't stand a chance. Again, you demonstrate the unwillingness of the majority who feel threatened by the possibility that they may have been duped by the report they have defended this whole time. If you were honestly capable of presenting a counterargument to my criticisms of the NIST report, you would do so.

At least Mackey attempted to make honest counterarguments.

Make a case against my criticisms or remain silent.

lol...last time I checked this forum did not belong to you, so why don't you REMAIN SILENT!!!!

lol

TAM

 

[jay howard]

Not only did Mackey attempt to make honest counter arguments, he actually DID make honest and effective counter arguments.

What else could anybody else add?

Maybe you'd like to recap the "effective counterarguments"?

 

[cmcaulif]

Jay:

The claim is not made by myself, it is made by the paper I am referring to. I beleive, but am not sure, that you could reduce the tonnage by about 20% using RDX rather than TNT. This does not change the fact that the charges would have to be placed in small holes in the concrete slabs, since in an explosion, a great deal of the energy is lost, and not much goes into pulverizing. By the way, charges are places on support columns to cut them in CD, call a demolition company and ask them.

You can't imply strawman here because you have no theory to speak of for me to misrepresent. The point is made, however, that the pulverization of concrete, which has long been used by CD proponents as proof of their claims, actually makes a strong arguement against CD.

Furthermore, I have never said the NIST is sacred, or the only possibility, earlier in this thread I have stated that I think that the theory from Arup/Edinburgh is potentially superior to the NIST.

But this thread is about metatheory right? Why are you so reluctant, and seemingly offended that the CD hypothesis, if it even exists, should be held to the same standards, which you have laid out in the OP, as the NIST? I am not trying to call CD ridiculous, I would like to be the one who is just asking questions for a change, however.

 

[jay howard]

lol...last time I checked this forum did not belong to you, so why don't you REMAIN SILENT!!!!

lol

TAM

Do you have anything productive to add? I'm all ears.

 

[T.A.M.]

To date, no one here has successfully defended the arbitrary "beefing up" of the NIST report's simulations. The NIST report unambiguously goes against its own estimations and its own accounts of the visual evidence to produce "more severe fires" in its simulations.

It must claim that the forensic evidence is uncharacteristic of the fire conditions that produced the global collapses.

It must claim that the severe corrosion and sulfidation of steel is "irrelevant" to the investigation.

It must claim that molten material pouring out of WTC 1 shortly before collapse is aluminum mixed with organic material which gives it the apparent luminescence.

It completely ignores USGS findings of ferrous microspheres.

This is characteristic of a poor explanation, as I've explained ad nauseum in this thread. Anyone have a way to deal with this evidence? Anyone want to attempt to reconcile NIST's beefing up their simulations in contradiction to the available estimates and evidence?

Anyone have anything other than "you are ignorant"?

Please show me some evidence that...

(1) The microspheres are relevant to the mechanism of collapse as described by NIST.
(2) The sulfidation is relevant to the mechanism of collapse as described by NIST
(3) The molten metal pouring out is NOT Aluminum with contaminants.

Leaving irrelevant details alone, and focusing on the critical elements of the collapse mechanism sounds like GOOD SCIENCE to me.

TAM

 

[cmcaulif]

"BLBG demonstrating that it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed."

Again, present a real argument on the subject or sit on the sidelines. This bickering is for children.

The calculations in the paper I referenced use TNT as their reference explosive, I never said that TNT would have to be used, as the only possibility.

Obviously, you could use a different explosive with the equivalent blasting energy, as I said before, I believe RDX would reduce the number by 20%, but I suppose you could use any explosive you wanted. That isn't up to me though, the wtc CD is not my hypothesis, its yours, and I'd like to know how you, or anyone in the truth movement would go about doing it, so we can evaluate it from basis you established in the OP.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The fevered attempts to lock down a cd hypothesis speaks to the deceptive tactics many here claim to be anathema to.

The typical jref anti-CT argument goes like this:

1. Clear the ground: turn all CT's into absurdities like "it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed." (Really? CD companies use TNT? Acme brand? Be careful where you lay your accusations of "straw men" for they will come to haunt you.)

The yields of explosives are normally expressed in how much TNT they are equivalent to. Your point is meaningless.

3. Whatever the NIST theory doesn't successfully explain is by virtue of its unexplainability irrelevant to the official investigation. (See pseudoscience.)

This is Burden of Proof shifting. It's up to you to present evidence that some deficiency in the NIST report is relevant to the collapse.

 

[cmcaulif]

The yields of explosives are normally expressed in how much TNT they are equivalent to. Your point is meaningless.

Exactly, how this translates to deception, or me claiming that TNT must have been used, is beyond me.

 

[jay howard]

Jay:

The claim is not made by myself, it is made by the paper I am referring to.

I understand this, but the fact that you claim that Greg has to overcome the obstacle of 158 tons of TNT is, by virtue of the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to be TNT, a straw man. If you said "the equivalent of 158 tons of TNT" there would be no basis for a straw man accusation. But you make no such distinction.

This thread isn't about defining a straw man. The fact is that your argument against Greg is designed to reduce CD to an absurdity based on logistical concerns. It may turn out to be a valid set of concerns; however, presenting a "worst-case scenario" based on TNT does in fact beg the question, because no one (remotely reputable) on the CD side is claiming that TNT was used. To present it as the case being made by the opposition is indeed a straw man. If you meant to say "equivalent to..." then say it.

But this thread is about metatheory right? Why are you so reluctant, and seemingly offended that the CD hypothesis, if it even exists, should be held to the same standards, which you have laid out in the OP, as the NIST? I am not trying to call CD ridiculous, I would like to be the one who is just asking questions for a change, however.

As I've said several times before, what first needs to happen is a general recognition of the failure of the official theory.

If the official theory can produce a complete, falsifiable theory that handles all the evidence, then there is no need to introduce an alternate theory.

If, however, the official explanation is deficient, we must outline exactly how it fails and what theoretical gaps need to be filled in.

Sure, I've got my opinions, but they don't mean anything until the need for a better theory has been elucidated.

 

[beachnut]

Jay has to bring up thermite, but he failed to foil NIST

I understand this, but the fact that you claim that Greg has to overcome the obstacle of 158 tons of TNT is, by virtue of the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to be TNT, a straw man. If you said "the equivalent of 158 tons of TNT" there would be no basis for a straw man accusation. But you make no such distinction.

This thread isn't about defining a straw man. The fact is that your argument against Greg is designed to reduce CD to an absurdity based on logistical concerns. It may turn out to be a valid set of concerns; however, presenting a "worst-case scenario" based on TNT does in fact beg the question, because no one (remotely reputable) on the CD side is claiming that TNT was used. To present it as the case being made by the opposition is indeed a straw man. If you meant to say "equivalent to..." then say it.




As I've said several times before, what first needs to happen is a general recognition of the failure of the official theory.

If the official theory can produce a complete, falsifiable theory that handles all the evidence, then there is no need to introduce an alternate theory.

If, however, the official explanation is deficient, we must outline exactly how it fails and what theoretical gaps need to be filled in.

Sure, I've got my opinions, but they don't mean anything until the need for a better theory has been elucidated.

Yes, Jay, just bring out the thermite made up by Jones in 2005. Out of the blue, 4 years late, Jones makes up thermite, shows columns cut during clean up as proof. Debunked by himself by lies he makes up.

Bring on the micro spheres.

You have the only theory which does not even meet your own OP!

 

[jay howard]

Exactly, how this translates to deception, or me claiming that TNT must have been used, is beyond me.

Because you didn't say "equivalent to..."

You said:

BLBG demonstrating that it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed.

This clearly invokes the use of TNT being DRILLED INTO CEMENT FLOORS. Don't pretend you meant anything other than what you said.

If you indeed meant to say "equivalent to x" then just say "hey, I misspoke earlier, and you're right that my phrasing was a strawman representation, but it doesn't make my point go away..."

We all want an honest discussion. Don't make excuses and I won't either. If I say something unequivocally wrong, I'll come to terms with it. Will you?

 

[jay howard]

Jay has to bring up thermite, but he failed to foil NIST

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

The fevered attempts to lock down a cd hypothesis speaks to the deceptive tactics many here claim to be anathema to.

The typical jref anti-CT argument goes like this:

1. Clear the ground: turn all CT's into absurdities...


2. Once the opposing side's position has been reduced to an absurdity, whatever is left over MUST be the truth: read, "NIST is therefore the only possible theory."

3. Whatever the NIST theory doesn't successfully explain is by virtue of its unexplainability irrelevant to the official investigation. (See pseudoscience.)

Bring on the micro spheres.

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

You have the only theory which does not even meet your own OP!

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?

 

[cmcaulif]

I understand this, but the fact that you claim that Greg has to overcome the obstacle of 158 tons of TNT is, by virtue of the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to be TNT, a straw man. If you said "the equivalent of 158 tons of TNT" there would be no basis for a straw man accusation. But you make no such distinction.

sorry for the confusion then, I did not think such a distinction was necessary since TNT is such a common reference.

This thread isn't about defining a straw man. The fact is that your argument against Greg is designed to reduce CD to an absurdity based on logistical concerns. It may turn out to be a valid set of concerns; however, presenting a "worst-case scenario" based on TNT does in fact beg the question, because no one (remotely reputable) on the CD side is claiming that TNT was used. To present it as the case being made by the opposition is indeed a straw man. If you meant to say "equivalent to..." then say it.

This is completely untrue. My arguement is by no means designed to reduce CD to an absurdity, in fact it was not even an arguement, but an offer for him to explain his position in detail. I can't argue until you, or him, or anyone in the truth movement actually does this. I am merely asking for consistency. There is no reason my a coherent hypothesis for CD should not be formulated to be evaluated by the standards in the OP. The mention of TNT is certainly not a strawman since this is how explosions are referenced, I will be more clear in the future, but I thought this would be understood.

As I've said several times before, what first needs to happen is a general recognition of the failure of the official theory.

If the official theory can produce a complete, falsifiable theory that handles all the evidence, then there is no need to introduce an alternate theory.

If, however, the official explanation is deficient, we must outline exactly how it fails and what theoretical gaps need to be filled in.

Sure, I've got my opinions, but they don't mean anything until the need for a better theory has been elucidated.

please stop saying 'official theory,' or at the very least define what you mean by this term in detail, because I assume you mean th NIST. there is nothing official about the NIST report. It is not chiseled on a rock, many well respected scientists, J Quintiere, Dr. Greening, and Arup/Edinburgh challenge it, and make a strong case. There are works that go beyond the scope of the NIST as well.

 

[jay howard]

Please show me some evidence that...

(1) The microspheres are relevant to the mechanism of collapse as described by NIST.
(2) The sulfidation is relevant to the mechanism of collapse as described by NIST
(3) The molten metal pouring out is NOT Aluminum with contaminants.

Leaving irrelevant details alone, and focusing on the critical elements of the collapse mechanism sounds like GOOD SCIENCE to me.

TAM

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.

 

[rwguinn]

Because you didn't say "equivalent to..."

You said:


This clearly invokes the use of TNT being DRILLED INTO CEMENT FLOORS. Don't pretend you meant anything other than what you said.

If you indeed meant to say "equivalent to x" then just say "hey, I misspoke earlier, and you're right that my phrasing was a strawman representation, but it doesn't make my point go away..."

We all want an honest discussion. Don't make excuses and I won't either. If I say something unequivocally wrong, I'll come to terms with it. Will you?

Folks, I think we are dealing with incurable ignorance here.
Any person who has dealt with explosives, or who as read about them, knows that TNT is the reference. Hell, Nukes are exp0ressed in Kilotons and megatons of TNT. It's hard to believe anybody doesn't know this.
Ignorance is not a sin, or an insult--terminology can be confusing, but just as "inches of mercury" is used in atmospheric pressures, or Specific gravity (H2)=1.0000) is used in some fields instead of density, anyone who is has ever read a science text or popularization knows what it means, and those who are truly ignorant ask, rather than assume what it means.
These guys have no science as a background. They don't even know basics--DO NOT ASSUME!

Originally Posted by T.A.M.
How about you are a professional in a relevant field, yet like so many others you have not produced anything to prove your claims of CD....nothing.

TAM

So you predictably don't have a single criticism of my arguments, but would rather prefer to discredit me.

No surprising.

pointing out that neither you nor any of the troofers have presented any evidence or calculations, despite supposedly being a "Professional in a relevant field" is indeed a criticism of your argument, not a discreditation of yourself. It is telling, however, that you refuse to offer such evidence and/or calculations despite your claime of expertise.

 

[cmcaulif]

Because you didn't say "equivalent to..."

You said:


This clearly invokes the use of TNT being DRILLED INTO CEMENT FLOORS. Don't pretend you meant anything other than what you said.

If you indeed meant to say "equivalent to x" then just say "hey, I misspoke earlier, and you're right that my phrasing was a strawman representation, but it doesn't make my point go away..."

We all want an honest discussion. Don't make excuses and I won't either. If I say something unequivocally wrong, I'll come to terms with it. Will you?

Jay:

This is how explosions are referenced in their TNT equivalents, I apologize for the confusion, I will be more clear in the future, but I thought this would be understood. I did not attempt to be misleading.

In the post we are talking about, there is a link to another thread, with some resources about blast loading using TNT as a reference, if that helps.

 

[stanleywinthrop]

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

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

 

[pomeroo]

Haters? what are you pomeroo?

I am a rational defender of Enlightenment values.

The alternative?

Jeez too bad they weren't all purple in color as part of your stereotype, we could add race to your hate and prejudice.

- Ultramedia

You sound very silly. Yes, I hate murderous barbarians who want to overthrow democratic governments and replace them with repressive theocracies. Agreed, I am prejudiced against savages who practice the sexual mutilation of female babies, the stoning of adulterers, and the live burial of homosexuals.

Perhaps you are tolerant of such practices. Apparently, conspiracy liars do condone the jihadist's assault on reason, as they easily match it for sheer irrationality and contempt for science.

 

[jay howard]

sorry for the confusion then, I did not think such a distinction was necessary since TNT is such a common reference....

The mention of TNT is certainly not a strawman since this is how explosions are referenced, I will be more clear in the future, but I thought this would be understood.

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

BLBG demonstrating that it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed.

my emphasis