Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

[jaydeehess]

Would you like to address the question I posed?

I did better than you did! Hah! I asked two questions and got a reply to one.

 

[beachnut]

In asking about the high temperatures at WTC7 I simply stated:

"I do not know how this has been dealt with previously here at JREF. I am simply curious."

There were several reasonable responses. Thank you. I now know how this issue is treated at JREF

Research before spreading silly opinions. Please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Energy - here is the crazy reason why we use gasoline instead of TNT or super-nano-thermite for cars. Might be a reason why 911 truth can't figure out 911, failed research. 911 truth made up CD out of the blue, and then, like you try to back in some real bad logic and a string of silly junk to justify the lie of CD. Ignore the fires, and make up lies about the murder of thousands. It is so nice to see fellow humans fail? no, it is sad 911 truth fails to do the research and gain the knowledge to live up to the potential humans can have.

911 truth brings up stuff in hopes it supports their CD fantasy. It does not. Like your body of work on 911, is the same as 911 truth, nonsense based on nothing. 911 truth does not investigate/research anything related to the silly claims 911 truth makes, and then they expect people to adopt them blindly.

You bring questions, but you are pushing lies.
Fire did it, science proves it, and 911 truth does not use the scientific method.
This is your work, most lies lies based on hearsay and more lies, or failed ideas on what science it.
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

You slowly Gish Gallop through debunked ideas of 911 truth trying to support the silly inside job CD, giving a pass to 19 murderers, and make up more nonsense. Publish lies at Op Ed News, and think you can convince people who need evidence, your lies are the "truth".

Who did 911, who planted your explosives? What about the 16 witnesses who heard explosions, are they proof for your explosives?

You don't have time to do research, guess you don't have time to say yes or no.

In asking about the high temperatures at WTC7 I simply stated: ...

No, you are trying to imply "high temperatures" means something. And you can't define with a number the temperature, and then you find out they are not hot enough to melt steel. So the metal seen "flowing" in rivers after 911, was not steel.
Thus, you can't use this "high temperature" claim for proof of an inside job, the temperatures are not "high", they are normal for fire. Normal for fire - does not support CD, like "free-fall".

Thus, you need real evidence of explosives.
There is no damage to any steel at the WTC from explosives, or thermite.
Now what do you do?

 

[david.watts]

I did better than you did! Hah! I asked two questions and got a reply to one.

"I did better than you did! Hah! I asked two questions and got a reply to one."

jaydee, I guess that means you are ahead 2-1.


DGM: "What is the issue? Do you really think it supports a belief of CD? If so, how?"

DG, If it can not be at least reasonably explained, then yes it is an issue. I did say though that I did receive some reasonable responses. They were certainly reasonable in the thought processes; I am not as sure that they were reasonable (my opinion obviously) explanations. To point that out, there were a number of reports, not of just molten metal, but of beams dripping molten metal. (The beams were not aluminum, were they?) So you are asking me to believe:
1. that your explanations or theories adequately explain molten steel.
Or 2. ALL the reports of the melting beams were not true -- for whatever reason.

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF.
As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Two examples (and there are many many others): 1. Its "possible" that the metal beams were melted by high enough temperatures that "could" have come from nothing unusual. 2. Its "possible" for fire to result in a quite symmetrical collapse of WTC7 that had 2.2 seconds of absolute free fall and much of the rest was close to free fall.

From my side, I concede that both were "possible," i.e, not impossible.

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing / anomoly regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.

(I am interested in your take on this. thx)

 

[DGM]

.
DG, If it can not be at least reasonably explained, then yes it is an issue. I did say though that I did receive some reasonable responses. They were certainly reasonable in the thought processes; I am not as sure that they were reasonable (my opinion obviously) explanations.

OK

To point that out, there were a number of reports, not of just molten metal, but of beams dripping molten metal. (The beams were not aluminum, were they?) So you are asking me to believe:
1. that your explanations or theories adequately explain molten steel.
Or 2. ALL the reports of the melting beams were not true -- for whatever reason.

Have you actually seen evidence of temps high enough to melt steel?

There was no formally melted steel recovered in the piles.

What do you think could cause these high temps you asked about?

You're not avoiding this question, are you?

 

[david.watts]

OK



Have you actually seen evidence of temps high enough to melt steel?

There was no formally melted steel recovered in the piles.

What do you think could cause these high temps you asked about?

You're not avoiding this question, are you?

Have you actually seen evidence of temps high enough to melt steel?
I have not looked for a long time. But from what I remember the temperatures were very high. I do not know that they were in fact high enough to melt steel. But if the reports of beams dripping molten metal were true, I would say that is evidence the temperatures were high enough.


There was no formally melted steel recovered in the piles.
I don't know. I will take your word for it.

What do you think could cause these high temps you asked about?
Of course, I am thinking thermate. I know that has been addressed at length here and you say there is no evidence there was thermate. I do not know. I cannot prove it.

You're not avoiding this question, are you?[/I]
No.

 

[Robrob]

To point that out, there were a number of reports, not of just molten metal, but of beams dripping molten metal. (The beams were not aluminum, were they?) So you are asking me to believe:
1. that your explanations or theories adequately explain molten steel.
Or 2. ALL the reports of the melting beams were not true -- for whatever reason.

Or, assorted metal mixtures of lighter-weight metals (aluminum, lead, tin, etc...) dripping down over steel would be described exactly the same way by eyewitnesses?

Your fallacy is in assuming "metal dripping from beams" = metal from the beams.

Same way other Truthers confuse "steel softened by an office fire to the point of loosing the majority of its structural integrity" with "puddled molten steel."

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF.
As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Because every theory you present is implausible. That's how science works. Seriously, is this new to you?

Two examples (and there are many many others): 1. Its "possible" that the metal beams were melted by high enough temperatures that "could" have come from nothing unusual. 2. Its "possible" for fire to result in a quite symmetrical collapse of WTC7 that had 2.2 seconds of absolute free fall and much of the rest was close to free fall.

From my side, I concede that both were "possible," i.e, not impossible.

And since they fit in the observed events of the day, it's the null hypothesis.

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing / anomoly regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Reversed burden of proof. If you think there is an anomaly the burden in on you to prove it.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.

(I am interested in your take on this. thx)

That you just presented an opinion as fact and neglected to provide a shred of evidence?

 

[DGM]

Have you actually seen evidence of temps high enough to melt steel?
I have not looked for a long time. But from what I remember the temperatures were very high. I do not know that they were in fact high enough to melt steel. But if the reports of beams dripping molten metal were true, I would say that is evidence the temperatures were high enough.


There was no formally melted steel recovered in the piles.
I don't know. I will take your word for it.

What do you think could cause these high temps you asked about?
Of course, I am thinking thermate. I know that has been addressed at length here and you say there is no evidence there was thermate. I do not know. I cannot prove it.

You're not avoiding this question, are you?[/I]
No.

You do know that "thermite" of any flavor reacts very quickly? How would that explain high temps after an hour, much less a few weeks?

I'll help you, it can't. You're only repeating what they told you. Why do you believe them when you could look these facts up for yourself?

 

[DGM]

You do know that "thermite" of any flavor reacts very quickly? How would that explain high temps after an hour, much less a few weeks?

I'll help you, it can't. You're only repeating what they told you. Why do you believe them when you could look these facts up for yourself?

david.watts:

A challenge, AE says that Harret et al found thermite in the dust. Their own data proves them wrong. You don't need me to tell you this, any chemist can tell you.

Prove to me with their data they found "thermite". I'll convert to "truther" as soon as you can.

 

[Robrob]

You do know that "thermite" of any flavor reacts very quickly? How would that explain high temps after an hour, much less a few weeks?

I'll help you, it can't. You're only repeating what they told you. Why do you believe them when you could look these facts up for yourself?

"Thermite" is a magic buzz word for the uninformed. In order to support their "theory," it means whatever they need it to mean and does whatever they need it to do.

There is no substance on Earth which can of itself cause steel to remain liquid molten for "weeks." The amount of thermal energy required to maintain that molten state (1,200 degrees) would far surpass whatever imaginary amount of thermite they think was contained in the WTC (and presumably used up during the CD in the first place).

 

[beachnut]

...
Of course, I am thinking thermate. ... No.

LOL
The temperatures you call high were due to fires, and less than the melting point of steel. Temperatures you can't define. Why is 911 truth unable to do research?

You have no idea how hot thermate is, so you don't know what temperature to look for. Like your "path of least resistance law", you don't do science, you can't open a book to find the temperature of thermate and see you are full of fantasy. Why?

You are pushing your failed logic at a skeptic forum and only prove you don't know anything about thermate, high temperatures at GZ, physics, laws of physics, etc. The last time you posted physics stuff, you copied and pasted the stuff from a physics web site as if you knew something, then the cut and paste left the whole cut and paste in italics, and ruined, what was said to be italics. You have no attention to detail, and don't know most the combustibles in the WTC had more energy per kg than thermite.

All you have is fantasy. Proof?
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html
BINGO

To point that out, there were a number of reports, not of just molten metal, but of beams dripping molten metal. (The beams were not aluminum, were they?) So you are asking me to believe:

The WTC was clad in Aluminum, it was melting in the fires before collapse, and would melt in the pile fires. So all the dripping stuff, if it was metal, would be stuff that melt at temperatures that are below the melting point of steel. Like Al. But you don't know how hot the fire was, because you just talk, cut and paste, and never do any research. You post lies without checking, and make fun of the dead, making up thermate, as possible. Did the terrorists have it on the planes?
Wake up, they came in aircraft - the murdered people, and now you give a free pass trying to make up someone else as the bad guy, a group you can't name, and methods you made up to fit some twisted logic of woo.

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

From my side, I concede that both were "possible," i.e, not impossible.

No, you have made up lies from your side.
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing / anomaly regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

There are no anomalies on 911, there is ignorance in 911. You don't use evidence, you take silly claims and publish silly articles.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event. ...

A fantasy.

911 truth has nothing but lies. Sad to see you and Op Ed News are fooled by dumbed down lies and fantasy. What is next on the Gish Gallop Cut and Paste 911 truth top lies slow marathon?

 

[000063]

Is the sole reason controlled demolition is dismissed is because there were 'no' explosions?

That, and the fact that not a single coherent, workable theory has been presented in 12 years.

It is understood that maybe there have been no CDs that actually fell at free fall, at least for the entire collapse.

That sure is a lot of weasel-wording qualifiers you snuck in there.

That does not mean it cannot be done.

And yet, you lot keep citing free-fall as evidence of a CD. Which would logically imply that there are CDs with free-fall.

The goal in a CD is to demolish the structure, not generate free fall. I contend that if the goal was to have a structure fall at free fall speed, a good demolitionist could make it happen. I mean if a fire can make it happen, why not a demolitionist?

And there you go, trying to sneak it in through the back door. If freefall doesn't really matter, stop harping on it, admit it, and move on.

The question regarded WTC7. Do you believe that there was in fact "lots of fuel" below where WTC7 stood?

beachnut: "the fuel is paper, etc, which all has more heat energy than thermite which burns out in seconds or minutes"

I will believe you if you can cite a source which corroborates that "paper etc" has more heat energy than thermite. How about thermate, any difference? And why use thermite for anything if you can get hotter heat and longer duration using paper, etc.?

Dodges noted.

DGM: "What is the issue? Do you really think it supports a belief of CD? If so, how?"

DG, If it can not be at least reasonably explained, then yes it is an issue. I did say though that I did receive some reasonable responses. They were certainly reasonable in the thought processes; I am not as sure that they were reasonable (my opinion obviously) explanations. To point that out, there were a number of reports, not of just molten metal, but of beams dripping molten metal. (The beams were not aluminum, were they?) So you are asking me to believe:
1. that your explanations or theories adequately explain molten steel.
Or 2. ALL the reports of the melting beams were not true -- for whatever reason.

Strawman. Reports of molten steel are not reliable, since it's common for people to mistake things for molten steel which are not.

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF.
As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Two examples (and there are many many others): 1. Its "possible" that the metal beams were melted by high enough temperatures that "could" have come from nothing unusual. 2. Its "possible" for fire to result in a quite symmetrical

Which isn't even close to a scientific term, and the E Penthouse fell first, meaning that the collapse, despite the outside appearance, was quite asymmetrical.

collapse of WTC7 that had 2.2 seconds of absolute free fall and much of the rest was close to free fall.

Didn't you say freefall was of no probative value in determining CD?

From my side, I concede that both were "possible," i.e, not impossible.

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing / anomoly regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/

(I am interested in your take on this. thx)

COnsidering that you're pretending that truther's are that simple, when explanations range from "looked the other way" to "used explosives/thermite/explosive thermite/space lasers", and not a single theory is actually physically possible, allow me to respond;

 

[Robrob]

Thanks for linking to his blog. What a treasure trove of ludicrousness.

1. Given the fact that there was not much airplane debris found at the Pentagon...

Multitudes of photographic evidence contradicts this claim.

2. Given that the Official Story requires that a 125 foot wide 757 made only a 16 to 20 foot wide hole when it hit the Pentagon...

The wings folded back on impact and were drug along with the main cabin into the "16-20 foot hole." Which, I might add is approximately the size of the cabin.

2.A. the airplanes that hit the Twin Towers severed massive interior steel columns after severing the perimeter steel columns; yet the wings, tail section, and massive engines were not able to penetrate the reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon, something doesn’t add up.

Are you seriously comparing the strength of a glass and aluminum facade to that of a granite sheathed, reinforced solid concrete wall?

Bullet 3 is a claim about technical aviation and as I am not an aviator, I am unable to comment.

4. The fact that both Twin Towers collapsed in symmetrically identical fashion even though the South Tower was hit very significantly off-center means something other than straight forward gravitational collapses were at work.

Gravity pulls down, what other direction would you expect the towers to fall?

5. The fact that the top section of EACH Twin Tower was able to plow its way symmetrically through the ENTIRE 80-90 stories below about as quickly as if it had fallen through thin air...

Demonstrably wrong. The collapse took much longer than your fabled "free fall."

 

[david.watts]

DGM: "What is the issue? Do you really think it supports a belief of CD? If so, how?"

Response from Watts: "DG, If it can not be at least reasonably explained, then yes it is an issue. I did say though that I did receive some reasonable responses. They were certainly reasonable in the thought processes; I am not as sure that they were reasonable (my opinion obviously) explanations. To point that out, there were a number of reports, not of just molten metal, but of beams dripping molten metal. (The beams were not aluminum, were they?) So you are asking me to believe:
1. that your explanations or theories adequately explain molten steel.
Or 2. ALL the reports of the melting beams were not true -- for whatever reason.

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF.
As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Two examples (and there are many many others): 1. Its "possible" that the metal beams were melted by high enough temperatures that "could" have come from nothing unusual. 2. Its "possible" for fire to result in a quite symmetrical collapse of WTC7 that had 2.2 seconds of absolute free fall and much of the rest was close to free fall.

From my side, I concede that both were "possible," i.e, not impossible.

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing / anomoly regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event."

.............

None of you that have responded has any clue what the single point of the above post is.

I would imagine that at least one of the others who have not yet responded will understand what the point is.

 

[Robrob]

None of you that have responded has any clue what the single point of the above post is.

Which would be the fault of whom, exactly?

 

[david.watts]

Which would be the fault of whom, exactly?

You. Did you actually read it all, i.e., all of it?

If you did, either you were not paying attention, or you simply could not understand.

 

[beachnut]

You. Did you actually read it all, i.e., all of it?

If you did, either you were not paying attention, or you simply could not understand.

Did you read the NIST report? No, you spread nonsense about NIST as if you knew, but don't read anything to help understand 911, you read stuff to quote-mine lies as your evidence for CD, melted steel and explosives?

Are the 16 witnesses to explosions, proof of your explosives in your CD fantasy?

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html
Did you read this fantasy junk? Why do you post lies about 911?

How is that "path of least resistance" going for free-fall?

You have to prove CD, and you never will because there is no evidence for you; so you make up lies, and fail to make a valid point? Anti-science is 911 truth.

What did 60 Minutes say about this stuff you have?

Hey? Your thermite fantasy is on Br Ba... Breaking bad, chemistry is not the strong suit of 911 truth - but Breaking Bad used it. Why can't 911 truth do chemistry? Why does 911 truth spread lies about murder?

 

[david.watts]

Did you read the NIST report? No, you spread nonsense about NIST as if you knew, but don't read anything to help understand 911, you read stuff to quote-mine lies as your evidence for CD, melted steel and explosives?

Are the 16 witnesses to explosions, proof of your explosives in your CD fantasy?

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html
Did you read this fantasy junk? Why do you post lies about 911?

How is that "path of least resistance" going for free-fall?

You have to prove CD, and you never will because there is no evidence for you; so you make up lies, and fail to make a valid point? Anti-science is 911 truth.

What did 60 Minutes say about this stuff you have?

Hey? Your thermite fantasy is on Br Ba... Breaking bad, chemistry is not the strong suit of 911 truth - but Breaking Bad used it. Why can't 911 truth do chemistry? Why does 911 truth spread lies about murder?

beachnut, you were the next poster. And like those that proceeded you, you did not understand what the point was either.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut, you were the next poster. And like those that proceeded you, you did not understand what the point was either.

And you can't summarize your own point? lol, did you copy and paste it, and forget to understand what you wrong? Or what?
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html
It appears you are lost in the fantasy world of 911 truth.

You say there anomalies, but the truth is they are no anomalies, it is ignorance of science, physics, math and more. Your anomalies are due to your lack of knowledge.

Feel free to summarize your stuff. You wrong it, or did you copy and paste it?

Are the 16 witnesses to explosions evidence for your explosives in your CD fantasy?

I read your stuff, and understand it. When will you retract all your 911 truth crap at Op Ed News? When will you figure out 911?

Why not retract all the lies, your legacy of 911 lies? Does 911 truth realize how anti-intellectual the CD lies are? Here you write lies at Op Ed News, but can't break the story on the big lies spread by 911 truth, a story of intellectual fraud by people selling books and lies. You read 911 truth lies and adopt them as truth; reading comprehension, is that the issue?

 

[david.watts]

beachnut: You say there (are) anomalies, but the truth is they are no anomalies, it is ignorance of science, physics, math and more. Your anomalies are due to your lack of knowledge.

You say: "it is ignorance of science, physics, math and more. Your anomalies are due to your lack of knowledge."

Want to include "no common sense?"

 

[000063]

beachnut, you were the next poster. And like those that proceeded you, you did not understand what the point was either.

I pointed out that your claim that Truthers have a grand unified explanation is not only wrong, but you presented it in a way intended to stop discussion, not start it.

beachnut: You say there (are) anomalies, but the truth is they are no anomalies, it is ignorance of science, physics, math and more. Your anomalies are due to your lack of knowledge.

You say: "it is ignorance of science, physics, math and more. Your anomalies are due to your lack of knowledge."

Want to include "no common sense?"

You said it, not us.