Official story: why believe it?

[lisabob2]

Unfortunately your reason breaks down to 'he's smarter that you'. You really need to look at your "hero's" with a more critical eye.

You asked where Jones fails in scientific method. That's easy if you look without "starry eyes". Is it proper to publish your finding before you have looked for alternative meanings? His "spheres" have been shown to have many different possible origins but he makes no mention or any attempt to justify these concerns. Do you consider this to be proper method?

any scientific hypothesis needs more investigations, experiments, or facts to validate it.
As there are opposite views on the evidence from 9-11 of course there will be different hypothesis. Nobody has proven anything yet. Thats part of the scientific process.

 

[lisabob2]

Please provide your qualifications to determine if a source is right or wrong.

First of all you find the source. then you check to make sure it is accurate. Then if possible you can try to validate source.
Thats how I do it.
I guess my qualifications are that I can read. I can compare things and find similarities or differences. I can research.

 

[rwguinn]

it sure seems that 20 or 40 ratio is much higher than 1. Am I wrong that a 1 ratio compared to a 20 ratio is very different and significant?
As I was pointing out some issues I thought might be relevant, maybe you can answer those questions? Is a 40 ratio a significant issue over a 1 ratio?
I would guess that it is, am I wrong?
If I knew what the difference between pinned & fixed I probably wouldn't have to ask you if there is a difference in the way their ratio's are calculated.

I thought so.
You didn't understand a word of this thread where Newton's Bit explained what was going on, did you.

 

[DGM]

any scientific hypothesis needs more investigations, experiments, or facts to validate it.
As there are opposite views on the evidence from 9-11 of course there will be different hypothesis. Nobody has proven anything yet. Thats part of the scientific process.

So you consider it proper to publish his results before the experimentation or verification is complete? Let me tell you that is the definition of poor scientific method.

 

[Newtons Bit]

it sure seems that 20 or 40 ratio is much higher than 1. Am I wrong that a 1 ratio compared to a 20 ratio is very different and significant?
As I was pointing out some issues I thought might be relevant, maybe you can answer those questions? Is a 40 ratio a significant issue over a 1 ratio?
I would guess that it is, am I wrong?
If I knew what the difference between pinned & fixed I probably wouldn't have to ask you if there is a difference in the way their ratio's are calculated.

I think you need to read what I wrote a little bit more carefully. No one is arguing about a difference between 1 and 40. We're arguing about the different between 0.65 and 1.0.

The reason why this is important is based on column failure. When a column has a slenderness ratio that is very low it won't exihibit a classical buckling failure and the energy required for the column to "break" as it were is much higher. Mr. Szamboti is standing by his effective length factor of 0.65 because if he uses a 1.0 (or higher as it should be in reality) his entire belief structure that the towers can't collapse is invalidated.

I've never claimed that the connections are pinned, rather I've said that the exterior columns were part of a moment FRAME (these are moment, i.e. fixed, connected). AISC clearly defines how to calculate the effective length factor of this in the following chart:



Notice how the chart says for sidesway unihibited columns (moment frames). It is clear that the lowest effective length factor for these columns is 1.0. Thus it is also clear that Mr. Szamboti belief that the columns in the tower cannot buckle is FALSE.

To further elaborate, Mr. Szamboti claims that the columns are sidesway inhibited (that is, he is saying this NOW after I proved his previous method of calculating k was incorrect). This would mean that the top portion of the tower would be exactly over the top of the bottom portion, in other words, the tower doesn't SWAY in the wind. Do you get the difference?

He won't admit he's wrong because of something that psychologists call cognitive dissonance. He cannot admit he is wrong on the subject of effective length factor because that would be his belief on the towers collapsing, and thus his entire belief on 9/11 and a significant portion of his life is wrong.

He's also a peer reviewer for J911.

What you're doing right now, which is automatically assuming that he is right and everyone else is wrong is what psychologists call confirmation bias. They have the same conclusion that you do, thus regardless of whether or not they are correct, you take them at their word. It's time to start figuring things out for yourself and stop automatically assuming that the anti-establishment is always correct.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

First of all you find the source. then you check to make sure it is accurate. Then if possible you can try to validate source.
Thats how I do it.
I guess my qualifications are that I can read. I can compare things and find similarities or differences. I can research.

And then your reasoning for determining who is right and wrong (in your OPINION) is whether one presents a conspiracy or not. And when presented with evidence that contradicts your opinion, you just ignore those posts.

 

[rwguinn]

First of all you find the source. then you check to make sure it is accurate. Then if possible you can try to validate source.
Thats how I do it.
I guess my qualifications are that I can read. I can compare things and find similarities or differences. I can research.

reading the words is easy. It's just letters strung together.
Reading should include a modicum of comprehension.

ETA: Stundied

 

[rwguinn]

<<snip a Buncha boring technical stuff that trys to proof that 1 is not equal to 40, or even 20>>>.

There you go again, using numbers and stuff. Where's the Youtube?
Snork...

 

[Newtons Bit]

There you go again, using numbers and stuff. Where's the Youtube?
Snork...

If I had access to a video camera and a white board, I would definitely do some improptu lectures on the collapse mechanics. Unfortunately I have neither.

Though my office has both. Hmm........

 

[DavidJames]

First of all you find the source. then you check to make sure it is accurate. Then if possible you can try to validate source.
Thats how I do it.
I guess my qualifications are that I can read. I can compare things and find similarities or differences. I can research.

Thanks for your honest answer. Despite your complete lack of qualifications you declare the CT site "has science more on their side".

Next time you take your children to the doctor, for their sake, I hope your ability to discern is at a higher level.

 

[funk de fino]

why don't we discuss what you believe they have wrong?
Bazant's first theory of the collapse was peer reviewed and later proven wrong, so peer review is a important step but it does not take away facts or the truth.
About scientific legitimacy, Steven Jones has a outstanding record of following proper scientific methods. David Griscom is one of the worlds most sourced scientist, you do not get more legit than Griscom. If other scientist trust his work that much, he obviously knows the proper scientific method.

See your claim above. I will post again, claims that are said and pushed by David Griscom, that are false and not scientific

This is very different response than in the wake of 9/11, when the commander of NORAD wasn’t even given a rap on the knuckles for prearranging for the nation's capital to be totally without an air defense on that fateful morning.

Lie

The following link notes the subsequent deaths of six servicemen who took part in the mission at Minot AFB, which I suspect means that these six (and likely others) sacrificed their lives to thwart what was likely to have been a false-flag nuclear attack ...which, if on American soil, would have been the trigger for marshal law and cancellation elections, in addition to crashing the financial markets and sending the dollar the way of the pes

Pushing of claims that are lies

are the above claims found by using the scientific method? are they true to you lisabob2?

Tha man is a fool and parrots any old CT garbage. Real scientists do not do this.

 

[Drudgewire]

Thanks for your honest answer. Despite your complete lack of qualifications you declare the CT site "has science more on their side".

Next time you take your children to the doctor, for their sake, I hope your ability to discern is at a higher level.

Well, the first doctor said to take antiboitics but he's under the thumb of big pharmacy.

The doctor who said to treat him with lollipops has science on his side.

 

[The Almond]

"Do you understand why this statement is an opinion? Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, Newton's Bit and myself have all pointed out enormous errors in Jones's work. We have supported our opinions with facts. What facts have you supported your opinion with?"

Use the quote function. Place markers around the text.

I have only seen newton show a graph that may show Szamboti read how to attain a certain ratio wrong. But ratio was nowhere near the 40 ration mentioned.

The reason that you've only seen one graph is because you've patently ignored every single post with links directing you to comments and discussions about Jones. You also seem incapable of using the search function for this forum.

As for everything else it seems to be all opinions, or a one sided look at availble evidence.

This hand-waiving knee-jerk response to all evidence failing to support your pet theory is fooling no one.

As for whats been posted before, if the past post are anything like the current posts, then I stick by my opinion of the nist report because nothing here has shown ot to be scientific. Seems that by discounting the other side you think nist report is valid.

If the other side were to produce anything of legitimate value to the scientific community, I would have a side to discount. The issue here is that science is not simply the process of one person proclaiming he is right and everyone deciding whether or not to believe him. Truth is not determined in science through debate. Rather, when one makes a discovery, one writes it down, reviews it, asks his peers to review it, and submits it to a reputable scientific journal. When the paper is published, other researchers might replicate the experiment or otherwise test the hypotheses presented. Such ideas are presented and discussed at length in scientific conferences and symposia, with a number of different methods and competing ideas. As the original author's theory gains acceptance, other authors will "cite" the work in their own papers as a way of showing that their work is an extension of the original author's.

The point is that science is not a game of whose cock is bigger or whose PhD is heavier. It is not the author who blesses his ideas with legitimacy, but rather the scientific community as a whole who, over time, determines through endless repetition and verification of an idea.

I believe if a independent review of the nist investigation is done like Quintiere wants, it will be exposed for what it is.

How will these independent reviewers be any different from the independent reviewers that NIST already has?

 

[Belz...]

is that called cherry picking? or avoiding the issues?

Neither. It's called pointing out your behaviour.

 

[lisabob2]

I thought so.
You didn't understand a word of this thread where Newton's Bit explained what was going on, did you.

I understand that several issues were not answered in his post. I was waiting for an answer on why.

 

[lisabob2]

So you consider it proper to publish his results before the experimentation or verification is complete? Let me tell you that is the definition of poor scientific method.

sometimes a paper is published and peer reviewed to further a hypothesis. A scientist does this when they want to bring attention to something they have discovered. The scientist want more scientist to review their hypothesis and give opinions on whether more investigation or experiment is needed.
But of course you knew this didn't you?

 

[beachnut]

sometimes a paper is published and peer reviewed to further a hypothesis. A scientist does this when they want to bring attention to something they have discovered. The scientist want more scientist to review their hypothesis and give opinions on whether more investigation or experiment is needed.
But of course you knew this didn't you?

So you believe the official story because Jones' paper was published in his made up journal without proper peer review because no real journal would publish his false ideas. This is the official story thread and you are posting in it! So you agree Jones' lied and the official story is true!

Are you posting in the wrong thread?

 

[lisabob2]

Thanks for your honest answer. Despite your complete lack of qualifications you declare the CT site "has science more on their side".

Next time you take your children to the doctor, for their sake, I hope your ability to discern is at a higher level.

I believe I have as many qualifications as anybody on this forum.
I yet to find qualifications listed here or at 911myths.com

While the reason I believe journalof911studies.com has science on their side is that I find that they have qualifications and the explain all of the reasons they have for their views. I also find many people who try to discredit them usually have their facts wrong.

 

[lisabob2]

So you believe the official story because Jones' paper was published in his made up journal without proper peer review because no real journal would publish his false ideas. This is the official story thread and you are posting in it! So you agree Jones' lied and the official story is true!

Are you posting in the wrong thread?

Obviously I was not saying Jones was lying.
Obviously I am not admitting anything
Obviously I was explaining one way peer review is used by scientist, I was assuming you knew this.
If you have read Jone's paper: Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
You would know about his hypothesis.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I understand that several issues were not answered in his post. I was waiting for an answer on why.

No, there are no unanswered issues. There are only false statements by Mr. Szamboti to lead astray the gullible.