bardamu said:
Eight pages on and still no acknowledgement that this statement is false:
4. Therefore, his papers rule out a controlled demolition.
I acknowledge that that statement of R.Mackey is inaccurate in the following respect:
It is not the papers themselves that rule out a controlled demolition; it is the facts, mathematics, and logic presented therein. If the papers did not exist, the laws of physics, the characteristics of the buildings, and the logical and mathematical implications of these would all be unchanged.
Also, the phrase "rule out" might be a bit misleading to some, who might read it as "rule out any possibility of" when it really means "rule out any need to consider as a hypothesis."
The second is actually a stronger statement, though it might not appear so. The reason is that in science, nothing is ever ruled out as a possibility except within the context of a specific body of theory (in this case, gravitation, Newtonian mechanics, and thermodynamics, the underpinnings of modern engineering).
Observations of phenomena "ruled out as a possibility" will overturn theories. For example, classical electrodynamics rules out any possibility of stable atoms with orbiting electrons. Therefore the discovery that atoms do have orbiting electrons overturned classical electrodynamics, replacing it with quantum theory.
On the other hand, when existing theory rules out the need to consider a hypothesis it means that no evidence that is inconsistent with the contrary hypothesis based on existing theory has been offered. Such a hypothesis cannot overturn existing theory.
The distinction is subtle, especially in the case at hand where the existing theory (classical mechanics, gravitation, and thermodynamics) is so well established within the domain of the phenomenon. But it lies at the heart of the common misunderstanding (even by many debunkers) of the nature of debunking. Debunking does not mean proving a claim impossible. It means showing that the evidence in support of the claim is inadequate to make the claim necessary to consider as a hypothesis.
For example, showing that an alleged UFO photograph strongly resembles a 1984 Plymouth hubcap tossed into the air
does not prove that the photograph is not of an alien spaceship. What would prevent aliens who could build a spaceship from building one to look exactly like a 1984 Plymouth hubcap? Nothing!
What it does instead is show that the evidence is insufficient to even consider the alien spaceship hypothesis as a possibility. Even if there were aliens deliberately building spaceships to look like hubcaps, the photograph in question provides no useful evidence of that. The alien spaceship hypothesis is not disproved, but the photograph as evidence in support of that hypothesis is debunked.
Since debunking does not mean proving a claim impossible, failing to prove a claim impossible does not mean a failure of debunking. Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem to believe that as long as they can come up with some idea no matter how far fetched to preserve the mere possibility of their claim being true (e.g. silent explosives, vast cover-ups), the debunkers have failed. But that is not true, and actually the issue as far as debunking is concerned was settled years ago.
So, to clarify:
Bazant's papers (or rather, the reasoning contained therein) rule out any need to consider controlled demolition as a hypothesis (that is, a hypothesis that could overturn existing theory).
Other evidence, such as the lack of detonation sounds, lack of barotrauma injuries, lack of glass shrapnel injuries, and lack of observed blast damage or thermite residue on structural members in the debris, rule out controlled demolition as a possibility (that is, within the existing body of theory that underlies modern engineering).
Respectfully,
Myriad
