Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

I don't think my claim that"You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." is "bold" at all.

For the curious, I made the claim here.

See for yourself!

Dave

So I didn't understand your explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data even though I admitted it was a good point:

"Good points Dave. So, suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?"

Maybe you had trouble understanding what I meant here. I am saying for example, someone attempting to use a scientific theory like Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity to explain quantum-level phenomena would be able to explain little if any of the observables. That wouldn't be very scientific would it? Scientific theories like Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity do explain all the observables in a specific domain. You cannot however apply them to domains they were never intended for.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

So I didn't understand your explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data even though I admitted it was a good point:

"Good points Dave. So, suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?"

I agree - you didn't understand my explanation.

Maybe you had trouble understanding what I meant here. I am saying for example, someone attempting to use a scientific theory like Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity to explain quantum-level phenomena would be able to explain little if any of the observables. That wouldn't be very scientific would it? Scientific theories like Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity do explain all the observables in a specific domain. You cannot however apply them to domains they were never intended for.

Well, at least you're no longer saying that "In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage," and are admitting that your position on the matter indeed is that "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage."

Progress!

 

[dudalb]

They would make wonderful figureheads for the Truther movement,or maybe the Three Stooges.

I favor Inspector Closeau, because of the quality of the Truthers investigations......

 

[DGM]

I favor Inspector Closeau, because of the quality of the Truthers investigations......


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1884047a0f617f071f.jpg[/qimg]

Doesn't Inspector Closeau actually always get it right (In a round about way)?

 

[GlennB]

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This is where (one of the many places) your wrong. There is a "well validated body of knowledge". Buckling is very well understood in structural engineering.

I envision he does the following equation:

Assert that no high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire
....
.....
......
.......
SCREW ENGINEERING
.....
.......
........

PROFIT!

 

[rwguinn]

OK, so you didn't mention "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage" in the previous post...

But, you've mentioned it many, many times, here, in this very thread...

Did any of the stuff there make any sense to anybody who can get the correct answer to 2+2 best of 3 tries?

I could go on, but what's the point? You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data...

Good luck on trying to trick me into that "killer confession" you're hoping for! How's that working out for ya?

 

[Myriad]

Did any of the stuff there make any sense to anybody who can get the correct answer to 2+2 best of 3 tries?

Well, sure. For certain values of "sense."

I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points.

If only we'd focus on the strong points, like how thrillingly seditious it all would be if it were only true, we'd find it much more convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[rwguinn]

Well, sure. For certain values of "sense."

I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points.

If only we'd focus on the strong points, like how thrillingly seditious it all would be if it were only true, we'd find it much more convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

May I use that as my new sig line?

 

[TruthersLie]

LOL. You completely misunderstand my intentions Dave. I am not attempting to extract a "killer confession" from you. I am merely here to show that you continually ignore inconvenient scientific facts and make wild completely unsupported pronouncements. For example, you make the follwing bold claim: "You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." yet provide absolutely no support for it. This is prime evidence of your thoroughly unscientific faith-based approach to 9/11. You sidestep and refuse to acknowlege arguments that completely obliterate your case like the following:

...suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?

Let's go back to your definition:

"A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more."

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

Hey Cmatrix... have you even bothered to look at what making scale models entails? Have you done even basic research, or are you still trying to do arguments from ignorance and incredulity?

after you have done your remedial work, come on back and explain how to make a scale model for wtc7. I (and the rest of the engineering world) would LOVE to see it.

Pretty please.

 

[Myriad]

May I use that as my new sig line?

Be my guest, Sir.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[cmatrix]

CM,



Every time I show up to discuss something with you, you take a powder.

tk

Well someone certainly took a powder from our discussion but it wasn't me. Would you care to respond to my reply to your post here? Three weeks should be sufficient for you to craft an intelligent rejoinder unless you can't, that is.

 

[cmatrix]

I agree - you didn't understand my explanation.



Well, at least you're no longer saying that "In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage," and are admitting that your position on the matter indeed is that "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage."

Progress!

Actually in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 p 602 NIST says:

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed…"

So NIST does claim bucking was still occurring during free fall, a clear violation of the laws of physics. Again I have to ask why you, as a physicist, defend NIST's crackpot foolery.

Also for one more time I ask for a direct non-evasive response to this statement of mine:

Let's go back to your definition:

"A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more."

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

 

[DGM]

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world..

A building has never fallen at "free-fall" from a demolition either. Should we conclude the days events didn't happen?

 

[EvilPoet]

Oh, and 6x7=42

The Hitchhiker's Guide told me that 6x9=42

 

[dafydd]

Well someone certainly took a powder from our discussion but it wasn't me. Would you care to respond to my reply to your post here? Three weeks should be sufficient for you to craft an intelligent rejoinder unless you can't, that is.

What would be the point in responding? You handwave away all the answers.

 

[Horatius]

The Hitchhiker's Guide told me that 6x9=42

Wow, I must have been pretty drunk when I typed that.....

 

[EvilPoet]

Wow, I must have been pretty drunk when I typed that.....

hmmmm ... was it the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster or were you preparing for hyperspace and thought you were drunk? WAIT! Don't answer that. We're getting dangerously off topic.

 

[Horatius]

hmmmm ... was it the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster or were you preparing for hyperspace and thought you were drunk? WAIT! Don't answer that. We're getting dangerously off topic.

I swear I'll never be cruel to a gin&tonic again!

 

[Edx]

So NIST does claim bucking was still occurring during free fall, a clear violation of the laws of physics. Again I have to ask why you, as a physicist, defend NIST's crackpot foolery.

Lets say it was, why do you defend Richard Gage's (AE911) crackpot foolery?