Popular Mechanics: 500,000 scholars?

[RedIbis]

Actually you are incorrect on this Red. The WTC 7 report relies heavily on the physical evidence of the video docuementation of the fires and the collapse. It also uses the physical evidence of the effects of heat on steel garnered from decades of fire research and a few specific examples of actual office structure fires, and , of course, the known construction of the building in question.

Video is not physical evidence. And there is certainly no video evidence of failed critical steel columns and floor components to substantiate NIST's hypothesis.

Decades of research is not physical evidence. In fact, previous events would not predict what happened at WTC 7 since it was the first steel framed high rise to collapse primarily because of fire.

 

[jaydeehess]

Video is not physical evidence.

It is forensic evidence Red. Fully acceptable in a court of law as corroborating evidence.
The NIST report is an engineering report. The videos were used in two ways;
-to determine when and where the fires were. To determine the impact damage as closely as possible compared to witness reports of that damage
-to compare the actual collapse progression with what the FEA showed so as to corroborate the FEA findings.
If it would be good enough for court why do you not consider it good enough for an engineering report?

And there is certainly no video evidence of failed critical steel columns and floor components to substantiate NIST's hypothesis

I did not say it was.
I did point out though that the 9/11 CTs also have no forensic evidence of any sort to back their contentions.

Decades of research is not physical evidence. In fact, previous events would not predict what happened at WTC 7 since it was the first steel framed high rise to collapse primarily because of fire.

First of all as has been pointed out many many times, no it was not the first time. I don't know how you manage to keep forgetting that.
Second, fire research would be considered expert testimony on a court of law and since the NIST report was an engineering report I would consider the use of fire engineering research quite relevant and appropriate and I cannot envision why you would not. If it would be good enough for court why do you not consider it good enough for an engineering report?

 

[Oystein]

What a convoluted mess. You seem like one of the more rational posters, and perhaps the only so-called debunker who takes your cohorts to task for illogical arguments, but this is a series of ridiculous questions.

And yet, you manage to answer them just fine:

I already answered the basic question on post #36. It's simply a list of professionals who doubt the official story. That in itself doesn't prove anything.

Thanks. That was all the answer I needed. A yes or no to the question "does the list improve our knowledge about the subject matter". Your answer is "no", and it is the correct answer.

The rest....

And although I've re-explained this dozens of times, I'll try again to explain what's wrong with this type of thinking by hilighting this one sentence of yours:



Please do not assume that arguments from physical evidence rest solely with your position. They do not. You know very well, for instance that the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis does not rely on physical evidence, and that's just one example.

Secondly, similar to arguments that assume support from physical evidence, eyewitnesses report a very wide range of events for nearly all aspects of 9/11, yet you assume they only support your position. They do not.

...is a rant where you make unwarranted assumptions about my assumptions, and get them wrong.

 

[Oystein]

Video is not physical evidence....

Wrong. All physical evidence is really just data derived from measuring. In other words: Translating physical properties into mathematical form, usually numbers. These numbers can then be analysed.

Video meaures the brightness and colour of light along lines of sight at fixed time intervalls, and stores these measurements as long series of numbers. Video is a perfect example of physical evidence, because it stored measurement of physical properties as numbers. It is as much physical evidence as temperatures measured in the rubble pile or sound intensities measured when something explodes.

 

[RedIbis]

Wrong. All physical evidence is really just data derived from measuring. In other words: Translating physical properties into mathematical form, usually numbers. These numbers can then be analysed.

You are absolutely wrong, and you might as well admit it. Video footage is not physical evidence. Find me a legal definition of physical evidence that includes video. I'll post a legal definition that clearly does not and logically, only defines physical evidence as those objects, whether microscopic or huge that are found at the scene.

Physical evidence usually involves objects found at the scene of a crime. Physical evidence may consist of all sorts of prints such as fingerprints, footprints, handprints, tidemarks, cut marks, tool marks, etc. Examination of some physical evidence is conducted by making impressions in plaster, taking images of marks, or lifting the fingerprints from objects encountered.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-evidence/

 

[Oystein]

You are absolutely wrong, and you might as well admit it. Video footage is not physical evidence. Find me a legal definition of physical evidence that includes video. I'll post a legal definition that clearly does not and logically, only defines physical evidence as those objects, whether microscopic or huge that are found at the scene.


http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-evidence/

Okay, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that "physical evidence" is a technical term with specific meaning in the context of court procedings.


Video is evidence, and the recording was a well defined physical process of measurement.
All of us who are debating 9/11 on the internet have no physical evidence, as none of us can actually lay our hands on any object found at the crime scene. We all have to rely on documentary evidence: Photos, films and forensic descriptions of physical evidence.

 

[RedIbis]

Okay, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that "physical evidence" is a technical term with specific meaning in the context of court procedings.


Video is evidence, and the recording was a well defined physical process of measurement.
All of us who are debating 9/11 on the internet have no physical evidence, as none of us can actually lay our hands on any object found at the crime scene. We all have to rely on documentary evidence: Photos, films and forensic descriptions of physical evidence.

The difference is that NIST admits that it did not use any physical evidence when composing their WTC 7 collapse hypothesis.

Physical evidence is the holy grail of skepticism. Without it, the data is mostly speculative, precisely because there is no video of what is happening in the interior of the building.

Let me repeat for clarity: however convincing you might find the data derived from video, there is zero video of the collapse mechanism, making NIST's hypothesis that much more tenuous.

Let me ask you a direct question. Are you the slightest bit skeptical of NIST's hypothesis since they admit that no steel or other physical evidence was used in their "conclusive" study of WTC 7?

Are you the slightest bit skeptical that NIST admits it did not rely on any WTC 7 steel when WTC 7 steel was available to another study, namely WPI's?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Decades of research is not physical evidence. In fact, previous events would not predict what happened at WTC 7 since it was the first steel framed high rise to collapse primarily because of fire.

Allow me to correct you.The decades of research he's referring to are the steel property manuals which tell you every minute detail about standard grades of steel; grades with which WTC 7 was built. The behavior of each of these grades is well documented and their performance capacity is already known through - surprise, surprise! - physical evidence (samples). These samples will tell you everything from the unit weight of the steel, to it's unit capacity, to the cross-sectional area - think of it as an encyclopedia.

 

[RedIbis]

Allow me to correct you.The decades of research he's referring to are the steel property manuals which tell you every minute detail about standard grades of steel; grades with which WTC 7 was built. The behavior of each of these grades is well documented and their performance capacity is already known through - surprise, surprise! - physical evidence (samples). These samples will tell you everything from the unit weight of the steel, to it's unit capacity, to the cross-sectional area - think of it as an encyclopedia.

You got to be kidding me. You really think a manual is physical evidence for the collapse of WTC 7?

The fact that I have to explain what physical evidence is to you and others is not only Stundupulous, it is a waste of my time. I'm not responsible to further explain this extremely simple concept.

 

[DGM]

You got to be kidding me. You really think a manual is physical evidence for the collapse of WTC 7?

The fact that I have to explain what physical evidence is to you and others is not only Stundupulous, it is a waste of my time. I'm not responsible to further explain this extremely simple concept.

I don't see why it's important, Has anyone shown how they got it wrong?

 

[RedIbis]

I don't see why it's important, Has anyone shown how they got it wrong?

I'm sure you don't but a skeptic would.

 

[Oystein]

...
Physical evidence is the holy grail of skepticism. ...

No.

 

[Oystein]

...
Let me ask you a direct question. Are you the slightest bit skeptical of NIST's hypothesis since they admit that no steel or other physical evidence was used in their "conclusive" study of WTC 7?

Are you the slightest bit skeptical that NIST admits it did not rely on any WTC 7 steel when WTC 7 steel was available to another study, namely WPI's?

Direct answer: Yes, I am the slightest bit skeptical about their conclusive (without scare quotes) study of WTC 7.
More so than about general relativity. Less so than about my prediction that Joana won't want to see me before her birthday.
That is to say, I am convinced that NIST got it right - their theory and conclusions are far and away the most convincing. Any other theory would suffer from the same scarcity of physical evidence.

 

[RedIbis]

No.

I asked you two very specific questions. If you wouldn't mind obliging.

ETA: Sorry cross posted.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You got to be kidding me. You really think a manual is physical evidence for the collapse of WTC 7?

You aren't even remotely conscious of how the data in those tables are collected are you?

 

[RedIbis]

Direct answer: Yes, I am the slightest bit skeptical about their conclusive (without scare quotes) study of WTC 7.
More so than about general relativity. Less so than about my prediction that Joana won't want to see me before her birthday.
That is to say, I am convinced that NIST got it right - their theory and conclusions are far and away the most convincing. Any other theory would suffer from the same scarcity of physical evidence.

Apparently not since as I said above, WPI had access to WTC 7 steel that NIST didn't bother obtaining.

 

[Oystein]

I asked you two very specific questions. If you wouldn't mind obliging.

ETA: Sorry cross posted.

Never mind, I should have replied in one post

 

[RedIbis]

You aren't even remotely conscious of how the data in those tables are collected are you?

When you are able to comprehend what physical evidence actually is perhaps we can have some semblance of rational discussion.

 

[Oystein]

Apparently not since as I said above, WPI had access to WTC 7 steel that NIST didn't bother obtaining.

Maybe that is because physical evidence is NOT the "holy grail" od skepticism.

Maybe (I'd have to check) this is a matter of who got which task when. And what's wrong with one institution referencing and using the work of another?

 

[RedIbis]

Maybe that is because physical evidence is NOT the "holy grail" od skepticism.

Maybe (I'd have to check) this is a matter of who got which task when. And what's wrong with one institution referencing and using the work of another?

So model imputs and speculation trump physical evidence? Like I said earlier, you seem like one of the more rational posters, but you're just making stuff up as you go along.

I can't believe I'm having to argue the value of physical evidence on a skeptics forum.