Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

[pomeroo]

I think most all of us can agree with the following statements:

1) The best way to scientifically determine why each of the 3 towers originally gave way would be to collect and forensically study all of the columns which in all probability gave way first.

2) If all columns within the collapse initiation zones cannot be collected, an acceptable alternative would be to collect and forensically study more than enough samples to form a representative collection of columns from the collapse initiation zones.

3) During the careful examination of these collections we would look for evidence to tell us:

a) To what temperatures were these columns subject?
b) To what extent fireproofing was damaged and whether this damaged fireproofing was what actually lead to collapse initiation.
c) Just where and how the columns in the collapse initiation zone first gave.


This, if possible, would have been the natural way to proceed and apply the scientific method.


So how many core column samples from the collapse initiation zones did NIST examine and why? They tell us in the following quote:



Their entire forensic collection consisted of only 4 core columns. They admit that such a scant collection cannot give a realistic sense of what temperatures were actually experienced inside the core. And as for a practical sense of the loss of fireproofing and how and where the first columns failed, what can you learn a sample consisting of less than 1% of the total?

And how many column sections were saved for analysis from WTC 7? None that I know of.


I agree that the sceintific method could have told us all we needed to know. But from the POV of the NIST report, that which we can pretty much all agree would have been the best evidence to work with was destroyed before NIST could examine it.




It would have been science were the key evidence not trashed before NIST could examine it.

Having the key physical evidence trashed, it is a little late to preach strict adherence to the scientific method.

The science has been done and your agenda-driven fantasy requires you to reject the conclusions that have been reached. That is the target the OP aims at.

 

[Par]

Let's not forget the 9/11 Commission's own teleological thinking when it failed to consider American-based complicity in the attacks.

There exists no evidence for American-based complicity. Thus the notion wasn’t taken particularly seriously. I’m not sure that qualifies as teleological thinking.

How could they find this evidence without looking for it?

Your question has no bearing on the matter of whether their thinking was teleological.

 

[pomeroo]

John Blonn,

Let's not forget the 9/11 Commission's own teleological thinking when it failed to consider American-based complicity in the attacks.

You have illustrated perfectly the theme I'm developing. You cling to the utterly baseless myth of complicity by the U.S. government because it is the only possibility you will permit yourself to entertain. You start and end with this wildly implausible notion; nothing else is thinkable. For you and your fellow fantasists, teleology is paramount. The science doesn't even rise to the level of irrelevance--it is nonexistent.

 

[MIKILLINI]

John Blonn,

Let's not forget the 9/11 Commission's own teleological thinking when it failed to consider American-based complicity in the attacks.

But it did consider American based involvement. Hijacked American and United Airline planes crashing into the buildings.
It's passengers were identified through the scientific method of forensics.

 

[Apollo20]

Mikillini:

Actually there is no such thing as "the scientific method of forensics". The word forensic is derived from the word forum, and in today's common parlance simply means data (physical evidence!) to be presented in a court of law.

Unfortunately, physical evidence is decidedly lacking for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Thus the collapse mechanism of these buildings remains obscure and unproven, and will always be a matter of conjecture.

 

[John Blonn]

John Blonn,

Let's not forget the 9/11 Commission's own teleological thinking when it failed to consider American-based complicity in the attacks.

They also failed to consider the possibilities that 9/11 was perpetrated by Martians, that 9/11 never actually happened, that I perpetrated 9/11, that 9/11 actually will happen in a dystopic future of cities of mutant rabbits, etc. etc.

You don't quite understand the distinction I'm making in my post.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Mikillini:

Actually there is no such thing as "the scientific method of forensics". The word forensic is derived from the word forum, and in today's common parlance simply means data (physical evidence!) to be presented in a court of law.

Unfortunately, physical evidence is decidedly lacking for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Thus the collapse mechanism of these buildings remains obscure and unproven, and will always be a matter of conjecture.

Perhaps I should have clarified that. My bad.

The forensics do apply to the crash sites to ID the victims. Technically your right on the scientific method as to how it applies to forensics, although My comment was toward the methodology used.

Is the manner of the buildings collapse going to remain obscure and left in conjecture to you forever? Or is there enough chemistry analysis out there to remove the conjecture?

 

[~enigma~]

They also failed to consider the possibilities that 9/11 was perpetrated by Martians, that 9/11 never actually happened, that I perpetrated 9/11, that 9/11 actually will happen in a dystopic future of cities of mutant rabbits, etc. etc.

You don't quite understand the distinction I'm making in my post.

But Abby admitted she did it

 

[tsig]

Back to the OP question - I vote for the Lens of Arisia - that'd get you the correct answers pretty damn quick.

But minds have be at least the third? level to understand it.

 

[Apollo20]

Mikillini:

Chemistry is not the problem or the answer when the evidence is gone!

In the cosy corners of Nistian orthodoxy the true believers worship at the alter of a "scientific authority" created by an elite group intent on legitimizing the rules of its own game - the NIST. Meanwhile, it is clear (once the veil of deception is lifted), that many Nistian JREFers, (who remain nameless while "naming" their opponents), are simply a self-appointed constabulary for the censure, admonishment and ridicule of miscreant posters - what you guys call "truthers" - declared to be so simply because they dare to ask a few questions.

 

[Major_Tom]

Frank notes:

Unfortunately, physical evidence is decidedly lacking for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Thus the collapse mechanism of these buildings remains obscure and unproven, and will always be a matter of conjecture.

Consider the strict appliciation of the "scientific method" and Occam's Razor to your statement. It means that no (inside) crime was committed. Interesting logical result, no?

Likewise if one utterly lacks conscience and humanity and goes on a killing spree, but manages to destroy the physical evidence implicating them and also manages to pin the blame on some other poor sod, then a strict application of Occam's Razor and the scientific method means that no crime was commited by them.

Fascinating, no?

 

[beachnut]

Mikillini:

Actually there is no such thing as "the scientific method of forensics". The word forensic is derived from the word forum, and in today's common parlance simply means data (physical evidence!) to be presented in a court of law.

Unfortunately, physical evidence is decidedly lacking for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Thus the collapse mechanism of these buildings remains obscure and unproven, and will always be a matter of conjecture.

Better tell this author, "Crime Science: Methods of Forensic Detection". Words, words, and more words. I would say forensics is an adaptation of the scientific method. Is that what you said, or meant to say? I guess you did say that but it was like you didn't say it.

There was TONS of physical evidence; gee, do not leave out the visual evidence. Wowzer. What were you watching on 9/11?

The collapse mechanism is as old as the universe (albeit, you must be creative and have a big picture), you are teasing your audience again. If you can not figure out why, and how the towers fell, leave it to those who can. Why are you teasing people?

Oh, you are practicing teleology (the OP)! Good job, you are doing it better than the 9/11 truth movement.

 

[pomeroo]

Mikillini:

Actually there is no such thing as "the scientific method of forensics". The word forensic is derived from the word forum, and in today's common parlance simply means data (physical evidence!) to be presented in a court of law.

Unfortunately, physical evidence is decidedly lacking for the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Thus the collapse mechanism of these buildings remains obscure and unproven, and will always be a matter of conjecture.

Frank, how much attention should we pay to those who argue that there were no planes? What about the fantasists who desperately want to believe that a vast conspiracy blew up the buildings for reasons that remain unfathomable? When you write that the collapse mechanism is "obscure," are you writing carelessly or are you seriously contending that we can't know anything about it? It is odd to ask this question of you, as your own writings have shed much light on the science behind the events of 9/11.

 

[pomeroo]

Frank notes:



Consider the strict appliciation of the "scientific method" and Occam's Razor to your statement. It means that no (inside) crime was committed. Interesting logical result, no?

Likewise if one utterly lacks conscience and humanity and goes on a killing spree, but manages to destroy the physical evidence implicating them and also manages to pin the blame on some other poor sod, then a strict application of Occam's Razor and the scientific method means that no crime was commited by them.

Fascinating, no?

Nineteen jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. Their comrades have explained their reasons for making war on the United States, a war that extends back over a decade. How do you account for your emotional need to stand reality on its head? Why do you fabricate fantastic conspiracy theories that make no sense and have no--zero--chance of being correct?

 

[LashL]

The "Teleology Lens" is only useful after the "Science Lens" has resolved that an agent capable of teleology is acting. Otherwise, it gives you an image that is not so much wrong as useless.

<snip>

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated.
Outstanding

BV

Nomination seconded.

Outstanding, indeed!

 

[MIKILLINI]

Mikillini:

Chemistry is not the problem or the answer when the evidence is gone!

In the cosy corners of Nistian orthodoxy the true believers worship at the alter of a "scientific authority" created by an elite group intent on legitimizing the rules of its own game - the NIST. Meanwhile, it is clear (once the veil of deception is lifted), that many Nistian JREFers, (who remain nameless while "naming" their opponents), are simply a self-appointed constabulary for the censure, admonishment and ridicule of miscreant posters - what you guys call "truthers" - declared to be so simply because they dare to ask a few questions.

Consider the conjecture of their questions and theories, Apollo. Including your "rocket fuel" insulation spray.
Wasn't this partially derived from chlorinated species, i.e. chemical analysis?

After over 6 years of asking questions through conjecture, has any alternative theory come close to proving the NIST report as totally wrong, thereby causing the alternative to be viable enough for investigation? The alternatives have yet to yield any proof.

ETA; I Third Myriad's post: A perfect example of distinction

 

[NobbyNobbs]

. Meanwhile, it is clear (once the veil of deception is lifted), that many Nistian JREFers, (who remain nameless while "naming" their opponents), are simply a self-appointed constabulary for the censure, admonishment and ridicule of miscreant posters - what you guys call "truthers" - declared to be so simply because they dare to ask a few questions.

The problem, Apollo, is that the questions are repeatedly answered, the answers are repeatedly ignored, and then the questions are repeatedly repeated.

It's like a giant game of Whack-a-Mole.

 

[Major_Tom]

Many of you folks really believe that NIST has provided a logically sound collapse initiation scenario superior to anything else offered?

No logical gaps in their collapse initiation theory? How can you not see that they, too, are just guessing?

This isn't church. Nobody has asked you to kneel down before the NIST theory.

You know, the wiser among you do have the capacity to be detatched from all theory, including that of NIST.

Would you equally bow down to the dictates of the Food and Drug Administration, another govt agency?

 

[beachnut]

Many of you folks really believe that NIST has provided a logically sound collapse initiation scenario superior to anything else offered?

No logical gaps in their collapse initiation theory? How can you not see that they, too, are just guessing?

This isn't church, Nobody has asked you to kneel down before the NIST theory.

You know, the wiser among you do have the capacity to be detatched from all theory, including that of NIST.

Would you equally bow down to the dictates of the Food and Drug Administration, another govt agency?

Your photos, on your web site, prove explosives were not used! Wake up, you are the one who is in a cult religion of hearsay and fantasy. You are the one with zero evidence to support your ideas on 9/11. Sorry Major Tom, you fail to measure up when it comes to engineering, and have failed to produce evidence, you only have hearsay and empty rhetoric. You have words, but nothing to back up your attack on others. When will you produce a RFC to NIST, so you can be on the record with your fantasy ideas?

 

[tsig]

Many of you folks really believe that NIST has provided a logically sound collapse initiation scenario superior to anything else offered?

No logical gaps in their collapse initiation theory? How can you not see that they, too, are just guessing?

This isn't church. Nobody has asked you to kneel down before the NIST theory.

You know, the wiser among you do have the capacity to be detatched from all theory, including that of NIST.

Would you equally bow down to the dictates of the Food and Drug Administration, another govt agency?

I would like to be detached but there is something compelling about gravity.