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

[John Blonn]

Don't play dumb or bad comic, John. Means and motive.

Al Qaeda: Means and motive.

Hm, you know what?

North Korea: Means and motive.
China: Means and motive.
Iran: Means and motive.
Japan: Means and, in a twisted world, motive.
Canada: Means and, in a twisted world, motive.
Any random terrorist group, whether foreign or domestic: Means and motive.

How come the 911C didn't investigate these possibilities? You would agree, given your previous post, that they were being 'teleological' when they didn't consider the possibility that China did it, right?

I'm not trying to be funny. I'm making a point, one which you've misunderstood.

In your original response to my post, you've played fast and loose with the points I was making. You claimed that the 911C was being 'teleological' when they didn't consider US involvement in the attacks. If you want to argue this, fine, but the natural response is, "Well, you know what, the 911C was being 'teleological' when they didn't consider every single possibility, weren't they?" This is what I was arguing in that post.

I took your argument and attacked it with a weak reductio ad absurdum. I was neither playing dumb nor bad comic.

 

[Furi]

so perhaps this isn't the best example. But consider a flock of geese heading south.

Thanks for the clarification, but is that hard wired?

Watching from a place where the geese make a stop off, you also get to watch the skeins form and break/reform as individuals tire or fall out of the pattern, these could just be a case that the poor goose in front is so busy flapping its wings off, that it hasn't realised it is in the lead, and upon that realisation decides it is in their best interest to drop back and let some other poor bugger take the strain I am clearly not an ornithologist (ornthramorpholologist maybe, I have never had so much as a whim to RP an Avian)

I think the more hard wired instinctive choice in that scenario isn't so much the flight formation, but more the impulse to migrate in the first place, the skein maybe more akin to making a decision similar to taking the well worn route up a mountain opposed to tackling that grade 3 scramble up to the arrete. the path is easier on effort and has less inherent risk, both get you to the summit however (one is also a load more fun )

The V formation is to help (AFAIK) in lowering the overall fatigue level of the group by reducing effort of the following birds in the V, however without the scientific viewpoint and an understanding of bird flight mechanics and avian psychology (at last a job for the bird brained out there) you could not start to realistically answer that question, as far as I see the teleological view point would be "They do that because they are supposed to do that, because that is how geese are designed.", this to me is wholly unacceptable as does not answer the damned question, you may as well just say goddidit (to me anyway) the original question may have arisen by the same observation and curiosity but one will assist you in finding workable explainations the other would only assist in interpreting those answers.

ETA: Hey my Onetyonethhundred-and-onetyoneth or is that Elevenhundred-and-onetyfirst post *does happy kitty dance, and gives himself a daytime TV clap* at least I achieved something today
mind you it's only 15 if you use binary, (yes I am sadly one of those 10 types of people that understand binary)

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

1. How long should they have left that site, 11 storeys of concrete, steel, glass, and rotting corpses (harsh but that is what they were), for "Investigators" to sift through?

2. Given the dangers that the workers there faced, how would the investigators sift through ALL OF IT in an expedient amount of time, given the growing concern from a physical Hazard, and disease Hazard point of view.

3. Given the FBI (The forensic Investigators) obviously gave the ok for the removal of debris to another location, and given that the debris remained at the alternate location(s) for some time, and given what I have said in 1 & 2 above, what do you feel should have been done????

4. Since you have openly admitted you consider me to be one of the JREF NISTIANS, I would like you to point out where I have acted as you have stated above? Where have I censured? Where have I admonished someone asking GENUINE QUESTIONS? Where have I ridiculed?

5. Most of the "truthers" which you so gently label as miscreant posters who are simply asking questions, are much more than that, and you know it. They come in here with an agenda, already holding finite opinions on who carried out the attacks and why, and they then come here asking leading questions, ignoring any answer that does not fit their notions. You may say that this description fits many a debunker here, and you may be right, but please, PLEASE, do not try to make these poor "truthers" out to be little mistreated innocents.

TAM

 

[~enigma~]

Ever since Dylan and Jason admitted their beliefs were not falsafiable (IOW based on faith) I knew this bowel movement was a religious cult being essentially led by a theologian and a fat man with a bullhorn.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In the context of Dave's post, I thinking more about survival instincts, here meaning any instinct that could be seen to increase the fitness of the organism. One could argue that your examples of instincts overcome are merely examples of instincts superceded by others (e.g. risking my life to save a relative could increase my biological fitness, instinctive altruism and desire for compensation being the motivations for the fireman).

Thinking of such things in teleological terms is, as I was gently suggesting, a major fallacy. What, after all, is the "purpose" of survival? Answer: It doesn't need one. The organisms that are best fitted to survive have tended to survive, and we are aware of that tendency because they have in fact survived. Suggesting that their survival traits are rooted in some kind of purpose is essentially a circular argument, and leads to nothing more fruitful than speculation on what that purpose might have been. Thinking of them in evolutionary terms, however, is far more useful when we want to deduce rules in order to achieve a purpose of our own - for example, breeding more resistant or fruitful strains. The rather paradoxical result is that, even from a teleological point of view, science is very much more fruitful than teleology.

Dave

 

[pomeroo]

Please answer the question.

How could they find the evidence if they didn't look for it?

Seven thousand FBI agents found no evidence of explosives in the WTC complex and identified the hijackers of the four planes.

Your turn.

 

[Apollo20]

The NIST Report: Tales of Mystery and Imagination (Part II)

To those who suggest that photographs of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and its aftermath constitute the primary physical evidence used by NIST, I would respond with a question about the all-important WTC steel: photographs of steel recovered from GZ provide physical evidence of exactly what? So yes I agree, the NIST Report has lots of photos of pieces of steel; but what use are these images? Do NIST tell us where each steel section was first located in the rubble pile? (A useful piece of information to be sure…) No, NIST does not! Do the photos allow NIST to estimate the maximum temperatures seen by the steel? Negatory on that one too! Do the photos tell us anything about the surface chemistry of the steel? No, the photos convey no chemical information whatsoever!

And talking of chemical analysis: the NIST Report manages one table of surface analysis data, yes, just ONE TABLE, in 10,000 pages. And that table provides data for 3 samples! And does NIST have much to say about these data? Well actually, no ….. NIST comments on the high S seen on a couple of samples, but completely ignores the high Cl observed on sample K-16. So NIST really makes no use of what little chemical analysis it managed to carry out on WTC samples. But where is the chemical analysis data for even a couple of the failed welds and bolts? And where is the analytical data for the concrete?

So what I see is that the NIST Report is not scientific at all, but is perhaps better described as a feel-good narrative created by some imaginative engineers to satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy of the warmongering oligarchs running the US of A. (How does that story go again? Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!)

Anyway, back to the 9/11 science, or lack thereof…. Let’s be honest, the NIST 9/11 narrative is based almost entirely on computer simulations that could hardly be considered as “forensic evidence”. NIST's cartoons may be acceptable to some engineers and “kids” hooked on computer-generated Hollywood special effects, but would such simulacra "stand up in court". I think not!

Consider NIST’s aircraft impact modeling as an example: If you read NCSTAR 1-2, 1-2B, 1-5A and 1-6 you find all sorts of discrepancies between the observed behavior of the aircraft, the impact debris and NIST’s global impact analysis. NIST argue that the fuel was almost completely aerosolized within 0.5 seconds of impact, but in reality fuel is known to have poured down elevator shafts. NIST’s model says that, with the exception of the engines and undercarriage, the aircraft were shredded into “thousands of fragments”. This is contradicted by the large sections of fuselage that were found outside the towers with nary a scratch! Then we have the trajectories of the engines themselves which came out all wrong in NIST’s first simulations until those creative computer programmers “tweaked” the calculations to make an engine exit WTC 2 as observed. In what sense is NIST being scientific with all these false predictions of its models?

I believe NIST should have come clean from the very start and admitted that the building failure site it was mandated to examine was so compromised by clean-up operations of the debris and the all-important structural steel, that any report it could produce on the demise of the Twin Towers could only conclude: cause of death: “unknown”.

 

[funk de fino]

Thats some weird complex you have there bud

You come across as a very bitter and twisted old man. I never usually comment on your behaviour but it seems to be escalating in recent days.

What has made you so angry?

 

[MIKILLINI]

And which step in the 'scientific method of forensics' explained how the planes got there?

It turns out there were four missing planes and there happened to be four crash sites.
The victims who were on each of those four planes were identified through forensics DNA matching. The passenger manifest determined which victims were on each respective plane. So clippy, how did those passengers end up at each crash site?

 

[Clippy]

Thinking of such things in teleological terms is, as I was gently suggesting, a major fallacy. What, after all, is the "purpose" of survival? Answer: It doesn't need one. The organisms that are best fitted to survive have tended to survive, and we are aware of that tendency because they have in fact survived. Suggesting that their survival traits are rooted in some kind of purpose is essentially a circular argument, and leads to nothing more fruitful than speculation on what that purpose might have been. Thinking of them in evolutionary terms, however, is far more useful when we want to deduce rules in order to achieve a purpose of our own - for example, breeding more resistant or fruitful strains. The rather paradoxical result is that, even from a teleological point of view, science is very much more fruitful than teleology.

Dave

Yes, survival of the fittest is tautological. It's fit because it survives and it survives because it's fit. But your initial thinking must be teleological in order to even start formulating hypotheses to check. If you know the goal of the geese, this informs any hypothesis as to why they are flying in a v. And when you come up with your theory at the end, you are thinking teleologically, whether what you're explaining was designed by God, Nature, or Natural Selection + Random Variation.

 

[Clippy]

Thanks for the clarification, but is that hard wired

I'm not sure. Perhaps a better example that I'm more certain is hard-wired is the suckling reflex of a newborn.

 

[Clippy]

It turns out there were four missing planes and there happened to be four crash sites.
The victims who were on each of those four planes were identified through forensics DNA matching. The passenger manifest determined which victims were on each respective plane. So clippy, how did those passengers end up at each crash site?

The planes they were in managed to evade the air defenses of the most dominant military in the world (and the hijackers managed to avoid capture in the US for the year or more that they were training). To me, these issues are not amenable to study by the scientific method.

 

[applecorped]

The planes they were in managed to evade the air defenses of the most dominant military in the world (and the hijackers managed to avoid capture in the US for the year or more that they were training). To me, these issues are not amenable to study by the scientific method.

Which method do you propose then?

 

[Clippy]

Which method do you propose then?

A simple start would be to get members of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (in particular, Dave Frasca) under oath in front of a new commission to explain who else in the FBI or CIA knew that they were quashing investigations. As for more specific questions, those would be best drawn up by someone familiar with the intelligence services.

 

[applecorped]

So, you would ask questions. Nothing scientific there?

 

[Apollo20]

Funk de Fino:

Please stay on topic.......

To say that the NIST Report has not been refuted is like saying that Joshua 6: 1 - 27, has not been refuted.

Either way, the walls came tumbling down!

 

[applecorped]

Weak

 

[MIKILLINI]

A simple start would be to get members of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (in particular, Dave Frasca) under oath in front of a new commission to explain who else in the FBI or CIA knew that they were quashing investigations. As for more specific questions, those would be best drawn up by someone familiar with the intelligence services.

The simple premise for this (If you can call it simple) is how are you going to get that party started?

 

[T.A.M.]

To those who suggest that photographs of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and its aftermath constitute the primary physical evidence used by NIST, I would respond with a question about the all-important WTC steel: photographs of steel recovered from GZ provide physical evidence of exactly what? So yes I agree, the NIST Report has lots of photos of pieces of steel; but what use are these images? Do NIST tell us where each steel section was first located in the rubble pile? (A useful piece of information to be sure…) No, NIST does not! Do the photos allow NIST to estimate the maximum temperatures seen by the steel? Negatory on that one too! Do the photos tell us anything about the surface chemistry of the steel? No, the photos convey no chemical information whatsoever!

And talking of chemical analysis: the NIST Report manages one table of surface analysis data, yes, just ONE TABLE, in 10,000 pages. And that table provides data for 3 samples! And does NIST have much to say about these data? Well actually, no ….. NIST comments on the high S seen on a couple of samples, but completely ignores the high Cl observed on sample K-16. So NIST really makes no use of what little chemical analysis it managed to carry out on WTC samples. But where is the chemical analysis data for even a couple of the failed welds and bolts? And where is the analytical data for the concrete?

So what I see is that the NIST Report is not scientific at all, but is perhaps better described as a feel-good narrative created by some imaginative engineers to satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy of the warmongering oligarchs running the US of A. (How does that story go again? Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!)

Anyway, back to the 9/11 science, or lack thereof…. Let’s be honest, the NIST 9/11 narrative is based almost entirely on computer simulations that could hardly be considered as “forensic evidence”. NIST's cartoons may be acceptable to some engineers and “kids” hooked on computer-generated Hollywood special effects, but would such simulacra "stand up in court". I think not!

Consider NIST’s aircraft impact modeling as an example: If you read NCSTAR 1-2, 1-2B, 1-5A and 1-6 you find all sorts of discrepancies between the observed behavior of the aircraft, the impact debris and NIST’s global impact analysis. NIST argue that the fuel was almost completely aerosolized within 0.5 seconds of impact, but in reality fuel is known to have poured down elevator shafts. NIST’s model says that, with the exception of the engines and undercarriage, the aircraft were shredded into “thousands of fragments”. This is contradicted by the large sections of fuselage that were found outside the towers with nary a scratch! Then we have the trajectories of the engines themselves which came out all wrong in NIST’s first simulations until those creative computer programmers “tweaked” the calculations to make an engine exit WTC 2 as observed. In what sense is NIST being scientific with all these false predictions of its models?

I believe NIST should have come clean from the very start and admitted that the building failure site it was mandated to examine was so compromised by clean-up operations of the debris and the all-important structural steel, that any report it could produce on the demise of the Twin Towers could only conclude: cause of death: “unknown”.

1. As I said in response to your comments earlier, do you really think NIST could have (A) been involved immediately after the attacks (FEMA was the first group), and (B) do you really think that while trying to search and recover, and keeping possible survivors and rescuers safe, that mapping ou the exact locales of steel was appropriate or even possible?

2. I have no problem with you criticizing the NIST report for its lack of chemical analysis, if in fact doing so would have brought them closer to completing their mandate.

3. I think the problem here, for you Frank, and for many truthers, is that you seem to think that NIST was a forensic investigation as to the who and how of 9/11. It was not. It was a building performance study, with a similar mandate. Where does this alleging of complicity come from? Why do you think that this group, performing a building performance investigative study, was covering up the criminal acts of anyone? Where is the proof of this? Where is the motive?

4. At least, in your latest post, you revealed where you really stand on the matter.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

So what I see is that the NIST Report is not scientific at all, but is perhaps better described as a feel-good narrative created by some imaginative engineers to satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy of the warmongering oligarchs running the US of A. (How does that story go again? Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!)

Yes, the idea that a gigantic, mathematically-impossible conspriacy would employ Saudis and Egyptians in order to foment a war with Iraq is indeed absurd. This mad, illogical notion is the heart of the conspiracy liars' fantasy.

Anyway, back to the 9/11 science, or lack thereof…. Let’s be honest, the NIST 9/11 narrative is based almost entirely on computer simulations that could hardly be considered as “forensic evidence”. NIST's cartoons may be acceptable to some engineers and “kids” hooked on computer-generated Hollywood special effects, but would such simulacra "stand up in court". I think not!

Consider NIST’s aircraft impact modeling as an example: If you read NCSTAR 1-2, 1-2B, 1-5A and 1-6 you find all sorts of discrepancies between the observed behavior of the aircraft, the impact debris and NIST’s global impact analysis. NIST argue that the fuel was almost completely aerosolized within 0.5 seconds of impact, but in reality fuel is known to have poured down elevator shafts. NIST’s model says that, with the exception of the engines and undercarriage, the aircraft were shredded into “thousands of fragments”. This is contradicted by the large sections of fuselage that were found outside the towers with nary a scratch! Then we have the trajectories of the engines themselves which came out all wrong in NIST’s first simulations until those creative computer programmers “tweaked” the calculations to make an engine exit WTC 2 as observed. In what sense is NIST being scientific with all these false predictions of its models?

I believe NIST should have come clean from the very start and admitted that the building failure site it was mandated to examine was so compromised by clean-up operations of the debris and the all-important structural steel, that any report it could produce on the demise of the Twin Towers could only conclude: cause of death: “unknown”.

Frank, you are being impersonated by someone with roughly half your IQ.