I never said scepticism was evidence. You never explained why a scale model is impossible someone else did. Your talking out your hat.
I've explained it before- pretty sure I even explained it to you. But if you're admitting that someone explained it to you- yet you're still demanding it, then you're still shooting yourself in the foot. You need to be more consistent, here.
I asked you:
What experiment would you like to have done with "a scale model"?
Think carefully...
...and you never answered.
Then, you eventually derailed this and instead started claiming that
you make a good point here.
if we cannot make a scale model there must be some other way aside from compuer models to test a progressive collapse?
but with the fireball theory in the basement 8 stories could be constructed exactly to scale.
I again asked that you explain yourself. Here you are implying that computer models are insufficient- you are demanding something
beyond computer models. You aren't saying
in addition to computer models- you're saying
aside from computer models- as if they're unconvincing.
I asked you why and you ignored my question- and are now trying to change your own statements. Doesn't matter to me much, but it makes you look rather silly...
why some would consider computer simulations insufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis is because there is no scientific consensus regarding the nature of computer simulations.
...because here you try and defend the statement, anyway. Although, I'm not sure who you think "some" is, because
it's just you claiming this absurd statement, bucko.
To claim there is no scientific consensus regarding computer simulations is probably one of the most ignorant things you have said to date- and that's no small feat. As I said before- you're ignoring the entire study of structural engineering with this patently absurd claim.
Let's see you
try and prove this statement. Prove that computer models are rejected by portions of the scientific community.
Go on- just prove one of your claims for once.
There are three views (a) some scientists may regard computer simulation as a geuine experiment (b) others see it simply as another intellectual tool or (c) others may consider computer simulations as a real and new means of learning things just between theory and experiment.
Where in the crap are you pulling this from?
Provide evidence for these "views"- including statements from well-renowned individuals in their respective fields- or admit your ignorance. I'm not letting this one go, kiddo.
So you see whether one beleives that computer simulations are sufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis depends on what view one has concerning the nature of computer simulations.
I see that you're completely making crap up and then trying to shove it under the rug by pretending that you have an ounce of understanding of the scientific community- clearly, you do not.
Computer models have got limitations. I agree with Azcat in post #847 when he writes
There is also the question of what type of mathematics one chooses to express the theory or model. Jim hoffman produced a model
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/index.html
as other independent studies you claim have done so aswell. So i would wonder if there models are the same and if not then i would expect different results from a simulation.
A few idiots trying to use computer simulations- which can easily be shown as insufficient and flawed- does not mean that they represent the scientific community, nor does it mean that
the process of computer modeling is inconclusive. You clearly do not understand what computer simulations are- it's not like you can just tell the computer to "do collapse and erase all data regarding the method". You enter in the measurements and
it processes the simulation based on known variables. Entering the wrong information in will certainly give the wrong results- but it doesn't invalidate the process of computer simulations themselves. Furthermore- if it's a significant error, it would easily be noticed since it would not conform to observed phenomena.
so for these reasons i would be sceptical. There is nothing wrong with that.
Except that you're not only pulling the reasons from thin air, but you're trying to pretend as if your "scepticism" [sic] is
a valid means to demand alternative methods. It's not. If you're skeptical of the use of computer models, then you need to examine the models themselves and determine if the data is invalid- and then if that invalid data (when corrected) would have a significant effect on the experiment.
Otherwise, your "scepticism" is just a guise for rejecting evidence without justification. You're not skeptical at all- just bigoted.
However i never stated that computer simulations would be insufficient – if i did perhaps you could quote me instead of making baseless accusations. given the problems with the scaling laws computer models may turn out to be the only means available to test or prove the official hypothesis.
I quoted it above- your statement that information besides computer simulations would be necessary asserts that computer simulations are insufficient- although you were never able to say why.
In order to avoid making the statement outright, and at the same time not change your position, you tried to defend that position
right here in this very thread when you claimed: "why some would consider computer simulations insufficient as a means of proving a hypothesis is because there is no scientific consensus regarding the nature of computer simulations."
So you're saying that you completely disagree with "some"?
Yeah, sure...
Because NIST only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse they have not produced a model for the total collapse this is why they admit that they cannot provide a full explanation.
Moving that goalpost again. I asked you before if you knew what NIST stood for, and you ignored the question. I'll answer for you if you haven't found that out, yet: National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
Do you know why that's relevant?
No, I won't wait for you to ignore the question again- it's important because NIST was not tasked with
PROVING THAT GRAVITY WORKS, it was tasked with discovering what specific factors led to the collapse of the buildings, and if there are any building standards that could be implemented to delay, prevent, or otherwise improve on the process to prevent loss of life in the future. NIST was attempting to learn from the collapse and see what data could be obtained from a catastrophic event such as this.
Conspiracists do not seem to understand that. NIST was not tasked with "proving the official story"- because it had already been proven. The data that NIST acquired certainly debunked a lot of the claims of the wackjob conspiracists, but it was not tasked with appeasing a very small minority of the population and
proving what we already know is true.
Once the collapse initiation was discovered and understood,
there is no reason to explain that gravity works in the realm of standards and building codes. This is like demanding that the NTSB provide an explanation as to why the brakes on a train did not immediately stop the train
regardless of what we already know about inertia. It shows a tremendous ignorance of the process and the goal- as well as a
desire to ignore the information we do have.
By claiming that the NIST should have modeled the collapse itself (something that is not technologically possible, is not feasible, and is not necessary) then you are attempting to invalidate the information we do have on the causes of the collapse and the most important facts that have been discovered.
Even if NIST
had been tasked with proving that gravity still works- and they were unable to do it- that does not grant you the authority to deny the findings altogether.
Not sure if you're going to understand that- but it's important that you stop denying the facts by claiming that you are unsatisfied in your unreasonable, irrelevant, and unimportant demands.
They have models for the causes behind the initial collapse but that is not the same thing as providing models for the total collapse.
Perhaps you can explain- since you dodged the question previously-
why a computer model of the entire collapse would be necessary?
Do you need to know that gravity still works? I'll admit- I put a lot of confidence in it, but I see no reason to question its abilities.
They could not or did not provide models for the total collapse because as you say their models are not sophisticated enough to go through all the details (i.e. because “the computer models are not able to converge on a solution”).
Strawman- this is not why NIST did not provide models of total collapse. NIST was not
tasked with this- and there is
no reason for this.
Can you even imagine all the variables required to even model the collapse itself? Think of all the data that would be required... and for what? You'll just ignore it because it doesn't conform to your twisted view of reality.
But why do you think the causes of the initial collapse prove that total collapse was inevitable void of any investigation, explanation or experimentation ? That is my point and there is nothing confusing about it.
Since that's a strawman it's not
"confusing", it's just absurd. If you believe that total collapse was not possible- then provide your evidence. You can start by debunking the scientific studies that have been done on this- I suggest you tackle Bazant and Zhou first.
A
lack of a computer model of the complete collapse is
not evidence that it was not possible. Do you understand this?
Allow me to repeat it: A
lack of a computer model of the complete collapse is
not evidence that it was not possible.
Again they have models for the causes behind the initial collapse. If they had models for the total collapse why would a petition be sent to NIST to produce such a model?
Who sent the petition?
Your wackjob peers- instead of examining the evidence- like to pretend that
reductio ad absurdum arguments are a viable position. The petition was rejected, by the way- but you think that
filing a petition means that
they're right? You think that
filing a petition (with no basis in fact- I might add)
is evidence?
Think about what you're saying:
If NIST was not tasked with modeling the entire collapse, then why was a petition filed [by a couple of wackjobs who choose to ignore the facts and instead play "hide the goalpost"]. It's non-sequitur. The filing of a petition, and the subsequent rejection of it, is not
proof that the petitioners are correct- it's not even proof that they
understand the task at hand.
I NEVER SAID THEY WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT. Where is NIST’s model of the total collapse???
Why would they need one, sporto?
Provide examples instead of the usual lip service. Your baseless accusations are getting real old amigo. If you dont take my argumnets seriously then why bother responding??
If you can't provide evidence for your claims, then why should anyone pay attention to you,
amigo?
Are you making arguments? It certainly doesn't look like it. All you're doing is making stupid assertions, and then retreating back to JAQing off when your claims are so easily debunked. Now all you're doing is pretending that a
lack of evidence is evidence and demanding that NIST prove that gravity works.
It's getting rather silly. Instead of trying to move the goalpost every day- why don't you just provide your evidence and we can be done with this.
Here’s two: Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine are TWO family members along with Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage who filed a petition which suggested that NIST should have used a computer model to analyse the progressive collapse of the wtc.
So you have
two family members- and you think this accurately represents the views of the close to 3,000 people who died and their family? These two people have been heavily influenced by the conspiracism movement and their own political bias. It's sad, but it's not a representation of the victims or their families.
Let's run some numbers.
Average family size in the US is 3.14, there were
2,996 immediate victims of the September 11th attacks, which means that roughly
9,407 individuals could be considered
immediate family of the immediate victims. Your population represents
less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members of immediate victims.
Do you think that's an accurate representation of the families?
I do not.
So when you say that "the families of the victims of September 11th" want the collapse models, or agree with you, or like vanilla ice cream- can you
make sure you're accurately representing that population? It's teetering on the edge of
personally offensive, and will not put you in good standing with a
vast majority of the people you are pretending to represent.
Just a warning.
Where is NIST model of the total collapse??? If NIST already had computer models of this event then why would a petition be sent asking for them to produce a computer model for the total collapse?????
You already tried to get away with this fallacious argument- see above.
Besides discovery is not proof according to the scientific method.
I'm not sure why you think this ambiguous statement is relevant or even follows from your previous assertions.
Besides, the majority of apples sold in the United States come from the State of Washington.
Here are all the simulations provided by NIST
<snip>
NIST's simulations model phenomena such as the impact fireballs and smoke plumes that rose from the Towers, and the pattern of damage caused by the impact of jetliners. Conspicuously missing from their study are simulations, models, or even caluclations that attempt to describe how and why the Towers came down.
What does NIST stand for again?
The task of the NIST investigation was not to prove that the towers collapsed, nor was it to prove that the conspiracists are wrong- it was to find out the reason behind the structural failures and see if there's any areas of improvement in building construction.
These experiments
directly address that need, and thus prove the very specifics of what happened in the cause of the collapse of the Towers.
However, you're missing the
models of the collapse themselves, which
have been publicly available for quite some time.
These models- you would have to necessarily claim- are insufficient and irrelevant to your claims.
I would like to see you try and support that claim with an ounce of substantiation.
So why are you asking me whether a computer simulation is insufficient when NIST themselves did not produce a computer simulation/model for the total collapse explaining that the computer models are unable to analysis all the details involved??
What a stupid question- you're trying to claim that computer models are insufficient because NIST didn't use them where they didn't need to?
No YOU said that, not me. i never said a more effective method should be employed to discover the cause of the collapse what i have been saying is that whatever is proposed as the causes should be proven by the scientific method so please stop putting words in my mouth.
So now you're saying that computer models are not part of the scientific method?
You keep putting your foot in your mouth. And yes, you did say it was not effective- you demanded something beyond computer models.
How can i retract a statement i never made. Please provide a quotation where i said computer models are insufficient, if not, please refrain from brown talk.
I don't know what "brown talk" is, but I've shown above where you made this statement. You clearly need to retract it- and have attempted to do so by claiming that "some" would
think this way...
maybe you could answer one of my questions given that i answered yours so do you believe that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation? thats a yes or no.
Mu.
That's a complex question fallacy-
of course there's a need for experimentation, analysis,
computer modeling, and discovery- but your claim is that every aspect of the collapse needs to be investigated by some government agency just so you can either claim that something is being hidden and avoid the facts or so that you can claim that "the government" investigated it and is hiding something.
What you have neglected to do throughout this entire discussion- and indeed throughout your entire
position- is submit to the facts. You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence substantiating your claims, and instead dance around and JAQ off.
If NIST was able to use a computer model of the total collapse – then where is it? Why were they petitioned to produce one?
Again- moving the goalpost via a strawman. NIST was not tasked with proving gravity works- there's no scientific need to model the collapse itself (and it's not technologically possible).
Why you would demand such a thing- except to take the focus off your own failures- is beyond me.
Perhaps you could
finally explain why an impossible computer model of a catastrophic collapse is necessary.
That is a nasty, ignorant lie. You can remain a nasty, ignorant liar, or you can become a rational adult and retract that statement.
Before you call me a nasty liar- you might want to
PROVE IT.
Give me an example of how the "official story" does not conform to the scientific method.
And, I got one better for you. Let's
use the scientific method to discover whether
you're a nasty ignorant liar yourself!
Answer my Challenge:
What fact or piece of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?
Notice how I asked your MIA pal brasil this question 3 times and he dodged it. Notice how you can see the year of dodging from your peers on the comments section of my YouTube videos.
Why do you think it is that you and your peers cannot answer this question?
The official hypothesis or theory has NOT BEEN PROVEN BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and thats a FACT.
Prove it. For once, prove one of your stupid claims and let's get this over with.
If you can't prove it- then you need to retract the statement and personally apologize to me.
You are disrespecting the family members - Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine – who request that the official hypothesis be proven.
Appeal to emotion. If I have to "disrespect" less than 1% of the total population of immediate family members to
stand up to the kind of idiocy, deceit, and lies that you perpetrate on
THE OVER 99% OF THE REST OF THEM, then that's what I will do.
These two gentlemen have been influenced by the conspiracist liars- but it is ultimately their choice to believe in it. It's sad that they do, but it's
their decision, and they do not
even come close to accurately represent the families or the victims.
And you are ignoring the fact that the official hypothesis has changed overtime e.g. the pancake theory was initially the official explanation behind the global collapse.
Ignoring that you're wrong- this sort of sounds like the scientific method to me...
the theory changes to fit the evidence.
Are you saying here that you demand a rigid, immovable, and unchanging theory 5 minutes after the buildings have come down- and that this theory cannot be affected by further study and scientific research?
You have no more feet left to shoot.
Moreover, NIST states that they only investigated the sequence of events up to the initial collapse NIST states they are unable to provide a full explanation concerning the total collapse NIST states that the computer models are unable to analyse all the details involved hence they never provided a computer model of the total collapse
You are again misquoting the NIST- the models were not
not provided because of a failure of the NIST- they were
not provided because it's unnecessary to prove that gravity works- it's not what the NIST was tasked with.
But your saying that NIST did prove progressive global collapse eventhough they provided no computer model of the progressive collapse because the computers are not sophisticated enough to do so since the models are UNABLE to converge on a solution.
Quote where I said this. You're making about 8 different strawmans throughout this one section of the discussion... it's getting ridiculous and rather transparent.
But the computer models, which they never produced or provided, are sufficient in discovering the cause of the collapse
I can't tell if you're making an admission, here- or just playing a game.
Answer this one- how do you ignore the cause of the collapse only to claim that the collapse itself is suspect?
What I keep referring to is that you are trying to invalidate a wealth of understanding by making unreasonable and silly demands on an organization that fall outside the scope of rational skepticism and are not even part of the investigation into the cause of the collapse to begin with.
NIST addressed this in the letter. You have only quoted one single line on purpose.
causes i might add pertaining to the initial collapse not the total collapse thus to assert that the causes behind the initial collapse somehow prove the total collapse is a nasty lie because such a claim has not be proven according to the scientific method which requires some form of experimnetation or computer modelling assuming of course that the computers are sophisticated enough – which they are not.
This incoherent babbling is not proof- nor does it make any sense. You're claiming that the
scientific, widely accepted, thoroughly researched cause of the collapse is
completely invalidated by the fact that NIST was not tasked (and therefore did not perform) a study of gravity.
Don't you see? You're not proposing
science, you're rejecting it.
And given that modelling of the towers is not feasible due to scaling laws we are left with the question is there any way to prove the official hypothesis??? and why on earth you think that “discovering” the causes of the initial collapse means that the total collapse has been proven is beyond me.
Serious errors, here- one that even you should be able to see...
1) Modeling of the towers is feasible- computer modeling. And that has been done.
2) There are plenty of ways to confirm the observations of the "official hypothesis". These methods have been performed, and a rigorous scientific examination has been completed. You can find the majority of this information in the NIST report. Ignoring it because
you personally feel that it's "incomplete" is irrelevant. Your bias does not allow you to address the facts.
3) If you cannot come up with what you are claiming are alternative experiments, your claims should be ignored.
4) And more importantly, if you cannot come up with experiments to prove your own claims, then you should be ignored.
5) You continue to blur the line between cause of collapse and collapse in order to avoid the facts. If the cause of the collapse has been discovered, proven, and is irrefutable- then your case is done. There is no need to continue to listen to you. Do you have any evidence contradicting the findings of the NIST investigation?
So the official hypothesis has not long been proven sir, it has never been and remains to be proven.
What fact or piece of evidence would it take for you to admit you're wrong?
These proposed “causes” have not been proven as the causes behind the global collapse.
Then you have evidence contradicting the findings of the NIST study.
Please stop dancing around the issue and provide that evidence.
To move from collapse initiation to global collapse was inevitable is not a sufficient explanation and it shall remain as a hypothetical explanation depsite what you wish when you blow out your birthday candles until it has been proven accoridng to the scientific method.
Gravity.
Do you need gravity to be proven?
as for proving gravity dont make me laugh.
... apparently, you do.
