ozeco41
Philosopher
Seeing as Debate is over - Tony's claim has Failed - This post is for the record.
Given that the recent bit of Tony's untruthful denialism is past let me place on record exactly what I counter claimed and demonstrated to be fact. My target was precisely defined and deliberately limited despite Tony's efforts at misrepresenting my position.
First I recognised:
1) that Tony's immediate intention was to claim that NIST was in error, specifically that "the NIST explanation [of walk-off] was impossible";
2) That he had in mind a different objective related to proving CD at WTC; AND
3) that he was attempting to set up the false dichotomy of "If you cannot prove me wrong I must be right".
What I showed - all thoroughly detailed through this thread - was that Tony had not sustained his claim that "the NIST explanation was impossible". Tony's claim fails and that is still the current status - "Claim Failed".
Put simply my counter was not to show that Tony was wrong rather to show that he had not met his burden of proof to show that he was right. An obvious if somewhat subtle distinction. Tony's claim fails because he has not shown that it is correct.
My support of my counter claim based on these facts which are verified at various points through this thread:
A) "the NIST explanation is impossible" was Tony's claim;
B) THEREFORE it was and remains Tony's "burden of proof" to make out his claim;
C) Conversely it was not my burden of proof to demonstrate the reverse i.e. that the NIST explanation was possible. And I steadfastly refused to do so because:
(i) I detest truther logical trickery specifically the truther tricks of "reverse burden of proof" and "false dichotomy" which Tony was attempting in this thread; AND
(ii) Because Tony was not prepared to defend his claim.
D) I identified that Tony's claim was flawed in two technical areas:
(i) He was not taking into account all the factors which would affect the "girder walk-off" mechanism; AND
(ii) He had made an assumption that the end conditions for the Girder spanning Col79 to Col44 were unchanged and has not shown why that assumption was valid.
E) In addition his claim was flawed in two areas of false debate procedure:
(i) His multiple attempts to "reverse burden of proof"; AND
(ii) His overall tactic of constructing a "false dichotomy".
I recognised two other aspects viz:
(i) that other members were variously demonstrating that Tony was in error at the level of technical details; AND
(ii) I declined multiple times to be drawn into "reversed burden of proof". For example it is not for me opposing Tony to explain what are all the factors affecting the walk-off. It is Tony's claim and his responsibility to support his claim - not my responsibility to put up a counter claim or even to show his errors in technical details.
AND Tony's claim fails if it has a single missed factor under D(i) OR if he does not support his assumption at D(ii) OR if he relies on the false dichotomy of E(ii). And he had failures in all three areas. So his claim fails - at least three times over but once failed it is failed. However specifically I haven't proved him wrong. Such was not my intention at this stage. But I have shown that he has not "made out" his claim. So the claim fails.
So let's see how Tony's recent bit of mendacity stands up:
1 I will let tfk speak for himself. Tony's statement is false - I have supported my counter claims with objective facts and reasoning. The irony of the "All you...seem to do is assert" will not be lost on readers. "Asserting" has been Tony's sole method of response.
2 He must not have been looking;
3 They are all there in the thread - summary available if anyone wants it
;
4 Tony hasn't offered any reasoned criticism for it to "hold up to";
5 I wasn't "trying to say" - I said it with explicit clarity;
6 Unsupported assertion from the person who has the gall to falsely accuse others of "All you...seem to do is assert";
7 HE GOT ONE RIGHT. But you can bet he doesn't know why? (Hint - it's because he doesn't recognise the point and gets it wrong himself.
)
8 He hasn't shown where it is wrong or how significant the alleged errors to support the next point>>
9 ...why are these errors, if there are any, sufficient to warrant the call for "redone". See Oysteins explicit comments on these two.
10 Evasion! My objective was show that Tony's claim failed. Not to help NIST.
11 More evasion. It's not my objective.
12 Not me - I made no effort at all into assisting NIST with alleged shortcomings.
13 Why?
14 Not me. I do not use the debating ploy of "why don't you write a paper?" I have strong reservations about the "pedestal" that papers are put on in discussions here. So I don't play that game.
15 I know. I have shown the fundamental errors in three of them - Engineering Reality back in 2007, "Missing Jolt' and another one whose ntitle eludes my memory. All seriously flawed and in the same way.
16 Another "reversal" trick. We are discussing your real failures not any alleged shortcomings of mine.
That should do - and I could probably have picked at least a couple more.
So the situation is unchanged - I have demonstrated that Tony's claim "the NIST explanation is impossible" has failed and given clear reasons why. For his part Tony has not attempted to counter other than by "bold assertions". So it stays "failed".
Given that the recent bit of Tony's untruthful denialism is past let me place on record exactly what I counter claimed and demonstrated to be fact. My target was precisely defined and deliberately limited despite Tony's efforts at misrepresenting my position.
First I recognised:
1) that Tony's immediate intention was to claim that NIST was in error, specifically that "the NIST explanation [of walk-off] was impossible";
2) That he had in mind a different objective related to proving CD at WTC; AND
3) that he was attempting to set up the false dichotomy of "If you cannot prove me wrong I must be right".
What I showed - all thoroughly detailed through this thread - was that Tony had not sustained his claim that "the NIST explanation was impossible". Tony's claim fails and that is still the current status - "Claim Failed".
Put simply my counter was not to show that Tony was wrong rather to show that he had not met his burden of proof to show that he was right. An obvious if somewhat subtle distinction. Tony's claim fails because he has not shown that it is correct.
My support of my counter claim based on these facts which are verified at various points through this thread:
A) "the NIST explanation is impossible" was Tony's claim;
B) THEREFORE it was and remains Tony's "burden of proof" to make out his claim;
C) Conversely it was not my burden of proof to demonstrate the reverse i.e. that the NIST explanation was possible. And I steadfastly refused to do so because:
(i) I detest truther logical trickery specifically the truther tricks of "reverse burden of proof" and "false dichotomy" which Tony was attempting in this thread; AND
(ii) Because Tony was not prepared to defend his claim.
D) I identified that Tony's claim was flawed in two technical areas:
(i) He was not taking into account all the factors which would affect the "girder walk-off" mechanism; AND
(ii) He had made an assumption that the end conditions for the Girder spanning Col79 to Col44 were unchanged and has not shown why that assumption was valid.
E) In addition his claim was flawed in two areas of false debate procedure:
(i) His multiple attempts to "reverse burden of proof"; AND
(ii) His overall tactic of constructing a "false dichotomy".
I recognised two other aspects viz:
(i) that other members were variously demonstrating that Tony was in error at the level of technical details; AND
(ii) I declined multiple times to be drawn into "reversed burden of proof". For example it is not for me opposing Tony to explain what are all the factors affecting the walk-off. It is Tony's claim and his responsibility to support his claim - not my responsibility to put up a counter claim or even to show his errors in technical details.
AND Tony's claim fails if it has a single missed factor under D(i) OR if he does not support his assumption at D(ii) OR if he relies on the false dichotomy of E(ii). And he had failures in all three areas. So his claim fails - at least three times over but once failed it is failed. However specifically I haven't proved him wrong. Such was not my intention at this stage. But I have shown that he has not "made out" his claim. So the claim fails.
So let's see how Tony's recent bit of mendacity stands up:
1 I will let tfk speak for himself. Tony's statement is false - I have supported my counter claims with objective facts and reasoning. The irony of the "All you...seem to do is assert" will not be lost on readers. "Asserting" has been Tony's sole method of response.
2 He must not have been looking;
3 They are all there in the thread - summary available if anyone wants it
;4 Tony hasn't offered any reasoned criticism for it to "hold up to";
5 I wasn't "trying to say" - I said it with explicit clarity;
6 Unsupported assertion from the person who has the gall to falsely accuse others of "All you...seem to do is assert";
7 HE GOT ONE RIGHT. But you can bet he doesn't know why? (Hint - it's because he doesn't recognise the point and gets it wrong himself.
)8 He hasn't shown where it is wrong or how significant the alleged errors to support the next point>>
9 ...why are these errors, if there are any, sufficient to warrant the call for "redone". See Oysteins explicit comments on these two.
10 Evasion! My objective was show that Tony's claim failed. Not to help NIST.
11 More evasion. It's not my objective.
12 Not me - I made no effort at all into assisting NIST with alleged shortcomings.
13 Why?
14 Not me. I do not use the debating ploy of "why don't you write a paper?" I have strong reservations about the "pedestal" that papers are put on in discussions here. So I don't play that game.
15 I know. I have shown the fundamental errors in three of them - Engineering Reality back in 2007, "Missing Jolt' and another one whose ntitle eludes my memory. All seriously flawed and in the same way.
16 Another "reversal" trick. We are discussing your real failures not any alleged shortcomings of mine.
That should do - and I could probably have picked at least a couple more.
So the situation is unchanged - I have demonstrated that Tony's claim "the NIST explanation is impossible" has failed and given clear reasons why. For his part Tony has not attempted to counter other than by "bold assertions". So it stays "failed".
)