|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: 9/11, scientific method and excuses |
  |
|
As I am not allowed to post at Grumpy's other forum I thought I'd paste a link to another 9/11 debate that is going on, and simply ask Grumpy to explain fully one of his usual dismissive replies that is no more than slogans as far as I am concerned.
Here is the link to the debate in question:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19501&st=165
And here is Grumpy's reply to a certain mr Jay Howard (you'll know which are Grumpy's responses):
| Quote: |
jay howard
QUOTE
It was also bolded in the OPENING POST. That's post #1 in this thread. I've repeated over and over again that they have NO FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS. That's not the same as not having a hypothesis at all. I'm well aware of their "probable collapse sequence". My claim is that their "probable collapse sequence" is not testable, and is therefore, of no scientific worth............
It is this basic misunderstanding ON YOUR PART that is the problem. NIST's "probable cause" is not a theory, it is a finding BASED on the theories as applied to the available evidence. Your argument IS thoroughly falsified.
QUOTE
Then sit on the sidelines and let people with a better understanding of the issues talk about them. This issue gets complicated enough without people TRYING to make it more complicated in order to avoid defending their beliefs.............
You should probably heed your own advice, it's obvious you don't understand the scientific method.
QUOTE
Try to make an argument that's not riddled with misunderstandings of my statements or the issues before you point your confused finger this way........
Kind of hard to do when you refuse to learn anything about your own misconceptions.
QUOTE
Listen, RC, I don't really care if I hurt your feelings or made anyone cry. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to clarify a point and to see if anyone has a real criticism of the arguments I'm presenting. So far, the only attempts have been by people who don't even understand what I'm saying. Also, I don't give a good goddam how old you are or whether you are polite or respectful. Either you have something of substance to contribute to the conversation or you do not................
We understand your argument, we have rejected your conclusions because you do not understand the difference between a theory and a finding, thus your criticism has no merit. You will not have anything of merit to contribute until you do.
Clear enough for you???
Grumpy |
I'd like you to explain in more depth what this scientific method is meant to be, and how it applies to the NIST report, and also why Jay Howard's point is invalid.
This "finding BASED on the theories as applied to the available evidence"
is a smokescreen is it not? The availability of evidence was based on a decision not to look for any more than what actually backed up the "probably cause". In other words a scenario was found where the collapse of the towers was possible. Having found this scenario you went on to call it a probable cause, and deemed the case closed. Whereas many people, including legitimate scientists are well aware that this conclusion based on the NIST report is simply not good enough for an event in history of such magnitude. To actually settle for a probable scenario based on simulations and ignoring the call to search for other evidence, like the use of explosives, is too suspicious to hide it under a label called "scientific method". You need to explain this method more fully and then apply it to the actions of those paid to bring out a scientific report on the events of 9/11.
Why should the NIST report be taken seriously? Why were the opinions of those that reported hearing explosives ignored, and no subsequent scientific method used in order to determine if there was any validity to these claims?
In other words, based on your apparent dissapointment of the actions concerning your government, why do you not see that they may well have paid their $20 million for a report that wasn't interested in finding evidence of explosives? At what point was this search for explosives deemed unnecessary? Before the conclusion that NIST reached, or afterwards? Were the scientists even allowed to search for evidence regarding explosives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on "teacher" Grumpy, let's have some answers. Is the NIST report a scientific report? Does a scientific report need to be falsifiable before it is accepted as science? This "finding BASED on the theories as applied to the available evidence", are these theories falsifiable? What are these theories that were applied to the available evidence? Are they falsifiable theories??? And why such an attitude toward people seeking to see if these theories can be falsified? Why call them morons? What exactly is the NIST report if it can't adhere to its own scientific principles??
No more games Grumpy. You are dealing with a tragic event in 9/11 that doesn't deserve your arrogant little slogans in reply to honest questions posed. Answers please, or else you admit you are a FAKE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | QUOTE
Actually, in the real world, theories are usually formed long before all the evidence is in. The evidence is a test of the theory, in the real world. As evidence gets compiled, it either corroborates a theory or refutes it.
Grumpy:
Actually, you are describing Preconceptual Science. You know, "I believe the towers fell because of explosives." Then you ignore all the facts that don't support your preconceived "theory". Real scientists study the data and THEN try to suggest a theory that takes ALL the data into account, test, repeat..... |
Ignore all the facts eh? ALL the data, meaning all they deemed necessary in order for a theory to fit? Like NIST didn't see reason to test for explosives, and then you bleat out that people ignore the facts that don't support that preconceived theory. There can't be any facts that don't support it if you didn't test for it at all. The theories that NIST conceived based on available evidence, are they falsifiable? And is it possible that more evidence was available but that NIST were not hired to look for it? Is the NIST report even scientific?
Grumpy, you're letting your science down by not making an attempt to answer questions posed to you here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
occidental
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 118
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: Re: Awesome! |
|
|
Ho ho ho, Occi thinks I am some other dude on physorg. Also, this thread is about asking Grumpy some questions. You've already proved you can't debate. I'm just interested in seeing if Grumps can back up his love for the scientific method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
occidental
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:54 am Post subject: Buddy's just not that smart. |
|
|
| Yes Lui, we all know you started those threads. Its still funny, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: Re: Buddy's just not that smart. |
|
|
| occidental wrote: | | Yes Lui, we all know you started those threads. Its still funny, though. |
Actually I just read some of that crap you are giving that guy over at physorg, and all because you think he is me. I feel sorry for you Occidental. You seem to think you are not accountable for your actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
occidental
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: OK. Make me, coward. |
|
|
| Bwahahahahahaha. Keep trying, mirror man. Bwahahahahahahahaha. I should give you a xmas gift just for all the laughs I got from you this year. Bwahahahahahaha. Liar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=f204abb945d0a7ec2f76caa9c11818e5&showtopic=19611&st=90
And I really still do not know who mirrorman and Lui are, and what I have to do with them. I can see the obvious MIRROR, but I do not understand what MORE there is. Has any of these characters ever annoyed you before or something? Are they in a book I have not read or a TV show I do not know?
Anyway, thanks, okay? 
***********************************
Well my thanks to Occidental for alerting me to this thread. He alerted me over at another forum., that I am you, "hpnng". So you can relax man, these hyenas have it wrong as always. And if you ever want to know what got Occidental's inner beast to growl and want to oppose, it's because I am claiming that natural cycles , as expressed through musical cycles and number, point to a place of balance. I am also claiming that the inner structure that this balance sits on is that of a Merkaba structure. I see the results as empirical and scientific, and that they point to a spiritual process. Hence Occidental's fun poking. But I have learnt that it is no good sharing something that demands a little knowledge of music theory with people without that knowledge.
Carl Yung was right, there is a marriage of the inner male/female, and nature tells the story.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/lggl007/
Lui |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Back on topic:
Come on "teacher" Grumpy, let's have some answers. Is the NIST report a scientific report? Does a scientific report need to be falsifiable before it is accepted as science? This "finding BASED on the theories as applied to the available evidence", are these theories falsifiable? What are these theories that were applied to the available evidence? Are they falsifiable theories??? And why such an attitude toward people seeking to see if these theories can be falsified? Why call them morons? What exactly is the NIST report if it can't adhere to its own scientific principles??
No more games Grumpy. You are dealing with a tragic event in 9/11 that doesn't deserve your arrogant little slogans in reply to honest questions posed. Answers please, or else you admit you are a FAKE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aAzzAa
OK, just because it's Christmas, I'll try to explain.
NIST's report is a SCIENTIFIC FINDING(as these types of reports almost always are), based on the fire models(a theory), the known response of steel to temperatures(also a theory), FEAs and the structural response models(theories) applied to the available evidence. NIST did not do the original evidence collection, that was done by FEMA, the FBI, ATF and other responding entities. NIST was not even involved until more than 2 years after the fact.
There has never been any evidence of the presence of explosives, thermite or thermate. No credible evidence for directed beam weapons, nukes or of any other outside force or influence.
So, the scientific evidence supports ONLY the finding NIST reached, that the plane's damage and widespread fires were solely responsible for the events of 911, by the mechanisms they outlined in their reports.
Grumpy 
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grumpy wrote: | aAzzAa
OK, just because it's Christmas, I'll try to explain.
NIST's report is a SCIENTIFIC FINDING(as these types of reports almost always are), based on the fire models(a theory), the known response of steel to temperatures(also a theory), FEAs and the structural response models(theories) applied to the available evidence. NIST did not do the original evidence collection, that was done by FEMA, the FBI, ATF and other responding entities. NIST was not even involved until more than 2 years after the fact.
There has never been any evidence of the presence of explosives, thermite or thermate. No credible evidence for directed beam weapons, nukes or of any other outside force or influence.
So, the scientific evidence supports ONLY the finding NIST reached, that the plane's damage and widespread fires were solely responsible for the events of 911, by the mechanisms they outlined in their reports.
Grumpy |
I see, and this late report based on theoretical models, having passed through FEMA and the other branches you mention, leads you to having such a belief in it that any questioning leads you to throw such phrases as "morons" at people. There is always a theoretical model that can be simulated, but it defies the reality of what people heard and saw.
| Quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency
FEMA as an independent agency (1979–2003)
In 1993, President Bill Clinton elevated FEMA to a cabinet level position and appointed James Lee Witt as FEMA Director. Witt initiated reforms that would help to streamline the disaster recovery and mitigation process. The end of the Cold War also allowed the agency’s resources to be turned away from civil defense to natural disaster preparedness.
After FEMA’s creation through reorganization and executive orders, Congress continued to expand FEMA’s authority by assigning responsibilities to it. Those responsibilities include dam safety under the National Dam Safety Program Act; disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; earthquake hazards reduction under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and further expanded by Executive Order 12699, regarding safety requirements for federal buildings and Executive Order 12941, concerning the need for cost estimates to seismically retrofit federal buildings; emergency food and shelter under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987; fire control, under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974; hazardous materials, under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986; insurance, under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968; national security, under the National Security Act of 1947, the Defense Production Act of 1950; and various executive orders under presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush.[6] In addition, FEMA received authority for counter terrorism through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment under the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which was a response to the recognized vulnerabilities of the U.S. after the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995.[5] These actions reveal that no real effort was made to seriously unify the nation’s continuing and evolving needs for homeland security, beyond the act of creating a single agency to manage these different functions. Again, there was no overarching strategy to streamline and consolidate the functions and focus of FEMA. The actions of Congress continued to show a pattern of short-term responses to long-term needs. FEMA had to manage its expanding responsibilities while sources of funding would vary year-after-year, as Congress would react and respond to various natural disasters and national security threats. Various mandates would have their own budgets, and even those were not dedicated from year to year. They were subject to revisions and reallocations as various other needs superseded them, requiring financial adjustments to budgetary limitations.[7] |
Your stance is devoid of real common sense. The whole thing rests on the suspicious decision not to test or search for evidence of explosives.
The way those towers and WTC7 fell, it would have been in my top 2 list of things to search for. And I think the 2 year gap allowed only the "evidence" intended for a report to be made accessible.
You need to come clean and admit people have a reason to be suspicious, and that the NIST report is not adequate, and no more than a fobbing off excuse that was always intended to get in the way of a real investigation.
And those you call "morons" are growing in numbers, and have to provide the energy to make sure any underhand actions are brought to the surface. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aAzzAa
I knew it would be a waste of my time...
I don't call those who question NIST idiots, as long as they follow the same methods as NIST did, It's all the unsubstantiated explosives(which neither the FBI or ATF found evidence of AT THE TIME)theories that makes them idiots.
The simple fact is that NIST's investigations found the "Probable cause" of the collapses, no one has yet publish a single paper falsifying those findings. You complain about all the websites that are falling apart, the reason is really very simple...
The troother movement is dying, it has no real science to back up it's claims, and more and more people are seeing that for themselves. As the more reasonable leave, you are left with the more...wacky ones.
Grumpy
_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't call those who question NIST idiots, as long as they follow the same methods as NIST did, It's all the unsubstantiated explosives(which neither the FBI or ATF found evidence of AT THE TIME)theories that makes them idiots. |
It goes round in circles, as I recall you mentioning that no search was made for evidence of explosives. Did the FBI or ATF look for such?
| Quote: |
The simple fact is that NIST's investigations found the "Probable cause" of the collapses, no one has yet publish a single paper falsifying those findings. You complain about all the websites that are falling apart, the reason is really very simple...
The troother movement is dying, it has no real science to back up it's claims, and more and more people are seeing that for themselves. As the more reasonable leave, you are left with the more...wacky ones. |
You're going to be surprised what the future will bring to light.
People won't be giving up fighting for their freedoms just yet. People have way more power than they tend to give themselves credit for. Mostly it is in latent form, but nature will be helping, because nature is based on balance, and there always exists a point where the inner and outer par up.
That is the "truth" you claim people don't want to know about, not your so called scientific reports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aAzzAa
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 1140
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="aAzzAa"] | Quote: | | I don't call those who question NIST idiots, as long as they follow the same methods as NIST did, It's all the unsubstantiated explosives(which neither the FBI or ATF found evidence of AT THE TIME)theories that makes them idiots. |
| Quote: |
It goes round in circles, as I recall you mentioning that no search was made for evidence of explosives. Did the FBI or ATF look for such? |
Well Grumpy, did FEMA, FBI or ATF actually look for evidence of explosives? You clearly stated that NIST deemed it not necessary. That would imply that FEMA, FBI and ATF never made an attempt to look for any evidence of explosives either, and you are therefore not telling the truth in your statement above.
Also, how do you propose someone now use the same "methods" that NIST did? You mean apply for millions of dollars to mess around with computer simulations?
Government agendas can be used against the people. But also one cannot help but see that the "scientific method" is also a tool that can be used against the people. Especially when it creates dumbasses like you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
