TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) What does science do when a hypothesis fails, when the evidence doesn't support ones notions?NIST's explanation may be inadequate but that does not, in any way, prove that the building did not collapse from damage associated with the collapse of the WTC1 and 2. It just shows that NIST does not know everything. What you would like to do is claim that since NIST is wrong you must be right but your pet hypothesis would require whistle blowers. Without whistle blowers your hypothesis is not even worth considering. There are other ways to explain any inconsistency between NISTs models and the data starting with: "computer models of complex chaotic processes don't work very well" Edited April 1, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) And with new information you feel 30 seconds is too great a time burden to engage in when you enter discussions in science. I know one thing. If I was planning to bring two buildings down with explosives but hoping to make it look like they were actually brought down by aircraft impact, I wouldn't blow up a third, no impact building as well. Edited April 1, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Building demolition involves high explosives being set in a precise manner throughout the structure. I takes weeks to set the charges. How many employees in the buildings (thousands survived) noticed strangers laying primacord and high explosives in their work spaces. If I came to work on that Tuesday morning and found my office wired up with detonators and charges, I think I would ask some questions. Funny, nobody did. With all due respect, Queen Mandy, you are speaking from a position of ignorance, in the non pejorative sense. Please watch this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 NIST's explanation may be inadequate but that does not, in any way, prove that the building did not collapse from damage associated with the collapse of the WTC1 and 2. It just shows that NIST does not know everything. What you would like to do is claim that since NIST is wrong you must be right but your pet hypothesis would require whistle blowers. Without whistle blowers your hypothesis is not even worth considering. There are other ways to explain any inconsistency between NISTs models and the data starting with: "computer models of complex chaotic processes don't work very well" The science involved here is an immensely complicated subject, Tim. Can I respectfully request, not demand, that we leave out the conspiracy notions for the time being? They have no place with the science. Considering the damage caused by WTC1, see, http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/927-nists-wtc-7-reports-filled-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 The science involved here is an immensely complicated subject, Tim. Can I respectfully request, not demand, that we leave out the conspiracy notions for the time being? They have no place with the science.Science is extremely malleable and data can be twisted in any number of ways to support what the author wants to believe. If you want to make a case you need to start with the whistle blowers. Where are they? Without them your so called "science" is not even worth looking at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 I know one thing. If I was planning to bring two buildings down with explosives but hoping to make it look like they were actually brought down by aircraft impact, I wouldn't blow up a third, no impact building as well. You don't know that in any scientific sense at all, BC. It's not of science. A third building, WTC7 came down that same day, at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds. That is simply not possible. Put another way, it is impossible. Watch the 30 second video. Watch the 2 min 47 sec video of Danny Jowenko, the Dutch controlled demolitions expert that I linked to in my response to Mandy (??). Read the material at the link I gave Tim which illustrates just how unscientific, how shoddy, how deceptive was the NIST study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Seems like old times....another 9/11 conspiracy thread. Cue Loose Change videos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) And with new information you feel 30 seconds is too great a time burden to engage in when you enter discussions in science. Most of us who have been around a while have seen the loonies and their wild-assed conspiracy theories many times before, dealt with them many times before, and are bored with them and their frantic weirdness and paranoia. We know that no amount of evidence or logic will cause them to rethink their beliefs. There's something wrong inside them which is not cureable over the internet. Edited April 1, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Science is extremely malleable and data can be twisted in any number of ways to support what the author wants to believe. If you want to make a case you need to start with the whistle blowers. Where are they? Without them your so called "science" is not even worth looking at. No prosecutor, no forensic investigator would fly off on wild goose chases searching for conspirators, Tim. They focus on the science because only the science can describe what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 S If you want to make a case you need to start with the whistle blowers. Where are they? "Two can keep a secret, when one is dead." Given the patriotic fervor which has existed over this incident for so many years it is beyond belief that one of the hundreds of conspirators who would have been needed to pull it off hadn't blabbed to someone by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Seems like old times....another 9/11 conspiracy thread. Cue Loose Change videos. Not only no science but heaping loads of disingenuousness. Do you have any notion, an inkling maybe, George, why you are so unwilling to address the science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 "Two can keep a secret, when one is dead." Given the patriotic fervor which has existed over this incident for so many years it is beyond belief that one of the hundreds of conspirators who would have been needed to pull it off hadn't blabbed to someone by now. See my response to B_C, Argus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Seems like old times....another 9/11 conspiracy thread. Cue Loose Change videos. It's stress free though. Omar is the very model of civility and no-one's called me a bigot yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) We know that no amount of evidence or logic will cause them to rethink their beliefs.Are you advancing the preposterous notion that you deal in evidence and/or logic, Argus?This evidence, that you are falling all over yourself to avoid, comes from some 2300 architects, scientists and engineers. Where is your evidence and moreover why are you so unwilling to discuss the science? Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) No prosecutor, no forensic investigator would fly off on wild goose chases searching for conspirators, Tim.Actually they would. Without whistle blowers your "science" is the wild goose chase. The "science" means absolutely nothing unless there are witnesses that can corroborate the narrative constructed with data. As I said again: find the whistle blowers first. The science is irrelevant without them. Edited April 1, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Here's another short video, this of Dr John Gross, a lead investigator of NIST. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mReGog2PzLY My only question. Does it give you pause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Actually they would. Without whistle blowers your "science" is the wild goose chase. The "science" means absolutely nothing unless there are witnesses that can corroborate the narrative constructed with data. As I said again: find the whistle blowers first. The science is irrelevant without them. See the video in the thread following your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Actually they would.Well, that settles it then, doesn't it, Tim? How can science hope to stand up to your ex cathedra pronouncement? Have you looked at all the evidence? Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Well, that settles it then, doesn't it, Tim? How can science hope to stand up to your ex cathedra pronouncement? Have you looked at all the evidence? Why should I? No matter what you claim it says it cannot be definitive because science can never be definitive. There are always multiple explanations choosing the most likely answer requires that other facts be considered. In this case the lack of whistle blowers is a huge problem that makes your explanation too implausible to waste time with. Find some whistle blowers and I will look at your "evidence". Until then, there is no need. Edited April 1, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Does anybody remember where we left this exciting topic years ago...say 2009. Somebody was working the thermite theory real hard, but then they got banned ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Why should I? No matter what you claim it says it cannot be definitive because science can never be definitive. There are always multiple explanations choosing the right answer requires that other facts be considered. In this case the lack of whistle blowers is a huge problem that makes your explanation too implausible to waste time with. Find some whistle blowers and I will look at your "evidence". Until then, there is no need. That's certainly among the most unscientific things I've ever heard. I'm shocked. That leaves us with the perplexing question, Why are so few willing to discuss the science? WTC7 - 42% say Controlled demolition; 28% fire; 27% don't know 41% support a new investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 NIST said it was due to office fires. That's never happened before or since. Fire damages in an asymmetrical manner which, if a collapse were to occur, would occur asymmetrically. Can I have a cite on the theory about fire ? And buildings have collapsed due to fires, not sure why you say it hasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) That's certainly among the most unscientific things I've ever heard. I'm shocked. That leaves us with the perplexing question, Why are so few willing to discuss the science? WTC7 - 42% say Controlled demolition; 28% fire; 27% don't know 41% support a new investigation. And I suppose you think Delmart Vreeland's note was legitimate. Edited April 1, 2015 by socialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Why should I? No matter what you claim it says it cannot be definitive because science can never be definitive. There are always multiple explanations choosing the most likely answer requires that other facts be considered. d. I can offer you one very good reason. The official story, just focusing on the science is so riddled with holes, with bad science, with much patent dishonesty, with outright lies. Did you watch the video wherein John Gross told his bald faced lie? The science offered by AE911Truth offer science that actually describes events as they really occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 And I suppose you think Delmart Vreeland's note was legitimate. Does this have something to do with the science relating to 911, S? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.