|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2006 : 20:16:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You are missing the point, Dave. If you don't want to give me the evidence I asked for in my OP that's fine.
A seeker for truth should be prepared to accept evidence contrary to his current hypotheses. You seem unable to do so, and appear dead-set that only evidence which fits your "theory" is to be acknowledged.quote:
But don't blame me for your unwillingness to share what you know.
I've been sharing quite a bit, so I'll just take this last statement as another example of your utter refusal to acknowledge reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 21:05:55 [Permalink]
|
| you just haven't shared anything useful and/or relevant... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 21:15:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
you just haven't shared anything useful and/or relevant...
When faced with your secret stash of knowledge that you refuse to share, I agree that you've created conditions in which it is impossible to satisfy your requests.
Good luck on your Sisyphean quest. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 22:07:19 [Permalink]
|
| Does this mean you're going to stop "helping" me?! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 22:29:00 [Permalink]
|
You don't want any help, obviously, or otherwise you wouldn't have set your standards such that they could never be met. You thanked me for directing you to a massive report you didn't know about before, chock full of information you didn't know (like typical column height, how they were spliced, and floor loading), and you now claim (for no stated reason) that it's all been unuseful and/or irrelevant to your search for the truth.
Nobody on the planet can "help" you under such conditions, ergo. You should stop wasting your time here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 02:58:15 [Permalink]
|
I haven't set my standards so high that they can't be met. It's just that most of your "help" has not been aimed at the question I was asking.
The NIST Report was interesting (and I hadn't remembered it was you that pointed me to it), but, in the end, contains fatal process flaws that compromise its value. It's not my fault you didn't recognize those fatal flaws for what they were. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 06:04:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I haven't set my standards so high that they can't be met. It's just that most of your "help" has not been aimed at the question I was asking.
The NIST Report was interesting (and I hadn't remembered it was you that pointed me to it), but, in the end, contains fatal process flaws that compromise its value. It's not my fault you didn't recognize those fatal flaws for what they were.
Again, which fatal flaws? You haven't given any valid reason to think that they contain fatal flaws. You have given insight in the fact that you do not understand scientific ways of writing, that you can make up assertions without backing them up and that you think they should have tested all possible scenarios instead of only the ones that have some credibility to them. What you have yet to do is point to fatal flaws. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 06:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I haven't set my standards so high that they can't be met. It's just that most of your "help" has not been aimed at the question I was asking.
The NIST Report was interesting (and I hadn't remembered it was you that pointed me to it), but, in the end, contains fatal process flaws that compromise its value. It's not my fault you didn't recognize those fatal flaws for what they were.
Again, which fatal flaws? You haven't given any valid reason to think that they contain fatal flaws. You have given insight in the fact that you do not understand scientific ways of writing, that you can make up assertions without backing them up and that you think they should have tested all possible scenarios instead of only the ones that have some credibility to them. What you have yet to do is point to fatal flaws.
Read the op of this thread. It outlines several reasons why one should be skeptical of the NIST report. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 08:34:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It's just that most of your "help" has not been aimed at the question I was asking.
Is it 'most' or 'all'? Make up your mind.quote:
Read the op of this thread. It outlines several reasons why one should be skeptical of the NIST report.
Being skeptical of something doesn't mean that it is necessarily incorrect. You haven't been able to describe any flaws in the NIST report which would make a person think that it must be wrong in its conclusions. Not like Ross' model is necessarily incorrect. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 10:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Read the op of this thread. It outlines several reasons why one should be skeptical of the NIST report.
Let's go over them, shall we:
First point: the writers of the report use words like "probable". So it may not be the final word. This makes clear that you do not understand how words are used in scientific repots in the first place and that you also (probably) do not understand how science works in the first place. No, it may not be the last word in it. Scientists, and the authors of the NIST report are not any different, never claim inerrancy.
Second point: The NIST did not use models that would be consistent with controlled demolition. The problem with this is (as has been pointed out several time) that there is no evidence for such a scenario. Thus, they were completely justified in leaving such an outrageous scenario out in the first place. You have not provided any reason for us to consider that scenario probable and thus have provided no reason why it should have been included in the report.
Third point: if the models results did not agree with reality, they were fit to the observations. The problem with this is that it is completely valid as a practice, and you have stil not made a good argument as to why it would be invalid. As a modeler, your model has to fit the observations, otherwise your model is wrong.
Fourth point: Only the worst-worst case scenario was valid. But, as has been pointed out, this is not what the report stated. The most severe scenario is not the same as the worst worst-case scenario that we can come up with. It is just the most severe of the models tested. Just as with your controled demolition scenario, the worst worst-case scenarios might (for example) have been left out because they were not credible.
So, in fact, you have not given any good reason for us to think that the NIST report is far from the reality of the situation. On the other hand, as all the scenarios you have been implying, there is all reason to consider your "skepticism" (if it can be called such, I would disagree to calling it such) unrealistic. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 17:27:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It's just that most of your "help" has not been aimed at the question I was asking.
Is it 'most' or 'all'? Make up your mind.
It's most--as I hadn't recalled that you pointed me to NIST.
quote:
Read the op of this thread. It outlines several reasons why one should be skeptical of the NIST report.
quote:
Being skeptical of something doesn't mean that it is necessarily incorrect.
I never claimed it was incorrect. It's just not convincing given my expertise in modeling. Maybe it convinces you. But not me. quote:
You haven't been able to describe any flaws in the NIST report which would make a person think that it must be wrong in its conclusions. Not like Ross' model is necessarily incorrect.
Some day, you will see that Ross was only extending the scenario of Greening's paper--showing that IF Greening's scenario were true (notice the word IF), there was more to consider than what Greening considered in his paper. Your continued harping on how Ross' model is "wrong" is insane given the context Ross brought up the model. And you haven't provided any evidence that the gravity-only hypothesis must be true. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 17:58:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Read the op of this thread. It outlines several reasons why one should be skeptical of the NIST report.
Let's go over them, shall we:
First point: the writers of the report use words like "probable". So it may not be the final word. This makes clear that you do not understand how words are used in scientific repots in the first place and that you also (probably) do not understand how science works in the first place. No, it may not be the last word in it. Scientists, and the authors of the NIST report are not any different, never claim inerrancy.
I have a Master's Degree in Statistics from the University of Illinios--I'm familiar with the word "probable" and it's meaning. Scientists use the word probable to mean "more likely than unlikely." Thus, if one identifies several possible outcomes, any of them with a probability of occurance of over 50% are "probable." The one with highest level of probability of occurance would be labeled "the most probable." But the "most probable" outcome could have a probability of occurance of 50.01% So, coming from a bunch of scientists, "probable outcome" might not mean what you think it does.
quote:
Second point: The NIST did not use models that would be consistent with controlled demolition. The problem with this is (as has been pointed out several time) that there is no evidence for such a scenario. Thus, they were completely justified in leaving such an outrageous scenario out in the first place. You have not provided any reason for us to consider that scenario probable and thus have provided no reason why it should have been included in the report.
No. You just refuse to recognize the evidence of a controlled demolition.
quote:
Third point: if the models results did not agree with reality, they were fit to the observations. The problem with this is that it is completely valid as a practice, and you have stil not made a good argument as to why it would be invalid. As a modeler, your model has to fit the observations, otherwise your model is wrong.
If you were paying attention or willing to hear the truth about modeling you would know that models do not work well on scenarios OUTSIDE the historic parameters the models were based on. No steel/concrete structure has ever totally collapsed before except due to earthquakes and controlled demolitions (and yes Dave, the buildings totally collapsed). It could be argued that since there was no earthquake in Manhattan that day, the most appropriate model for NIST to have used FIRST would have been the controlled demolition model. Instead, NIST used models that could not simulate the final results of the event. Then, when those models couldn't replicate some of the observed results, they modified them. But they did not modify them to account for ALL the observed results the original model could not reproduce--just some. They didn't modify the model to account for observed events that could only be produced by explosives. So, we are left with a simulation model that does not account for all the observable results of the event. If you want to believe that model that's fine. But I don't put much faith in it.
quote:
Fourth point: Only the worst-worst case scenario was valid. But, as has been pointed out, this is not what the report stated. The most severe scenario is not the same as the worst worst-case scenario that we can come up with. It is just the most severe of the models tested. Just as with your controled demolition scenario, the worst worst-case scenarios might (for example) have been left out because they were not credible.
If you want to quibble with words, fine. But as the report points out, the middle cases left the buildings standing--as did the lower cases. Aspects of the most sever cases contain inputs that while physically possible, have no support in the data collected by sensors in the buildings themselves--specifically heat readings of the central core support columns. So, in a sense, the most sever cases were more sever than actually happened. If that's what it takes to bring the building down by gravity alone, I would bet of a scenario that they didn't test to be what really happened.
quote:
So, in fact, you have not given any good reason for us to think that the NIST report is far from the reality of the situation.
...except for the above... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/07/2006 17:59:36 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 18:44:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I have a Master's Degree in Statistics from the University of Illinios--I'm familiar with the word "probable" and it's meaning. Scientists use the word probable to mean "more likely than unlikely." Thus, if one identifies several possible outcomes, any of them with a probability of occurance of over 50% are "probable." The one with highest level of probability of occurance would be labeled "the most probable." But the "most probable" outcome could have a probability of occurance of 50.01% So, coming from a bunch of scientists, "probable outcome" might not mean what you think it does.
That only goes as far as describing the statistical outcome of modeling. When scientists talk about 'probable' in the general usage of, for example, a report like this, such a strict definition is not used.
quote:
No. You just refuse to recognize the evidence of a controlled demolition.
You haven't given any. It is hard to recognize anything if no evidence for it is given.
quote:
If you were paying attention or willing to hear the truth about modeling you would know that models do not work well on scenarios OUTSIDE the historic parameters the models were based on. No steel/concrete structure has ever totally collapsed before except due to earthquakes and controlled demolitions (and yes Dave, the buildings totally collapsed). It could be argued that since there was no earthquake in Manhattan that day, the most appropriate model for NIST to have used FIRST would have been the controlled demolition model. Instead, NIST used models that could not simulate the final results of the event. Then, when those models couldn't replicate some of the observed results, they modified them. But they did not modify them to account for ALL the observed results the original model could not reproduce--just some. They didn't modify the model to account for observed events that could only be produced by explosives. So, we are left with a simulation model that does not account for all the observable results of the event. If you want to believe that model that's fine. But I don't put much faith in it.
Since there is no reason to assume a controlled demolition scenario, as there is no evidence for such an occurrence, there is also no reason to model it. And as, as you say yourself, this is a unique outcome, we have to fit the model to the available evidence. You want to fit it against unavailable evidence, which is bad practice.
quote:
If you want to quibble with words, fine. But as the report points out, the middle cases left the buildings standing--as did the lower cases. Aspects of the most sever cases contain inputs that while physically possible, have no support in the data collected by sensors in the buildings themselves--specifically heat readings of the central core support columns. So, in a sense, the most sever cases were more sever than actually happened. If that's what it takes to bring the building down by gravity alone, I would bet of a scenario that they didn't test to be what really happened.
Since the models were build taking the evidence into account, the most severe model has support in the data collected.
quote:
...except for the above...
Which can be summed up as "unsupported assertion of demolition". As soon as you start putting forth evidence for such an event and a possible scenario how such an extreme operation could be kept secret from the people working in the building, there is no reason to take that assertion serious and thus, there is no reason to model it. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 19:01:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I have a Master's Degree in Statistics from the University of Illinios--I'm familiar with the word "probable" and it's meaning. Scientists use the word probable to mean "more likely than unlikely." Thus, if one identifies several possible outcomes, any of them with a probability of occurance of over 50% are "probable." The one with highest level of probability of occurance would be labeled "the most probable." But the "most probable" outcome could have a probability of occurance of 50.01% So, coming from a bunch of scientists, "probable outcome" might not mean what you think it does.
That only goes as far as describing the statistical outcome of modeling. When scientists talk about 'probable' in the general usage of, for example, a report like this, such a strict definition is not used.
HAHAHAHHA That's rich!! And completely unfounded. Nice try HAHAHAHA
quote:
No. You just refuse to recognize the evidence of a controlled demolition.
quote:
You haven't given any. It is hard to recognize anything if no evidence for it is given.
See my other thread.
quote:
If you were paying attention or willing to hear the truth about modeling you would know that models do not work well on scenarios OUTSIDE the historic parameters the models were based on. No steel/concrete structure has ever totally collapsed before except due to earthquakes and controlled demolitions (and yes Dave, the buildings totally collapsed). It could be argued that since there was no earthquake in Manhattan that day, the most appropriate model for NIST to have used FIRST would have been the controlled demolition model. Instead, NIST used models that could not simulate the final results of the event. Then, when those models couldn't replicate some of the observed results, they modified them. But they did not modify them to account for ALL the observed results the original model could not reproduce--just some. They didn't modify the model to account for observed events that could only be produced by explosives. So, we are left with a simulation model that does not account for all the observable results of the event. If you want to believe that model that's fine. But I don't put much faith in it.
quote:
Since there is no reason to assume a controlled demolition scenario, as there is no evidence for such an occurrence, there is also no reason to model it. And as, as you say yourself, this is a unique outcome, we have to fit the model to the available evidence. You want to fit it against unavailable evidence, which is bad practice.
But there IS evidence of explosive demolition as outlined in my other thread--the one Dave locked because he was being proven wrong...
quote:
If you want to quibble with words, fine. But as the report points out, the middle cases left the buildings standing--as did the lower cases. Aspects of the most sever cases contain inputs that while physically possible, have no support in the data collected by sensors in the buildings themselves--specifically heat readings of the central core support columns. So, in a sense, the most sever cases were more sever than actually happened. If that's what it takes to bring the building down by gravity alone, I would bet of a scenario that they didn't test to be what really happened.
quote:
Since the models were build taking the evidence into account, the most severe model has support in the data collected.
But they weren't BUILT with the evidence in mind. They were built before the events took place. They were MODIFIED to fit SOME of the observed events--but NOT the ones that pointed to explosives being used.
quote:
...except for the above...
quote:
Which can be summed up as "unsupported assertion of demolition". As soon as you start putting forth evidence for such an event and a possible scenario how such an extreme operation could be kept secret from the people working in the building, there is no reason to take that assertion serious and thus, there is no reason to model it.
If you can't see it in what I've presented to date, I'm not going waste my time trying to convince you of it--because if you can't see it based on what I've presented so far, it means you are unwilling to look...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/07/2006 19:51:02 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2006 : 20:00:53 [Permalink]
|
"There are three types of untruths, Lies, Damn lies, and statistics" -- Paraphrases Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
OK, folks. Please stop feeding the troll. He has announced that he is not interested in presenting his evidence but instead requires us to defend his assertions for him or at the very least assume them true until proven otherwise.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NIST Report Deserves Skepticism
Topic Locked
