|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2007 : 05:40:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since when is solving crimes about science? A jury decides on a preponderance of the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. Police and FBI are not scientists, why on earth would you apply the scientific method to this crime?
I beg to differ, bro. Police work and solving crimes are all about science. Not all of it is done in a lab; the cop(s) must know what to look for to clue in the forensic guys, who often hold PhDs -- give them a starting point, if one is needed.
Juries, on the other hand must usually be made to understand the science in order to make a good decision. And not all jury decisions are good ones.
The popular picture of a scientist as a wimpy-looking egghead with Coke-bottle specticals and an confused/insane expression couldn't be farther from the truth.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 07:11:48 [Permalink]
|
j911ob wrote: quote:
Skeptics should be asking the government how on earth fire does that to a building.
Why should we be asking the government for answers that have been already provided? From the FEMA study that Dave W linked to, page 26, section 5.6, “Potential Collapse Mechanism”: quote:
The intensity and duration of a fire involving these furnishings (tables and chairs) would not be expected to sufficiently weaken either the trusses or the columns supporting the trusses. Member collapse as a result of a fire on the 4th floor would require either that there was significant additional fuel or that the fireproofing on the trusses or columns was defective. Fuel oil leakage from the 5th floor is also a possibility, however, no evidence of leakage paths in the east end of the second floor was reported.
And from page 28 in section 5.6 (my emphasis in bold): quote:
Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe. A portion of the piping ran in close proximity to Truss 1. However, there is no physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.
Go to page 30 and then you have a whole slew of additional possibilities that are clearly explained and the required evidence to support them that is currently unknown is described.
Edited to add: In other words, the government's explanation is We're not sure yet, but here's a bunch of viable possibilities and here's what we'd need to find out to prove or disprove these possibilities. That is a very skeptically sound answer!
j911ob wrote: quote:
Since when is solving crimes about science? A jury decides on a preponderance of the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. Police and FBI are not scientists, why on earth would you apply the scientific method to this crime?
It is good and most proper to apply the scientific method, if possible, whenever seeking facts about reality because the scientific method is the most reliable method for discovering facts about reality.
I don't understand how anyone who has read the official report or any part of the official report could think what you've just written. From page 30 of the aforementioned document: quote:
Another hypothesis that has been advanced is that the pipe was penetrated by debris at a point near the southwest corner where there was more damage caused by debris from the collapse of the towers… Further investigation is required to determine whether the preceding scenarios did or could have actually occurred.
This whole report is a scientific approach to figuring out what really happened. Again, that is what science is for – discovering facts about the natural world. In science you pose a falsifiable hypothesis from which certain predictions can be made, then you go out and look for evidence and do tests to see if your hypothesis is supported. After reading the section of the official report about how WTC 7 collapsed, it se |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/09/2007 07:14:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:01:54 [Permalink]
|
Why are you quoting the FEMA report. NIST is supposedly doing the final report but its not out yet. The head of the report admitted last year that they really dont know why the building collapsed.
If you insist on harking back to FEMA, they concluded that "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence". FEMA are not involved in any way now. It is NIST but they have been forced to study blast scenarios. Its 5 years and we want answers but none are forthcoming. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:12:41 [Permalink]
|
No some people only want the answer they are looking for, i.e. a bomb.
Low probability occurances happen every single day all over the world. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:20:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
No some people only want the answer they are looking for, i.e. a bomb.
Low probability occurances happen every single day all over the world.
But if the best hypothesis has a low probability, what does that say about the rest?
NIST cannot explain the collapse of 7. They are now investigating blasts, supposedly to rule it out.
Its very telling that the company they have outsourced the analysis to is restricted to studying floors 8 to 46, yet all the reports of explosions come from the 13 floors below that.
CDI said in an interview that most charges in a controlled demo will be on those 13 floors and we all saw it collapse from the bottom.
Has anybody seen Dr Frank Greenings take on the crap science perpetrated by NIST? |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:21:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
No some people only want the answer they are looking for, i.e. a bomb.
Low probability occurances happen every single day all over the world.
Name some of these occurances. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:23:37 [Permalink]
|
Well researched and stated, Marf. But I can really understand the Loose Screws' abhorrence for using the scientific method. Using it runs counter to and endangers everything they are claiming.
j911ob makes a comment, "Since when is solving crimes about science? A jury decides on a preponderance of the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise." That is either a sign of his ignorance, or a feeble attempt to muddy the issue by conflating science with the justice system.
Certainly, good forensic work by police very much involves science, but the legal standards by which juries decide cases (preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt) are social institutions designed to assure justice, and do not themselves apply to either science, or scientific truth. Scientific findings can be used or considered by juries, but their job is justice under the law, not science. And science's own standards for truth are unrelated to those of the justice system.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/09/2007 08:24:39 |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:26:59 [Permalink]
|
How can you call that well researched halfmooner? The FEMA report has no relevance.
The problem you guys are going to have is that I have read all the reports, you on the other hand are relying on a bit of googling. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
It is NIST but they have been forced to study blast scenarios.
Where's the evidence for that?quote:
Its 5 years and we want answers but none are forthcoming.
If you think none of this has anything to do with science, then why do you want answers? You don't, you want a verdict, which is very different. You can't even acknowledge that what you said was ridiculous, and instead try to distract from that by screeching about the FEMA and NIST reports. Just like you've got nothing - nothing - to support your claims about the collapse.
In a later post:quote:
The problem you guys are going to have is that I have read all the reports, you on the other hand are relying on a bit of googling.
There you go again, trying and failing to be a mind-reader, and even resorting to an actual ad hominem argument. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:38:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As part of determining likely modes of failure in WTC 7, impact by falling debris from WTC 1, fire events, and hypothetical blast events are being considered for their contribution to the collapse of WTC 7. NIST has documented debris damage and fire growth and spread in WTC 7, based on available evidence. NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of the building. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.
|
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:39:45 [Permalink]
|
heres the link
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:45:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
heres the link
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm
Good job. Of course, the award shows that this effort only began on March 31, 2006, so saying "5 years" over and over isn't extacly reliable reporting on your part.
And, of course, there's the little problem of this being a government report, and the government is allegedly involved in some sort of cover-up regarding the events of 9/11, so why are you interested in the results of this study at all? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 08:54:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
heres the link
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm
Good job. Of course, the award shows that this effort only began on March 31, 2006, so saying "5 years" over and over isn't extacly reliable reporting on your part.
And, of course, there's the little problem of this being a government report, and the government is allegedly involved in some sort of cover-up regarding the events of 9/11, so why are you interested in the results of this study at all?
Because I do not have the confirmation bias that you guys do. If that report has proper reasonable evidence to back it up I will accept it. Trouble is, it wont. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 09:08:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
heres the link
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm
Good job. Of course, the award shows that this effort only began on March 31, 2006, so saying "5 years" over and over isn't extacly reliable reporting on your part.
And, of course, there's the little problem of this being a government report, and the government is allegedly involved in some sort of cover-up regarding the events of 9/11, so why are you interested in the results of this study at all?
Because I do not have the confirmation bias that you guys do. If that report has proper reasonable evidence to back it up I will accept it. Trouble is, it wont.
Nope, no bias there. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
911 conspiracies
Topic Locked
