| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| Quote: |
Since we are talking science, perhaps you could direct me to the peer reviewed science published in major journals regarding these claims above? Remember, you are on the side of science. In science, the debate is in the literature and at scientific conferences. The failure of the towers is of great interest to engineers and various scientific disciplines. Surely, if the towers fell in such a way that there is doubt about the consensus, someone would publish an alternative hypothesis in a real technical journal.
And I'm not talking web pages of claims or some scientist somewhere said something to a reporter or to a Truther conference. I'm talking real science published on in real journals.
So, got any? Real science in real peer reviewed science journals? |
Sorry , you must have me confused for some crackpot idiot . I'm talking about science and thus falsifiable theories , not claims or "coincidences" .
In this debate both sides try and posture unproven claims as theories . firstly there is the well known matter of conspiracy theorists , who ask a lot of question but fail to provide evidence . Clearly they do not use the scientific method . On the other we have a so called scientific orginisation called NIST , who put forward highly unlikely scenarious and then make the claim that they "prove" something
This is the logical equivelent of saying " Here is a highly unlikely way the towers could have fell , that doesn't need explosions , therefore the towers fell without explosions "
You do see this point don't you ? Please answer me how this is scientific or represent the scientific method ?
Ok...papers up for peer review.....remember this is all new evidence ...if you applied the scientific method you'd realise new evidence need to pass peer review ...not just be posted in magazines and pawned onto us as "truth" like the debunking movement does....
There are currently 48 by respected scientists up for peer review....the one I've posted is at the crux of the matter and poignant to this debate......if you insist I will post more....I don't think you will read any of them , or consider the evidence....because if people like you did then a long time ago we would have recovered from this myth that NIST followed the scientific method...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf |
I'm sorry I asked for established peer reviewed scientific journals. As you stand for science, and I don't, this is where the real scientific debate takes place. I would like to hold you to where the real debate on any topic is in science. The Journal of 911 Studies isn't really a recognized peer reviewed journal in any industry or academic field, right?
Yes yes, papers are "in press". That means nothing until they're actually accepted for publication in a real journal and published. You can wave your hand at claims about all the papers in press but you're not saying much other than repeating claims.
So, again, Mr. Science, can you direct me to the real peer reviewed science? Any papers presented before real scientific or engineering conferences? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I hate to embarrass you but you are confused about occam's razor. Occam's razor states one does not multiply entities needlessly. |
You had to wikipedia it to know what it meant ? How quaint and ignorant .Also you can't withdraw the obvious latent assumptions from the idea......you're a bit thick aren't you ?
I'm a bit thick too by being so abrasive ....it's a sure way not to win anyone over . Let me clarify my position ...
I propose that the official investigations regarding 9/11 did not and do not use the scientific method . In fact they stray so far from the scientific method that it gives the strong impression that they are hell bent on meeting with a certain conclusion : that is to say they have an agenda and work from a conclusion towards their data .
Until I made this obervation , which any rational person can make , I had no reason to doubt the claims of NIST . In their stubborn refusal to deal with the simplest and most obvious explanations for how the 3 towers fell and to keep hinting at ridiculous and flawed theories like Bizants piston theories , a rational person is forced to consider exactly how objective the entire body of investigation is . In science when an experiment suffers from obvious subjective distortions , we consider it invalid . The only thing to do is to get an independant investgation which considers ammongst it's theotries that of controlled demolition .
No rational person wouldn't take issue with such a request .Are you not rational ? |
I merely linked to wiki for your education. I can quote it off the top of my head. You can't.
I'll await your scientific or technical papers published in real journals. That is, again not to embarrass you, where real science takes place and the real debate in science. I'm surprised you don't know that. You really need to educate yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I merely linked to wiki for your education. I can quote it off the top of my head. You can't.
I'll await your scientific or technical papers published in real journals. That is, again not to embarrass you, where real science takes place and the real debate in science. I'm surprised you don't know that. You really need to educate yourself. |
Firstly , you can't recognise the difference between a typing error and a spelling mistake ? It's official : you're dim .(I type up a good deal of words a minute...but if you want to limit yourself by being needlessly pedantic that's your Prerogative..consider taht msot inetlglient poeple can raed any wrod depstie the palcment of the ltters )
Again I must repeat myself because you lack the rudimentary cognitive functioning to accomodate and assimulate new information . All the papers approaching the matter of controlled demolition are new papers based on new evidence and experiments carried out using the dust of the world trade centre and some salvaged steel .
To dismiss these papers before they have even been through the process of peer review demonstrates your inherent bias and why you can never claim to have any credibility in wanting to use the scientific method....
In short , you lose . You're obviously emotively invested in one conclusion and have blinkers on to any others . This is something called "subjective analysis" , not science which calls calls for objectivity .
Last edited by cunning_stunt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:03 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember my argument is that NIST did and does not follow the scientific method . And the whole scientific community bobs their heads like chinese shop dolls fellating their proposed hypothesis blindly . This is the business of politics , not science and it's shameful .
If NIST followed the scientific method why do they selectively ignore evidence , including that of their own experiments ? Why did they manipulate data to make their computer models work , including heat of the fires , fireproofing and the way the buildings were built ....(in their defence , under pressure they since threw out pancake theory) . Why did they not test for controlled demolition ? Why did they not approach the idea of total collapse ? Why did they allow such a quick clean up of the evidence without any independant access to it ? Why do they publish unreviewed unfalsifiable theories as "facts" ? Why do they keep working from a conclusion towards their data ?
No amount of smugness can hide from the objective truth...they did not use the scientific method . For anyone to stand there and call anyone in the truth movement "unscientific" is laughable and obviously flawed .
Last edited by cunning_stunt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Remember my argument is that NIST did and does not follow the scientific method . I have not made any claims other than this and that controlled demolition should be seriously considered , because the implications are huge . And the whole scientific community bobs their heads like chinese shop dolls fellating their proposed hypothesis blindly . This is the business of politics , not science and it's shameful .
If NIST followed the scientific method why do they selectively ignore evidence , including that of their own experiments ? Why did they manipulate data to make their computer models work , including heat of the fires , fireproofing and the way the buildings were built ....(in their defence , under pressure they since threw out pancake theory) . Why did they not test for controlled demolition ? Why did they not approach the idea of total collapse ? Why did they allow such a quick clean up of the evidence without any independant access to it ? Why do they publish unreviewed unfalsifiable theories as "facts" ? Why do they keep working from a conclusion towards their data ?
No ammount of smugness can hide from the objective truth...they did not use the scientific method . For anyone to stand there and call anyone in the truth movement "unscientific" is laughable and obviously flawed . Again , what harm could come from an indipendant investigation ? Would you oppose this ?
Last edited by cunning_stunt on Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't nessacarily dismiss something before it goes through peer review, but if it hasn't been through peer review and published in a relevant, reputable scientific journal then it isn't given much credence.
This is how it works in every scientific field. When these papers go through peer review, and if the scientific consensus changes on this issue, then I for one would change my stance on it. For now, those things havn't happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lastly ....if you're so sure and have examined all the evidence (Of course you haven't , I bet you don't know the first thing about NIST's arguments but blindly support them anyway)...then please tell which which version of events you consider to be the most scientific and why its more plausible than controlled demolition ......come on ...make me laugh .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You don't nessacarily dismiss something before it goes through peer review, but if it hasn't been through peer review and published in a relevant, reputable scientific journal then it isn't given much credence.
This is how it works in every scientific field. When these papers go through peer review, and if the scientific consensus changes on this issue, then I for one would change my stance on it. For now, those things havn't happened. |
That's a totally fair statment . But out of curiosity , which papers on 9/11 have been through this process that you bank with ?
I totally agree with you though . Why then was pancake theory driven into the collective psyche by NISt and popular mechanics as "fact" when it was obviously wrong and flawed ? Now they have Bizant's piston theory which is you actually read it is laughable ......entirely contradicts newtonian physics and what's more...it's not falsifiable ...how can it posture as "fact" ????!! My prediction is Bizant will be the next fall man and NISt will walk away again in all your minds as credible .....madness...what level of inadequecy will it take for people to realise that NISt is a political orginisation in practice and not a scientific one ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
you're a talentless jerk with no redeeming features...your mediocrity is only trumped by your lameness....wow....you suck ....you will live and die without anyone noticing....the universe , the big beautiful universe just never will bother to care about you..... |
Another fine point you've made. Well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Another fine point you've made. Well done. |
Thank you . I hope my objective observation didn't offend you . Sometimes we can't let our emotions get in the way of the cold hard truth .
Move along folks , nothing to see .Someone who took a philosophy 101 class , turned up on the day they did the logic module , now for some reason feels he has some special kind of knowledge... and well... just can't seem to get over it . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| Sorry , you must have me confused for some crackpot idiot . |
If not, you do a good imitation of one.
And considering you immediately started posting with an agenda, the question is, "Which one?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's so hard to tell... |
Like all people cursed with dim witts, I'm sure many things are difficult to you . The fact that you managed to invest the work done by your few brain cells away from the task of breathing for long enough to type , and not die, alone amazes me . Testiment to the power of determination I suppose . You go boy . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It never takes you long to drop the facade and start yelling, "Ban me again!" does it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It never takes you long to drop the facade does it? |
Going to cry ? Need a tissue ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If not, you do a good imitation of one.
And considering you immediately started posting with an agenda, the question is, "Which one?" |
I see....you changed your post . Lacking in convictions I suppose .
My agenda is simple : To point out that it's intellectually lazy and invalid to dismiss all counter popular theories based on the assumption that they are "conspiracy" theories . Not only is it invalid , but it actually fuels the reason why real conspiracies never get a fair hearing and come into public knowledge . This kind of ignorance from people with the ridiculous assumptions that their governments have their best interests at heart are reason the world is in the state its in .
The fact that some people still find the idea that the Unitest states went to war with Iraq for humanitariant reasons , rather than weapons and oil money is testiment to this....
But for now lets stick to the debate....do you feel NIST followed the scientific method ? If you do please educate me as to why you come to such a perplexing conclusion . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
