|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
 |
|
I'm posting this from another forum so as to not hijack the flow.
I don't know. Are they retarded? The 9/11 conspiracy thing has been well debunked by several documentaries. And DARPA I have no idea what that is, but earthquakes, as far as I know, are a natural phenomenon. In a word, WTF are you talking about?
I was talking about basic stuff, like, I went to the taco stand and had tacos. And didn't die of mad cow disease.
Oh really ? It has ? Where exactly do you get your information ?
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ?
On the other hand the famous nova "pancake" documentary has been entirely dismissed and debunked (even by NIST themselves) as well as the popular mechanics article which turned out to not deal any of the important evidence in anything close to a convincing manner. Now those that oppose controlled demolition has put forward Bizant's piston theory , which is easily debunked by just looking at netownian physics (the "piston" would crush as fast as the building below it). It's a poor theory compared to controlled demolition in explaining how the buildings fell. Now I don't have an opinion , but I think it's ignorant for anyone to make the statement that 9/11 theories have been debunked. Maybe some of the more loony "space ray" type theories , but certainly not the controlled demolition ones. Only someone with an unobjective emotive eye on the issue would come to that conclusion.
A proof that a conspiracy is not true is not to just give an unlikely alternative more pleasant version of events , devoid of hard evidence. To show how a builing "could have" fallen against the path of maximum resistance at near free fall speed without controlled demolition (although you fail to mention only in extremely unlikely and freakish circumstances). If the aternative wants to posture as a proof it needs to be backed up with evidence and be more plausible. Currently the most plausible version of how the towers fell is actually controlled demolition. But that's not to say it's been proved until all theories in this regard have been reviewed , critiqued , indipendantly tested and verified.
As a scientific person It is your responsibility to not take one side or another until the scientific process has been fully carried out , especially in the light of new evidence and the highly likely corruption of data to meet political rather than scientific conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
newteacher
Joined: 31 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ? |
Links? Or are we just supposed to take your word? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
|
|
| newteacher wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ? |
Links? Or are we just supposed to take your word? |
Why not ? If you're against controlled demolition without having done your own research then you take the word of other people who offer no proof.
But despite that , ok....here's a link.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081
Before we engage in an argument , please state your views , which version of events you align with, why and on what basis.
I will state mine. I believe that the controlled theory of demolition is a very interesting theory that offers some pretty powerful evidence. Certainly enough evidence to make any rational person to want to have certain questions asked. The failure for NISt and various orginisations to dismiss the theory without even so much as considering it , depite the fact that they did not test for it .....well....that's not the way science works. That's either they are following some agenda to avoid this topic , or it's pure faith.
So while I am in no position to say that controlled demolition is "proven" until an indipendant agency can test it and verify it , I am in a position to ask that the scientific method me used in detemining how these towers fell. But it isn't. Various theories with low levels of probability are put forward and these are offered up to the public under the guise of "proofs" and used to validate their claim that it's not necessary to consider "loony" theories like controleed demolition. That's just not good enough. If you were thinking as a rational person , rather than an emotive one , that would not be good enough for you. You don't dismiss or claim without testing or proving. Simple as that.
The irony is that people like me with the perfectly reasonable request for further investigation are labelled as "loony" when clearly we're the most rational group on the matter. That's what I really want to drive home in this debate. How could people simply asking that an investigation be thorough and test for all possibilities be portrayed as "crackpots"....and more importantly....why ? The conspiracy theorists would put this idea to bed that there was some evil agenda so quickly if they simply independantly tested the claims of controlled demolition. But they refuse and carry on the strawman attacks instead....this coming from a supposive "scientific" agency that is interested in the truth via the scientific method ? Are you all stupid ? The idea that truth is somehow attached to popularity is highly irrational and a hangover of our time , but that doesn't mean I have to pander to your shortcomings of logic or be called a "crackpot".
Last edited by bovinerebel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runlikegump
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Get this nonsense back in the Tinfoil Hat/ Current Events forum where it belongs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| runlikegump wrote: |
| Get this nonsense back in the Tinfoil Hat/ Current Events forum where it belongs. |
Nonsense ? Tinfoil hat ? Strawman. You lose all credibility. Go home unless you actually have a point I've made to criticise. You can't...I'm not only smarter but I'm more rational and better informed. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
I'm made it perfectly clear that I am not invested in any theory until they have been indepenently objectively verified. But that aside there are various reasons people believe in conspiracy theories.
1) People like to believe the world is more interesting than it is. It makes their lives more meaningful when they have sinister agenda's to polarise themselves against.
2) Paranoia ...people feel that others are always out to get them.
3) Because conspiracies ....well...they clearly do exist. History is full of them and full of examples far more sinister than the world trade centre collapse were aided by bombs. The world us full of sociopaths and they naturally arise to postions of power. Without a questioning public they run rampant and pursue self serving agendas.
Notice we're talking about the fact that bombs were likely used folks. We're not saying the american government was involved , yet everyone easily makes that link subconsciously because they all know on some level everything has been done to stop this theory from being fairly tested along side others and treated with credibility. You can reasonbly expect that evidence that bombs were used put forward by physicists would be something an so called scientific agency like NIST would be keen to hear about. You'd expect their reaction to be : "Really ? We didn't test for that...please show us....we must look into this" ...instead of " You're all loonies in tin hats". Well...a reasonable and informed person would.....like me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runlikegump
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've lost all credibility with bovinerebel. Darn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's keep score.
arguments that the scientific method is not being used in investigating 9/11 put forward..
1) Evidence put forward in peer reviewed papers by physicists being ignored.
2) Despite this NIST continously fails to test for controlled demolition.
3) NIST proposes theory after theory as "fact" to the world. Later to withdraw them and replace them with equally inadequate "theories" which amount to nothing more than highly unlikely scenarious.
4) Nist trying to work data into their conclusions rather than the other way around.
5) Nist masquerading statements based on faith and data based on hypserbole to try and explain their theories.
6) There is nothing wrong with not having the answers folks....but don't try and pretend you do and don't need to look at alternatives , when you clearly don't....that reeks of an agenda. Especially don't do this in science.
Arguments that the scientific method is being used.
1) It's wrongly proposed that I as a person wear a tin hat and write rubbish.
2) It's wrongly proposed I don't have any links or evidence.
3) insect noises.
Last edited by bovinerebel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| runlikegump wrote: |
| I've lost all credibility with bovinerebel. Darn. |
You never had any. If you had an argument you'd make it. I know I'm right about this. I've looked into the issue. You know something you saw on an outdated and factually flawed tv documentary , or on fox news . Bravo.
Once again....can you defend the idea that the scientific method is consistant with cherry picking data , and ignoring new evidence whilst proposing unproved theories are "true" ? Can you deny that has been the case with NIST ?
If you deny that you better be prepared to show me by what evidence personally you believe in NIST conclusions (bizant's ?) , how you feel it magically overcame the laws of physics and somehow represents the best possible version of events , so powerful and omnopotent a theory that no other alternative should even be considered. Then tell me what is flawed and wrong about controlled demolition put forward in the peer reviews scientific papers offered. Once you have done both those things , you need to make an argument to convince me as to why it would not be beneficial to study and compare both theories.
If not...shut up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samd
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This garbage is in the wrong forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hugekebab
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
I'm posting this from another forum so as to not hijack the flow.
I don't know. Are they retarded? The 9/11 conspiracy thing has been well debunked by several documentaries. And DARPA I have no idea what that is, but earthquakes, as far as I know, are a natural phenomenon. In a word, WTF are you talking about?
I was talking about basic stuff, like, I went to the taco stand and had tacos. And didn't die of mad cow disease.
Oh really ? It has ? Where exactly do you get your information ?
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ?
On the other hand the famous nova "pancake" documentary has been entirely dismissed and debunked (even by NIST themselves) as well as the popular mechanics article which turned out to not deal any of the important evidence in anything close to a convincing manner. Now those that oppose controlled demolition has put forward Bizant's piston theory , which is easily debunked by just looking at netownian physics (the "piston" would crush as fast as the building below it). It's a poor theory compared to controlled demolition in explaining how the buildings fell. Now I don't have an opinion , but I think it's ignorant for anyone to make the statement that 9/11 theories have been debunked. Maybe some of the more loony "space ray" type theories , but certainly not the controlled demolition ones. Only someone with an unobjective emotive eye on the issue would come to that conclusion.
A proof that a conspiracy is not true is not to just give an unlikely alternative more pleasant version of events , devoid of hard evidence. To show how a builing "could have" fallen against the path of maximum resistance at near free fall speed without controlled demolition (although you fail to mention only in extremely unlikely and freakish circumstances). If the aternative wants to posture as a proof it needs to be backed up with evidence and be more plausible. Currently the most plausible version of how the towers fell is actually controlled demolition. But that's not to say it's been proved until all theories in this regard have been reviewed , critiqued , indipendantly tested and verified.
As a scientific person It is your responsibility to not take one side or another until the scientific process has been fully carried out , especially in the light of new evidence and the highly likely corruption of data to meet political rather than scientific conclusions. |
Yet another bat shit crazy American. I will add you to my list of American conspiracy theorists vs sane Americans in order to compile a more accurate statistical sample.
Too much American beef.
Last edited by hugekebab on Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| samd wrote: |
| This garbage is in the wrong forum. |
It's never surprising to find the pedantic to be amongst those who can't grasp the bigger picture or more complex ideas. A sure tell tale sign of mental mediocrity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
|
|
| hugekebab wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
I'm posting this from another forum so as to not hijack the flow.
I don't know. Are they retarded? The 9/11 conspiracy thing has been well debunked by several documentaries. And DARPA I have no idea what that is, but earthquakes, as far as I know, are a natural phenomenon. In a word, WTF are you talking about?
I was talking about basic stuff, like, I went to the taco stand and had tacos. And didn't die of mad cow disease.
Oh really ? It has ? Where exactly do you get your information ?
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ?
On the other hand the famous nova "pancake" documentary has been entirely dismissed and debunked (even by NIST themselves) as well as the popular mechanics article which turned out to not deal any of the important evidence in anything close to a convincing manner. Now those that oppose controlled demolition has put forward Bizant's piston theory , which is easily debunked by just looking at netownian physics (the "piston" would crush as fast as the building below it). It's a poor theory compared to controlled demolition in explaining how the buildings fell. Now I don't have an opinion , but I think it's ignorant for anyone to make the statement that 9/11 theories have been debunked. Maybe some of the more loony "space ray" type theories , but certainly not the controlled demolition ones. Only someone with an unobjective emotive eye on the issue would come to that conclusion.
A proof that a conspiracy is not true is not to just give an unlikely alternative more pleasant version of events , devoid of hard evidence. To show how a builing "could have" fallen against the path of maximum resistance at near free fall speed without controlled demolition (although you fail to mention only in extremely unlikely and freakish circumstances). If the aternative wants to posture as a proof it needs to be backed up with evidence and be more plausible. Currently the most plausible version of how the towers fell is actually controlled demolition. But that's not to say it's been proved until all theories in this regard have been reviewed , critiqued , indipendantly tested and verified.
As a scientific person It is your responsibility to not take one side or another until the scientific process has been fully carried out , especially in the light of new evidence and the highly likely corruption of data to meet political rather than scientific conclusions. |
Yet another bat shit crazy American. I will add you to my list of American conspiracy theorists vs sane Americans in order to compile a more accurate statistical sample.
Too much American beef. |
Is anyone claiming to be on the side of rationality and sanity , going to actually offer anything in the line of an argument , or deal with the actual content of the post ?
If all the "rational" people have to offer is strawman attacks ....well then I think it only helps make my point about who the real rational people are. But keep it up.....you only helping make my point for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow...this is a total thrashing of epic proportions.
Bovinerebel : 3 .....mouthbreathers : 0
Last edited by bovinerebel on Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newteacher
Joined: 31 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
| newteacher wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ? |
Links? Or are we just supposed to take your word? |
Why not ? If you're against controlled demolition without having done your own research then you take the word of other people who offer no proof.
But despite that , ok....here's a link.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081
|
I never said anything about engaging in an argument. I simply asked for you to post some links. If you're going to claim that the science is valid and has been published in 'scientific journals' for peer review then post some evidence of that. A 911blogger site is not a scientific journal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newteacher
Joined: 31 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 , debunkings and the scientific method. |
|
|
| hugekebab wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
I'm posting this from another forum so as to not hijack the flow.
I don't know. Are they retarded? The 9/11 conspiracy thing has been well debunked by several documentaries. And DARPA I have no idea what that is, but earthquakes, as far as I know, are a natural phenomenon. In a word, WTF are you talking about?
I was talking about basic stuff, like, I went to the taco stand and had tacos. And didn't die of mad cow disease.
Oh really ? It has ? Where exactly do you get your information ?
If you were for science you'd know that some of the 9/11 "conspiracies" have just passed peer review and been published in scientific journals for further critique. What person ,related to science, would dismiss such theories without looking at them ?
On the other hand the famous nova "pancake" documentary has been entirely dismissed and debunked (even by NIST themselves) as well as the popular mechanics article which turned out to not deal any of the important evidence in anything close to a convincing manner. Now those that oppose controlled demolition has put forward Bizant's piston theory , which is easily debunked by just looking at netownian physics (the "piston" would crush as fast as the building below it). It's a poor theory compared to controlled demolition in explaining how the buildings fell. Now I don't have an opinion , but I think it's ignorant for anyone to make the statement that 9/11 theories have been debunked. Maybe some of the more loony "space ray" type theories , but certainly not the controlled demolition ones. Only someone with an unobjective emotive eye on the issue would come to that conclusion.
A proof that a conspiracy is not true is not to just give an unlikely alternative more pleasant version of events , devoid of hard evidence. To show how a builing "could have" fallen against the path of maximum resistance at near free fall speed without controlled demolition (although you fail to mention only in extremely unlikely and freakish circumstances). If the aternative wants to posture as a proof it needs to be backed up with evidence and be more plausible. Currently the most plausible version of how the towers fell is actually controlled demolition. But that's not to say it's been proved until all theories in this regard have been reviewed , critiqued , indipendantly tested and verified.
As a scientific person It is your responsibility to not take one side or another until the scientific process has been fully carried out , especially in the light of new evidence and the highly likely corruption of data to meet political rather than scientific conclusions. |
Yet another bat shit crazy American. I will add you to my list of American conspiracy theorists vs sane Americans in order to compile a more accurate statistical sample.
Too much American beef. |
I don't think he's American. |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
