33 of 91
33
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 22 May 2013 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 481 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

I’m not the one making claims here, jomper, you are. You claimed the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced and now also claimed no one ever has done so.

I’m waiting for you to prove these claims, not just assert them. If you can prove you’re an expert about the 9/11 issue, I might be willing to give your assertions some weight because I respect the opinions of experts (although I do not consider them infalliable by any means and would give more weight to numerous experts making the same claim). After which we can get back to your opinion on expert conclusions.

But in the meantime, all I ask for is evidence backing your two claims I first pointed out in this reply. Please provide your evidence for your claims that the current expert conclusions about 9/11 cannot be tested or reproduced and your additional claim no such test or reproduction has ever taken place.

As a fellow sceptic and rational thinker, surely you appeeciate the fact I do not take your assertions at face value and ask for evidence to back them up.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 482 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 12:22 PM

I’m not the one making claims here, jomper, you are. You claimed the expert conclusions cannot be tested or reproduced and now also claimed no one ever has done so.

I’m waiting for you to prove these claims, not just assert them. If you can prove you’re an expert about the 9/11 issue, I might be willing to give your assertions some weight because I respect the opinions of experts (although I do not consider them infalliable by any means and would give more weight to numerous experts making the same claim). After which we can get back to your opinion on expert conclusions.

But in the meantime, all I ask for is evidence backing your two claims I first pointed out in this reply. Please provide your evidence for your claims that the current expert conclusions about 9/11 cannot be tested or reproduced and your additional claim no such test or reproduction has ever taken place.

As a fellow sceptic and rational thinker, surely you appeeciate the fact I do not take your assertions at face value and ask for evidence to back them up.

You’re asking me to prove a negative. I’m saying you have no experimental evidence to support your position. Instead of considering this fact (or what I genuinely hoped you would do, which is point to experimental evidence that does support your position), you are trying to pretend I am making a positive claim about something and charging me with proving it. But this is not the case.

It is not a question of whether or not the “current expert conclusions” can be tested and reproduced. I am asking you why you would accept conclusions as scientific and claim they are valid when they have not been reproduced or validated in any experimental environment.

Of course I am being emphatic for rhetorical effect and saying you will never have experimental validation, when the reality is merely that experimental validation has not been done. But this is more than enough to write off the “collapse effect” as it is officially presented, and it is my suggestion that we have had no validation because it is impossible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 02:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 483 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 01:30 PM

It is not a question of whether or not the “current expert conclusions” can be tested and reproduced.

Yes it is, jomper, because you made the positive claim the current expert conclusions ‘cannot be tested or reproduced’. I asked you to prove this, and you replied with another positive claim that ‘no one has tested or reproduced their conclusions’. Do I need to quote your previous posts where you made these exact claims?

These are two positive claims and you are now lying by saying this is not an issue. I have asked you with an open mind what is wrong with the current expert conclusions. You replied with the claims that the current expert conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced. Then you tried to justify this by further claiming no such testing and reproduction of the current expert conclusions has ever been done. I have asked you to prove these claims and now you are furiously backpedaling and pretending your claims are not important and not an issue.

You now either will prove your claims or retract them. If you decide to retract your claims, we are back once again to square one where I ask you to provide your evidence and arguments against the current expert conclusions. I am not making the expert conclusions or defending them. I have merely submitted I personally accept the expert conclusions and all my personal scrutiny of the expert conclusions has found no errors, problems or issues with it.

I also accept that I could be wrong and my acceptance of the current expert conclusions could be in error. Which is why I am here right now with an open mind asking you to submit your evidence and arguments against the current expert conclusions.

You claimed that they cannot be tested and reproduced and also claimed no one has ever done so. You are also now saying validation is impossible.I again ask you to kindly prove you claims. This is all very simple.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 484 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 02:08 PM
jomper - 22 May 2013 01:30 PM

It is not a question of whether or not the “current expert conclusions” can be tested and reproduced.

Yes it is, jomper, because you made the positive claim the current expert conclusions ‘cannot be tested or reproduced’. I asked you to prove this, and you replied with another positive claim that ‘no one has tested or reproduced their conclusions’. Do I need to quote your previous posts where you made these exact claims?

These are two positive claims and you are now lying by saying this is not an issue. I have asked you with an open mind what is wrong with the current expert conclusions. You replied with the claims that the current expert conclusions cannot be tested and reproduced. Then you tried to justify this by further claiming no such testing and reproduction of the current expert conclusions has ever been done. I have asked you to prove these claims and now you are furiously backpedaling and pretending your claims are not important and not an issue.

You now either will prove your claims or retract them. If you decide to retract your claims, we are back once again to square one where I ask you to provide your evidence and arguments against the current expert conclusions. I am not making the expert conclusions or defending them. I have merely submitted I personally accept the expert conclusions and all my personal scrutiny of the expert conclusions has found no errors, problems or issues with it.

I also accept that I could be wrong and my acceptance of the current expert conclusions could be in error. Which is why I am here right now with an open mind asking you to submit your evidence and arguments against the current expert conclusions.

You claimed that they cannot be tested and reproduced and also claimed no one has ever done so. You are also now saying validation is impossible.I again ask you to kindly prove you claims. This is all very simple.

This may be simple to you but it is insane to me. Are you really attempting to argue that experimental validation and reproduction are not cornerstones of the scientific method? Are actually attempting to suggest this principle needs to be specifically re-established in the case of 9/11? Let me ask you a direct question: are you aware of any scientific organisation, or any independent scientist, who has in any sense experimentally validated the “collapse effect” you believe destroyed the towers?

I am not. If you are not, we will consider my point proven, all right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 485 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

Who cares if I know or don’t know that? I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXPERT CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TESTED OR REPRODUCED, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXPERT CONCLUSION HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED OR REPRODUCED, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING VALIDATION IS IMPOSSIBLE, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.

Quit asking me to back up your claims, they are your claims, not mine!

Furthermore, it would be actually possible for you to make the effort to determine if no other person or organization has tested or reproduced the currently accepted expert conclusion. Interview as many experts and individuals as you can, make written and video interviews, transcripts of as many people who have the capability to do such a thing or assert that they cannot do it. Spend years doing this, hire hundreds of helpers and spend millions of of dollars on resources to accomplish this study.

Then you can slam this encyclopedia sized report on my desk and rightfully claim you’ve made extensive efforts to demonstrate that no one has ever tested or reproduced the expert conclusion of the 9/11 collapses.

Then I can push the report right to you and insist that until you demostrate that your results have been tested and reproduced, I will not accept them. I will even be more rational than you and not claim your report is impossible to validate, test or reproduce. I’ll simply point out that scientifically, until your report is independently verified, it doesn’t mean much and I’m just being a rational sceptic.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 486 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:31 PM

I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXPERT CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TESTED OR REPRODUCED, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXPERT CONCLUSION HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED OR REPRODUCED, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING VALIDATION IS IMPOSSIBLE, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM

lol. It’s as if you think these things are unnecessary. Are they?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 487 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 03:39 PM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:31 PM

I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXPERT CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TESTED OR REPRODUCED, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING THE EXPERT CONCLUSION HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED OR REPRODUCED, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. I’M NOT THE ONE CLAIMING VALIDATION IS IMPOSSIBLE, YOU MADE THAT CLAIM

lol. It’s as if you think these things are unnecessary. Are they?

I’m making no claims of necessity or lack thereof.

Submit evidence for your three stated claims, please.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 488 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:42 PM

I’m making no claims of necessity or lack thereof.

Hang on. Is verification, testing and reproduction of results necessary in the scientific method, or not?

This is a yes or no question, Robert. You seem to have missed out on the basics grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 489 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 03:47 PM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:42 PM

I’m making no claims of necessity or lack thereof.

Hang on. Is verification, testing and reproduction of results necessary in the scientific method, or not?

This is a yes or no question, Robert. You seem to have missed out on the basics grin

I answer yes. Which is why I’m still waiting for your evidence and verification for your claim that the expert conclusion cannot be tested or reproduced, has never been tested or reproduced and that validation is impossible.

You’ve made those three claims and we both agree the scientific method demands evidence and verification. So where is your evidence and verification for your three stated claims? I’m not making any claims here, you are.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 04:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 490 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:55 PM

I answer yes

Good. Do you think there is experimental validation for the “collapse effect” you believe in? Do you not know if there’s experimental validation for the “collapse effect” you believe in? Do you even care if the “collapse effect” you believe in could be experimentally reproduced?

There’s really no point with you, is there.

[ Edited: 22 May 2013 11:15 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 491 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 04:11 PM
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 03:55 PM

I answer yes

Good. Do you think there is experimental validation for the “collapse effect” you believe in? Do you not know if there’s experimental validation for the “collapse effect” you believe in? Do you even care if the “collapse effect” you believe in could be experimentally reproduced?

There’s really no point with you, is there.

What I think or believe is not evidence one way or the other. Nor have I made any claim one way or the other.

You on the other hand have made the positive claim that the current expert conclusion cannot be tested or reproduced, has never been tested or reproduced and that validation is impossible.

Those are three very specific, very obvious claims. We both agree claims(also called conclusions) require evidence and verification to be taken seriously.Why are you seemingly avoiding providing us evidence and verification for your claims when you keep hammering on the mutually agreed upon point that evidence and verification are extremely important to claims?

Provide us with your evidence and verification for your claims. Why are you not doing this?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 492 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02

We’re still waiting, jomper.

I have outlined my position quite clearly. In case you’re unclear, allow me to restate it and make sure you read it carefully:

My position is that I accept the official expert produced conclusion about the WTC tower collapses. I accept it because it was produced by hundreds of experts, over the course of years and large amounts of invested resources. I do not accept expert opinion blindly, but I do give expert opinion weight, especially large numbers of experts who come to the same conclusions. Furthermore, the lack uproar from the sum of all experts on the planet is another compelling reason I accept the official explanation. And on top of all that, the official expert conclusion has withstood every attempt of scrutiny and investigation on my part.

There is nothing in this position of mine that is a claim, other than my claim I accept the official expert conclusion and my stated reasons for doing so. Which is proven by me simply saying so. There is no burden on me to prove the official conclusion, validate it or defend it.

With that said, I’m quite open minded and always prepared to admit I am not infallible and could be accepting the official expert conclusion in error. I am personally unable to determine such an error. At this point any honest 9/11 truther should be salivating at my open minded position and interest in hearing their arguments.

Therefore, if you challenge the official expert conclusion, I’m more than happy to entertain your arguments and evidence. So after asking you over and over and over and over again for your arguments and evidence, the best counter you have submitted is making the three following positive claims:

“the official conclusion cannot be tested or reproduced”
“no one has ever tested or reproduced it”
“validation is impossible.”

After you wasted significant time crying about how evidence and verification is absolutely critical to the scientific method, which I never disputed and absolutely agree with, I applied the first rule of the scientific method and have asked you to back up your claims with evidence. You desperately back pedaled at this point and tried to argue your claims were not positive claims, which is a lie anyone can verify by simply reading your posts and your claims.

You preach your love of the scientific method and the absolute importance of verifying claims and conclusions with actual evidence. I have applied this standard to your claims, and you have yet to abide by the rules of the scientific method you are preaching about. You have three options here:

1) Defend your claims with evidence and more arguments. Simple assertions and arguments alone are unacceptable.
2) Retract your claims and admit your error in making them when you cannot justify them. No one is perfect, and trust me, no one will go into shock if you admit you’re wrong.
3) Anything else and CFI members are perfectly within their rights to call you a liar and a hypocrite. A fraud who doesn’t abide by the scientific method he claims to cherish, demands evidence for any else’s position and then attempts to avoid any burden of proof on his part despite making positive claims.

Now. SHALL WE BEGIN?

[ Edited: 22 May 2013 07:59 PM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 11:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 493 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 22 May 2013 07:56 PM

We’re still waiting, jomper.

I have outlined my position quite clearly. In case you’re unclear, allow me to restate it and make sure you read it carefully:

My position is that I accept the official expert produced conclusion about the WTC tower collapses. I accept it because it was produced by hundreds of experts, over the course of years and large amounts of invested resources. I do not accept expert opinion blindly, but I do give expert opinion weight, especially large numbers of experts who come to the same conclusions. Furthermore, the lack uproar from the sum of all experts on the planet is another compelling reason I accept the official explanation. And on top of all that, the official expert conclusion has withstood every attempt of scrutiny and investigation on my part.

There is nothing in this position of mine that is a claim, other than my claim I accept the official expert conclusion and my stated reasons for doing so. Which is proven by me simply saying so. There is no burden on me to prove the official conclusion, validate it or defend it.

With that said, I’m quite open minded and always prepared to admit I am not infallible and could be accepting the official expert conclusion in error. I am personally unable to determine such an error. At this point any honest 9/11 truther should be salivating at my open minded position and interest in hearing their arguments.

Therefore, if you challenge the official expert conclusion, I’m more than happy to entertain your arguments and evidence. So after asking you over and over and over and over again for your arguments and evidence, the best counter you have submitted is making the three following positive claims:

“the official conclusion cannot be tested or reproduced”
“no one has ever tested or reproduced it”
“validation is impossible.”

After you wasted significant time crying about how evidence and verification is absolutely critical to the scientific method, which I never disputed and absolutely agree with, I applied the first rule of the scientific method and have asked you to back up your claims with evidence. You desperately back pedaled at this point and tried to argue your claims were not positive claims, which is a lie anyone can verify by simply reading your posts and your claims.

You preach your love of the scientific method and the absolute importance of verifying claims and conclusions with actual evidence. I have applied this standard to your claims, and you have yet to abide by the rules of the scientific method you are preaching about. You have three options here:

1) Defend your claims with evidence and more arguments. Simple assertions and arguments alone are unacceptable.
2) Retract your claims and admit your error in making them when you cannot justify them. No one is perfect, and trust me, no one will go into shock if you admit you’re wrong.
3) Anything else and CFI members are perfectly within their rights to call you a liar and a hypocrite. A fraud who doesn’t abide by the scientific method he claims to cherish, demands evidence for any else’s position and then attempts to avoid any burden of proof on his part despite making positive claims.

Now. SHALL WE BEGIN?

What a lot of words. In short: you don’t care if the “collapse effect” you believe in can be experimentally validated or not. If you cared about something like that you’d know. But you don’t so you’ve got to ask me: and I’m telling you it hasn’t been and it won’t be. Don’t believe me? Fine. I don’t believe in miraculous collapses that work in a way that can’t be reproduced. You do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 11:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 494 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  469
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 22 May 2013 11:14 PM

What a lot of words. In short: you don’t care if the “collapse effect” you believe in can be experimentally validated or not. If you cared about something like that you’d know. But you don’t so you’ve got to ask me: and I’m telling you it hasn’t been and it won’t be. Don’t believe me? Fine. I don’t believe in miraculous collapses that work in a way that can’t be reproduced. You do.

So instead of you backing up your specific and obvious claims, you now simply make another claim I do not care about a ‘collapse effect’ and simply restate your previous claims to boot.

Congratulations, jomper, you have proven to everyone here you are a liar and a hypocrite. You have no interest in evidence or backing up your claims, and then pretend you have the right to demand them from anyone else.

Be sure to get back to us when you decide maybe discussion is more productive when you aren’t a liar and hypocrite. We’ll know that’s the case when you start justifying your claims, but until you do, we can safely dismiss anything else you say.

Anything asserted without logic, evidence or reason can be safely dismissed on the same grounds. You make assertions without logic, evidence or reason, therefore we no longer have obligation to submit logic, evidence or reasons to dismiss you.

Everyone here can literally just call you a dumbass who doesn’t prove his claims, and they are in the right and don’t need to respond to you more than that. I’ll start:

jomper, you’re just a dumbass who doesn’t prove his claims.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 May 2013 11:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 495 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

Anyone who’s bothered to read this far will see you’re floundering desperately and are reduced to insults simply because you can’t point to any experimental validation for your absurd beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
33 of 91
33