psikeyhackr - 27 October 2012 06:33 AM

Michael Fullerton - 27 October 2012 05:14 AM

Imaginos - 26 October 2012 10:53 PM

Well, if you spend years digging for something you have a hunch about and don’t find anything, and are constantly told by others that there’s nothing there…some people just keep digging.

Well if you spend months digging for something and find something, some people are too pig-headed to even look at it. Take the OP for example. Anyone with an elementary school education in science should be able to read it and see the monumental flaws in the crackpot official 9/11 theory yet all we get is diversion and limp-wristed bare assertion logical fallacies from posters here. How is it that CFI apparently has no one with any rudimentary understanding of science or capacity for critical thought posting in this science forum to defend CFI from allegations of scientific fraud?

Doesn’t a scientific fraud have to involve some specific area of science to be tested against like biology or chemistry or something?  What area of science are you saying this fraud is occurring in?  What body of knowledge do we use to test to see if there is a fraud?

psik

Ever hear of something called the scientific method?  What area of science does that occur in?

Michael Fullerton - 29 October 2012 09:53 AM

psikeyhackr - 27 October 2012 06:33 AM

Doesn’t a scientific fraud have to involve some specific area of science to be tested against like biology or chemistry or something?  What area of science are you saying this fraud is occurring in?  What body of knowledge do we use to test to see if there is a fraud?

psik

Ever hear of something called the scientific method?  What area of science does that occur in?

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:

  Ask a Question
  Do Background Research
  Construct a Hypothesis
  Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  Communicate Your Results

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Isn’t an experiment going to involve some specific area of science?  Your article talks about a computer model.  Isn’t a computer model going to involve equations?  Aren’t those equations going to be from some specific area of science?  So if you are saying that model is a fraud don’t you have to specify what area of science that is and say what those equations are about?

9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

[5188]
psik

Michael Fullerton - 16 September 2012 09:18 AM

I asked for an official statement from CFI as to why they are participating in perhaps the largest scientific fraud in US history. Perhaps they will respond here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/

As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.

What do you think the explanation is and do you have any evidence for it?

Well the whole point is that he doesn’t have an explanation. He mentions demolition in his OP article, which was debunked years ago, so he has no explanation.  Instead he tries to break down the one we have. After all this time he still has all his work ahead of him.

psikeyhackr - 29 October 2012 05:32 PM

Michael Fullerton - 29 October 2012 09:53 AM

psikeyhackr - 27 October 2012 06:33 AM

Doesn’t a scientific fraud have to involve some specific area of science to be tested against like biology or chemistry or something?  What area of science are you saying this fraud is occurring in?  What body of knowledge do we use to test to see if there is a fraud?

psik

Ever hear of something called the scientific method?  What area of science does that occur in?

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:

  Ask a Question
  Do Background Research
  Construct a Hypothesis
  Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  Communicate Your Results

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Isn’t an experiment going to involve some specific area of science?  Your article talks about a computer model.  Isn’t a computer model going to involve equations?  Aren’t those equations going to be from some specific area of science?  So if you are saying that model is a fraud don’t you have to specify what area of science that is and say what those equations are about?

9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

[5188]
psik

I see you evaded the question. Probably because it blows a crippling hole in your bizarre argument. The scientific method along with other basic general scientific principles are irrelevant to fully understanding the specific area of science involved. When these general principles are violated you’re no longer doing science. If you violate them but claim you are doing science that’s fraud. This is an incredibly simple argument you, along with all other posters here, cannot seem to grasp. Again, deal with the topics in the OP or go start your own thread.

Lois - 30 October 2012 09:59 AM

Michael Fullerton - 16 September 2012 09:18 AM

I asked for an official statement from CFI as to why they are participating in perhaps the largest scientific fraud in US history. Perhaps they will respond here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/

As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.

What do you think the explanation is and do you have any evidence for it?

The explanation is that CFI is participating in scientific fraud and the evidence for that explanation in contained in the article you just quoted but apparently have not read.

Michael Fullerton - 31 October 2012 08:22 AM

I see you evaded the question. Probably because it blows a crippling hole in your bizarre argument. The scientific method along with other basic general scientific principles are irrelevant to fully understanding the specific area of science involved. When these general principles are violated you’re no longer doing science. If you violate them but claim you are doing science that’s fraud. This is an incredibly simple argument you, along with all other posters here, cannot seem to grasp. Again, deal with the topics in the OP or go start your own thread.

I consider it so obvious that the scientific method applies to all fields of science that I regarded the question as absurd.  But all fields of science do not necessarily apply to any particular problem.  I have not encountered anyone applying biology to solving the problems of 9/11.

Someone is definitely evading however.

No comment about equations used in the computer modeling of buildings, I see.

To me you have this abstraction about science in your head that can be separated from the study of REALITY which is what science really is.  Experimentation brings everything back down to earth. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

Your approach is very Aristotelian.  Stay in abstract never never land and don’t do experiments because the rubber has to meet the road there.  You think you can explain scientific fraud without actually doing science in the specific relevant area.

We can claim that Aristotle did no experiments to verify his “laws”. Probably because he was not an engineer and because he considered this not to be necessary and logic to be enough. Even today a majority of physicists believe exactly this. They develop models based completely on mathematics and hope that some experiment will show that their ideas are correct.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/AristotlePhysics.htm

But Aristotle was not talking about the esoteric physics at the cutting edge of the last 100 years.  Aristotle got wrong things that Newton got right 300 years ago and that is the physics involved in 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Oh damn, he’s a physicist, that can’t be any good.

[5309]
psik

Michael Fullerton - 31 October 2012 08:25 AM

Lois - 30 October 2012 09:59 AM

Michael Fullerton - 16 September 2012 09:18 AM

I asked for an official statement from CFI as to why they are participating in perhaps the largest scientific fraud in US history. Perhaps they will respond here.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/

As usual all science-illiterates will be ignored.

What do you think the explanation is and do you have any evidence for it?

The explanation is that CFI is participating in scientific fraud and the evidence for that explanation in contained in the article you just quoted but apparently have not read.

———-
I did read it.  I see nothing in it about CFI practicing scientific fraud. You evidently disagree with the conclusions of the computer model, but you say not one word about what you think happened that contradicts the computer model.  You seem particularly disturbed by those who agree with it, but you offer no rational argument against it.  You simply shout about how it’s wrong and accuse CFI of scientific fraud without one scintilla of evidence to support your claim.  I ask what you think actually happened and all you can do is accuse me of not reading the article.  Everything you have written and everything you have left out shows you to be a conspiracy theorist with not only no evidence to support your claim,  but no valid explanation either.  If anyone is committing scientific fraud it’s you.

I believe this would come under the science of chemistry.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

psik

To recap, not a single CFI representative has responded to the serious allegations in the OP. We only get off-topic posts or falsehoods and logical fallacies from science-illiterate anonymous cowards. This proves CFI is indeed misrepresenting itself as “an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry”.

In the OP I stated I would that all science-illiterates will be ignored. I will now extend that to anonymous cowards as well. With one exception. Designate the smartest person here to act as a spokesperson and I will respond to that person’s fallacious arguments. A very reasonable request which I’m sure will not be met due to the severe degree of uncritical thinking and science illiteracy of CFI members.

If I’m wrong someone competent would be able to explain why without committing a logical fallacy or issuing a falsehood. If I’m right that should be acknowledged not ignored.

Michael Fullerton - 05 November 2012 10:03 AM

Designate the smartest person here to act as a spokesperson

I think that would be psikeyhackr. He is a MENSA member.

I really don’t give a damn about this topic, but I do have to comment that Michael’s arguments are amazingly rational, reasonable, without any critical thinking fallacies, without any insults or biased statements, and built on data rather than innuendo or fantasy. 

Occam

Exactly, Occam.

Michael, this is a forum for inquiry and discussion, not for name calling and epithets. The latter are the mark of the troll, and trolling is against the rules. If you want to make an argument about the facts, please do so. Otherwise you are liable to be banned. Thanks.

dougsmith - 05 November 2012 11:07 AM

Exactly, Occam.

Michael, this is a forum for inquiry and discussion, not for name calling and epithets. The latter are the mark of the troll, and trolling is against the rules. If you want to make an argument about the facts, please do so. Otherwise you are liable to be banned. Thanks.

Well here’s an inquiry. Why is calling someone a troll not name calling and epithet use while describing someone as scientifically illiterate is?

Michael, the point isn’t that one cannot use negative terminology when referring to behavior. However when one’s contribution on the forum reaches a certain level of abuse, especially of content-free abuse, one is warned of that fact.