4 of 22
4
CFI involved in scientific fraud?
Posted: 21 September 2012 04:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
TimB - 21 September 2012 01:39 PM

Psikey, I like most people, don’t have a great basic understanding of physics, and and thus in the position of having to rely on the expertise of others.

I think we should distinguish between the subset of physics known as Newtonian physics and the entire breadth of physics.  The Newtonian stuff is 300 years old and should be taught in grade school.  It is in some grade schools.  I haven’t seen how many or how much they are expected to know by graduation from 8th grade.

As far as your frustration about not finding information about the load capacity that different levels of the Empire State bldg has, that may not be information that should be in the public domain.  But if you are correct that no one has computed the amount of energy required to collapse each of the levels of the now demolished WTC towers, then I think that you have a legitimate inquiry.

Knowing the total amount of steel in tons does not specify where the columns are.  And in a building like the Empire State Building the columns can be seen.  Obviously the perimeter columns could have been seen in the WTC but not the core columns.  Of course since the WTC no longer exists what can be the problem?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 21 September 2012 04:29 PM

Tim I skimmed through the pdf and there are a couple of things that stand out. FIrst these guys clearly had an agenda. Right from the introduction and throughout the body of the report they make comment which show they went into this whole project with a preconceived conclusion and looked for evidence that would support that conclusion. The dust from the WTC was a huge conglomeration of materials ( building materials, airplane materials, office and computer components, not to mention the remains of 2,000 or so people). It is a real stretch of the imagination to believe that in that huge mass of dust these men managed to find tiny thermite particles just by pure chance. Somehow they decided to single these chips out from billions of other small particles and submitted them to testing. Why these particles? Some of the tests they subjected them to were also very specific as though they knew what they were looking for. Isn’t it odd in the least that they wanted to find something to support a conspiracy theory and that is exactly what they found?

Every scientist or investigator starts with some level of bias.  It is not so odd that they were looking for evidence of a possible controlled demolition, as that is what the utter destruction of the WTC buildings looked like to the naked eye, when they fell.  It is not odd, IMO, that most official investigators of 9/11 started out with a bias of looking for evidence of Al Quaeda involvement. That bias doesn’t completely negate the evidence they found, that they were looking for.  What matters is how rigorous the investigators were in following the scientific method.

macgyver - 21 September 2012 04:29 PM

At the very least they were biased from the start. A more cynical mind might wonder if they faked the results or tampered with the samples. It doesn’t really matter who collected them since anyone who handled them or tested them could have adulterated the samples. As best as I can tell no independent investigator has duplicated the results so before we even worry about an explanation for how thermite got in the dust we have to consider the fact that it may not have been there at all.

This suggests a conspiracy of different individuals collecting samples of dust, then sending them to Jones or the other physicists and either the individuals all adulterated the samples in the same way, or the physicists or someone associated with them adulterated the samples. (Jones said that he asked the individuals to only send them a part of their sample.)

But as you say, there may not have been any nanothermites in the dust.  It may have been a conspiracy of all or some involved in the finding.  OTOH, the findings may be valid.  So are you suggesting that we should not look at any evidence that may not directly support the official version of events?

Psikey posted a link above that shows that a foreign investigator found similar results in the WTC dust.  I don’t know if this constitutes an independent investigation.

What seems odd to me, is that there is as little curiosity about this as there seems to be.  Perhaps there is some kind of bias involved in that?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
macgyver - 21 September 2012 04:29 PM

The dust from the WTC was a huge conglomeration of materials ( building materials, airplane materials, office and computer components, not to mention the remains of 2,000 or so people).

The building was over 400,000 tons.  The plane was less than 200 tons.  2,000 people would be less than 200 tons.  They should be less than 1% of whatever was found.

But supposedly this was not just thermite but nano-thermite.  If the particles were very evenly distributed through the dust they would not be difficult to find if people were looking for anything unusual. 

If it was there at all and widely distributed that is VERY UNUSUAL.

But why couldn’t they find sinks and toilets and door knobs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSueQsVsk_M

It is getting to the point that the extent to which physicists have avoided trying to explain this is a bigger crime than the event itself.  This “collapse” description is absurd.  It says peculiar things about the lack of curiosity on the part of people claiming to be scientists.  People have to deliberately ignore weird things about 9/11.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 21 September 2012 04:38 PM

Just one general comment here that needs to be stated. Any good skeptic is an anti-conspiracy theorist by definition. Conspiracies are messy and complicated. They defy Occam’s razor. That’s not to say conspiracies never happen but there is a huge burden of proof that rests on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorist. Its not enough to create doubt. You have to provide proof and lots of it.

Two planes clearly hit the world trade center. Thousands of witnesses saw it including many of my friends and family members. That part is indisputable. The buildings were caught in a raging inferno. Again lots of witnesses, indisputable. After a significant period of time the buildings collapsed and the collapse began at the spot where the planes hit and the buildings burned. Again an indisputable fact that is well documented. The obvious and simplest conclusion is that the buildings collapsed because they were hit by too large heavily fueled airliners. A A good skeptic, using Occam’s razor, would need an overwhelming amount of evidence to make them think otherwise and nothing has been presented that even comes close.


I think that skeptics who rule out looking at any evidence that doesn’t fit with the simplest explanation, aren’t being very good skeptics.  But we must remain wary of conspiracy theories as they are most often, just bunk. (I posted a link above to Shermer’s 10 tips on detecting when to reject conspiracy theories.)

Occam’s razor doesn’t mean that we come up with the simplest explanation, and then stop all subsequent analysis that may threaten that explanation. 

As you say, “Two planes clearly hit the world trade center. Thousands of witnesses saw it including many of my friends and family members. That part is indisputable. The buildings were caught in a raging inferno. Again lots of witnesses, indisputable. After a significant period of time the buildings collapsed and the collapse began at the spot where the planes hit and the buildings burned. Again an indisputable fact that is well documented. The obvious and simplest conclusion is that the buildings collapsed because they were hit by too large heavily fueled airliners.”

It was a remarkable event.  The two towers crumbled into dust before our eyes. Two big planes with lots of fuel were clearly involved.  Even though, they crumbled to dust in a manner, right before our eyes, in a manner similar to controlled demolitions, controlled demolition would require a broader conspiracy than that of 19 middle easterners.  So we should probably rule out the broader conspiracy idea, as a working hypothesis.

But then there is, the 3rd building, that was not hit by a plane and did not fall due to the debris of the larger towers, but also collapsed in a way that visually appeared eerily similar to a building brought down by a controlled demolition.  Occam’s razor would say that even though this has never occurred before or since, that it was due to chance that the uncontrolled fire in that building caused this.

Ok, but Occam’s razor is beginning to dull a bit.  Then physicists produce evidence that they claim they did rigorous analysis on, and found nanothermites in the dust caused by the WTC buildings’ collapse.  Does Occam’s razor suggest that a good skeptic should just ignore anomalies that don’t fit with the simplest initial explanation?  Does Occam’s razor suggest that once we know the simplest explanation, investigation should end?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

IOW, we shouldn’t confuse our own dear Occam’s shaving utensil with a Procrustean bed. smile

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

Tim you seem to be missing he point. Occam’s razor does not rule out exploring other possibilities all it says is that you need exceptional evidence to prove that a more complex explanation is at work. None of this qualifies as anything close to exceptional evidence.

1) It is far easier to believe that a small group of investigators were involved in a conspiracy or perhaps inept in their investigation which found thermite than it is to believe that hundreds ( and yes hundreds if not thousands would have had to be involved to pull off the conspiracy to bring down the WTC) were involved in a conspiracy and were able to keep it quiet all these years.

2) Conspiracy theorists want us to believe that a group of individuals were so brilliant as to pull this off with no one knowing it and yet stupid enough that they didn’t think to make it look like something other than a controlled demolition. It is far simpler to propose that things happened in the way they seemed to since we have never in history seen a collapse of a building which was constructed in this way and struck by an airliner in this manner. We have no basis on which to dispute that this was anything but what it appears.

Your comment is correct that scientists approach a study with a certain hypothesis and then set forth to try and disprove it so on some level there is indeed a bias there. The difference is in the passion with which they have that bias. Read the pdf if you haven’t already and then go read some typical science papers ( anything will do. Just go to pub med and read a few on any topic) You will see a clear difference between a typical scientific study and the one in this pdf The level of passion and the emotional investment in the conclusion show a level of bias that is far from the cool detached nature most scientists. These guys didn’t set out to answer a question. They set out to prove a point. I would be far more convinced of their findings if someone who didnt share their point of view came up with the same results, but again the presence of thermite is not really proof of anything since there are other possible explanations. That’s pretty sloppy data and no where near enough to over turn the obvious, simpler and more likely explanation.

One last point. The lack of interest by the wider community in this finding is not in the least surprising. People have spent a lot of time investigating what happened. Its not at all un-natural for human beings to resist pleas to spend more time and energy on every crazy alternate explanation when they feel they have an answer already. There is a bit of inertia there of course but that is how it should be. The conspiracy theorists need to come up with enough evidence to overcome that inertia. If they cant then there probably isn’t much of a theory to investigate.

[ Edited: 21 September 2012 06:10 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

Macgyver, your post is well and coherently stated, as usual.  I still see some problems, however, with your stance.

1) Anyone who started out investigating 9/11 would have had to deal with factors of passion and bias, including those who came up with the simplest explanation, and stuck to it.  (I have read enough scientific literature to recognize that researchers, can tend to have a bias towards confirming their original hypotheses.)
2) Again, I point out that WTC7 was not hit by a plane.  It’s collapse was remarkable and thus requires remarkable evidence as to the cause of its demolition-like fall. Perhaps the NIST computer model is that remarkable evidence, though some, like the person who started this topic, don’t think so.
3) Investigating anomalies that don’t fit with the simplest explanation, does not, by itself, constitute a conspiracy theory.
4) If anyone who investigates such things is ruled out, from the get-go, as a conspiracy nut, then how would they ever be expected to come up with anything that anyone would ever accept as credible exceptional evidence?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 September 2012 07:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

To be fair, I should post a link, that I finally found that seems to have a good summary of addressing all or most of the questions raised by those who oppose the official explanation of events on 9/11.:

http://aneta.org/theories/ChrisMohr/skeptic/index.htm

Though it has a point - counterpoint by those who continue to oppose the official explanation.

[ Edited: 21 September 2012 07:55 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2012 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
TimB - 21 September 2012 07:52 PM

To be fair, I should post a link, that I finally found that seems to have a good summary of addressing all or most of the questions raised by those who oppose the official explanation of events on 9/11.:

http://aneta.org/theories/ChrisMohr/skeptic/index.htm

Though it has a point - counterpoint by those who continue to oppose the official explanation.

I don’t know what you mean by a good summary.

The word “mass” is not used at all though “massive” is used three times.

The word “gravity” is used twice.

The phrase “conservation of momentum” is not mentioned at all.  It is mostly what I have come to call “emotional physics”.  It moves people who do not comprehend the grade school physics of 9/11.

psik

[ Edited: 22 September 2012 08:53 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2012 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4380
Joined  2007-08-31
psikeyhackr - 22 September 2012 08:16 AM

The phrase “conservation of momentum” is not mentioned at all. 

For good reasons. It is clear that the impact of the planes did not cause the collapse. It was only the initial damage they caused to the bearing structures and the fire following that caused the collapse. It is basik fisics.

You repeat it again by mentioning the weight of the planes and the fuel. They have nothing to do with it. An atomic bomb is lighter than one of the planes, but its destructive power is just not because of their weight.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2012 10:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
GdB - 22 September 2012 09:06 AM
psikeyhackr - 22 September 2012 08:16 AM

The phrase “conservation of momentum” is not mentioned at all. 

For good reasons. It is clear that the impact of the planes did not cause the collapse. It was only the initial damage they caused to the bearing structures and the fire following that caused the collapse. It is basik fisics.

You repeat it again by mentioning the weight of the planes and the fuel. They have nothing to do with it. An atomic bomb is lighter than one of the planes, but its destructive power is just not because of their weight.

The conservation of momentum does not just apply to the plane hitting the building.  It applies to the top of the north tower coming down on top of the intact lower portion.  It has to be a factor in the time of the collapse.  Therefore the distribution of mass down the building must be considered.  But in addition to the conservation of momentum affecting the time there would be the loss of energy to destroy the supports.

You can’t even get the amount of concrete in the Empire State Building correct but you want to throw out whatever information that you regard as inconvenient.  Like ignoring the tilt/rotation of the top of the south tower.  People are constantly bringing up Occam’s Razor like that makes them sound intelligent and scientific.  But it is not scientific if it does not explain ALL OF THE PHENOMENON.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

The individual masses in that model would have to be accelerated downward for a complete collapse to occur so the conservation of momentum must be involved.  It’s Basik Fiziks!

[770]
psik

[ Edited: 22 September 2012 02:49 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 September 2012 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2799
Joined  2011-11-04

NIST reportedly used $22 million and took several years to develop an explanation (via computer model) for the collapse of WTC7. And even then,

“...NIST’s WTC 7 model shows a longer fall time, no eight-story period of free fall, and massive deformations that are not seen in the actual video footage of the WTC 7 fall.” (quoted from the link in the initial topic post)

They won’t release the data the model is based on, due to concerns for public safety.  So the data is not available for analysis or replication.

Yet this is the evidence that we are left to rely on for the explanation of the only building in history collapsing, with utter destruction, due only to fire fueled by ambient sources.  (That and the assumption that it is the simplest explanation, and therefore correct.)

I wonder why they couldn’t come up with a model that matched the actual video footage.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 12:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
TimB - 22 September 2012 06:35 PM

I wonder why they couldn’t come up with a model that matched the actual video footage.

That’s like asking why they couldn’t come up with the ‘Theory of Relativity’ in 1800. If we don’t know how at this time, it doesn’t mean we will never know, nor does it make the disaster a more complicated conspiracy than the one we already know about.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 12:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
TimB - 21 September 2012 01:39 PM

Psikey, I like most people, don’t have a great basic understanding of physics….

From what others (who DO) have told me, neither does Psikey, but he doesn’t let that get in HIS way!  tongue rolleye

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
asanta - 23 September 2012 12:48 AM
TimB - 21 September 2012 01:39 PM

Psikey, I like most people, don’t have a great basic understanding of physics….

From what others (who DO) have told me, neither does Psikey, but he doesn’t let that get in HIS way!  tongue rolleye

So why don’t you tell us how those experts that YOU PREFER TO BELIEVE built a physical model that can completely collapse?

asanta - 23 September 2012 12:43 AM

That’s like asking why they couldn’t come up with the ‘Theory of Relativity’ in 1800.

Now that is brilliant.

The precession of the orbit of Mercury was not discovered until 1859.

http://milesmathis.com/merc.html

Then there is the Michaelson Morley experiment, 1887.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

So you are just presenting more argumentation that is nothing but vague bullsh!t based on a dumb analogy.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 22
4