The science of 9/11

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #81  Postby xouper » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:57 pm

Michael Fullerton wrote:The NIST WTC 7 hypothesis has been falsified.

No it hasn't. Not even close.

Michael Fullerton wrote: It explains not a single observation. Not a single experiment confirms it. It is complete unscientific bunk. It has as much scientific validity as creationism or flat Earth theory.

BS.

Are you also a Moon Landing Denier?
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #82  Postby rickoshay85 » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:11 am

xouper wrote:
Michael Fullerton wrote:The NIST WTC 7 hypothesis has been falsified.

No it hasn't. Not even close.

Michael Fullerton wrote: It explains not a single observation. Not a single experiment confirms it. It is complete unscientific bunk. It has as much scientific validity as creationism or flat Earth theory.

BS.

Are you also a Moon Landing Denier?
>>

We're supposed to be skeptics here, and that's exactly what Fullerton is doing. He's new here and doesn't know that we all wear two hats, one as a skeptic, the other as a truth seeker.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #83  Postby xouper » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 am

rickoshay85 wrote:
xouper wrote:
Michael Fullerton wrote:The NIST WTC 7 hypothesis has been falsified.

No it hasn't. Not even close.

Michael Fullerton wrote: It explains not a single observation. Not a single experiment confirms it. It is complete unscientific bunk. It has as much scientific validity as creationism or flat Earth theory.

BS.

Are you also a Moon Landing Denier?

We're supposed to be skeptics here, and that's exactly what Fullerton is doing.

No, what Fullerton is doing is not skepticism, it is cynicism and zealotry. He is certainly not skeptical of the controlled demolition hypothesis for WTC7. He is not here seeking the truth. He already has his mind made up. He is just here to troll the forum.
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #84  Postby Pyrrho » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:59 am

Well, um, we can't have it both ways. If the NIST hypothesis is unfalsifiable pseudoscience, one cannot claim to have falsified the NIST hypothesis. If the NIST hypothesis is falsifiable, then it is a scientific hypothesis by definition.

I don't mind debating the issues if people would condescend to keep their logic straight. I get very quickly bored with repetitions of informal logical fallacies in place of reasoned discourse. Not worth my time. Certainly not worth Michael Shermer's time.

As for skepticism, etc., skepticism is just doubt. Doesn't matter what the person doubts. If they're skeptical of the NIST report, fine. If they're skeptical of the moon landings, fine. I don't like litmus tests to decide who is or is not a "skeptic," because it's just a label for someone who doubts, efforts of people to enlarge upon it notwithstanding.

Beyond that, our opinions and conclusions based on examination of the evidence are bound to differ. There is a difference between that and claiming "case closed." There is a key difference between doubt and proclamations of "truth." Purveyors of snake oil remedies tout "cures," while people who know better talk about "treatments." We recognize that all the facts regarding the 9/11 building collapses are not knowable. We do know enough to posit reasonable, scientific hypotheses without having to resort to additional conspiracy theories in a sort of "Hamburger Helper" effort to gain legitimacy.

For what it's worth, which is essentially nothing. Everybody needs a hobby. For some people, it's 9/11 conspiracy theories. For others, it's rock collecting.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

Thanks from:
citizenschallenge
User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
 
Posts: 9263
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:31 am

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #85  Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Jul 16, 2011 3:20 am

rickoshay85 wrote: He's new here and doesn't know that we all wear two hats, one as a skeptic, the other as a truth seeker.

Two hats?  :scratch:
In any great organization it is far, far safer to be wrong with the majority than to be right alone. — John Kenneth Galbraith
User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Uppity Atheist
Has More Than 8K Posts
 
Posts: 8417
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:35 pm

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #86  Postby Michael Fullerton » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:56 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Well, um, we can't have it both ways. If the NIST hypothesis is unfalsifiable pseudoscience, one cannot claim to have falsified the NIST hypothesis. If the NIST hypothesis is falsifiable, then it is a scientific hypothesis by definition.

I don't mind debating the issues if people would condescend to keep their logic straight. I get very quickly bored with repetitions of informal logical fallacies in place of reasoned discourse. Not worth my time. Certainly not worth Michael Shermer's time.

As for skepticism, etc., skepticism is just doubt. Doesn't matter what the person doubts. If they're skeptical of the NIST report, fine. If they're skeptical of the moon landings, fine. I don't like litmus tests to decide who is or is not a "skeptic," because it's just a label for someone who doubts, efforts of people to enlarge upon it notwithstanding.

Beyond that, our opinions and conclusions based on examination of the evidence are bound to differ. There is a difference between that and claiming "case closed." There is a key difference between doubt and proclamations of "truth." Purveyors of snake oil remedies tout "cures," while people who know better talk about "treatments." We recognize that all the facts regarding the 9/11 building collapses are not knowable. We do know enough to posit reasonable, scientific hypotheses without having to resort to additional conspiracy theories in a sort of "Hamburger Helper" effort to gain legitimacy.

For what it's worth, which is essentially nothing. Everybody needs a hobby. For some people, it's 9/11 conspiracy theories. For others, it's rock collecting.


I'm not the one with logic problems. I never said the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis was not falsifiable. In fact I directly implied it was falsifiable because due to the conservation law of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics and the conservation law of momentum, it predicts an observation that would falsify it, a period of free fall. Since a period of free fall is in fact observed, the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis is falsified. Free fall is just one of the many facts that falsify or refute NIST's crackpot hypothesis. When a hypothesis is falsified it is not scientific, it is in fact pseudoscience.

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

Skepticism is about doubt, reasonable doubt. Skepticism is not about believing things are false because their being true is too disturbing. That is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.

Reasonable, scientific hypotheses explain all the facts not just the facts you pick and choose. Reasonable, scientific hypotheses explain all the facts not none at all. Reasonable, scientific hypotheses are not hypotheses that are easily falsified like the crackpot NIST theories.

See at the top of this page? Does it say "Promoting doubt"? No. It says "Promoting science and critical thinking". Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, by wholeheartedly supporting the crackpot easily falsified NIST theories is actually promoting the direct opposite, pseudoscience and uncritical thinking.
Michael Fullerton
New Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #87  Postby xouper » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:09 pm

Michael Fullerton wrote:See at the top of this page? Does it say "Promoting doubt"? No. It says "Promoting science and critical thinking". Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, by wholeheartedly supporting the crackpot easily falsified NIST theories is actually promoting the direct opposite, pseudoscience and uncritical thinking.

You're full of {!#%@}.
xouper
Inactive
 

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #88  Postby rickoshay85 » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:21 pm

Michael Fullerton wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:Well, um, we can't have it both ways. If the NIST hypothesis is unfalsifiable pseudoscience, one cannot claim to have falsified the NIST hypothesis. If the NIST hypothesis is falsifiable, then it is a scientific hypothesis by definition.

I don't mind debating the issues if people would condescend to keep their logic straight. I get very quickly bored with repetitions of informal logical fallacies in place of reasoned discourse. Not worth my time. Certainly not worth Michael Shermer's time.

As for skepticism, etc., skepticism is just doubt. Doesn't matter what the person doubts. If they're skeptical of the NIST report, fine. If they're skeptical of the moon landings, fine. I don't like litmus tests to decide who is or is not a "skeptic," because it's just a label for someone who doubts, efforts of people to enlarge upon it notwithstanding.

Beyond that, our opinions and conclusions based on examination of the evidence are bound to differ. There is a difference between that and claiming "case closed." There is a key difference between doubt and proclamations of "truth." Purveyors of snake oil remedies tout "cures," while people who know better talk about "treatments." We recognize that all the facts regarding the 9/11 building collapses are not knowable. We do know enough to posit reasonable, scientific hypotheses without having to resort to additional conspiracy theories in a sort of "Hamburger Helper" effort to gain legitimacy.

For what it's worth, which is essentially nothing. Everybody needs a hobby. For some people, it's 9/11 conspiracy theories. For others, it's rock collecting.


I'm not the one with logic problems. I never said the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis was not falsifiable. In fact I directly implied it was falsifiable because due to the conservation law of energy (first law of thermodynamics), the second law of thermodynamics and the conservation law of momentum, it predicts an observation that would falsify it, a period of free fall. Since a period of free fall is in fact observed, the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis is falsified. Free fall is just one of the many facts that falsify or refute NIST's crackpot hypothesis. When a hypothesis is falsified it is not scientific, it is in fact pseudoscience.

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

Skepticism is about doubt, reasonable doubt. Skepticism is not about believing things are false because their being true is too disturbing. That is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.

Reasonable, scientific hypotheses explain all the facts not just the facts you pick and choose. Reasonable, scientific hypotheses explain all the facts not none at all. Reasonable, scientific hypotheses are not hypotheses that are easily falsified like the crackpot NIST theories.

See at the top of this page? Does it say "Promoting doubt"? No. It says "Promoting science and critical thinking". Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, by wholeheartedly supporting the crackpot easily falsified NIST theories is actually promoting the direct opposite, pseudoscience and uncritical thinking.


Forget it... They've already made up their minds. Further explanations would only fall on deaf ears. Nobody wins, everyone loses.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #89  Postby rickoshay85 » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:53 pm

Michael Fullerton wrote:
Skepticism is about doubt, reasonable doubt. Skepticism is not about believing things are false because their being true is too disturbing. That is skeptopathy, pathological skepticism.



Great!! That should be the standard of our forum.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #90  Postby Pyrrho » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:40 am

Sorry, Mr. Fullerton, I refuse to acknowledge the ad hominem arguments you keep laying down. I suggest you try not allowing my disagreement with your conclusions to upset you any further.

Mr. Fullerton isn't the first person to post here on a mission to teach skeptics a lesson, and he won't be the last. Beating us over the head with definitions of skepticism that conveniently paint us as failing to live up to those definitions is poor logic that does not qualify as skepticism or critical thinking, much less science. Critical thinking is, first and foremost, the examination of one's own thinking and one's own conclusions. It is not, as some seem to believe, the practice of attacking someone else's conclusions, much less someone else's character.

Nonetheless, it is true that you can catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. Ad hominem arguments and other forms of dramatic rhetoric are useful for attracting attention, and often they can lead to acceptance of the assailant's point of view. Unfortunately they are not valid arguments.

When someone can produce a conspirator who participated in placing demolitions charges in the buildings; when someone can produce remnants of those demolitions charges--and I mean actual remnants, not spurious "signatures" that can be produced in other ways--then perhaps I'll be willing to reconsider my conclusions which are based on the available evidence.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
 
Posts: 9263
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:31 am

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #91  Postby fromthehills » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:43 am

Pyrrho wrote:Sorry, Mr. Fullerton, I refuse to acknowledge the ad hominem arguments you keep laying down. I suggest you try not allowing my disagreement with your conclusions to upset you any further.

Mr. Fullerton isn't the first person to post here on a mission to teach skeptics a lesson, and he won't be the last. Beating us over the head with definitions of skepticism that conveniently paint us as failing to live up to those definitions is poor logic that does not qualify as skepticism or critical thinking, much less science. Critical thinking is, first and foremost, the examination of one's own thinking and one's own conclusions. It is not, as some seem to believe, the practice of attacking someone else's conclusions, much less someone else's character.

Nonetheless, it is true that you can catch more flies with vinegar than with honey. Ad hominem arguments and other forms of dramatic rhetoric are useful for attracting attention, and often they can lead to acceptance of the assailant's point of view. Unfortunately they are not valid arguments.

When someone can produce a conspirator who participated in placing demolitions charges in the buildings; when someone can produce remnants of those demolitions charges--and I mean actual remnants, not spurious "signatures" that can be produced in other ways--then perhaps I'll be willing to reconsider my conclusions which are based on the available evidence.


Brilliant! Except the flies with vinegar part, as I have always thought it the other way 'round, but if you can show me the results, I'm in.
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
 

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #92  Postby Pyrrho » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:03 pm

Vinegar fly trap. Works great for fruit flies, also works for house flies but not as well.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6453133_make-vi ... -trap.html

http://www.ehow.com/how_5137321_kill-ho ... icals.html

Images of results abound on the Internet. Here's one.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GidcC38PtFY/T ... C04288.JPG
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.
User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
 
Posts: 9263
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:31 am

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #93  Postby fromthehills » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:37 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Vinegar fly trap. Works great for fruit flies, also works for house flies but not as well.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6453133_make-vi ... -trap.html

http://www.ehow.com/how_5137321_kill-ho ... icals.html

Images of results abound on the Internet. Here's one.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GidcC38PtFY/T ... C04288.JPG


Huh. I'm going to try it. Thanks.
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
 

Re: The science of 9/11

Post #94  Postby Aztexan » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:14 pm

It works!!! I decided to try your tip. I am happy to report that this morning when I walked into the kitchen, lo and behold, there were three terrorists in my old peanut butter jar. Thanks, Pyrrho!!!
This is a sentence. tHi5 iz a seN+3nce oN drUgs!!!

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"--sign seen at Occupy Wall St. protest.
Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
 
Posts: 6778
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:39 pm

Previous

Return to Conspiracies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

MIB
MIB
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site! MIB