is it possible for science to prove & disprove the same thing?

This statement conflicts with this one:

One cannot determine a "level of agreement" from a binary yes or no response. I gave you the answer you asked for, apparently not the one you expected.

 

I refuse to play childish games with people who are not here to debate. I am not sure what you don't understand about that simple statement. I know you are disappointed people aren't going along with your game, but tough (*)(*)(*)(*). Your claims and posts are a waste of time and bandwidth. You keep proving that time and time again. It is hilarious!

 

lol that's true...

You reiterated what you said before...

Plague told me, and even implied I must be crazy for even wondering, that a full scale physical model MUST be EXACTLY the same as what was really there on 9/11, right down to nearby buildings, which windows were broke by people, even the positions of corpses.

Is that true? Do you really need to have EVERY detail the same, no matter how small, in order for your conclusion to hold validity?

I'm not asking you to repeat your opinion on scale and/or the ease of making a full scale model.

I'm asking you a question about modelling characteristics in general and the necessity for details in their determination of a decent conclusion.

So you're right, that wasn't the answer I wanted.

 

Yeah just keep responding to every post I make the second I make them with trolling non responses to attack my character, and then say you don't want to play silly games.

lol nobody will notice the hypocracy!

 

Normally no. For truthers, yes, but even then they won't believe it. They will just ignore evidence that they can't whine about. If every detail isn't perfect, they will claim that detail is why the results aren't what they wanted. You've seen truther mentality. You know that is true.

 

Sicne when does responding to you equal playing your silly games? It doesn't. Answering your question would be playing your silly games. See the difference? I know you do, but you will pretend differently. Very predictable.

 

I'm simply asking a question.

You're playing YOUR OWN silly game here.. Not interested in this discussion but I'll keep interjecting trolling commentary anyway.

That's hypocricy. If you weren't interested in this you would go elsewhere, and discuss something else with someone else.

The fact that you lurk right here responding to every post I make, shows you are LYING.

 

I also illustrated that the intent was not to list each specific condition, but instead to illustrate possible conditions that truthers would attempt to exploit in order to (in their minds) invalidate any conclusions drawn from the model.

Specifically, if it advanced some truther cause, I have no doubt it would be raised as an issue.

 

Yeah but I didn't mean for truthers, I meant for a scientifically valid conclusion. Not for an answer that pleases the truthers, but for an answer that pleases the scientific method.

So we'll go with "normally, no".

So why didn't you correct plague when he claimed that?

You'll notice I correct rightwingafraud, jack4freedom etc. all the time.

You guys are different. You will NEVER challenge a single word from the people who are on the same team.

Incidentally, you are wrong, and plague was right.

Details are important.

 

This is not about what I need. This is about the unrealistic expectations of truthers. After all, I'm not the one calling for a physical model that can mimic the performance of the WTC.

What I need was accomplished with a computer model that you found some arbitrary flaw in. So in effect, aren't we discussing what YOU need?

 

I'm not skeptical of this, but I was trying to entice you into elaborating for sake of argument so we can have specifics.

Because actually what you're saying here is right, and it's the same thing I was saying previously in regards to the computer models.

The computer models, did they incorporate into their algorithms the positioning of combustible office supplies, corpses, which windows were broken, when the gusts of wind occurred, etc.?

They couldn't have.

You are right. Details ARE extremely important, and small ones can make a difference.

This was my point. You recognize it as a short coming to a full scale physical model and it is indeed a shortcoming to the computer program as well.

That's all I was saying. A computer program can't "prove" anything unless it is strictly mathematical. They can give you hints or ideas or point you in the right direction, or provide a forecast or prediction, but none of which can be written in stone.

Truth is, we'll never really be able to "prove" what really happened unless we get a time machine.

 

I made statements in regards to the scientific validity in the conclusions of various testing processes.

That was my ONLY request, and the ONLY topic I went into in this regard.

The only reason the satisfaction of truthers came up was when OTHERS brought it up as a red herring. Having a dig at conspiracy theorists takes precedence over discussions of actual science and must always be incorporated, huh?

 

So you're upset that your red herring was twisted back on topic with a different red herring?

Weird.

 

You didn't state that you were talking about a scientifically valid conclusion in your claim, yet we clearly stated several times truthers would accept nothing less. Once again the dishonesty of your posts is clear.

 

Let me show you why your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claims are the retarded claims they are. The NIST does not claim their model proves anything other than a collapse could happen the way they modeled it. The NIST does NOT claim they know exactly what happened. They CAN'T know all the details of what happened which is why one uses computer modeling; to test a hypothesis against a complex computer model to see if the hypothesis is valid. If one can initiate a collapse in a model, then one should be able to initiate a collapse in real life. It is the truther claim that a collapse could not be initiated without the use of explosives / thermite / directed energy weapons / rabid goats.

Like I said. You're only here to play silly games by harping on the word prove. It is your MO. You did not fail to deliver.

 

I thought you weren't playing games? So why you playing the he said/she said game with me?

Hhahahahhaha. Lying!

You're right, it doesn't say that when you read it through the straw goggles. Try taking them off.

I told you the last debate I won't respond to your straw dummies; I will back up my own comments only. The same reason I ignored your initial long post about it.. You just lied about what I said, even misquoted me. e.g. I didn't say the scientists were stupid, I said we don't fully understand the world around us, we've barely scratched the surface, WHICH IS TRUE, and only someone who has never understood science in the first place would suggest otherwise. Yet somehow we can replicate the real world that we don't even fully understand on a computer?

How do you program an algorithm if you don't know what it's going to need?

And you said such silliness as we can "correct" any problems that arise in the program?

So you run the simulation, how do you know if the result is correct, or the result of a problem you need to correct? Seems a bit arbitrary.. So you're basing your action on what you think the result should or should not be, which is EXACTLY what I accused NIST of doing, which is EXACTLY what they did, so YOU actually proved MY point.

But go on, tell us how "any problem" can be corrected, and how they identify it as a "problem" rather than the proper results.

 

Actually, it's an answer to exactly what you asked.

His reply is that, unless the conditions matched in every single way, shape or form, truthers would claim that it wasn't done properly and claim the results are wrong. A prime example of this is the Bantham Paper vs. Dr. Millette's paper. Dr. Millette used 1 different procedure, that was superior to the procedure Harrit et. al used, and truthers are up in arms. Claiming that the test results are not a perfect replication.

Recreating the events that happened that day, in regards to actual physical models, would be as close to impossible as you can get.

 

It doesn't matter. As I've PROVEN, HFD is only here to play silly childish games, not debate.

 

Getting dup posts for some reason, my fault.

 

We can use computer programs to simulate events by using real world information. You are correct in that we don't understand everything in the world. The knowledge we do have of physics and thermodynamics, etc are sufficient enough to put together a simulated even.

As stated before though, the NIST never said that their report was the last word in regards to the collapse. In fact you may even submit information to help change the NIST report, and it has been changed. The goal of the NIST was to explain the most probable scenario that led to the globabl collapse of the 3 WTC buildings. They did that.

Through several monitoring stations they are able to gather information detailing the weather conditions, impact damage, etc. I am not saying that the computer simulation was tip for tap, but it provides a much better layout than an actual physical replication would.

Any information can be altered in the program if new information comes available.

Because you have hundreds of engineers and scientists able to confirm the results. People that have a combined experience to understand what happened. Lay people are probably confused, as I was until I started really digging into the facts.

HFD, I actually enjoy your questions, but to be extremely honest with you. I just don't think you understand the events that happened that day, and furthermore I don't think you understand the explanations that were given.

I agree that NIST saw the conclusion, as we all did, before they started doing the research. However, the events that they describe coincide with the video, photographic, and eyewitness testimoy that is available. Is it 100% accurate? No. It was never meant to be, that is where I think you are confused.

"any problem" can be correct by incoming data that contradicts the current information. It happens all the time. Like when we thought the earth was flat, when we found out we weren't the center of the universe, etc. They identify the problem by evaluating the way their simulation collapses, and how the actual scenario happened.

Like I said, it's not perfect, and it was never designed to be. You shouldn't expect it to be, and there is no investigation, no matter how well funded that will show you the exact events that unfolded.

 

EXACTLY!

I could have sworn I've witnessed people acting like their collapse scenario was proven. I guess not.

 

I never said the washers represent floors.

This is people operating on that "looks like" business again.

The LEVELS of the buildings had to get heavier going down because the columns that supported the weight had to get stronger so the cross sectional area of the columns increased, in the core and on the perimeter.

My washers are mass that has to be supported so my paper loops have to get stronger toward the bottom. There are limits to how similar a small model can be. The strength and weight are separate in my model. One washer weighs more than all of the paper loops.

My model is a demonstration of the physics of a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. But equating my washers to the floors outside the core is just nonsense in other people's heads. I never said any such thing.

psik

 

The percentage increase in weight is negligable from the base to the top, but who cares.

So what parameters of the experiment would you accept? # of washers? Weight of washers? height? Amount dropped? I believe I saw you say 15% earlier. Dropped from what distance?

Seriously. I want to shut your whining about no model has ever been built that demonstrates the collapse. I know how to do it. It will be built like the towers.

Nobody is questioning you making the paper at the bottom stronger to support the upper washers. I was questioning the need to increase the weight of the washers.

So if I can build a model that shows a gravitational collapse, your claim that it can't happen that way goes away, correct?

 

how come they didnt PULL IT?

 

You mean the demolition term which signifies the attaching of cables to a structure and pulling it over? Because it didn't happen. Surprised?