Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

What are these actual laws of phsyics, hm? You're referring to laws which do not include the law of conservation of mass and energy, obviously.

The analysis posted here using conservation of mass and energy does not prove that the WTC tower collapses must have been caused by nothing more than the damage from plane impacts and resulting fires. Rather that analysis has shown only the weaker proposition that so far as that analysis and the evidence considered therein shows, such is plausible.

It seems you're making the same mistake as c1ue, in posts immediately above. Such analysis has shown plausibility, not necessity. If some other analysis shows that the contrary proposition (something else or in addition was required to affect the failures that occurred that day) then there is no contradiction, but there is a more conclusive result.

• One analysis says maybe.
• Another analysis says definitely not.
• Therefore definitely not.

Then again, you don't know what the word average means, so I could see how you might be offended by posts describing it for you.

I know what the word average means. What I still don't know is why I sometimes honor your posts with a response.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

• One analysis says maybe.
• Another analysis says definitely not.
• Therefore definitely not.

Neither analysis says definitely not. Chandler did not do an analysis that could have ruled anything out. He says because the average force was less than normal force, therefore all force experienced was less than normal force. Hence, because the average apple rate was 4 per hours, obviously the max input at any time was 4 apples. Hence, because the average global population increased during the 20th century, obviously all populations experienced no deaths.

You simply can't draw some conclusions from some averages. If you do, you are in error.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your analysis may be OK, as I've probably allowed before. But your reasoning in what I just quoted above is wrong.

An analysis showing something to be plausible does not ipso facto invalidate an analysis showing it to be impossible.

P.S. -- See further my example involving driving to New York in Post #220 of this self same thread for a refutation by example of your above fallacy.

I did not respond to your analogy because it is not relevant. The analysis I performed was precisely assuming no outside factors. There is no wallet nor gas tank equivalent.

If my line of inquiry is not flawed, then I have demonstrated that the WTC towers could have collapsed due to just the 767 impact and subsequent jet fuelled fire.

I also note that the line of inquiry I employ as well as the analysis method is completely ignored by these gentlemen.

Again, unless the chain of reasoning is wrong, clearly this demonstrates shortcomings in the conclusion of Chandler's and Szamboti's respective papers, to wit: that it was impossible for the WTC towers to have collapsed with just the 767 impact and jet fuelled fire.

I've noted before that this doesn't invalidate their theory, but it does open up the possibility that Chandler and Szamboti are biased in their analysis.

And a biased analysis is not a good foundation for making serious accusations. For that matter, Szamboti's original calculation of the WTC Tower's structural strength is a 4 sentence analysis.

I've even pointed out that Chandler and Szamboti could strengthen their case if they were to conduct a more thorough analysis.

Rather than go to them with this line of inquiry, you choose to disparage me and accuse me of bias.

Well, so be it.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I did not respond to your analogy because it is not relevant. ...

If my line of inquiry is not flawed, ...

My analogy was relevant. You are making a basic error. I don't mean an error in science. I mean an error in logic. My analogy (involving driving to New York) showed another example of such an error.

If your analysis shows something is possible and some other analysis shows it is not possible, then it is not possible. Your analysis may even be entirely correct, but it is not conclusive.

You're saying in affect:

"By this evidence and this reasoning, sure, it could happen."

Chandler is saying in affect:

"Sure, be that as it may, but if you consider this additional evidence and analysis, then no, it could not happen."

I will grant that it is difficult for me to avoid sounding insulting when after repeated, focused, efforts on my part to explain such a simple mental fallacy, you persist in asserting it.

If your analysis had showed that it (collapse just due to plane impact and resulting fire) for certain did happen, and if Chandler's had shown that it for certain did not happen, then your analysis would be in conflict with his, and at least one of them would be wrong. This is not the case here.

You show plausibility. Chandler shows impossibility. If you are both right, then it's impossible.

You show maybe yes, maybe no (though you strongly suspect no for other reasons.) Chandler shows definitely no. If you are both right, then it's no.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Again, unless the chain of reasoning is wrong, clearly this demonstrates shortcomings in the conclusion of Chandler's and Szamboti's respective papers, to wit: that it was impossible for the WTC towers to have collapsed with just the 767 impact and jet fuelled fire.

I had not read the Szamboti paper before, though you first considered it in your Post #195, above.

For the benefit of anyone else interested, here's a link to this paper:
The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers by Tony Szamboti, Feb 17, 2008.

It's a good paper. Thanks for pointing it out, c1ue.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Hmm ... perhaps I see the source of what I've been claiming is a logical error on your part.

You're thinking that "possible" is the logical opposite of "impossible."

It is either possible or it is impossible.

Right?

Wrong ;).

You're confounding the "it"'s. Neither of the two "it"'s in the indented line above refer to the actual events of 9/11. What happened that day is a done deal, fait accompli. Something really nasty happened to those buildings. They went splat really bad. No doubt. We're not debating whether the buildings actually fell or not. Rather we are debating the validity of various models of these events.

What those two "it"'s above refer to are two (of many) explanations for what happened, two proposed models of the events (*). Many people, including you and I and those we quote here, have proposed explanations for what happened and then sought to marshal evidence supporting those explanations.

Some models, such as your explanation for what happened c1ue, say collapse just due to impact and fire was quite possible.

Some models, such as Chandler's, say such collapse was quite impossible, absent some additional mechanism such as explosives.

(*) I did not speak accurately when I said just above that it's the models that are possible or not. Rather, it is that the models conclude that some scenarios are possible or not.

So you have Model M1, which describes a set S1 of scenarios, at least some of which by M1 are plausible.

Chandler has Model M2, which describes the set S2 of all scenarios not involving any additional mechanism, which by M2 are impossible.

There is no necessary contradiction here. Your work does not demonstrate clear "shortcomings" in Chandler's, nor the other way around.

But if Chandler's model is valid, then all scenarios not involving any additional mechanism are impossible.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I had not read the Szamboti paper before, though you first considered it in your Post #195, above.

For the benefit of anyone else interested, here's a link to this paper:
The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the destruction of the Twin Towers by Tony Szamboti, Feb 17, 2008.

It's a good paper. Thanks for pointing it out, c1ue.

Your failure to read Szamboti does not reflect well on your study of the 9/11 alternative theories. Szamboti is the direct reference from which Chandler draws most of his scant fund of architectural data.

I didn't 'find' him so much as follow the chain of references in Chandler's paper.

So you have Model M1, which describes a set S1 of scenarios, at least some of which by M1 are plausible.

Chandler has Model M2, which describes the set S2 of all scenarios not involving any additional mechanism, which by M2 are impossible.

There is no necessary contradiction here. Your work does not demonstrate clear "shortcomings" in Chandler's, nor the other way around.

Again, I fail to see what you're trying to say.

If Chandler says "WTC collapse is impossible", and I show it IS possible, then one of us is wrong.

Either his model is wrong, or my model is wrong.

My model doesn't have to be the actual description of events in order to disprove Chandler's statement.

Furthermore my model - unless invalid - clearly demonstrates that Chandler failed to thoroughly consider all possible alternative outcomes in his analysis.

This is exactly like pulling 1 stone out of a sack, seeing that it is white, and declaring all the stones remaining to be black (Chandler). If I pull out a stone which is blue - it invalidates the prior statement without specifically containing any position on the state of the stones remaining in the bag.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Again, I fail to see what you're trying to say.

If Chandler says "WTC collapse is impossible", and I show it IS possible, then one of us is wrong.

wrong

if you show that it is possible by neglecting some of the evidence, and then he shows that it is impossible by considering that additional evidence, it is impossible.

Your work may be still be "valid" (in the technical sense that your work is true to the data it considers and internally consistent), but your work is inconclusive, whereas his work, after considering more evidence and performing more analysis, is conclusive.

Moreover, you cannot conclude, just because your work was inconclusive, that Chandler failed to consider all cases. You have to examine Chandler's work to see if that is so.

This is exactly like pulling 1 stone out of a sack, seeing that it is weighs say 2 pounds, and declaring (perhaps after documenting other such stones in the world) that it plausible that another stone still in the sack weighs more than 1 pound. If someone else then weighs the sack with its remaining stones and determines it weighs only 0.9 pounds in total, then it is no longer possible that any remaining stone in the sack weighs more than 1 pound.

When a murder detective begins an investigation, he may have a list of several suspects, and consider it possible that anyone of them committed the murder. As he collects evidence and as he refines his analysis, he may rule out certain suspects from time to time.

Please "get it", c1ue. You are making a basic error of reasoning. I've explained it over and over again, with example after example.

See also my Post #276 just above, which explains the nature of your error in a bit more abstract terms. Perhaps that will help.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your failure to read Szamboti does not reflect well on your study of the 9/11 alternative theories.

I have read or viewed hundreds of hours of material, perhaps a few thousand, over the last couple of years. I have references to far more material that I have yet to consider, as I am sure you do also. Your comment is unjustified.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

wrong

if you show that it is possible by neglecting some of the evidence, and then he shows that it is impossible by considering that additional evidence, it is impossible.

You keep holding up Chandler's analysis as some sort of thorough review of what happened. It very obviously was not. No analysis of energy, no analysis of structural mechanics, and no consideration of minutia that takes place during the event. His conclusion is based solely and entirely upon the value of the average acceleration over 2.5 seconds, which is almost an eternity in comparison to impact analyses. You cannot come to any conclusion about the maximum acceleration when your analysis only finds the average acceleration.

You're putting this high school teacher on a pedestal where he does not belong.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

You keep holding up Chandler's analysis as some sort of thorough review of what happened. It very obviously was not.

No, I don't hold Chandler's analysis as "a thorough review". Every analysis of a non-trivial event is almost certainly incomplete.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Ah - try this one on for size, c1ue.

Earlier in this thread you wrote:

As I noted, the presence of thermitic material is neither a smoking gun nor unexplainable. Doubly so without any other evidence such as detonators, timing devices, etc.

So ... if strong evidence of detonators and timing devices was found in the WTC debris, let's say even with collaborating and persuasive testimony under oath explaining how the explosives were planted and used on that day to destroy the buildings, would you say that had to be wrong, because it proved explosives were used, where you had already shown an analysis concluding that the collapse was possible without explosives?

I trust not.

The collapse was or was not caused by explosives. Your analysis doesn't say which, only that either is possible, so far as that analysis is concerned.

If subsequent evidence is found proving (even to your satisfaction) that explosives were used, that does not necessarily conflict with your analysis.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

So ... if strong evidence of detonators and timing devices was found in the WTC debris, let's say even with collaborating and persuasive testimony under oath explaining how the explosives were planted and used on that day to destroy the buildings, would you say that had to be wrong, because it proved explosives were used, where you had already shown an analysis concluding that the collapse was possible without explosives?

I trust not.

The collapse was or was not caused by explosives. Your analysis doesn't say which, only that either is possible, so far as that analysis is concerned.

If subsequent evidence is found proving (even to your satisfaction) that explosives were used, that does not necessarily conflict with your analysis.

Your counter example is incorrect.

I have never said that the nano-thermite theory is impossible. Were evidence found such as the detonators in question, my proof that the WTC collapse was possible due to just the 767 collapse and jet fuelled fire is not disproven in any way.

However, both Chandler and Szamboti specifically state that the WTC collapse was impossible due to the official causes.

They have provided a falsifiable statement, and I have falsified it.

This doesn't invalidate their other work, but it does bring it into question.

I have further shown that their analysis is at least incomplete and quite possibly wrong. I have also noted that a more thorough analysis incorporating the criticisms and additional modes of thought I have put forward could be used to improve their papers and their conclusions.

This is how normal scientific thought operates.

I also note that I have also provided a falsifiable statement: the analysis I performed can be equally criticized by others to determine if the statement I did make is false: that the WTC towers could indeed have collapsed due to just the impact of a 767 and a subsequent jet fuelled fire.

Don't descend into the ad hominem tactics used by the AGW crowd.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

They have provided a falsifiable statement, and I have falsified it.

No, you have not falsified it. How many ways, how many times, how simple do I have to make it. No!

You have an analysis that shows maybe, maybe not.

They have an analysis that shows not.

Your analysis does not falsify their analysis.

Rather their analysis refines your analysis.

When dealing with the set of all possible scenarios, the possible scenarios are indeed disjoint from the not possible scenarios. Either a scenario is possible or not. But when dealing with a specific event that actually did occur, showing that it was possibly Type A or Type B is not the logical opposite of showing that it is for certain Type B. Rather the latter statement is consistent with and more specific than the former statement.

This is not quantum mechanics. We are not dealing in the world of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle here.

Either explosives took down those buildings or not.

An analysis of "maybe" does not ipso facto falsify an analysis of "no."

Your analysis does not show that explosives could not have been used. Your analysis only shows that, in so far as your analysis and the evidence considered therein pertains, and only in so far, explosives might not have been used.

Further evidence or analysis can indeed distinguish, either way, which was actually the case.

We might have found further evidence and analysis that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives were used; we might have found further evidence and analysis that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives were not used. Your analysis that explosives may or may not have been used does not falsify either of these.

Good grief, c1ue, get a clue. Quit taunting me with such incessantly stupid statements. You're making it increasingly difficult for me to avoid ad hominem attacks (or is it really your goal to provoke just such, so that you can declare victory on that account?)

P.S. -- Given what I see happening over on the AGW threads, I should not rule out that last possibility, that you are indeed motivated towards provoking ad hominem attacks.

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

What? No one has responded to my simple questions at post #170 after almost two weeks? Very dissapointing! Those questions fundamentally challenge the "pile driver" theory proposed by Dr. Greening, Dr. Bazant, and NIST(Well, I have repeatedly brought to your attention that there is NO OFFICIAL TOTAL COLLAPSE THEORY - NIST report specifically states that their study is to the point of "initiation of collapse", after that it is assumed "global collapse ensued". Can you guys even read or think?). Yet you just keep babling about whether this study is conclusive, or that study is thorough without confronting the most basic issues. Simply put, your 110 storey high illusion is built on a pile of quick sand.

What a pain to witness this:

Your doctor has just told you that you have lung cancer, and it metasizes to your brain, kidneys, and just about all vital organs of your body, according to batches of examinations, including X-Ray, CT, MRI, etc.

You are lying on the death bed, gasping for air and the significance of your doctor's conclusion, with your right side of body paralyzed, blood in your pee, and bloody sputum.

However, your significant other says to you:"Honey, don't worry. You have no cancer. You are simply too old, and death is the natural course."

You reply:"Dear, I am not worrying. I know the doctor is wrong. To reach ultimate conclusion...*cough*...of my disease, they need to do an autopsy. You see, it is clear the doctor has not...not performed such test, so I believe every word *cough* you say. My life lessons have taught me what matters the most *cough, cough,cough*, is who do I trust, and dear, you have my total confidence."

Yes, you will have your ultimate conclusion. The mere inconveniece is that you have to wait a bit, well I mean after your death. At the mean time, you can rest assured that everything is just fine, the way it should be.