Here’s an oft-used picture to illustrate the point.
What, in your fire and crash based theory of collapse can account for a core column being cut in an essentially straight line (no damage, no twisting or warping beyond the point of separation), diagonally across it, leaving what appears to be a hardened molten metal residue?
Now, a good friend of my brother’s happens to be a welder and metalsmith. They cast a large (20 pound) aluminium heat sink for a homemade smoke machine in a back garden. He also holds degrees in physics and chemistry. So you could say he’s got plenty of theoretical and practical experience of these sorts of issues. He cannot explain the above in a gravity driven collapse. Perhaps you can.
And therein lies a problem. I asked the question in the first place because of an article I read by Stephen Gould regarding evolution vs. creationism. The creationist, when asked what could lead them to believe in evolution, says “nothing,” which Gould notes is the dead giveaway for a dogmatic belief. But an evolutionary scientist could list many things that would cast serious doubt on the theory, i.e. finding one single mammalian fossil in a fossil bed from a time period before mammals existed.
My point being, in most cases, the population of our nation is convinced by science. I say in most cases, because obviously evolution isn’t taken seriously by the majority of the population still, but there are reasons for that as well.
Now, I think it can be argued quite effectively that there is more evidence to support your theory than there is evidence to support the government’s theory in regards to 9/11, but when one states nothing could convince them of the contrary, and I mean nothing, it reeks of dogma and makes your case look weak and suspicious. And isn’t the entire point to convince people of the truth? That doesn’t seem to be the way to do it.
Except Gould, being someone with no training in comparative belief (philosophy), misses the point I make above.
Curious then, that Darwin noted punctuated equilibrium as a refutation of evolutionary theory, and when we found evidence for this in the fossil record the theory wasn’t dropped.
Likewise, the population of your nation is convinced by religion. What’s your point? Lots of people being convinced by something doesn’t give it authority.
Plenty of religious people are also scientists. Plenty of scientists have cast doubt on the official conspiracy theory of evolution.
No it doesn’t, and I didn’t say that. When asked for clarification I said that my own theory of what did happen is falsifiable, and I could be convinced otherwise. I said that my belief that the 9/11 Commission version is impossible couldn’t be falsified, but since it is a categorical statement it does not rely on evidence and as such falsifiability is irrelevant.
No. That’s not my aim.
Aside from speculating about my motives and ignoring what I actually said, do you have any genuine problem with my entries here, or are you just using one moment of controversy to try to spark another ‘science is cool, religion isn’t’ discussion?
For the record, there are plenty of bigoted, dogmatic scientists, and followers of science, who are the equal of any religious fanatic in that particular regard. Just as this doesn’t invalidate science as a method or as a set of beliefs, it doesn’t invalidate religious belief either.
Plus, they’d presumably still be hunting for survivors at this stage and I see no benefit to such a search in cutting off such columns. And most methods I know of cutting such a piece of metal would not result in molten metal around the cut.
Then there’s building 7, which isn’t even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission Report, and was decoupled from the first NIST report. A building that was said to have collapsed half an hour before it did. A building which contained the offices of some very secretive and powerful organisations. A building that collapsed in an essentially symmetrical manner, entirely into its own footprint (unlike the twin towers, where vast pieces of steel and huge quantities of dust were thrown outwards), in the one of the most perfectly executed controlled demolitions you’ll ever see. A building collapsing from random fire and damage should collapse partially, at the points where the damage is worst. That’s how all comparable building collapses (including one only a few months back in Holland) have happened. If we’re going to employ scientific reasoning, which I’m easy with or without, then precedent and repeatability are paramount. All prior building collapses due to fire and/or externally caused damage have been partial, and taken place over a much longer period of time.
A couple of videos - the first is pretty conclusive proof of molten metal (probably iron, because of the colour) in the WTC.
The second is a clip from the BBC’s 9/11 coverage where the reporter talks of an explosion in the South Tower before it collapsed, and then the camera picks up an explosion (which the reporter reacts to), and then shows the north tower collapsing.
Although I’d be interested in an earnest discussion, this isn’t the thread for it.
Again, something we could discuss perhaps in another thread.
Fair enough.
This isn’t entirely true. There are religious scientists, and even religious evolutionary biologists, but there is only a minute percentage of biologists who are creationists, and none are taken seriously in the world of biology.
I mean, even if hypothetically a panel of the top 100 experts in their field went point by point and disputed the evidence and arguments put forth by the 9/11 truth movement, you wouldn’t even be slightly moved?
No genuine problems. And although I do love such discussions, I’ll digress so as not to throw this thread off more than I already have.
Now this statement interests me. Would you mind clarifying? I might start another thread on this topic alone. What kind of bigots are these scientists? What dogma do they carry?
I said people who have cast doubt on evolution, not creationists.
Try to get this distinction into your head - I’m unmoveable on the subject of the 9/11 Commission’s version being wrong. The details of what did happen? I can only speculate, and am willing to be taught more information by anyone who has got it, expert in their field or otherwise.
Well, science itself is a dogmatic philosophy. Particularly since it’s become so institutionalised. Then it’s authority as an epistemology becomes secondary to it’s reputation and hence its funding. Or should that be its funding and hence its reputation. As to evil scientists - look up any brutal regime you like, it had its share of horrendous scientists who saw ordinary humans as mere flesh to be experimented with.
Medical science, for example, is based around treating symptoms, rather than stimulating the body’s existing defences. Trainee doctors are told that the more detached they are, the better they are as doctors. That’s a pretty horrible belief right there.
I stand by my point. Almost all biologists believe evolution is a fact. I’ll agree that some are doubtful of the mechanism, natural selection, that was proposed by Charles Darwin.
Really? I think science is the exact opposite of a dogmatic philosophy. I’ll check to see if a post has been made about it before.
Nothing more doubtful than a room full of experts telling each other they’re all right.
And no way to determine the large scale evolutionary changes taken for granted.
Really? I think science is the exact opposite of a dogmatic philosophy. I’ll check to see if a post has been made about it before.
[/quote]
See the other thread in Social Sciences. Both yourself and another poster have exhibited textbook dogmatic attitudes. I’m not saying this to try to insult you, I’m saying it because often people are unaware of the arbitrary and unnecessary limitations they place on their own imagination, and often they are happier when they have such limitations pointed out to them as intellectual choices that they’ve made, and can unmake if they find it necessary to do so.
You might as well put on that clown suit, at least you’ll get paid about it. Implying that evolution is just dogma, reinforced by a bunch of ‘experts’ and that theres no evidence for large-scale change over evolutionary time, is bullshit nonsense and ignorant.
You don’t support your arguement beyond “I say so” but anyone who has a webbrowser, or access to a library/internet, know your beliefs are full of bullshit and so dogmatically held that its highly hypocritical for you to say anyone else is text-book dogmatic.
You’re textbook ignorant on top of being textbook crazy. I’m not sure how the giant chain of intermediate forms between humans and apes isn’t evidence that we evolved, but you’re so full of shit I can’t even tolerate to hear your bullshit anwser. Nothing you’ve said on this site has had any rational value yet, why should I expect you to start?
oh, and theres a reason most biologists believe in evolution, because theres massive evidence for it, so get on track debunking that, or admit that your arguements are as weak as your ability to detail them.
Its not surprising seeing other posters call you on your BS. Of course, all the biologists who support evolution are bigots, you know better. I suggest starting with some basic popscience like ‘making of the fittest’ by sean carrol, if you can handle pop science.
theres too many examples of evolution at work, in a few short generations the house cat turned into the hardy/giant maine coon, in a blink of evolutionary time we’ve taken wolves and turned them into things like lap dogs, we can breed pigeons into all different shapes/forms in a blink of evolutionary time, i’m not sure why natural selection, working over massive scales of time, couldn’t do much much more.
but thats the power of ignorance/ARROGANCE, you think you know everything when in truth you know next to nothing of value at all.
theres plenty of examples of evolution happening within SEEABLE amounts of time, say 30 years, lizards starting to develope primitive organs and shit when placed on a new island.
If you find a dead woman with skin under-neath her nails, you can test the DNA, make a fairly accurate judgement in most cases about who she scratched if you have a good sample against another sample. Most people believe that evidence is powerful/strong.
The dna evidence is just as strong for evolution as it would be to identify whoever the bitch scratched.
This is not only insulting, it’s insulting because it’s such a poor insult.
It isn’t just dogma, but it is dogma. And I suppose coinciding speculations about how old rocks are is evidence of a sort…
I didn’t even go that far.
I have access to numerous libraries, and use the internet for research on a daily basis.
That’s one hefty great problem with your argument.
There’s a textbook on ignorance? Is it sold on amazon.
Curiously enough, you can buy an Al Qaeda training manual from Amazon. Islamic bookshops get closed down all the time, but amazon continues to trade.
Your lack of tolerance is not a sound basis for counterargument.
Dunno, maybe you could exercise a little optimism and charitable nature. Just a suggestion.
You are in no position to be making demands on me. If you’ve got a specific question, ask it.
People disagree with me. Funnily enough, I can live with that. Your behaviour here would suggest that dissent towards your opinions is something you have trouble with.
Not all of them. Just the bigoted ones, and the ones who tacitly accept that bigotry.
I’d rather not, if it’s all the same with you. Pop science is the epitome of what I’m criticising about how institutionalising science in the way that we have has in fact made the endeavour less scientific.
Ironic that you’d push me in that direction though. Well, not ironic at all. Grimly predictable.
