Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Scientific Method Applied to Thermite

Oddly enough, 9/11 deniers can actually use some sort of logic while attacking each other. Wood and Reynolds write a pretty decent critique of Jones' thermite hypothesis:

Dr. Jones has used these principles as a club to beat on the work of other 9/11 researchers, yet his own work concerning causation in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 has not been subjected to the same standard. Below we test Dr. Jones' thermite hypothesis for proof of concept, consistency with the data, practical applications and other issues. After more than a year of development, the thermite hypothesis continues to fall short, as demonstrated below.

Of course the irony that their work fails these tests even worse, apparently completely escapes them.

65 Comments:

At 16 December, 2006 10:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It galls me to no end that you have the nerve to talk about logic as you launch another ad hominem post.

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:20, Blogger James B. said...

Huh? Now you are supporting the scientific basis of the Star Wars Death Beam theory?

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:30, Blogger telescopemerc said...

bg, you mightwant to look up the definition of ad hominen. It does not mean what you think it means.

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:32, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

logic and ad hominem are not mutually exclusive so why does it bother you BG.

The fact is that these scientists, if that is what we must call them, totally lack credibility, and in many cases seem to lack the scientific knowledge to carry out critical analysis of each others work. They would be laughed out of any hall they would present their findings in, with the exception of a "truther" conference.

TAM

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:35, Blogger S. King said...

It's a case of Pot. Kettle. Black.

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ad Hominem" refers to a fallacy in logic in which an appeal is made about the person (either by saying they are ugly, dumb, not qualified, etc.) making the argument rather than the argument in the abstract.

How am I wrong, telescopemrc?

 
At 16 December, 2006 10:50, Blogger James B. said...

Where did I attack the person? All I mentioned was "their work".

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

It's right here in black and white:

"Of course the irony that their work fails these tests even worse, apparently completely escapes them."

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:04, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

whatever you say, Mr. Laser Beam.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:06, Blogger Alex said...

lol. Yes, attacking their work is now an ad-hominem attack. BG, you slay me.

The Ironic thing is that, 6 months ago, these "scholars" and the rest of the movement were violently defending the thermite/thermate hypothesis, while WE were pointing out the flaws. Now, Judge Judy over there is making essentially the same arguments that we've been making all along, while continuing to push her star wars theory. It truly boggles the mind.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My guess is, James, that you are so accustomed to ad hominem that you don't even realize that you are doing it.

The so-called right wing is so accustomed to using it as their main strategy for success that is must be in your intellectual DNA or something.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:18, Blogger Alex said...

Ah, and now he's playing partisan politics. Awesome. BG, you've just managed to stereotype and insult about 50% of the world based solely on their political leaning, while simultaneously accusing James of attacking Judy Woods character by saying that her work fails to meet academic standards. You couldn't have made yourself look more ridiculous if you wanted to.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:43, Blogger R.Lange said...

The mental gymnastics you have to do to conjure up an ad hominem in James' post is pretty astounding.

From Wikipedia: "An ad hominem argument. . .involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

James did no such thing.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex said...

Your comments are incisive and information as usual.

 
At 16 December, 2006 11:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

R.Lange said...

Clearly, part of James' argument was textbook ad hominem.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:00, Blogger troy said...

I'm a person that likes to read this blog. I don't comment too much.

This BG nutball is hijacking this place. I'd like to see the freak banned. Just my 2 cents.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me try to break this down for you who don't seem to understand.

John says a car is red.

Mary says a car is maroon.

The truth of who is "right" has to do with some way of measuring the wavelength of reflected light and some agreement on what measured wavelengths should be agreed to be called red, maroon, or any other color.

Any argument from Mary or John that the other needs his/her glasses changed is an ad hominem argument.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:02, Blogger James B. said...

The irony is that Wood and Reynolds address in this post what BG is accusing me of:

Our analysis is not a personal attack nor is it ad hominem. Unfortunately in the past, Dr. Jones has too readily asserted that his critics, even if they are his peers, have engaged in personal attacks (whether they did or not) and he has therefore failed to benefit from their substantive comments. This article is about scientific content: what works to account for the WTC data and what does not.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:04, Blogger Alex said...

...

Listen gluebag, Judy Woods argument was that the thermite theory doesn't meet scientific standards.

James AGREED with her. Are you friggin' blind? HE WASN'T DISAGREEING WITH HER STATEMENT. How can you have an ad-hominem argument when you're agreeing with someone?

Seriously BG, seek help.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:07, Blogger telescopemerc said...

How am I wrong, telescopemrc?

Look at the comment.

"Of course the irony that their work fails these tests even worse, apparently completely escapes them."

It is not by any means an ad hominen fallacy to point out that a person is not adhering to standards they demand from others. An Ad hominen would be if the arguement was made attacking the person for something not relevant (ugly, beleives or doesn't beleive in God, etc.)

The description of ad hominen is quite clear about the distinction in their defintion:

"A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent."

The key point here is irrelevant. What was written was not irrelevant by any means.

You are wrong.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:08, Blogger James B. said...

Any argument from Mary or John that the other needs his/her glasses changed is an ad hominem argument.


No BG, an apt analogy would be, Mary says the car is red, John says the car is maroon, while Judy says that there is no car and that the image of the car was created by a top secret government hologram projected by a sattelite.

James says Judy's methods do not meet scientific standards.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BG, even if what James had said was an ad hominem (it wasn't), it still doesn't invalidate his point. To argue that it does would be a fallacist's fallacy.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

sfc b,

I agree with you on the point you are making.

I wasn't arguing that James was wrong. I was pointing out that he is "muddying the water" , which is making it more difficult for this blog to stay with the logic of the situation.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Troy,

I understand you like to follow your emotions and talk about your inclination to put those in the face who you don't appreciate.

Sorry if I'm spoiling your fun.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

telescopemerc said...

There is nothing about Judy Wood has any relevance to the science and logic of what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I saying this assuming James and Pat are wanting to stick with science and logic.

This blog is mostly about sliming. It's clear. Argue if you wish, but the evidence for that conclusion is everywhere.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:36, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

It galls me to no end that you have the nerve to talk about logic as you launch another ad hominem post.

Adjust your meds freak boy

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:38, Blogger telescopemerc said...

There is nothing about Judy Wood has any relevance to the science and logic of what happened to WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Yes there is. Judy Wood turned an critical eye on the work of Dr. Jones, while failing to do so to her own work. Pointing this out is not a fallacy in any way.

I saying this assuming James and Pat are wanting to stick with science and logic.

They do, but when the CT side pulls such abusrditites as the Beam Weapon into their theories, science and logic are already out the window.

This blog is mostly about sliming. It's clear. Argue if you wish, but the evidence for that conclusion is everywhere.

It sure seems like your are saying that to distract from the fact that you cannopt argue against any of James or Pat's points.

All of your arguements in this thread have been from a misunderstanding of a fallacy and some desire to dismiss this entire blog because they don't coddle CTs. That is actually much worse than any alleged 'sliming' Pat and James may make.

 
At 16 December, 2006 12:38, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

My guess is, James, that you are so accustomed to ad hominem that you don't even realize that you are doing it.

The so-called right wing is so accustomed to using it as their main strategy for success that is must be in your intellectual DNA or something.


Have you taken your meds today, freak boy?
Someone else file YET ANOTHER restraining order against you?

 
At 16 December, 2006 14:26, Blogger Triterope said...

"Ad Hominem" refers to a fallacy in logic in which an appeal is made about the person (either by saying they are ugly, dumb, not qualified, etc.)

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

When people with no qualifications whatsoever offer scientific opinions on technical matters, and insist that their opinions outweigh those of legitimate experts on the field, then it is jolly well a fair tactic to point out the former's lack of qualification.

Of course, you'd love for this to be an easily dismissable fallacy, since the entire 9-11 conspiracy community is made up of people with little or no expertise in any area of study relevant to 9-11. And the ones with "little" expertise, like Bob Bowman, have been oddly reticent to address facts they would be in a position to comment on.

 
At 16 December, 2006 14:27, Blogger Triterope said...

This BG nutball is hijacking this place. I'd like to see the freak banned. Just my 2 cents.

Seconded.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:31, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

BG wrote:

It's right here in black and white:

"Of course the irony that their work fails these tests even worse, apparently completely escapes them."


Pointing out that an argument fails to come close to the rigour or quality of science is not an ad hominem, it's an entirely appropriate positive claim. Indeed it's the best one when analysing the value of a claim about the natural world because science is the best tool for the job. Science is not a cultural, subjective or normative judgment so the comparison to distinguishing between shades is a bit silly.

Pointing out that Wood's and Reynolds' claims are ironic or apply equally well to their own work is not a tu quoque; it is not a charge of hypocrisy being used to discredit the argument but a criticism about the quality of her arguments in conjunction with a comparison to their stated criteria of analysis.

Pointing out that someone has no qualifications is not a valid form of formal argument. Its use is in helping to sort the wheat from the chaff; in principle a nonexpert can be right, but if you yourself are not knowledgeable enough to follow their claims then you are forced into a position of trust since the nonexpert in question isn't making a formal logical argument anyway. Rejecting a position of trust because of the nonexpert's lack of qualifications would therefore be appropriate: their position is untested and unproven in the eyes of those more knowledgeable.

...it also helps when the nonexpert in question doesn't seem to get how gravity and conservation of momentum work and it's really, really obvious.

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:35, Blogger shawn said...

This is why I hate when illogical, irrational people try to cry "logical fallacy", they almost always get it wrong. BG displays it here, and Roxdog and Stundie over at the SLC forum display it on a regular basis (crying "strawman" whenever someone comes to a logical conclusion based on their own arguments).

 
At 16 December, 2006 15:41, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

When people with no qualifications whatsoever offer scientific opinions on technical matters, and insist that their opinions outweigh those of legitimate experts on the field, then it is jolly well a fair tactic to point out the former's lack of qualification.


In fact, doing so is merely noting that another fallacy is being used: Argument from Authority. That is another fallacy often misunderstood by troothers ( who often cry it when structural engineers and demolitionists are cited as experts).

 
At 16 December, 2006 17:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said

After looking up the word, Tu quoque, I agree that what James said was indeed not that. I wasn't making the claim that James in some kind of spitting match of back and forth insults, which is what I think you are identifying as the accusation made against him.

I am making the claim that James clearly went beyond any reasonable boundary of civilized debate and used defamatory language which would certainly seems to exceed the experience and background he would himself process.

The fact that he has not taken the time to break down the claims by Fetzer or Wood, individually, and specifically, describing what he finds discrediting, and what, if anything, he believes to be consistence with their background and expertise shows clearly that he, rather than sort through the body of evidence and speculations of the truth about 9/11, he simply wants to taint those who he doesn't agree with.

 
At 16 December, 2006 17:40, Blogger pomeroo said...

The fraud bg is always at his most comical when he employs the language of science to promote his ludicrous, emotionally based fantasies.

Let's try some basic logic:

I)Science is a body of knowledge representing the likeliest conclusions supported by available evidence.

II)Bg rejects any and all conclusions that do not accord with his preconceived prejudices.

III) Bg offers nothing to refute conclusions drawn from evidence.

IV) Bg offers no new evidence to counter the evidence he refuses to recognize.

V) Evidence supporting bg's fantasies is nonexistent.

Conclusion) Bg has placed himself outside science and rejects its methods.

 
At 16 December, 2006 18:00, Blogger Triterope said...

I am making the claim that James clearly went beyond any reasonable boundary of civilized debate

How on earth did you survive third grade?

 
At 16 December, 2006 20:56, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I am making the claim that James clearly went beyond any reasonable boundary of civilized debate and used defamatory language which would certainly seems to exceed the experience and background he would himself process.

Nonsense. You have failed utterly to support any such claims. They are entirely your delusion.

 
At 16 December, 2006 21:14, Blogger Blind Avocado said...

This blog is mostly about sliming. It's clear. Argue if you wish, but the evidence for that conclusion is everywhere.

What? The core of the CT movement is about sliming people, not "truth". CTers are saying the US government and Bush in particular purposely murdered 3000 people just to line their own pockets and increase their power, despite all the evidence that proves otherwise. If that is not sliming people then what is?

 
At 17 December, 2006 00:13, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

Did you skeptics Not see the thermite dripping from the towers?

 
At 17 December, 2006 00:17, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

Did you see William Rodegiz turn down millions of dallors to shut up about the bombs going off in the wtc?

Look at my Blog

 
At 17 December, 2006 03:55, Blogger Democrat said...

Don't bother showing clear leads, it will be rationalised away because the conclusion is already set.

 
At 17 December, 2006 04:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clear leads??

Hahahahaha.

13. As Charlie Sheen said, How can a plane make a 270 degree turn and drop 7000 feet in attitude in less then 2 minutes?

So now you are calling Charlie Sheen a clear lead Democrat.

 
At 17 December, 2006 05:25, Blogger Stevew said...

The toofers get more unbelievably desperate every day. None have any experience with any type of demolition, construction, air crashes, investigation or anything else related to 911. All they do is make claims they can't back up with facts, just someones opinion
There was no thermite. Thermite is an energetic reaction and does not drip. What was shown in the piks was AL. If there was any type of thermite it was from the torches used to cut the girders after the collapse.

I would love to see them provide a detailed explaination to back up their claims and back it up with real experts and scientific evidence that is equal to what has been put fourth by the real experts?

 
At 17 December, 2006 05:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeh what really amazes me is that they even use that video from the dripping hot stuff, aluminium, or whatever it was as proof. Its is dripping out of a freaking window, its not cutting any columns, its not cutting any floor panels, since they are connected to the outer columns, its just dripping between two columns, so i don't know what that is supposed to be proving, but hey a truther doesn't care about such trivial things.

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:04, Blogger Stevew said...

Jay
I could not agree more. I find it odd that they totally ignore the fact thar there were hundreds if not thousands of tons of AL in the building, hell it was totally covered in it, not to mention all the AL in the plane. I read their same dubunked crap and all I can do is shake my head in dissbelief.

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:10, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, sleepy, you're a liar. Willie Rodriguez did not turn down "millions of dollars" (yeah, right) nor does he buy the conspiracy bullshit.

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And even if it was Thermite, its cutting on the wrong side of the building, because in the video you can see the flow of aluminum on the front side, but it collapses to the left side in the video. So again, it proves zilch, nada, nothing.

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:25, Blogger Democrat said...

Who is getting desperate now? No single lead has disappeared due to the constant mocking at this blog.

Winning the hearts and minds has already started a long time ago.

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:33, Blogger Stevew said...

Jay
I love the world of conspiracy theory physics...it cracks me up how clueless these people are and they actually think they sound intelligent...they'd appear to be more intelligent if they just kept they mouths closed. The post above is a perfect example, how to say nothing in 500 words.

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. I wonder if the toofers even know what 7075 is with out doing a google

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrat, what leads are you talking about??

The leads from Sleepy?

 
At 17 December, 2006 06:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

All you truthers have got is a gut feeling that it could not have happend like the official story states. If you have proof, bring it to a court of law and let them examine it. Matbe you get lucky.

 
At 17 December, 2006 07:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

True SteveW, if they actually knew something about steel and aluminum, they wouldnt come up with this horse shit.

 
At 17 December, 2006 07:04, Blogger Stevew said...

Jay
You remember the cartoons where they run thru walls and there is an outline? This is how they think and their science is based on this reality.

Remember the old "Laugh-In" show? They remind me of that guy in the raincoat, riding that tricycle, always falling over.

Why have the toofers not filed charges so they could bring out all their so called experts? LOL

When you ask these fools why they have not filed charges if their evidence is so strong, they will say: We are just asking questions even though they have been answered over and over by real experts.

 
At 17 December, 2006 07:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hehehe, yeh they would rather believe a theologist or whatever professors they come up with to debunk a scientific paper :) As long as it isn't a structural or civil engineering professor that is doing the debunking they are fine with that. I think Kevin Ryan, our famous water tester, who does not actually work for UL but for a subdivision from UL, has "debunked" the NIST report and they are so thrilled that he did.

 
At 17 December, 2006 07:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

work=worked*

 
At 17 December, 2006 07:28, Blogger Stevew said...

I wonder what a Software Developer, Computer Scientist, Biologist Physician, Computer Programmer, Cellphone Engineer Webmaster & Editor know about building design or aircraft crashes and which ones have they investigated. These are a few other of their experts. The only thing that qualified them for anything was to ask dumb questions and say nothing in 500 words.
None have any experience in:
Mechanical design
Building design
Building demolition
Building construction
Aircraft crashes
Structrial Dynamics

 
At 17 December, 2006 07:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe u guys could make a post about the video from Ryan


Nice to see he is still claiming that the WTC steel was certified by UL.

He also comes with Bush science, and then comes with something from the union of concerned scientist. To bad he doesn't tell what they were so concerned about, regarding 911.

The concerned scientist only mention the air polution and how the EPA lied to the people, it doesnt say anywhere on there site that they believe the towers didn't come down the way they did. So i dunno why he brings that up.

 
At 17 December, 2006 08:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He also brings up something from the house committee on government reform. But after some searching i found this article from house committee on government reform. It doesn't say anything about how the scientist don't believe the towers fell the way they did, they only speak of the EPA. So again, why bring this up....

 
At 17 December, 2006 08:17, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Sleepy:

That wasnt Thermite. That was possibly molten METAL, but definitely not THERMITE dripping.

As for BG:

While I rarely see eye to eye with him, and I agree he is posting at an astronomical rate, We must not reduce ourselves to the level of the LC Forums, and start banning people without just cause. Let him ramble, let him speak, let him say what ever he likes...provided it is not slanderous or libel, or breeches any TOS rules.

TAM

 
At 17 December, 2006 08:39, Blogger Alex said...

He's not just posting at an astronomical rate, he's spamming, and constantly derailing threads. Ironically enough, I find BG less annoying than Swinger, but BG's the one whose behaviour deserves banning.

 
At 17 December, 2006 12:04, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

BG Wrote:
I am making the claim that James clearly went beyond any reasonable boundary of civilized debate and used defamatory language


No you weren't, you were claiming it was an ad hominem attack, which as I've explained is untrue. The claim that he used 'defamatory' language is also clearly nonsense; stating that someone is wrong according to their own diagnostic criteria is not defamatory regardless of the claim's accuracy. I'd argue that nothing in this post strayed beyond 'reasonable' or 'civilised' too, but these are far more subjective claims.

 
At 17 December, 2006 15:56, Blogger sleepy2k21 said...

That wasnt Thermite. That was possibly molten METAL, but definitely not THERMITE dripping.


It was Tested Postive for thermite by profesor Steve Jones. There was traces of it on the steel. It cut the pillars.

Alex:

Anybody who disagrees with you is a spammer.

 
At 17 December, 2006 16:32, Blogger shawn said...

It was Tested Postive for thermite by profesor Steve Jones. There was traces of it on the steel. It cut the pillars.

It's funny how there's something wrong in every one of your posts.

 
At 17 December, 2006 16:32, Blogger Stevew said...

The girders were cut useing torches and not by planted thermite

You may like to look at the ‘Rethinking Thermite’ pages on the Debunking 911 site for further arguments against Jones’s hypothesis (www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm#molten
The molten metal conspiracy theorist point to are of a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Lets forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Lets also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways http://www.itep.ws/pdf/FOI_Rapport.pdf,

 
At 17 December, 2006 20:10, Blogger Alex said...

Anybody who disagrees with you is a spammer.

Well it's nice of you to say so, but I'll have to disagree. People who constantly inundate the comments section with irrelevant links to their pet theories are spammers. Those who stay on topic, post insightful comments, and provide links to back up their assertions, are not.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home