The 9/11 Forum

Is science the only means to know something? Can science establish the truth value of everything?

No and No.

Science cannot establish the truth value of anything, that's why it works.

But I am afraid that if you want to convince other people about physical facts then if you are not doing science you are wasting your time. There are good reasons why science works and other methods do not.

The fact that we are ultimately and necessarily ignorant about the REAL causes of things is precisely WHY simple observational description of past events, no matter how extensive the record, does not rise to the level of science.

Why is this discussion even necessary? I really don't see why a forum professing "Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues" should even for a moment consider pseudo-scientific descriptive methods.

Darkwing wrote:

If you need to build a SCALE model, I wish you well, though I personally would use the significant funds that would take for something more personally gratifying and worthwhile.

What I am getting at is that if it doesn't have predictive power and is not falsifiable it is not science. No amount checking, explaining and describing an historical event will ever amount to a scientific treatment.

Feel free to elaborate upon and test any suggestions, such as ROOSD, that you want to.

If you don't like scale models that is fine.

I'm fine with models, scaled or otherwise. I simply cannot justify the effort to build a physical model myself, mainly due to the fact that even a large scale model would probably not add to my personal understanding.

There are other ways to attempt to falsify an hypothesis.

Again, feel free to do so.

But insisting that a hypothesis is not falsifiable because it is based on extensive observation only reinforces the conclusion that it is unscientific.

Who is insisting anything ? Feel free to reject ROOSD, with specific points of interest.

Usually it is the prerogative of the person putting forward the hypothesis to put forward ways in which it may be conceivably be falsified by failing to correctly predict the outcome of some experiment.

Perhaps, though there's no formal workplace here. We're all just "some guys" (and gals )

If you want to take on the task, again, feel free...but please stop inferring you're being stone-walled with use of words like "insisting", "refusing" and "studiously object"...pffft.

It doesn't have to be scale models.

Of course not. I assume you've had a peek at some of the smearogram graphs resulting from my simple async impact model set with 70MJ support strength.

Darkwing, why don't you do an experiment on a WTC replica to test your hypothesis? Remember, scale is not just of moderate, but of paramount importance. Scale is make or break. Until you do, one gets to accuse you of being "pseudoscientific" as well, because small scale experiments you performed simply do not accurately reflect the disparity between mass and material strength.

So build a WTC replica and blow it up the way you think the WTC was blown up. If you're one of those who thinks the concrete was pulverized by explosives, (I don't know if you are, perhaps you're not), you're going to have to drill dynamite sticks into every floor at regular intervals. I can't wait to see the results. Hail science. (And the burden of proof)

In case I left any doubt about my argument here: it DOES have to be scale models.

The issue of scale is a primary example of what I mean when I say knowledge of the scientific method is insufficient in itself; knowledge of the problem domain is also required. It is not optional and to suggest differently is ridiculous. Otherwise, anyone who made it through a few philosophy and logic classes successfully would also by default be automatically qualified mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers and so on.

Obviously not.

When you don't understand the impact of scaling on material properties and dynamics, you can easily make the fatal error (as so many have) of assuming some experiment in the small with everyday off-the-shelf materials will necessarily prove or demonstrate something pertaining to the towers collapse.

Scaling is one of the two reasons psikeyhackr's model fails miserably. The more important reason is that he does not understand the concept of the load-displacement relation for materials under yield. Because of this, he modeled something which is guaranteed to arrest, and which demonstrably has no relation to any load-bearing component in the towers. The model is utterly useless as a model of the tower collapses.

Yet, Darkwing insists that it's infinitely better than what's going on here. Independent of anything happening here, it is not true that a theory has to be simple enough for anyone to understand and test or else it's weak. That's just some personal faith-based crap. I don't see it written in the sky, I don't even see it written in stone.

The universe is a complex place, not a simple one. Attempts to shoehorn it into a box of simplicity is just an artifact of human aesthetics, not a property of the universe. It is almost always necessary to have some competency in a field to be able to do anything useful, from chef to physicist.

Yes, yet Jonathan Cole P.E. does not address or properly acknowledge issues of scale in his concrete-crushing experiment. And when NIST feels the computer model isn't giving them the results they want, they simply fudge the parameters. Clearly scientific research conducted in full acknowledgment of the immutable laws of nature politics.

1) Whatever the specific weaknesses there may be in each of the last number of posts, the fact that these views/interpretations can be aired and battled, pretty much free of ridicule and flaming, is one of the key things that makes THIS forum so special. Here, like nowhere else I know of, a good number of people are struggling TOGETHER, "inch-by-inch" to get closer to the scientific truth of 911.
2) I put your posts, OWE, in a different category from the others. Yours "lubricate" the flow by adding illumination by indicating underlying principles (from various branches of physics/engineering and from philosophy/logic). Your "intercessions" (is that the right word?) are another of the few key things that make this forum so special. At moderating (one of the toughest tasks), you're the best I've ever seen. (And either case, whether what I've seen is not representative enough; or that my own view of things is not objective enough...) At moderating, you're great!

Thanks, pablonovi, you're too kind. Given I have a full time staff of four writers and another seven freelancers on call, the posts ought to be special. Moderation, however, is done via automated script; only about 200 lines of code.

Good to see you around again.