The 9/11 Forum

NOTE: this thread was split from Dr. G's thread

Can the Collapse of WTC 1 & 2 be "Solved" by Science?

Originally, the idea was to raise the question if true science is even being applied, by any faction. It turned out to draw some interest in discussing the CRU hacking and this is relevant to the quality of scientific practice by institutions such as NIST, etc, in any case.

NOTE 2: It has been suggested to me that this subject is not appropriate for the forum. This may be true. Arguments pro and con welcome. In an effort to minimize the discussion being solely related to the CRU incident, I've removed that portion from the title. It was there mostly as a signpost to those who might have wondered where the discussion went.

Personally, I have no problem with the topic, since I brought it up.

==========================================================================
ORIGINAL POST
==========================================================================

Questions about scientific honesty and ethics are ever-present, but I think the critics of scientific practice and practitioners are fundamentally disadvantaged by not having access to the inner workings of the hallowed halls. Those on the inside have invested education, career and precious time, just like any other professional. They have been indoctrinated in their field (usually and mostly a good thing without a doubt), they know the jargon and subtleties and the history. In short, it's their life - so they will defend, lobby, indoctrinate, cut corners, even weasel and cheat, just like any other demographic would.

There's not supposed to be a priesthood of science, but there is. Lately, we've had a couple of threads spring up questioning the legitimacy of this priesthood, or some limited factions within. I consider these crude, ham-fisted, evidence-less rants - just my opinion. One of the reasons that I sometimes find motivation to challenge and fight these quixotic disgorgements of misplaced vitriol is that these 'arguments' serve to distract from real issues, clog the information pipeline, and poison the well.

The question of whether the collapses can be solved by science presumes that science is on the job. That the scientists investigating some phenomena are not only qualified and capable but honest and unbiased is not a given. The belief that the process weeds out incompetence and self-corrects via peer review and replication, reducing the deletorious effects to insignificance, is somewhat naive.

The latest controversy over the hacking of CRU and subsequent posting of emails and files is most interesting in this regard. One of the best places to view this controversy as it unfolds is on this page, a forum moderated by one of the parties undergoing public scrutiny.

Real Climate discussion

It seems that even when obvious and direct evidence of decidedly unethical behavior of researchers are revealed, the explanation is that it's all business as usual. And, by the way, jail those who brought this to the public. If only you were a member of the priesthood, you'd understand! This is not at all a comforting or satisfactory explanation to me, an unwashed infinitesimal mass. You see, if this chicanery is not a breach of ethics, then the ethics employed are quite worthless.

The notion that all published research represents all that's fit to print, and that everything printed is fit is ridiculous of course, and I don't think anyone tries to sell that package. However, like instances of political corruption and conspiracy, the cases of scientific fraud and corruption are only recognized to exist somewhere else, in a different country or a different time, but never in the here and now. Or, if so, only in some pathetically insignificant way.

Well, I don't think the behavior of the scientists in question is acceptable as business as usual. It's hardly insignificant, it's affecting global policy. It's shoved in my face day after day, why I can't imagine!

What relevance does this have? Think about it.

I wondered whether anyone would mention the CRU here. Having read the full content, I have to say, yes, unethical at the VERY least. The whole CO2 arena is of course a melting pot of different ideas, and to some extent IMO, ALL sides are partially correct. What IS abundently clear is that *science* (or, more to the point, the manipulation of science) is being used to say that the chicken DID come before the egg, and if you disagree, then you are just stupid and don't understand. Oh, and because the chicken DID come first, then open your wallet and give the mind-bogglingly rich few more money than you can possibly afford, and we'll take it and do absolutely nothing at all with it, except buy booze and girls, and sit on it...like a chicken sitting on an egg. I hope the end result is the hatching of the egg, and it doesn't contain a chicken
Precession, galactic equator, solar system warming (it's not just the Earth warming a little), ...natural cycles, ridiculously short periods of observation, inconsistent methodologies in recording original (now disposed of) source data. It's a crock of. I could go into all sorts of detail (or is that derail?), but...

Anyway. WTC...

Oh please!

The WTC is simple compared to the economy/climate business.

Does the planned obsolescence of cars mean their unnecessary manufacture means unnecessary energy production, consumption and pollution. But that all increased GDP!

But what have brilliant scientists said about that planned obsolescence for the last 40 years? Do the laws of physics change style every year? What do economists say about Net Domestic Product? How many people have even heard of it? If there is a Gross there has to be a Net.

But what about the Demand Side Depreciation of all those so called durable consumer goods?

The entire economics profession forgot to talk about that for the last 50 years.

http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

The economy/global warming and the WTC are both easy problems if looked at the right way but so many people don't want to look at them the right way because they reveal so many other problems that involve more sociology than physics. What economist is going to say it is dumb to buy a $2000 laptop because it loses $1500 in depreciation in 3 years? What will that do for GDP?

psik

OneWhiteEye --- I am a (retired) scientist and have known quite a few. While a few are less than fully ethical (I personally knew only two), this does not affect the quality of the published work; the self-correcting nature of science means that the few crank papers are quickly just ignored in most fields. Climatology, being highly multi-disciplinary, is rather an exception.

Following up on that last point, CRU is part of the University of East Anaglia (UEA). If some action is considered unethical, that will be up to the Vice-Chancellor of UEA to determine, based on some faculty review board. First, note that CRU is bound by some confidentiality agreements with Hadley Centre, the data belongs to the latter and CRU is not entitled to release it, no matter what. Second, UEA is required to follow British law; do not assume that it is the same as in the USA. Third, researchers at CRU (and elsewhere) are simply hounded by banality evil people attempting to stop/spoil/delay their research via pointless FOI actions; under the circumstances tempers are likely to become quite, quite short.

Actual scientific misconduct is extraordinarily rare; the only cases I know about are in the medical/molecular biosciences --- NIH has taken steps to reduce such malpractice. What is certainly more common is the all-too-human failing of overlooking something important. In the case of the progressive collapse of WTC 1 I, a least but I opine several others, overlooked what Achimspok has recently so vividly pointed out to us; for me this has explained a rather puzzling feature of the B&V computer simulations.

And so science progresses by continuing to make corrections, better observations and measurements and applying better constitutive laws. It is the only known way to obtain reliable information about the universe and everything within it and it took thousands of years to refine the process to the point that Franics Bacon could write it down whilst Issac Newton was practising it. Regarding the latter and the contretemps about CRU:
http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the ... -thinking/

psikeyhackr wrote:Oh please!

Oh please, my ***, you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you do not understand the application of potential energy in physics. You may yet. Until then, things like the next statement:

The WTC is simple compared to the economy/climate business.

may be true but for the wrong reasons. Some aspects are simple, others extraordinarily complex.

Your comments about planned obsolescence and GDP, however, are worthy of note.

David B. Benson wrote:...the self-correcting nature of science means that the few crank papers are quickly just ignored in most fields.

I'm sure it filters out the cranks. I doubt very much that it sufficiently filters political and corporate influence in all cases.

... the data belongs to the latter and CRU is not entitled to release it, no matter what.

Sure, but custody of records can also be a shell game, one I've seen in action on more than one occasion and in more than one industry.

Second, UEA is required to follow British law; do not assume that it is the same as in the USA.

Of course not, but even some of the emails discuss the British implementation of FOI. Have you read any of these emails?

Third, researchers at CRU (and elsewhere) are simply hounded by banality evil people attempting to stop/spoil/delay their research via pointless FOI actions; under the circumstances tempers are likely to become quite, quite short.

Are all of them only banal evil people with pointless FOIs, or is there a baby in that bathwater?

Actual scientific misconduct is extraordinarily rare; the only cases I know about are in the medical/molecular biosciences --- NIH has taken steps to reduce such malpractice.

Do you think there was any misconduct implied in the emails?

What is certainly more common is the all-too-human failing of overlooking something important. In the case of the progressive collapse of WTC 1 I, a least but I opine several others, overlooked what Achimspok has recently so vividly pointed out to us; for me this has explained a rather puzzling feature of the B&V computer simulations.

What was puzzling?

I trust the scientific method where applicable, my gut otherwise, and people rarely.

An interesting link, Dr. Benson. I find some of the parallels drawn a bit of a stretch, but I get the idea. Haven't read it all, but I feel I have to make clear a few things.

I'm not:
- trying to go offtopic with the CRU news
- denying climate change of any sort, whatever that may prove to be in the long haul
- denying the existence of AGW
- suggesting humanity disregard the environment
- suggesting malfeasance on the part of any technical investigators of 9/11, though it remains a possibility for which I've seen no evidence

I am:
- in favor of private research with no obligation to reveal anything
- in favor of private communication held to looser standards than public or formal communications
- certain there are cretins abusing the situation to advance their agenda
- demanding that research funded with public dollars in order to shape public policy on a global scale be transparent and auditable to the highest degree of any research

What I see in these emails is only surprising for the fact that these researchers thought their communications were and would always be private. Big corporate has learned its lesson on that, for the most part. Scientists and academia will catch up soon. Try doing all of your serious conjecture in one of two modes: solitaire or voice-only in a private area. You'll find out what an albatross discovery really is.

BUT, that does not relieve one from ethical practice in any case.

Oh please, my ***, you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you do not understand the application of potential energy in physics. You may yet. Until then, things like the next statement:

LOL

Potential energy is not energy. It is only the potential to become energy. If the distance directly beneath the mass isn't clear for movement of the mass then multiplying any distance by that mass is nonsense.

Digging out coal out of a mountain results in the mass above having the potential to become kinetic energy hence occasional cave ins.

So we have multiplication misapplied in supposed physics and economists not doing algebra correctly thereby ignoring the effect of physics on mechanical consumer technology. There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. At $1,500 in depreciation lost per car per year that is $300,000,000,000 per year. What have our economists said about that? How much is the annual depreciation of all of the cars on the planet? Are there economists working for the United Nations? What sense dose it make for any country to import junk designed to become obsolete?

psik

"LOL", indeed. I can see it didn't take, and I'm not surprised. Well, we can discuss PE in the PE thread and I'm sure economics is OT.

All evidence aside, if there were covert assistance with a wink and nod from the USG, could an entity like NIST ever reach such a conclusion? If the actions were designed to dovetail with natural causes (think AP) and were executed well, would the report look any different?

Now, to flip the coin. Plenty of people here are already convinced there was assistance in the case of the towers. Some think assistance is required all the way down and others (most I think) believe that initiation and some descent is sufficient. Is it because you already have incontrovertible evidence that such is true, or because you simply believe it to be true? Be honest with yourself but don't reply. Your communications may be made public someday...

Is it science to start with a predetermined conclusion and work forward? How is it different from having a hypothesis and testing it? I see the hypothesis get tested day after day and, maybe I've missed it, but there hasn't been an aha moment yet. There have been some very interesting phenomena explored which are difficult to explain, some seemingly unexplainable, some very curious things. Have I missed the one?

Are they that good? Or, alternately, are you that bad? One of the most recorded and documented 'unscheduled' events ever, where is the smoking gun? Why is there so much ambiguity? How long does the hypothesis get tested?

Does incredulity at the possibility of an unassisted WTC7 collapse diminish the credibility of an unassisted collapse of the towers? Test your belief system. Take WTC7 AND all the politics out of the picture. Are you still suspicious of the towers' collapse? What, then, in particular makes you suspicious? The dust jets, the rapidity of collapse, the diagonal slice, the fact that the upper 'block' didn't bounce? That it happened at all?

Now, were you suspicious of that same thing two years ago? Did you even know about that 'thing' whatever it is? If not, what was the thing that didn't seem right back then? What has happened to that concern?

All rhetorical. The point is, science is not done by automatons. Yet. If you think you're doing science on this board, regardless of stance, the thing that should always arouse the most suspicion is your own motivation.

OWE, you are a

I must respond, as should we all (including you, though that may at first glance seem a bit futile), but not tonight. 5am after a Saturday night. Bad timing.

OneWhiteEye wrote:If you think you're doing science on this board, regardless of stance, the thing that should always arouse the most suspicion is your own motivation.

I'm doing scrutiny. Of some specifics. Trying to help ? Thousands of sites exist within which broader aspects are discussed or presented. What is science in this context anyway ? There's, what, engineers, physicists, chemists, ... and none of them are uniquely qualified to have an opinion on more than a slice of the pie. I'm not a "WTC/911 scientist", which is becoming a (mine)field in itself, though I'm educated enough to have an opinion on a reasonable range of subjects (winks at self), technically minded enough to follow reasonable (scientific?) principles along the road (eyebrows raised), and open minded enough to know that I don't know everything (nodding vogourously). There's a whole range of *stuff* I'm sure I've had to (re)learn over the last eight years. Motivation ? Truth. Understanding. One thing I will say now (before I must answer in full) is that I am sure we have ALL become blind to some very basic and obvious issues through over-exposure and the passing of time.

femr2 wrote:OWE, you are a

It's my job!

joking, of course.

I must respond, as should we all (including you, though that may at first glance seem a bit futile), but not tonight. 5am after a Saturday night. Bad timing.

Thanks for the (pre)response. Get some sleep!

The three most powerful words for me are I don't know. It's liberating. There are people clever enough to hoodwink me, that's for sure. Club magicians have amazed me with their parlor tricks. For all I know, they're shape-shifting lizards from Draco with incredible powers but for some reason can barely pay the rent in the human world. I don't think so, but it wouldn't shatter my world if it turned out to be true. While others are in shock at the revelation of the alien infiltration, I would be getting a small business loan to start an alien bounty hunter shop and hunt the little buggers down.

On second thought, I'd hope they were clowns; I trust them less.

Perhaps I'll give a more reasoned response later, too.

OneWhiteEye wrote:Are all of them only banal evil people with pointless FOIs, or is there a baby in that bathwater?

After 979 comments (last count) on the RealClimate thread, I'll say it was all done for the sake of harassment, nothing more.

Do you think there was any misconduct implied in the emails?

None, as it seems that the administration of UEA agrees with the CRU researchers.

What was puzzling?

Why runs leaving out tilt always produce better fits than runs with.

David B. Benson wrote:

OneWhiteEye wrote:Are all of them only banal evil people with pointless FOIs, or is there a baby in that bathwater?

After 979 comments (last count) on the RealClimate thread, I'll say it was all done for the sake of harassment, nothing more.

Have you read the full content of the archive ?

I'm waiting for someone to start decoding the dat-sets included, OWE.

femr2 --- Just some of the comments (by knowledgable people) on Real Climate.