The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

General Discussion

Restricted format debate threads and associated comment threads.

General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:55 pm

What? Yet another thread? Yeah, my inner taxonomist at work, I guess. A place to talk about debates, but not about any specific debate. I'm going to use this as an opportunity to take a trip down memory lane. We've had some interesting debates over the years, none of them formal debates... okay, they were arguments. Whenever I stumble across a good one, I'll link.

Anyone can talk about anything here. When the tfk-TSz debate is closer, I'll start a thread for others to post running comments, probably won't have much to say myself.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

 

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:04 pm

Let me kick off with this:

Entropy question

This started as a presentation thread. Darkwing assembled a series of posts outlining his thesis. One day after starting he added this to his first post:

[quote="Darkwing"][*Edit* As of 2 May 2010 I haven't received any objections. I will therefore take the hypothesis as proven for the time being. All caveats have been removed]


Perhaps a bit premature. No one replied for a year and a half. Then I posted:

[quote="OneWhiteEye"]Would you like some banal ***-licking, or would you prefer a critique?
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:11 pm

My reply might seem awfully crude in isolation. Here's the context -- Darkwing had said this a few hours earlier in another thread:

Darkwing wrote:There is ZERO internal critique with you guys except the most banal a**-licking corrections.


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/roosd-criticism-from-scientific-principle-perspective-t435-375.html#p18108

In my opinion, I won the debate on the first post.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:23 pm

But I went ahead, anyway. I started writing as I read the material, did not read it in advance, didn't know what was coming next.

I knew it would be tripe. I knew it wasn't worth spending a single minute to tackle. Darkwing was an intelligent person with a good command of the corpus of scientific philosophy, but not the slightest idea about applied science and engineering, nor even the basic principles of physics. He/she believed that, armed with the sayings of Popper and Feynmann, they could unravel the CD mysteries from first principles.

With a ******* symbolic algebra they dreamed up!

If interested, have a look. If only somewhat interested, start with my post because I go through Darkwing's entire argument, no need to repeat.

Contesting someone on their own made-up pseudo scientific language is not as easy as it looks, and especially when you take the high road and treat it as a serious work. Looking back, I could've done a better job, but it was an exercise in patience not to declare it a steaming pile and walk away at every step.

Cutting to the chase, Darkwing's argument becomes invalid at step 1. Remains so throughout.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby ozeco41 » Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:57 pm

Somewhat similar to those who are engineers or physicists who start from a false premise or scenario THEN pontificate lots of "engineering stuff" which may be valid.

Except it builds on a wrong foundation and is by definition wrong even if it gets into that most invidious trap of being right for the wrong reasons.

Not just the extreme examples like "Missing Jolt" BUT lots of those early energetics and velocity/acceleration based analyses which gave ball park correct quantified answers. Even tho based on false premise - mostly the "columns in line crushing" B&Z limit case model. Reality was ROOSD - whatever you label it. And you cannot get two more different mechanisms. And they don't - cannot - mix and match which many still try to do in concept if not in maths.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:01 pm

Indeed. "Invalid at step 1" characterizes so many arguments.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby ozeco41 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 12:23 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:Indeed. "Invalid at step 1" characterizes so many arguments.

The more frustrating aspect for me occurs at "Step 2" et seq - when the opponent accepts the false starting point and proceeds to argue within the resulting false context.

THEN at "Step N" - I (it's usually me) have the temerity to point out the "both sides same error".

AND at "Steps N+1 et seq" "They" carry on as if I hadn't made the comment.

The commonest errors by both sides IMNSHO - errors of either meta-process or issue taxonomy. (Historically I have tended to not differentiate - both words and the associated concepts "outside the comfort zone" :wink: )


Hey - I've resisted posting my list of favourite "both sides wrong" topics. :roll:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:31 am

ozeco41 wrote:Hey - I've resisted posting my list of favourite "both sides wrong" topics. :roll:

Nooo! Do it! Any forum.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:38 am

Okay, here's another one. This one is MUCH better for a variety of reasons. The first one being that the subject being discussed has validity and purpose, unlike the entropy stuff above. Another being that I don't think my debate opponent knew it was a debate.

Me vs. Mick West on subpixel video motion tracking

Well, I wrote the book on video motion analysis! (Not really, but when would I ever have the chance to go there if not now?)

Therefore, I attempt to correct misunderstandings on the subject when encountered, and double down when people challenge me specifically. There was a bit of that going on in this thread, with questions like:

"...what are you trying to prove?"
"Are you trying to determine something?"
"Is there something in dispute here?"


Which are a lot better than statements such as:

I disagree. Your method is simply tracking the average position of the pixels in the region of an image, weighted by luminosity. This works great for a nice blob on a featureless background, but it's not really relevant when a larger object is moving...


That's a debate challenge!

It was indeed a debate - on the merits of various subpixel tracking methods and the subject as a whole. Well conducted on both sides with only a wee bit of misbehavior in the gallery. A sound and agreeable conclusion reached on both sides. Mick played the perfect skeptic foil for an exposition on the methods. Intelligent enough to grasp most principles reasonably quickly and the basic portions of the subject immediately, he was able to move quickly beyond the normal stumbling points and allow a more in-depth discussion to proceed with satisfying pace.

oz, Major_Tom and Oystein were there.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby ozeco41 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 4:15 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:oz, Major_Tom and Oystein were there.

I was - it was reprise for me - as I stated it in my first comment in the thread:
Which is very much the reasons that appealed to me - pragmatic engineer looking for answers. So I took the "Master Class" as femr confronted and patiently won ground of credibility again the antagonistic "truthers are always wrong" claque on that other forum. Including two very hostile specialists in personal credibility attack - one engineer one an academic. My respect for femr's objective rationality grew as I followed his progress in the face of such a back lash. I cannot recall him ever claiming more that he had "proved" to date - even if it was "his way". Objectivity exemplary.

I vividly recall the artificially constructed - or actually artificial (mis)use of genuine technical factors to support that pair of members whose primary tactics were invariably "pre-emptive character assassination of the person" BEFORE addressing the real valid issue. In fact usually a dodge to miss the real issue and impose a strawman which may have been within their range of limited competence at the real applied physics of the WTC collapses. AKA drag the debate into the area of their own irrelevant or insufficient competence.

For example one aspect simplified:
The topic of discussion was that NIST's methods had limited accuracy and femr's accuracy was "x" grades better. Where x=2 was all that was needed to prove the point of "better than NIST". And they were arguing against x=10 which wasn't needed whether true or not. "They" attacked the straw-man of possibly far too high precision - the 10 decimal places stuff - which was not the topic of debate. All in support of personal ego and character attacks on anyone who was markedly better at the topic than they were.

One irony was that I copped some of the PA insults because I accepted femr's assertions as "better than NIST" - on the basis of the (IIRC) 12 points of superior method - WITHOUT even needing the "higher number of decimal places" stuff for the proof. One sufficient stand alone again IIRC was that femr actually measured "start and finish" of the same spot/zone whilst NIST didn't.


Those same two immoveable false memes for some people:
1) "Truthers are always wrong" (Where truther means "anyone who won't toe our line".)
2) "Bazant is always right" (Even when B&V contradicts B&Z)
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:02 am

Yes, ever the obsession with "excessive (fake) precision". All the chestbeating about "my professors would never..." and "lab books this, lab books that" and "would've been executed on the spot if I didn't propagate error all the way through and overreported digits of precision"...

Uh-huh.

I've been there. Thankfully, I don't have to go there in my hobbies.

One thing I usually haven't bothered to do over the years is truncate digits when posting data or calculations output by program or script. Get over it! Having full floating point precision on output does NOT invalidate the entirety of a person's existence. It means being too lazy to include a format call in the write statement and who cares? It does not mean the poster is claiming that level of accuracy.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:11 am

Perhaps worthy of mention here is the This is NIST's hole; I'm in it, too post. That was end of November 2008. I had a "finding" of over g.

Climbed out of that hole eventually.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby ozeco41 » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:44 am

OneWhiteEye wrote:Perhaps worthy of mention here is the This is NIST's hole; I'm in it, too post. That was end of November 2008. I had a "finding" of over g.

Climbed out of that hole eventually.

I wasn't involved in the early days here - but I only missed about 1.5 years of it.

My perspective is that much of the early research focussed on movements (V & A) and related energy assessments with little attempt to FIRST explain.describe the actual mechanisms.

I came into the field relatively late - Nov 2007 - and as a pragmatic engineer I went straight for the jugular of "WTF is happening" - started with "progression" in the era of Chandler alleging "squibs" - never gave my explanation a catchy acronym - was never a truther - and my work in more or less parallel with M_T et al here identifying and labelling it "ROOSD". And my personal "rate of progress" of understanding mostly governed by nothing more than being one step ahead of the current debate. So I didn't need to deal with "core strip down" till -- dunno -- 2010??? And only in last two-three years done much to post written stuff about "initiation"
- I've had my head around it for many years but very hard to explain 3D + T in WORDS.

So I don 't know who else did it but both my and M_T's work was a fundamental shift of paradigm to explaining the real event - not limited to abstractions or V-A-E stuff per se.

The JREF>>ISF claque have still not broken the old paradigm and especially the Twin Towers "initiation" stage - "progression" whether ROOSD as driver or the full Three Mechanisms is actually very simple. The cascade failure of initiation is complex 3D + T and way beyond the visualisation skills of most - "visuals" are what?? 15% of the population???

Hence almost universally they have been suckered into believing B&Z's "drop to impact" really happend >> Szamboti supporters even tho they don't realise it. Hence the angst against me (or anyone else but it is usually me) who dares to go there - it takes them way outside their comfort zones. And doesn't affect me when they insult and lie - I'm not driven by "win the argument"...

....much :wink: - still primarily a teacher explainer for those who want to learn.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: General Discussion

Postby OneWhiteEye » Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:54 pm

ozeco41 wrote:I wasn't involved in the early days here - but I only missed about 1.5 years of it.

What blows me away now is how it seemed like a long time then, but it was just a couple of years. At the risk of seeming nostalgic in what must necessarily be a BS sort of way... like some old fart talking about scoring the winning goal for his high school team... those were the days. For me, won't speak for anyone else.
OneWhiteEye
 
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:40 pm

Re: General Discussion

Postby ozeco41 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:02 am

Comfort Zones and KokomoJojo Tactics
Those who have been following my more serious comments over recent weeks will have seen multiple references to:
1) "Comfort Zones"; AND
2) "KokomoJojo" - usually set as "KokomoJojo Strategy"

I've been giving extensive thought to what I see as the low and declining level of debate. Specifically of 9/11 WTC Collapses - my primary area of interest.

And the main influence on the level of discussion seems to be the desire to stay within comfort zones. Both "sides" on most forums seem to be comfortable feeding trolls and playing "whack-a-mole" with long rebutted canards. And debunkers content to stay with long outdated explanations that are only partly true..if that....BUT still "good enough to beat a truther"...maybe.

Now what I am proposing is by nature "meta-process" which is itself "above the comfort zone" for many members... In fact the only member I expect to be ahead of me is OWE - but others may be and still more may choose to join us.

I want to make two basic points here - deliberately in the setting where the current "debate" is being held. I may later choose to post it in another area - "History" is relevant because we are IMO clearly in an era or stage of 9/11 discussion history characterised by "Let's Not Advance understanding - We are safe in Our Comfort Zones".

OK let's cut to the chase. The two themes I want to put forward are:

A) The concept of "Comfort Zone" and some of the variations of how it is defined plus - possibly - some examples drawn from specific forum posters. THEN
B) The KokomoJojo Strategy - which is a method of manipulating debate by devious use of comfort zone limits. Named after a now banned member of DebatePolitics where both OWE and I had a lot of fun analysing and debating him.

Let's start with comfort zone. Very simple as a concept and I'll keep it simple at this stage. (I've identified a wide range of different things that set the boundary between "in my comfort zone" and "out of it" - but keep it simple - one factor only - for now.)

Try this: "Most people have a level that defines their "comfort zone". They are comfortable discussing things below that level whilst either discomforted above that level or more often simply refuse to go there." So we can picture it as this:
Image
For a person staying within their "comfort zone" it is:
-- OK to discuss A H p Q S Z B >> within their comfort zone
-- NOT OK to discuss k G o R 8 >> outside their comfort zone

And both sides often happy to play in their opponents comfort zone.
Try the current example of this thread on ISF "Tony harasses Bazant"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=308884

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Tony has all but 3 maybe 4 ISF regulars dancing to his tune.

He wants them down inside the "comfort zone" of physics details - all those green letters on my diagram. BECAUSE the elephant in the room is a very big and uncomfortable for him red letter - his commitment to literal interpretation of Bazant as per B&Z 2002 limit case. No way does Tony want that discussed by anyone.

So if you exclude me, Chainsaw, Oystein and Grizzly ALL of the debunkers are missing and prefer to miss the key issue which is a big red letter well outside of Tony's comfort zone. Missing the "elephant in the room" with ALL of them content to play exactly where Tony wants them.

And that is the essence of KokomoJojo's strategy which OWE and I saw in action first hand on DP.

So I'll explain that in a later post.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Next



Return to Debate Area

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred