I will abandon CD hypothesis if...

[Sizzler]

I recently came across a post by Newtons Bit that made a whole lot of sense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3967250&postcount=4

The WTC7 report is recommending design creep for structural engineering. If there's a flaw with it, engineers will find it. A lot of firms are going to lose a great deal of money.

With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.

In other words, if the "new phenomenon" put forth by NIST, which was responsible for the collapse of WTC7, is accepted by the engineering community and changes are made to building practices and codes to keep any other sky scrapper from falling, I will abandon the CD hypothesis and accept that all 3 WTC buildings collapses for reasons stated by NIST.

NIST needed 3 years to come up with their WTC7 hypothesis, so this is exactly how much time I will give for any serious challenge to be set forth by any engineering firm, individual, or "truther engineer".

You've heard it here, so hold me to it.

Cheers

 

[Pardalis]

Why do you even consider the CD hypothesis?

We've been through this before, if there's zero evidence for it, then why do you persist in considering it?

 

[Sizzler]

Why do you even consider the CD hypothesis?

We've been through this before, if there's zero evidence for it, then why do you persist in considering it?

It is your opinion that there is zero evidence for it. This is not the thread to the debate evidence, or lack thereof. Please refer to arguments set forth on 911blogger et al. and responses on Jref et al.

With that aside, do you think my requirements for abandoning my beliefs are fair?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I recently came across a post by Newton Bits that made a whole lot of sense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3967250&postcount=4



With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.

In other words, if the "new phenomenon" put forth by NIST, which was responsible for the collapse of WTC7, is accepted by the engineering community and changes are made to building practices and codes to keep any other sky scrapper from falling, I will abandon the CD hypothesis and accept that all 3 WTC buildings collapses for reasons stated by NIST.

NIST needed 3 years to come up with their WTC7 hypothesis, so this is exactly how much time I will give for any serious challenge to be set forth by any engineering firm, individual, or "truther engineer".

You've heard it here, so hold me to it.

Cheers

I'm not exactly how the truth movement as a whole is interpretting the thermal expansion issue (assuming this is part of the subject you're covering). Is the movement considering thermal expansion itself a "new phenomenon", or are members of the movement looking at the phenomenon in terms of its contribution to collapse as a new phenomenon? They way they've stated it is a bit confusing. Probably since you're asking I'm curious as to which you are interpreting by, the latter or the former?

ETA: If it is the latter I'll jump in and provide information on the considerations they make in architecture and engineering, if it's of interest to you?

ETA 2:

 

[Pardalis]

With that aside, do you think my requirements for abandoning my beliefs are fair?

I'm not sure it is honest.

You just said you think there is evidence for CD, and yet you are willing to disregard it for something unrelated.

If there isn't any serious challenge to the NIST WTC7 report, how does that change the evidence you think exist for CD?

It doesn't follow.

 

[Sizzler]

I'm not exactly how the truth movement as a whole is interpretting the thermal expansion issue. Is the movement considering thermal expansion itself a "new phenomenon", or are members of the movement looking at the phenomenon in terms of its contribution to collapse as a new phenomenon? They way they've stated it is a bit confusing. Probably since you're asking I'm curious as to which you are interpreting by, the latter or the former?

There hasn't been a serious challenge to NISTs hypothesis yet. I'm sure no one has been able to read the whole thing yet.

I was quoting Shyam.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There hasn't been a serious challenge to NISTs hypothesis yet. I'm sure no one has been able to read the whole thing yet.

I was quoting Shyam.

Sorry I misunderstood, if it's Shyam Sunder, he most likely is referring to the contribution it played in the collapse mechanisms. Thank you for clarifying from whom you've take it from. I know second hand that he commented on the matter however, I'll need to read further into the report to get a good idea for imp[ressions on the context.

 

[Sizzler]

I'm not sure it is honest.

You just said you think there is evidence for CD, and yet you are willing to disregard it for something unrelated.

If there isn't any serious challenge to the NIST WTC7 report, how does that change the evidence you think exist for CD?

It doesn't follow.

It is clear no direct evidence exists. Otherwise we would be living whole different experience at the moment (treason trials, changes in government, etc).

I believe a lot of circumstantial evidence exists, but certainly not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that WTC 1/2/7 were CD'ed in a court of law.

For me to abandon the idea that direct or more powerful circumstantial evidence will be set forth in the future, the engineering community needs to, for the most part, accept NIST's findings on the WTC7 collapse.

 

[Minadin]

I recently came across a post by Newtons Bit that made a whole lot of sense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3967250&postcount=4



With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.

In other words, if the "new phenomenon" put forth by NIST, which was responsible for the collapse of WTC7, is accepted by the engineering community and changes are made to building practices and codes to keep any other sky scrapper from falling, I will abandon the CD hypothesis and accept that all 3 WTC buildings collapses for reasons stated by NIST.

NIST needed 3 years to come up with their WTC7 hypothesis, so this is exactly how much time I will give for any serious challenge to be set forth by any engineering firm, individual, or "truther engineer".

You've heard it here, so hold me to it.

Cheers

I applaud your apparent openness to changing your view, however, the odd timetables in your pledge leave me a bit skeptical about your intentions here.

Since a skeptic is always open to changing his position based on new evidence that becomes available, so that his idea fits the entirety of the evidence as well as possible, why not say that you're abandoning the CD hypothesis *for now* but are open to changing your mind if something else comes to light in the future.

Similarly, I wouldn't limit the future evidence to any arbitrary timeframe; what's the point in that? Do you want to be pigeon-holed into a set of beliefs if contrary evidence comes to the surface in 4 years? In 7 years?

 

[Pardalis]

I believe a lot of circumstantial evidence exists, but certainly not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that WTC 1/2/7 were CD'ed in a court of law.

And how would a lack of challenge to the WTC 7 NIST report change that?

For me to abandon the idea that direct or more powerful circumstantial evidence will be set forth in the future, the engineering community needs to, for the most part, accept NIST's findings on the WTC7 collapse.

But the engineering scientific community has accepted the NIST report on the two towers. It clearly hasn't convinced you to abandon the CD hypothesis so far, so why WTC 7?

 

[Pardalis]

Since a skeptic is always open to changing his position based on new evidence that becomes available, so that his idea fits the entirety of the evidence as well as possible, why not say that you're abandoning the CD hypothesis *for now* but are open to changing your mind if something else comes to light in the future.

It really is sort of a backwards mindset isn't it? Not unlike what some creationists try to pull.

It's like saying I'll accept the evolution theory only if nothing else challenges it.



It just doesn't work like that. If a theory is found to work, then it is accepted until something better comes along. The fact that it's not being challenged should be good enough reason to keep accepting it, and if something challenges it, then that new hypothesis should be considered on its own merit.

 

[Sizzler]

But the engineering scientific community has accepted the NIST report on the two towers. It clearly hasn't convinced you to abandon the CD hypothesis so far, so why WTC 7?

Excellent question.

I believe WTC7 is different because it wasn't hit by an airplane and we now know falling debris did not play any major role in its collapse, other than setting fires in the buildings.

Because such fires can and do occur without terrorist attacks, the findings set forth by NIST should have a major influence on the engineering community for everyday real life phenomenon (building fires).

For WTC 1/2, I think it is easier to accept such findings, even if they are false, because of the rare conditions (flying planes into buildings) that were needed to create such a phenomenon.

Are you following me here? A bit confusing I know, and perhaps I haven't expressed it well.

 

[Horatius]

There hasn't been a serious challenge to NISTs hypothesis yet. I'm sure no one has been able to read the whole thing yet.

I was quoting Shyam.

Please define "serious challenge". As there have already been "challenges" to the NIST report on WTC7, we must of necessity have some criteria to distinguish between a "serious" challenge, and those knee-jerk challenges we expected from those with a vested interest in perpetuating the 9/11 CT Fantasies.

 

[Sizzler]

I applaud your apparent openness to changing your view, however, the odd timetables in your pledge leave me a bit skeptical about your intentions here.

Since a skeptic is always open to changing his position based on new evidence that becomes available, so that his idea fits the entirety of the evidence as well as possible, why not say that you're abandoning the CD hypothesis *for now* but are open to changing your mind if something else comes to light in the future.

Similarly, I wouldn't limit the future evidence to any arbitrary timeframe; what's the point in that? Do you want to be pigeon-holed into a set of beliefs if contrary evidence comes to the surface in 4 years? In 7 years?

Excellent post. I will leave OP the same but state in this post that I will take away the time frame, and leave everything open to further additions of evidence.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[Sizzler]

Please define "serious challenge". As there have already been "challenges" to the NIST report on WTC7, we must of necessity have some criteria to distinguish between a "serious" challenge, and those knee-jerk challenges we expected from those with a vested interest in perpetuating the 9/11 CT Fantasies.

I agree. Perhaps you could help out here.

I think a serious challenge would be anything from a respectable engineering firm or anything from an individual(s) published in a respectable peer-reviewed engineering journal.

What do you think?

 

[Pardalis]

I believe WTC7 is different because it wasn't hit by an airplane and we now know falling debris did not play any major role in its collapse, other than setting fires in the buildings.

So the fact that airplanes hit the towers is evidence against the theory of global collapses of WTC 1 and 2?

How does that work?

Because such fires can and do occur without terrorist attacks, the findings set forth by NIST should have a major influence on the engineering community for everyday real life phenomenon (building fires).

True.

For WTC 1/2, I think it is easier to accept such findings, even if they are false, because of the rare conditions (flying planes into buildings) that were needed to create such a phenomenon.

OK, I'm still following...

Are you following me here? A bit confusing I know, and perhaps I haven't expressed it well.

You haven't really answered my question.

You say you think there is some evidence for CD. Even if nothing challenges the WTC7 report, you'll still believe the NIST report on the two towers is wrong, that won't change won't it?

 

[R.Mackey]

Rather than state conditions, as you have done, it might be more efficient if you simply presented your CD hypothesis.

I haven't seen it. I also know you attempted to come up with one for the Towers, and failed.

If there's nothing to abandon, then why the challenge in the first place?

 

[Sizzler]

It really is sort of a backwards mindset isn't it? Not unlike what some creationists try to pull.

It's like saying I'll accept the evolution theory only if nothing else challenges it.



It just doesn't work like that. If a theory is found to work, then it is accepted until something better comes along. The fact that it's not being challenged should be good enough reason to keep accepting it, and if something challenges it, then that new hypothesis should be considered on its own merit.

Yes I agree what you saying here.

 

[Sizzler]

Rather than state conditions, as you have done, it might be more efficient if you simply presented your CD hypothesis.

I haven't seen it. I also know you attempted to come up with one for the Towers, and failed.

If there's nothing to abandon, then why the challenge in the first place?

Get back to reading WTC7 report. Eagerly awaiting your response

 

[Pardalis]

Yes I agree what you saying here.

Are you screwing with me?

You're not answering the question at all.

Also, you completely missed Minadin's point:

You should accept the theory for which there is the most evidence, and leave your mind open to any forthcoming evidence.

Not the opposite.