|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2007 : 18:04:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
Support your claim or retract it. Where does it say it was only referring to consensus science?
It's the Union of Concerned Scientists, man, not the Union of Concerned Speculators. Look at the examples they use in the report. Are any of them criticizing the President for failing to support research into perpetual motion machines?
When did I use the word "only?" And why should I support my claim or retract it when you refuse to play by those rules yourself?
Yep, just as I thought, you made it up. You will notice in the report a section on tubes relating to Iraqs WMDs. Nothing to do with consensus science.
The conclusions of the report are clear. Almost as clear as your failed attempt at obsfucation.
So lets see. The UCS layed out what they are concerned about and you think you get to add something to their list. We are completely aware of Bush's hostility and manipulations of science in his own commissioned reports, when he didn't like what they said. We are aware of how he has changed wording and downplayed that which doesn't fit his agenda.
But you don't get to take what we know about Bush and science and jump to a conclusion that was not brought up by the scientists themselves. That is the logical fallicy of a hasty generalization.
Jumping to conclusions based on that kind of evidence is exactly how you are not a critical thinker and how you operate from a confirmation bias that taints your worldview.
What's funny is you think we don't know this stuff about Bush. Think again. This is a science site…
So let me get this straight. You essentially agree with a report that concludes that the Bush abuse of science is unprecedented and that scientistys are under pressure in sensitive issues, yet you totally accept the reports by NIST on 911. mmmmmkay! |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 18:33:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by j911ob
...yet you totally accept the reports by NIST on 911.
Support that claim or retract it.
And the UCS report says,In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories. So yes, the consensus of the government-employed experts was ignored by the administration.
This issue isn't difficult, j911ob: the UCS is only presenting cases where they have the rock-solid evidence in hand that the administration has twisted or ignored the science. The UCS names names, dates and places, outlined what happened and when, and makes their case. They're not saying that this-or-that report is suspect just because it came from the Bush administration.
Just in tonight's news was a report about a specific person twisting science on behalf of Bush in the Department of the Interior, with regards to endangered species. Everyone knows who did it, why, and how badly the science was shredded. The 9/11 CTs have nothing like that, just speculation about Bush relatives who might have done something sometime and a bucketload of incredulity borne out of ignorance. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 19:04:08 [Permalink]
|
j911ob:
So let me get this straight. You essentially agree with a report that concludes that the Bush abuse of science is unprecedented and that scientists are under pressure in sensitive issues, yet you totally accept the reports by NIST on 911. mmmmmkay! |
Where did I say that I completely agree with the NIST report?
Anyhow, your logic seems to work this way.
A group of scientists are rightfully complaining about how the Bush administration has treated science, therefore Bush was behind 9/11 and subverted the reports about it even though the scientists in their list of complaints did not mention the NIST report.
Does that pretty much sum up your position? I'm truly sorry that you can't see what is wrong with what you would like to conclude based on that kind of evidence. I really can't help you with this.
As I said in an earlier post, you deal in speculation. And you can speculate about anything…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 19:17:09 [Permalink]
|
j911ob said:
| Support your claim or retract it. Where does it (UCS) say it was only referring to consensus science? |
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Find one political complaint by the UCS that is about an issue that doesn't deal with consensus science being distorted by the Bush admin. I'll save you the trouble (you should look anyway), you can't.
Government scientists are, obviously, free to complain about political interference in their science. They do it a lot recently.
So explain why, if government scientists are free to complain about political interference, no government scientist has complained about political interference with the NIST WTC reports.
Is it just some deep government conspiracy to control data about 9/11 where the government has total control of all the NIST scientists, or is it because there is no interference? Hrrrmmmm... I wonder which one of those things it is?
We'll just leave off the fact that the NIST report was written by (and involved the work of) many people, many of whom are NOT employees of the US government.
We'll also leave off the fact that the NIST report is a fully referenced document, with dozens (if not hundreds) of references to the work of civilian scientists.
We'll also leave off the fact that, to date, none of those referenced civilians have lodged any complaint about the NIST report or their inclusion in the references.
.... Wait, no, forget that... I'm not leaving any of that stuff off.
You need to account for those nagging little details. So, come on, start accounting.
Obviously you have never read the NIST reports, nor have you bothered to check the references in the NIST reports. Its something you might want to consider doing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:11:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
j911ob said:
| Support your claim or retract it. Where does it (UCS) say it was only referring to consensus science? |
http://www.ucsusa.org/
Find one political complaint by the UCS that is about an issue that doesn't deal with consensus science being distorted by the Bush admin. I'll save you the trouble (you should look anyway), you can't.
Government scientists are, obviously, free to complain about political interference in their science. They do it a lot recently.
So explain why, if government scientists are free to complain about political interference, no government scientist has complained about political interference with the NIST WTC reports.
Is it just some deep government conspiracy to control data about 9/11 where the government has total control of all the NIST scientists, or is it because there is no interference? Hrrrmmmm... I wonder which one of those things it is?
We'll just leave off the fact that the NIST report was written by (and involved the work of) many people, many of whom are NOT employees of the US government.
We'll also leave off the fact that the NIST report is a fully referenced document, with dozens (if not hundreds) of references to the work of civilian scientists.
We'll also leave off the fact that, to date, none of those referenced civilians have lodged any complaint about the NIST report or their inclusion in the references.
.... Wait, no, forget that... I'm not leaving any of that stuff off.
You need to account for those nagging little details. So, come on, start accounting.
Obviously you have never read the NIST reports, nor have you bothered to check the references in the NIST reports. Its something you might want to consider doing.
|
But scientists are complaining that the NIST report is flawed. Dr Frank Greening has been trying to relay his concerns to NIST and they just ignore him. Just because you dont hear about dissent doesnt mean it isnt happening. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:23:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
But scientists are complaining that the NIST report is flawed. Dr Frank Greening has been trying to relay his concerns to NIST and they just ignore him. Just because you dont hear about dissent doesnt mean it isnt happening. |
What has this Dr. Greening been saying? Does he have the evidence that demonstrates that someone has tampered with the actual NIST findings? That's what the UCS is complaining about: administration officials tampering with government science reports.
Don't forget to support (or retract) your claim that Kil "totally accept the reports by NIST on 911." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:27:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by j911ob
But scientists are complaining that the NIST report is flawed. Dr Frank Greening has been trying to relay his concerns to NIST and they just ignore him. Just because you dont hear about dissent doesnt mean it isnt happening. |
What has this Dr. Greening been saying? Does he have the evidence that demonstrates that someone has tampered with the actual NIST findings? That's what the UCS is complaining about: administration officials tampering with government science reports.
Don't forget to support (or retract) your claim that Kil "totally accept the reports by NIST on 911."
|
Yes Greening thinks the NIST report has been steered by beaurocracy. He worked in the nuclear industry for 25 years and saw the same thing there. Greening used to be a hero of debunkers because of his papers on global collapse but when he joined JREF they got a shock. He totally ripped the NIST report to shreds. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:30:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Yes Greening thinks the NIST report has been steered by beaurocracy. He worked in the nuclear industry for 25 years and saw the same thing there. Greening used to be a hero of debunkers because of his papers on global collapse but when he joined JREF they got a shock. He totally ripped the NIST report to shreds.
|
So you say, without providing any evidence.
Don't forget to support (or retract) your claim that Kil "totally accept the reports by NIST on 911."
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 08:35:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by j911ob
Yes Greening thinks the NIST report has been steered by beaurocracy. He worked in the nuclear industry for 25 years and saw the same thing there. Greening used to be a hero of debunkers because of his papers on global collapse but when he joined JREF they got a shock. He totally ripped the NIST report to shreds.
|
So you say, without providing any evidence.
Don't forget to support (or retract) your claim that Kil "totally accept the reports by NIST on 911."
|
I made no such claim, I asked a questuion.
Heres what greening said in hist first thread at JREF:
I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.
In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!? |
Greening is Apollo20
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111 |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 09:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
I made no such claim, I asked a questuion. |
No, you didn't, you made a statement about Kil's beliefs:You essentially agree with a report that concludes that the Bush abuse of science is unprecedented and that scientistys are under pressure in sensitive issues, yet you totally accept the reports by NIST on 911. Support that statement or retract it.Heres what greening said in hist first thread at JREF:
I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.
In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!? |
Greening is Apollo20
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111 |
And not a single word about the administration twisting the NIST's actual science. Just claims that the NIST report is wrong. The UCS statement isn't about the government agencies putting out bad science, it's about government agencies putting out good science which the administration then distorts or ignores. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 09:03:13 [Permalink]
|
Qoute mining much? I said
| So let me get this straight. You essentially agree with a report that concludes that the Bush abuse of science is unprecedented and that scientistys are under pressure in sensitive issues, yet you totally accept the reports by NIST on 911. mmmmmkay! |
|
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
j911ob
Skeptic Friend
223 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 09:04:39 [Permalink]
|
| And not a single word about the administration twisting the NIST's actual science. Just claims that the NIST report is wrong. The UCS statement isn't about the government agencies putting out bad science, it's about government agencies putting out good science which the administration then distorts or ignores. |
Try reading the rest of the thread I linked you to. |
"Any pressurized can exposed to heat will explode like a grenade. Even a sealed bag of potato chips, if not melted by direct flame, can 'pop' with quite a report." - Kookbreaker at JREF, responding to reports of explosions in the towers. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 10:39:16 [Permalink]
|
You, and Greening, have nothing but an illformed opinion to support the claim that the government is interfering with the NIST report.
In the instances where the UCS complains about government interference they have documents (an internal memo and an report edited by a political operative in one instance) and testimony from the scientists whos work was being edited.
Is Greening's work listed in the references of the NIST report?
Reality check: You can always find atleast one scientist who disagrees with the vasy majority of his peers. Read up on the evolution and creationism "controversy", or global warming, for some fine examples of small numbers of people who disagree with the vast sceintific consensus.
What you need, for this particular argument to be considered, is one of the authors of the NIST report to claim that the government is manipulating the results.
Get back to me when you find that person.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 10:49:49 [Permalink]
|
Greening, from the JREF link:
| but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! |
Well, appeal to authority is a legitimate argumentive tactic. It only becomes a fallacy when you appeal to false authority.
When we talk about most things, and we rely on the statements of actual autorities in the fields we are discussing, we are arguing from an appeal to authority. A legitimate appeal to authority.
Otherwise you have to eliminate all evidence that you, personally, did not discover.
So Greening is the one engaging in fallacious debate tactics when he accuses people of false appeal to authority, when in fact their appeal to authority is legitimate.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 11:40:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by j911ob
Qoute mining much? I said| So let me get this straight. You essentially agree with a report that concludes that the Bush abuse of science is unprecedented and that scientistys are under pressure in sensitive issues, yet you totally accept the reports by NIST on 911. mmmmmkay! |
|
No quote mining, there isn't a single question in your post. You stated what you thought was true, and sought agreement. The "mmmmkay!" suggests that you thought the position you thought was true is ridiculous, without a hint of questioning. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Zionists Commited 9-11
