| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
To establish (for lurkers, if no one else) why the conclusions of the FEMA/NIST reports should not be considered credible.
A wink and a nudge is not enough. You need to establish, by way of example, that their methodologies are inadequate. I submit that their methodologies have been deliberate, thorough, and transparent, and that their results have been scrutinized and accepted by the vast majority of professionals and academics in related fields. |
Well purely and solely for the benefit of any lurkers interested, here is an example of NIST's investigative prowess. It's important to understand that ASCE/FEMA-BPAT/Silverstein Weidlinger Investigation/NIST are essentially the same team, producing different conclusions for different reasons - Silversteins insurance cover terms for example being one.
"NIST states that it found no documents about fire resistance testing, yet it also states that the buildings were rated as Class 1B, which requires such testing. |
Not methodology. Not self-contradictory, either. They had documentation of the rating but not the details of the testing.
| Quote: | If the assemblies were tested they would have been using the standard ASTM E119. A floor assembly is tested to that standard by by placing a furnace under it and measuring the time it takes a certain temperature to be reached on its top side.
Evidence that the steel was tested include:
A. UL's comments on testing WTC steel
September 2001
Loring Knoblauch, UL's CEO, told staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC
November 2003
Knoblauch was asked in writing about UL's involvement, and he responded in December confirming details.
"We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully."
"As we did not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can given an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated."
"We test the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them." |
Not methodology. Where is this going?
| Quote: | In August of 2004, UL performed tests of WTC floor models, but the floors were barely affected and didn't collapse.
Loring Knoblauch resigned suddenly.
In October of 2004, a NIST report update showed contradictions. |
Not methodology. What contradictions?
| Quote: | | In November of 2004 Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle went public, causing UL to quickly backtrack, saying there was "no evidence" that any firm tested the steel, and that they played a "limited" role in the investigation." |
Not methodology. UL didn't certify the steel, but they did rate the fireproofed assemblies.
| Quote: | | Nothing suspicious so far, right? |
Nope. And not methodology.
| Quote: | "Analysis of steel:
Most of the steel evidence destroyed
Tomasetti decision (Thornton's partner)
236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C) |
Applies only to test samples for that specific test, which focused solely on perimeter columns. [trying to find reference; will add here when I do]
| Quote: | Laboratory tests conducted by NIST included:
Tests to prove loss of fireproofing
Workstation burn tests
Tests by UL to test failure in floor assemblies
The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse.
The tests showed:
Minimal floor sagging
No floor collapse
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th." |
The tests were not "supposed to prove the pancake theory"--they were designed to establish a baseline for fire resistance on an undamaged floor assembly in a worst-case as-built condition. NIST performed these tests, following ASTM E 119, because they didn't have detailed test data from the fire ratings (see above). That they conformed to code and survived allowed NIST to rule out negligent design or construction as a factor in the collapses.
See: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf
Section 1.2 "Purpose of the Standard Fire Tests"
Do you have a problem with the methodology of these tests?
| Quote: | | Documents needed just happened to be missing; |
Not methodology. NIST had most of the documents that they needed. Some of the documents they needed were missing (such as those stored in the towers). I'm sure there were documents they didn't need that were missing, too. Is that also suspicious?
| Quote: | | Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored; |
Not methodology. And false. Examples?
| Quote: | | Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored. |
False.
| Quote: | | The entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations." |
Evidence?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You lads are truly amazing. Chek lays it out for you and you'll wiggle every which way to avoid facing the inevitable conclusion that the official reports stink
Its almost like some kind of conditioned reaction...
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | You lads are truly amazing. Chek lays it out for you and you'll wiggle every which way to avoid facing the inevitable conclusion that the official reports stink
Its almost like some kind of conditioned reaction... |
chek criticized their methodology and has provided no evidence of mistakes in their methodology. He hasn't even provided proof he understands what the word means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's absolutely bleedin' obvious who's having trouble understanding things around here. What remains to be said to such men of "letters" and "science".
Apart perhaps from 'guffaw'. And maybe "chortle".
The phrase 'horses and water' comes readily to mind, but then again it's not that good an good analogy, because I quite like horses.
Still, as I said at the beginning, it was for the benefit of lurkers, not the resident bunch of shills and sophistry practitioners extraordinaire, on whom it is no longer worth wasting any more time.
I hope you find more truth in your lives than exist in those Reports, fellas! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | A Sharp Major wrote: | | Why? The information you need has already been offered, not understood and / or ignored. |
You're surely not implying the FEMA/NIST reports, given what is known of their methodolgies, have anything like credible conclusions are you? |
Elaborate. |
To what end? |
To establish (for lurkers, if no one else) why the conclusions of the FEMA/NIST reports should not be considered credible.
A wink and a nudge is not enough. You need to establish, by way of example, that their methodologies are inadequate. I submit that their methodologies have been deliberate, thorough, and transparent, and that their results have been scrutinized and accepted by the vast majority of professionals and academics in related fields. |
Well purely and solely for the benefit of any lurkers interested, here is an example of NIST's investigative prowess. It's important to understand that ASCE/FEMA-BPAT/Silverstein Weidlinger Investigation/NIST are essentially the same team, producing different conclusions for different reasons - Silversteins insurance cover terms for example being one.
"NIST states that it found no documents about fire resistance testing, yet it also states that the buildings were rated as Class 1B, which requires such testing. |
Not methodology. Not self-contradictory, either. They had documentation of the rating but not the details of the testing.
| Quote: | If the assemblies were tested they would have been using the standard ASTM E119. A floor assembly is tested to that standard by by placing a furnace under it and measuring the time it takes a certain temperature to be reached on its top side.
Evidence that the steel was tested include:
A. UL's comments on testing WTC steel
September 2001
Loring Knoblauch, UL's CEO, told staff that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC
November 2003
Knoblauch was asked in writing about UL's involvement, and he responded in December confirming details.
"We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully."
"As we did not do follow-up service on this kind of product, we can given an opinion only on the test sample which was indeed properly coated."
"We test the code requirements, and the steel clearly met [the NYC code] requirements and exceeded them." |
Not methodology. Where is this going?
| Quote: | In August of 2004, UL performed tests of WTC floor models, but the floors were barely affected and didn't collapse.
Loring Knoblauch resigned suddenly.
In October of 2004, a NIST report update showed contradictions. |
Not methodology. What contradictions?
| Quote: | | In November of 2004 Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle went public, causing UL to quickly backtrack, saying there was "no evidence" that any firm tested the steel, and that they played a "limited" role in the investigation." |
Not methodology. UL didn't certify the steel, but they did rate the fireproofed assemblies.
| Quote: | | Nothing suspicious so far, right? |
Nope. And not methodology.
| Quote: | "Analysis of steel:
Most of the steel evidence destroyed
Tomasetti decision (Thornton's partner)
236 samples saved for testing (0.3%)
Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C) |
Applies only to test samples for that specific test, which focused solely on perimeter columns. [trying to find reference; will add here when I do]
| Quote: | Laboratory tests conducted by NIST included:
Tests to prove loss of fireproofing
Workstation burn tests
Tests by UL to test failure in floor assemblies
The floor assemblies tests were important because they were supposed to prove the pancake theory. Yet, despite NIST using less fireproofing on the assemblies than was known to be on the steel in the Twin Towers, and despite their loading the floors with double the weight known to have been on the actual floors, it could not get an assembly to collapse.
The tests showed:
Minimal floor sagging
No floor collapse
"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th." |
The tests were not "supposed to prove the pancake theory"--they were designed to establish a baseline for fire resistance on an undamaged floor assembly in a worst-case as-built condition. NIST performed these tests, following ASTM E 119, because they didn't have detailed test data from the fire ratings (see above). That they conformed to code and survived allowed NIST to rule out negligent design or construction as a factor in the collapses.
See: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf
Section 1.2 "Purpose of the Standard Fire Tests"
Do you have a problem with the methodology of these tests?
| Quote: | | Documents needed just happened to be missing; |
Not methodology. NIST had most of the documents that they needed. Some of the documents they needed were missing (such as those stored in the towers). I'm sure there were documents they didn't need that were missing, too. Is that also suspicious?
| Quote: | | Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored; |
Not methodology. And false. Examples?
| Quote: | | Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored. |
False.
| Quote: | | The entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations." |
Evidence? |
Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture CS.
And the simulations are still not for public consumption last time I checked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
AS did say recently he thought it a good thing the simulations are being withheld from independant scrutiny, on account of what heathens we all are at worshiping science properly, or something
I just call it a cover up.
Let the official story do some work for once in showing it is correct, rather than just expecting the plebs to lap it up
As our "rulers" are finding:
Those days are over
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still waiting for a single objection to NIST's methodology. Just admit you don't have it, chek, and admit you didn't know what methodology meant when you used the word. Admitting it when you are wrong is a sign of critical thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Still waiting for objection to NIST's methodology. All I see is alot of ad hominem. |
Yeah, well thats you all over isnt it?
Seeing what you expect to see rather than whats there.
Same as the rest of the human race of course, so lets not take it seriously 
However, just at the risk of getting through, here's a really simple version:
NIST says "Floors not columns" + FEMA says "columns not floors" +the same key personal on both reports = Me rolling around on the floor laughing
To be honest, exactly what crackerjack methods are used to come up with the offical turkey dont interest me too much, but the fact that the "Official Story" is about as likely as "Beam Weapons" does
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
NIST says "Floors not columns" + FEMA says "columns not floors" +the same key personal on both reports = Me rolling around on the floor laughing
|
Which has nothing to do with their methodolgy. You people are so ignorant it's funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Still waiting for a single objection to NIST's methodology. Just admit you don't have it, chek, and admit you didn't know what methodology meant when you used the word. Admitting it when you are wrong is a sign of critical thought. |
AS, why not at least try to do something about both your comprehension and ego problems?
They may even be interlinked, in which case you could kill two birds with one therapist.
Maybe then labels like 'charlatan', 'fraud' and 'fake' won't follow you around the internet like some gigantic millstone.
Just my humble, and hopefully helpful suggestion.
Now, apart from intervening in the event of any of your more egregious spewings, I expect this to be my last life-force sapping exchange with you for some time.
Hopefully quite some time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | John White wrote: |
NIST says "Floors not columns" + FEMA says "columns not floors" +the same key personal on both reports = Me rolling around on the floor laughing
|
Which has nothing to do with their methodolgy. You people are so ignorant it's funny. |
Torpedos a little thing called credibility though
And in this world, 0% credibility = 10,000 peices of toilet paper
| Quote: | | the fact (is) that the "Official Story" is about as likely as "Beam Weapons" |
Not challenging this then AS?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can you guys keep on-topic please?
The issue at hand is NIST's methodology. I'm waiting to see your critique of it. You keep making post after post that is completely and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | Can you guys keep on-topic please?
The issue at hand is NIST's methodology. I'm waiting to see your critique of it. You keep making post after post that is completely and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. |
Do you read the thread title of ANY thread you take part in? 
Where does it say this thread is called "critique of NIST's methodology"?
Simple question, take yer time
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Why should it surprise me when you guys make yet another claim using words you do not understand, and are completely unable to provide any rationale, whatsoever? When will I learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm amazed. I didn't realise the JREF had a 'special' wing.
Some few people appear not to know the difference between individual methods and an overall misleading methodology.
And then they come here and argue about it.
Jeez. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| just to make one thing very clear one person claiming something is not "you guys", im certainly getting sick and tired of critics taking what one person says and then replieing as if the whole 9/11 truth movement has said the same and agree, i speak for myself other peoples comments are not mine. therefore some of the comments above are prosumptions only and nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ....... therefore some of the comments above are prosumptions only and nothing more. |
Fair point, marky. Everybody stop making prosumptions, OK?
I solemnly undertake never knowingly to make any prosumptions myself.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chek is an ex engineer
| Quote: | | Obviously in a way that doesn't seem to have crossed your mind, in your extremely limited, not to metion invented conjectures and imaginings. |
Leaving aside | Quote: | | invented conjectures |
are there another kind? Chek, I can think of all sorts of reasons why an engineer may stop practising engineering. He or she does not cease to be an engineer. It isn't like ceasing to be a milkman and becoming an ex milkman. Engineering is a profession. Science is a profession. Medicine, the Clergy, law. Tony Blair doesn't practise law but he's still a barrister. I may have misspelled that!
I can't believe that an engineer would refer to him or herself as 'ex'. Unless he or she had screwed up and wanted to sever links with the profession (or if in a licensed discipline had been 'struck off' .... for screwing up).
Then there are those who call anyone with a toolbox 'an engineer'.
_________________
"It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
http://www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | just to make one thing very clear one person claiming something is not "you guys", im certainly getting sick and tired of critics taking what one person says and then replieing as if the whole 9/11 truth movement has said the same and agree, i speak for myself other peoples comments are not mine. therefore some of the comments above are prosumptions only and nothing more. |
Maybe you should read closer. I'm not attributing anything to CTers when I say "you guys". I am specifically talking with the guys who are saying the things they are saying.
If you are going to make a claim about NISTs methodology, you are going to need to back it up. If you are going to come galloping to defend your CT friend who attacks NISTs methodology, you are going to be included in the discussion.
I'm still waiting for a single comment objecting to NISTs methodology. chek has wisely run away from this thread, as usual, leaving the other CTist who came to his defense wallowing the wake of his stupidity, trying to defend his ridiculous claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A Sharp Major wrote: | chek is an ex engineer
| Quote: | | Obviously in a way that doesn't seem to have crossed your mind, in your extremely limited, not to metion invented conjectures and imaginings. |
Leaving aside | Quote: | | invented conjectures |
are there another kind? Chek, I can think of all sorts of reasons why an engineer may stop practising engineering. He or she does not cease to be an engineer. It isn't like ceasing to be a milkman and becoming an ex milkman. Engineering is a profession. Science is a profession. Medicine, the Clergy, law. Tony Blair doesn't practise law but he's still a barrister. I may have misspelled that!
I can't believe that an engineer would refer to him or herself as 'ex'. Unless he or she had screwed up and wanted to sever links with the profession (or if in a licensed discipline had been 'struck off' .... for screwing up).
Then there are those who call anyone with a toolbox 'an engineer'. |
Then are also those whose febrile if somewhat underpowered imaginations provide some light entertainment.
Anyone else you'd like to make feeble attempts to discredit in your clumsy, obvious way while you're at it?
Thanks for confirming in person you're nothing but a troll by the way.
Much appreciated - saves a lot of time in future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And yet another of chek's ridiculous claims dies an un-evidenced death. Unfortunately, he'll revive it at a later date to perpetuate the ignorance.
Remember chek, we are quite a bit more knowledgeable than you, so trying to pass off bs isn't going to work. When you say "methodology" we are going to expect you mean "methodology", so before you try to use big words, next time, look them up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | And yet another of chek's ridiculous claims dies an un-evidenced death. Unfortunately, he'll revive it at a later date to perpetuate the ignorance.
Remember chek, we are quite a bit more knowledgeable than you, so trying to pass off bs isn't going to work. When you say "methodology" we are going to expect you mean "methodology", so before you try to use big words, next time, look them up. |
Jehazus aitch Keyriste.
OK AS, why don't you tell us all how ASCE/FEMA/NIST did not use dishonest methodologies?
And this better be good.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And here we go again... chek makes ridiculous claim. I ask for proof. chek has none. chek, instead, asks me to disprove his claim. New day, same horrible logic.
Round and round we go.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Get to it, kid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Three different threads, the same crock of merry-go-round BS from AS
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | And here we go again... chek makes ridiculous claim. I ask for proof. chek has none. chek, instead, asks me to disprove his claim. New day, same horrible logic.
Round and round we go.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Get to it, kid. |
Absolute and total timewaster.
Congrats AS your consistent avoidance is exemplary, but of no interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anti-sophist
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Three different threads, the same crock of merry-go-round BS from AS |
Yup, those same three crocks of BS: science, logic, and evidence.
They aren't going away. I'm here to point out every time you screw up along any of the three dimensions. The fact I am repeating the same things in three threads should tell you whats going on in those three threads.
So, do you guys have any methodological concerns yet? Or are you done embarrassing yourselves yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | And here we go again... chek makes ridiculous claim. I ask for proof. chek has none. chek, instead, asks me to disprove his claim. New day, same horrible logic.
Round and round we go.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Get to it, kid. |
Absolute and total timewaster.
Congrats AS your consistent avoidance is exemplary, but of no interest. |
From wikipedia:
"...the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."
You're the one making the claim. You prove it to be true.
Your claim is that NIST used dishonest methodologies, now prove it.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | And here we go again... chek makes ridiculous claim. I ask for proof. chek has none. chek, instead, asks me to disprove his claim. New day, same horrible logic.
Round and round we go.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Get to it, kid. |
Absolute and total timewaster.
Congrats AS your consistent avoidance is exemplary, but of no interest. |
From wikipedia:
"...the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."
You're the one making the claim. You prove it to be true.
Your claim is that NIST used dishonest methodologies, now prove it. |
Read the f*cking links - that's what they're provided for, as if you didn't realise it.
I've stated on numerous occasions i do not spoonfeed trolls - especially those with the standard reflex deflections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | And here we go again... chek makes ridiculous claim. I ask for proof. chek has none. chek, instead, asks me to disprove his claim. New day, same horrible logic.
Round and round we go.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Get to it, kid. |
Absolute and total timewaster.
Congrats AS your consistent avoidance is exemplary, but of no interest. |
From wikipedia:
"...the burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea. This is a crucial point of the Scientific method, that before a claim is thought to be true, it must be proven. All claims must be confirmed by observation. If the claim can not be confirmed this way, the belief must not be asserted. Not-knowing is default."
You're the one making the claim. You prove it to be true.
Your claim is that NIST used dishonest methodologies, now prove it. |
Read the f*cking links - that's what they're provided for, as if you didn't realise it.
I've stated on numerous occasions i do not spoonfeed trolls - especially those with the standard reflex deflections. |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: |
Kevin Ryan has been shown to be wrong, so if that was your argument, then you have none. Glad that's settled. |
Oh really. I can't wait to see your tale about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
