Discussion in '9/11' started by ColtCabana, Sep 8, 2013.
Well I ran with it to humour you, and you evidently can't respond in your own metaphorical terms.
I am shamed at my lack of metaphorical integrity.
NIST's work represents applied specialist knowledge - not out of bounds to amateur eyes but generally not possessed by every person.
To suggest that unless one comes to the same conclusions as you one is not 'thinking for themselves' is arrogant. It is completely possible to think independently, with an understanding of the issues, and still accept NIST's general findings. Not everyone is a blind slave to authority just because they don't find your arguments compelling.
And your being an independent thinker does not mean your conclusions have the same merit as a collective report from a group of investigators. It is reasonable to defer to authority in this case. Yes there is always the possibility of being mislead by a specialised authority, but the evidence to suggest this just doesn't convince most. It doesn't make them intellectual slugs.
If a big ass plane crashed into my toilet and it burned for over an hour, I'm not so sure I'd consider it failing to flush all that "mysterious".
But that is not what I am doing. I am asking you (or anyone else on this forum) what you understand the actual substance of NIST's excuse for not following NFPA921 to be, and how this justifies failing to apply the scientific method as defined in the code in this case.
Why? The publicly-available explanation for not following NFPA921 in the FAQ aimed at the public which paid for the investigation is apparently meaningless.
As I said, Chief Nigro would surely have expected NIST to follow NFPA921 at a bare minimum, before addressing "broader procedures".
Roffle. But if a very big ass crushed your toilet and some poop splashed into the bathtub, would you expect it to shatter?
Shatter? No. But if it the turd was on fire I wouldn't be shocked if it totally destroyed the tub.
That was a really hot curry you had last night.
So in other words, he's as credible a witness as the others who said they heard an explosion. Are there any credible witnesses to the attack?
It appears that from post https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fdny-chief-daniel-nigros-statement-on-wtc7.2366/page-3#post-66836 on, this thread has absolutely no content in line with the title. Would it not be wise to move the remaining content, (and perhaps some other non relevant posts), to another thread?
I agree with this, particularly the scatological burblings immediately above. However, I feel my point that Chief Nigro would have reasonably expected NIST to apply the scientific method as specified in NFPA921 when making his statement is not completely off topic. I would like to re-iterate my challenge to anyone defending the NIST report to explain what they think the substance of its published excuse for ignoring NFPA921 actually amounts to. To me, its claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring the requirements of NFPA921 is a meaningless contradiction.
Unfortunately things are a bit intertwined to split off.
Perhaps if someone has an actual point - some claim of evidence they feel they can debunk - then they could start a more focussed thread to debunk it?
I'll lock this thread in a bit. Marshall your closing arguments and plumber analogies!
[aside: the plumber I called last week used an extension cord without a grounding pin, in strict violation of several safety codes! The sewer line was still unblocked though].
I don't have anything to add beyond my remarks at post 130. I'm not surprised that no-one can defend the NIST report beyond copying-and-pasting its absurd and question-begging FAQ.
In this presentation Noam Chomsky sensitively spanks his students at M.I.T for a variety of criticisms of science and rationalism which he regards as misguided. Anyhow, whatever of the rights and wrongs of their views - or his - he touches on this very aspect, above, here:
So, yes, there's no metaphor in natural science and you will not see an apple being compared to a pear within a complex equation but a little metaphor would seem to often enable us to shed light (see, I just used one) in matters of logical, rational inquiry. As you were...
And with that non-sequitur, I believe this thread is done.
For more WTC7 fire discussion, see:
Separate names with a comma.