Haha, I’m done. It’s been a pleasure.
Oh boy, you really stepped in it on that one.
I’m curious as to what makes you think a debate about controlled demolition is impossible to win. This debate was headed in the right direction until this tragic sidestep into the Pentagon controversy. The strongest case that can be made with regard to the events of 9/11 is the obliteration of the various official hypotheses as to how the WTC towers collapsed. Defenders of the official story must demonstrate how these hypotheses hold any weight at all. This has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
No, I’m not joking around, and I’m not being hypocritical. And I don’t know if it was intentional, but you have just coined an amazing term to describe the current regime [:D]
My question is, why should I have to go to the prisonplanet website to get the best evidence that A77 hit the Pentagon? Shouldn’t the government itself have done this long ago? Shouldn’t they be updating their case as new evidence becomes available?
The government came up with the story, they should be leading the charge to defend it. And do you think that if they were at all comfortable that it held water, we wouldn’t have seen yet another government department opened up to deal with administering this, er, proof?
The ultimate irony is that the government has managed to pawn this job off to presumed libertarians.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm
Since this has been a relatively quiet night for this thread I thought I would drop another link for meditation. I would like to see some discussion of these particular theories and am curious if there is anyone willing to defend them. Even if you aren’t serious and would just like to play devil’s advocate, then go for it. It’s a shame that these theories haven’t been discussed yet.
At least you understand that you have a theory to defend, which is not always the case with defenders of the official theory who claim that unless a new theory is proven, the old one has to be allowed to stand. So we are agreeing on this point.
One problem with the official version as null hypothesis is that much of the evidence that could be used to refute it has either been destroyed (by a former prosecutor, no less) or is not available to the sceptics (e.g. the Pentagon tapes). Why this doesn’t cause more outrage among ordinary citizens is beyond me.
If you submitted the official version to a scientific journal for publication, it would get sent out for peer review. The reviewers (who are independent, not postdocs sitting at the bench beside you), will look at your story and decide whether the evidence you’ve presented justifies your claims. You cannot present a result and then say ‘the dog ate my evidence’. And if you are asked for supporting material, you must supply it. And they’re not going to assign a probability to your paper as a whole, although they will be interested in the probability associated with results in your paper.
Casting your 9/11 theory as a manuscript submitted to my journal, suppose I am one of these reviewers. One of the figures supporting your paper’s theory is an image of cells, and it has what I consider to be unusually large nuclei. I am going to ask you, why are these nuclei so large. Suppose you tell me that it was because one of the genes in your cell line was overexpressed. I am then going to ask you to confirm that this is in fact the case, so that I can be confident the theory you’re proposing is correct. You don’t have the original cells that were used (in this case Hani Hanjour). But you can run experiments to test whether this gene is in fact overexpressed under the conditions you’ve described (or in this case, whether a poor pilot could hit the Pentagon executing Hanjour’s flight path). And if I ask you to send the original files that were used to create the image in your figure, you can’t tell me ‘I deleted them’, or ‘my boss won’t let me show them to you’. I will reject your paper (i.e. your theory) because you have not supported it and, on top of that, you’ve given me reason to suspect you may be dishonest.
Now perhaps you’re going to say ‘this is incredibly unfair, you can’t expect me to do all this!’. But I’ll say to you, if you want your paper published in Nature, you will have to. Otherwise you might try your high school bulletin or prison planet. The US is not a banana republic, it is not a dictatorship. The citizens need to hold their government to a high standard. And if they’re not willing to do so, I don’t want to see any more students backpacking through Europe criticizing countries for their fascist past while trumpeting the idea theirs is a model to be followed.
The probability of an event after it occurs is 1. It sounds cool when Morpheus says it to Neo, but unless you’re arguing for determinism, it’s a bunch of hot air. Where possible, you need to show me that the events described in your model are sufficiently probable to make it plausible.
You’re presuming that your account of events is sufficiently probable to be believed. You’re the one presenting the theory. The onus is on you to convince me.
Your point about Silverstein gets us to the biggest problem with the official report. It does not establish the guilt of the convicted party: 19 Arab hijackers, masterminded by bin Laden. The commission starts off assuming that al Qaeda was guilty and then tries building a case to support this. This alone should be enough to warrant re-opening the investigation. The fact it apparently isn’t says a lot about people’s credulity.
Just to point something out: the null hypothesis is not a “theory to defend.” The null hypothesis is a position you accept by default, unless you’re forced to reject it by overwhelming evidence for another hypothesis. “Overwhelming” here is defined by the confidence level. The terminology comes from statistics, so applying it here is only an analogy, but it’s a good one. The “burden of proof” is captured by the fact that we’ll stick with the null hypothesis until sufficient evidence is presented to make us reject it. We don’t have to defend anything; you have to convince us.
You still have it backwards. You’re the one who needs to convince us. The way you can tell is that you care what we believe about 9/11, and we don’t care what you believe about it. The original definition of the “burden of proof” comes from Roman law, and says that the burden rests on the complainant. If you want investigations, trials and convictions, you’re the complainant. That’s another way to recognize that the burden of proof is on you.
–Len.
Thanks. You’re right, my bad. As a reviewer of the theory, I’m saying he needs to present evidence that it’s plausible. He needs to show that what strikes an informed reviewer (in this case an airline pilot) as an anomalous result (Hanjour’s flight), is not so improbable as to throw the theory into question. And he can’t withhold evidence which would question the veracity of his claims (e.g. Pentagon tapes).
Do you think that based on the review process I outlined that the official version of 9/11 should have been accepted as true?
The official version has the advantage that it has been assumed to be true. I’m saying that it got into the journal without proper peer review.
Let’s suppose I’m a scientist looking at this paper after it’s been published (as is the situation now with the official report) and I decide there could be something wrong with the nuclei in his figure. How can I dispute this? I could write to the authors (in this case the commission) to send me the cell lines and reagents they used. If they didn’t, I would ask the publishers to make the request for me, and if they refused, have their paper retracted. If I get a different result, I can submit this to the publisher and warn them that the paper may need to be retracted (the burden of proof). What we have is a case where there is no way to contact the publisher. Who do I contact in the Fedgov if I want to challenge the report, someone who would take me seriously? And we know that the authors (even if they could be contacted) are not willing to give up reagents (e.g. tapes). Is this not grossly unfair and undermine the entire credibilty of the paper? A journal that allowed such a situation to stand would be ridiculed. And anyone defending the paper in question would be accused of scientific malpractice. This is why I’m having a hard time understanding what is motivating the defenders of the official version.
Karl,
Yes, if there IS something being covered up, you’ve accurately described why it will be an uphill battle against incredible odds to uncover it. And there’s no question that stuff is being covered up: we already know that government screwups happen on every level, and lots of them undoubtedly happened on 9/11. With or without conspiracies, controlled demolition, etc., the government is at the very least concealing its own mistakes. Proving that will be mighty tough, because they have the power.
There’s a higher-level issue though. Tracking down government malfeasance and misfeasance is useful for enlightening people, but it’s an endless task because the wrongdoing of government is limitless. Demanding the repeal of USA PATRIOT is a much better use of time than bickering about 'oo blew up 'oo. If we assume the government story is 100% accurate, the fact remains that Bush committed high crimes and misdemeanors, not to mention high treason and war crimes. His law must be repealed, and in a just world he, and 4/5 of the rest of the government, would be executed for their crimes.
At the moment, I’ll settle for repealing USA PATRIOT. Doing so requires cooperation from people who believe the official story. Arguing with them about it won’t get USA PATRIOT repealed, and it won’t convince them: it will only marginalize yourself. We have to pick our battles.
–Len.
A null hypothesis is used precisely for testing. Even when you accept the null hypothesis, it still requires testing. It’s kind of crazy to establish a hypothesis as null when we’ve hardly mentioned the hypothesis itself, much less examined and tested it. The scientific method has scarcely been followed on this thread. It’s been 13 pages of mindless bickering without any direction whatsoever.
Besides, if we start from square one with nothing, no research, no assumptions, etc, and you come along and assume that a particular hypothesis is true, this hypothesis still requires testing. In this scenario I have made no assumptions or claims, yet you assume that a particular hypothesis is true. In this case you would be making a claim that would require evidence to support (and attempt to refute) it.
But we’re not dealing with Roman Law. Besides, obviously you care what others here believe about 9/11 or else you wouldn’t be so busy on this thread. It is implied in your actions. And you are assuming a particular hypothesis is true. Does that qualify as a claim? If so, does the burden of proof of this particular hypothesis rest in your hands?
Agreed. The important battles are with the gatekeepers of the different political movements. Especially those on the left, since it’s a large group and they should be mostly immune to propoganda demanding they accept the official version. I’m thinking in particular of Noam Chomsky. He believes the official version with blowback as the motivation, which is at least more palatable than the silly claims made by neocons. He was once asked whether there could have been a conspiracy behind the JFK assasination and he said ‘oh, doesn’t matter, he was just one man’. Rothbard, not surprisingly, was more sceptical. I’ve noticed that the main arguments against the possibility of a conspiracy on this board seem to be some combination of blowback and/or government incompetence. Do you know the public position on 9/11 held by well-known libertarians?
-KH
Experimental design is a big subject, but the null hypothesis is usually obvious in a given context. For example, in this context a claim was made that some WTC7 beams were cut using thermite. The null hypothesis is “not.” Evidence for thermite must provide a given level of confidence to reject the null hypothesis.
In the case of WTC7 having a “single point of failure,” the obvious null hypothesis is, as usual, “not.” A write up in Structure magazine sketches briefly the evidence for such a single point of failure, which none of us are really qualified to judge in detail. I’m sure the details are available under FOIA, so the original study by NIST can be reviewed. Provisionally, the argument in the article is compelling enough that I’m willing to reject the null hypothesis. Folks on this thread have mostly contended that the null hypothesis is self-evidently uncontrovertible, which is not how one argues such a matter, and further is an absurd claim on its face.
It’s also important to realize that failing to reject the null hypothesis is very different from concluding that the null hypothesis is true. In practice folks often goes a step further and believe the null hypothesis, but that’s not how it works in statistics. Failure to reject the null hypothesis roughly means, “We’re no wiser than when we started.” I neither know, nor care, how much of the official version is accurate. I’m sure it contains inaccuracies and lies, whether or not they run to the extreme that truthers claim. I don’t know. I don’t care. I merely point out that so far truthers have offered nothing convincing enough to make me accept their claims.
No, we’re not. But it’s helpful to consider what “burden of proof” actually means, since conspiracy theorists spend most of their energy misplacing it.
Nope. My interest begins and ends with the quality of your arguments. In creation/evolution threads, for example, I point out the flaws in both sides’ arguments. Each side tries to embroil me in the controversy, either labeling me a godless atheist (I’m a Bible believer) or a creationist idiot (I accept the truth of universal common descent). In fact I only care that neither side dishonor itself by using bad arguments to support their positions.
On this forum, I know that all (or nearly all) of us are believers in liberty. Therefore it behooves us to cooperate, and to do our best to advance liberty by defending it with good arguments and not bad ones.
–Len.
Awesome, we have solid common ground. I can’t speak authoritatively, but libertarians who frequent LRC pretty much all cite blowback first, and incompetence second. A majority seem to accept the “official” version, with a spoonful of salt; a minority on LRC seem to be truthers. If you pinned me down, I’d say that describes me: I accept the official version, with much salt, and believe that blowback motivated the hijackers, and incompetence prevented any effective response before or after the fact.
–Len.
Len
Do you think that repealing the patriot act is more important that proving that the government was involved in the detruction of the WTC and other attacks ? </p>
Well, that's your 'opinion'. It's almost like saying that you prefer milk to orange juice. You [b]do not know[/b] what's the best strategy to further libertarian goals. If you're interested in repealing the patriot act, then do so. Why do you waste your time trying to convince 'truthers' ? </p>
Also, you seem to have finally acknowlefged that 'burden of proof' is just legal custom, not logic ? </p>
Finally, here's an expert saying roughly the same thing that I as an ignorant laymen said about steel frame buildings. </p>
[url]http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm[/url]
It’s not “milk versus orange juice” at all. One is an ongoing crime that will afflict mankind for generations; the other is, at worst, a criminal act that will be forgotten in a few years. If you have a choice between investigating an old murder, and preventing a murder happening right now, isn’t the choice clear?
You’re quite right, of course. I merely offer my opinion, same as everyone else here.
Because liberty needs you. The bad arguments you get behind don’t just discredit you; they also set back those of us who share your primary goals.
Strictly speaking, “logic” doesn’t care if anyone is convinced of anything. The proofs in my thesis stand on their own, even if all humans reviled them, or even if all humans suddenly went extinct. Convincing people is outside logic proper. It would be better to call it “logical discourse.” The burden of proof is part of logical discourse, which includes both “logic,” on one hand, and “discourse,” on the other.
He did not comment on steel-frame buildings generally, because there are infinitely many different designs possible. You keep making sweeping generalizations about “steel buildings,” as if you don’t realize how unbelievably many different designs there are, and that each one is different. It’s the single biggest blow to your credibility, by the way: if you think all steel buildings are the same, then you can’t have an educated opinion on the subject.
Anyway, he claimed, and accurately, that the impact of a plane wouldn’t fatally damage the structure. That’s true: it didn’t. The structure only collapsed later, when weakened structural members gave way. And that WAS predicted, by the way, back in the 1970s, by Herbert Levine. He invented the asbestos fire-retardant used on the lower floors, but outlawed while the building was under construction.
–Len.
So who chooses what the null hypothesis is going to be? It would seem just as easy to just claim that the “alternative” theories are the null hypotheses and hold the “official” hypotheses to the same standard. It seems to me that NHST is a bit controversial. And the argument that none of us are qualified really has no bearing on the topic at hand. If we are going to perform the research and experimentation (to what extent this is possible) who cares about qualifications? I’m am fully aware of the fact that without “qualifications” most people will not be taken seriously, but what of it? Finding the truth and doing it accurately while correcting any errors is more important.
How can you make both of these statements with a straight face?
But “burden of proof” doesn’t quite mean in science what it means in Roman Law.
Again, how can you make both of these comments with a straight face?
On that I wholeheartedly agree.
Remember, we’re using language from statistics that is only an analogy to what we’re discussing. When you’ve been trained in statistics, picking a null hypothesis is routine and non-controversial. It almost always takes the form, “These two statistics are uncorrelated,” or in probabilistic terms, “These two random variables are independent.” In basic courses, the question is always expressed in terms of a binomial experiment, where one outcome is “pass” and the other is “fail.” In that context, the null hypothesis is always, “Passing is only as likely as flipping a coin.” The null hypothesis is rejected when “pass” results significantly more than predicted by the binomial distribution.
Picking null hypotheses in science is usually equivalent to statistics, because the experiment is set up specifically to be handled with statistical methods.
In general discourse, like this thread, picking null hypotheses is more art than science, but it’s still something one can become good at. Essentially, the null hypothesis is picked using Occam’s razor, and one’s skill at picking is as good as one’s ability to use Occam’s razor. That’s the rub, because creationists and conspiracy theorists often have trouble with Occam’s razor. It’s easy to say, “God did it,” but that’s hardly the most economical assumption. And conspiracy theorists usually end up including more and more people in the conspiracy, dismissing more and more evidence as faked, etc. They think the number of coincidences indicates something fishy, but it’s precisely what disqualifies their claim for null-hypothesis-hood. “No conspiracy” is almost always the right null hypothesis. (Which is NOT the same as saying there never IS a conspiracy. Sometimes there certainly is.)
What contradiction do you think you see here? There isn’t one. I tentatively accept that angry Middle Easterners hijacked planes in retaliation for US interventionism, which is what we call “blowback.” I also tentatively accept that the US government at minimum had information that might have been used to prevent the hijackings, but bungled, which is what we call “incompetence.” Where the “salt” comes in is that I recognize plenty of wiggle room for the details. For example, it’s possible that the government bungled not only through incompetence, but partly through malfeasance. And it’s possible that OBL had nothing to do with the attack, but rather someone else. Prince Bandar, maybe. Or practically any ticked-off Muslim with dough and followers. And so on.
–Len.
What if we stick to real events, not analogies ? The patriot act is just one more piece of totalitarian legislation. The legal system has been standing on its head for a century, or perhaps more. I don’t see how you manage to ‘objectively’ say that the patriot act is such a threat.
If you get caught smoking in a non-smoking area, and you to refuse to conform to the dictates of the government, the government will ultimately kill you, if you go far enough in your defense of your natural rigts. And they do not need the patriot act to do that.
Sorry, but I don’t see you point. It just sound like evasion again. Logic is concerned with what is correct reasoning and what is not correct reasoning. All cats are four legged animals, therefore all four legged animals are cats.. : P.
But here we are discussing a series of rather complex events. You are not really discussing them, but trying to teach some of the participants in the discussion…what ? manners ? How to convince people ? Roman legislation perhaps ??
He said several planes.
Is that a claim of yours ? How do you know it’s true ? Okay, let’s go to page zero of this discussion…
Agreed. And I’ll grant that any of them is as good as any other to target for repeal. But whichever one you pick, it’s more important than a particular fait accompli.
What do you mean by that? I order lots of goods from overseas. I haven’t received one package since 2001 that hasn’t been opened in transit. Before that I hadn’t received one that (I could tell) was opened. I don’t see anything controversial about stating that Bush’s policies, as legalized under USA PATRIOT, are a present, ongoing violation of our rights.
I’m explaining why you’re barking up the wrong tree even trying to make such a distinction. Shifting the burden of proof is commonly recognized as a logical fallacy, so telling me that it’s “about law, not logic” just falls on its face. But technically you have a(n irrelevant) point: the burden of proof is a rule of civilized debate, not a principle of Aristotelian logic per se. Law is a special case of civilized debate.
Yes, pretty much what you just said. If you’re right in your suspicions, then I want you to prevail, because I’m all about finding truth and discarding error. To that end, I want you to use your best arguments, and throw away the bad ones. If you’re right, that will strengthen your position and help you prevail. If you’re wrong, then throwing away the bad arguments will probably leave you with no arguments at all, and if so, so be it. I’m a completely impartial well-wisher. Well, except to the extent that using bad arguments casts a poor reflection on bystanders like me–I’m not happy about that part of it.
No, I’m quoting the official story, to explain why Frank DiMartini’s testimony doesn’t contradict it. As a bonus, I produced an additional witness-before-the-fact who fleshes out the relationship between DiMartini’s claims and the official version. The collision didn’t destroy the structure, and an involved party in the 1970s predicted that a fire would bring down the structure, precisely because the members were insufficiently protected from heat.
That heating still beams does weaken them is not controversial; it’s a fact that every engineer and metallurgist knows. Hopefully you’re not asking me to prove that part.
–Len.
At first it is difficult, i agree. But you have to reflect on the connection between authority, and mass psychology. The majority will prefer the official explanation as presented by the official propaganda media. If this were not the case, there would be no such thing as the “ignorant masses”, but merely thinking, questioning individuals. To have an unconscious affinity towards official propaganda is, to a great extent, what it means to be a part of the masses. It is always possible that individuals will hold contrary views to those advanced by the establishment, on certain topics at certain times, but they will always be part of a minority in those views. Most people at any given time, on any given topic, will be predisposed to accept the official dispensation. Don’t sweat it too much - don’t swim so hard against the stream. Just do what you can to inform those who have an open mind – usually the youth in your realm of influence - and in the meantime, protect yourself from what you perceive to be the truth about the dangers of the state. Allow that most others will seek their safe and popular views; it’s just the way it is. As intelligent as your adversaries in these discussions may be, once these battles begin, they are not typically won or lost in the realm of reason.