“Plausible” isn’t even on the table, technically: plausibility is a purely subjective quality, and the official explanation is by definition plausible to the people who find it so, and implausible to those who don’t. Nevertheless, I make no such claim in the first place. I merely point out that you are claiming it’s not only implausible, but impossible; you need to demonstrate this. You can’t shift the burden of proof by demanding that others disprove your claim.
“Designed to collapse the way it did” is a red herring, and a particularly transparent one at that. All designs have tradeoffs. I’ve personally seen changes made successfully to one structure, that caused the collapse of another structure–such as the removal of a bearing wall, for example. But the latter structure wasn’t “designed to collapse” in any sense. It was simply designed to have that wall there, and removal of it compromised the integrity of the structure.
Nevertheless, I don’t have to prove anything, because I don’t make any claims how it collapsed, and furthermore I don’t give a damn how it collapsed. It’s you who wants investigations and subpoenas here, not me. The burden is on you. And it’s conspicuously easy to bear: get your hands on the specs of the building (they’re surely public); and consult with building engineers. If you’re right, you’ll know it soon. That you refuse to do so is very significant–though I’m not positive which it signifies. Are you already aware that your argument is weak, and wisely avoiding evidence? Or are you under the deluded impression that it’s so strong that evidence is superfluous? Or do you doubt that engineers can provide this service? Or imagine that they’re all in on it too? I don’t know. But I do know that your failure to do even basic due diligence is a powerful indicator that, whatever the right answer is, it’s not going to come from you.
I wonder why you find it so hard to understand… A casual look at the scarce evidence available suggests that WTC7 couldn’t have collapsed the way it did. I do not need to hire an egineering team to learn that.
But you’re saying that I’m not entitled to ‘think’ that. You’'re saying that I can only think what so called ‘experts’ deem proper. That’s not very libertarian, is it ?
Logic says nothing about ‘burden of proof’, ‘burden of proof’ may be a legal custom or legal trash, depending on context, but ‘burden of proof’ is beside the point in this discussion.
Since debunking so called truthers is important to you, you should produce an indepedent study showing that indeed the magical column was hit by a piece of debris of the correct size. I wonder why you don’t do it ?
As for me to produce a counter proof to that : I don’t think it’s necesary and I don’t have the resources to hire engineers to do it anyway.
I never dictated what you can think. You’re quite right: “liberty” includes the liberty of anyone, however ignorant, to think anything, however ignorant, as long as he doesn’t initiate aggression. It doesn’t change the fact that his opinions are uninformed, though.
What you don’t realize, and I’m pointing out, is that when you express those ignorant opinions around people with half a clue, your ignorance is as conspicuous as a bear in church. Since you don’t realize it, you can’t figure out why people are disinterested in listening to you. They’re disinterested because it’s obvious you have nothing to tell them. And your struggles to convince them otherwise only make it worse: as you avoid evidence, shift the burden of proof, make obviously silly claims about physics, etc., you only prove their first impressions right, and make them even less interested in listening to you. In this case, you don’t even understand that structures vary tremendously, so that no universal statement about them is possible. That’s so ignorant that ignorant hillbillies point and say, “Wow, that’s ign’rant!”
I’ve taken the trouble to point out the problem, but it’s turning out a bit like teaching a pig to sing: it’s a complete waste of time and it annoys the pig.
It’s really simple common sense. You give a damn, and I don’t. Therefore, it’s your job to convince me, not mine to convince you. You’re doing a poor job of it so far.
“Debunking truthers” is of no interest to me at all. I’m not one, but that actually makes me more neutral: if I were a truther myself, I’d especially resent being given a bad name by your bad arguments.
Interesting to say the least. But even if for the sake of argument we give the benefit of the doubt to the NYPD photo and say that it is genuine, could such damage bring WTC 7 down the way that it fell?
Here are some examples of building collapses that were not controlled demolitions:
If you’re going to make the conclusion that something was impossible or near impossible, then yes, two objects should share the same or very nearly the same properties (identical twins for instance) properties. Further, you’re making a horrible comparison. Space was very important in this case as the debri fell in different amounts in different areas causing different sorts of damage. You’re pharmaceutical example is also flawed in that; 1) there are many, many experiments conducted in that case; 2) the relevant and pertinent similarities are generally in place, so at least some claims can be made 3) It often happens that the drugs still have to be taken off the market, so what is claimed is certainly not a surety!!! Nor even close! So next time you come with an example, make it an adequate one.
South park dude, once again, do you have any clue as to the precise extent of the damage in wtc 7? Because if you do, you’re the first to know.
Plowking, now we’re stooping to the notion that the photos are fake? Now this is funny! Maybe you should be wary of whether LvMI is a government agency!!! Please, way, way too far.
Again, you’re arguing that unless I can give you a precise probability, my guess that it’s unlikely is worthless. Which is invalid. Since you like to label these things, this is a classic example of the perfect solution fallacy. Let’s say that when my grandfather was young he shot a bear between the eyes from 125 yards. I have no clue what the exact probability of that was (and it’s not possible to estimate it empirically). But common sense suggests that was a lucky shot. Taking this forward to WTC7, how much of the building was pierced by rubble with sufficient force to damage this vital column which would lead to free-fall collapse? Looking at those pictures, I’ll estimate it was less than 5%. And let’s ignore the buildings closer to the twin towers that had far more damage since edward_1313 has demonstrated that like objects can never be compared to support an argument. If I were to include those buildings in my argument, I would say that they provide empirical evidence that vital columns are rare in steel skyscrapers. But let’s forget all that. How much of the internal structure of WTC7 presented a point of impact on this vital column that would lead to free-fall collapse? By definition, this has to be very small. It’s like firing buckshot into a flock of geese and hitting a mosquito that was in the flock. It’s a lucky shot, not likely to happen if repeated (if this was even possible). I’m baffled as to how you maintain this is not improbable. I get the impression you are either conflating improbable and impossible, or you get a thrill from defending weak premises. Even NIST admits its best hypothesis is improbable. I’m through with arguing this point, and I’m thinking we should invite you over for our next poker evening.
Are you being serious? You expect me to believe a story just because it’s the one being offered from the government? Shouldn’t the default position with regards to the official report be one of scepticism? It’s the government’s job to prove its case. That’s the duty of a responsible citizenry- to keep its government honest by asking tough questions and demanding proof for its claims. Frankly, I’m amazed (truly!) by your credulity. And your seeming indifference as to establishing who was responsible. If 9/11 was a crime, isn’t the most important thing to figure out who did it? And don’t tell me waterboard-extracted confessions that are not available to the public establish guilt.
That’s a nice anecdote, but do you think it’s reasonable to compare your family’s log cabin to a skyscraper? And are these cases you’re describing modern skyscrapers? You’re comparing apples and oranges.
And ‘any number of cases’? Do you live in Palestine? [:)]
Nice try, but you’re changing the topic. We’re discussing the likelihood of the free-fall collapse of the building due to impact from debris striking a vital column. I don’t care if the debris came from a UFO spaceship piloted by Karl Rove and ET, it’s not relevant to the point at hand (by the way, your use of ‘a half million tons of debris’ is misleading because only a small fraction of that hit WTC7). You haven’t addressed the issues I raised in my last post. You’ve accused me of a probability fallacy and I told you why you are wrong. Taking the first sentence of a paragraph and cherry-picking another so you can change the topic is not going to cut it. Let’s try again…
This is the fallacy as you initially described it:
And this is from my last post:
Prove the fallacy or withdraw the charge. I do have to admire your pluck though in using probability to attack a sceptic of the official version.
You don’t want to reject the official version because you think the probability of events occuring in the manner presented is sufficient not to reject it (please correct me if I’m misreading your position). But you’re a big fan of arguments being valid (which is a good thing). If there were logical fallacies in the official version, would you then reject it (or at least parts of it)? If the official version stated that the put options were not relevant to 9/11 because they were not connected to the alleged perpetrators (al Qaeda), would you at least acknowledge that this is a logical fallacy? And should we at least be told who made those transactions?
I disagree that the politicians I mentioned are cut from the same cloth as the criminal ones. If that were the case, Cynthia McKinney wouldn’t have lost her seat in Congress and be running for the Green party, and Ron Paul wouldn’t have been shut out of debates. And that’s why you put people on the commission who are sceptics. But I agree that for now it’s a pipe dream. To quote the neocons, it will take a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a massive collapse of the dollar, to shake up the existing system.
Your first point is a very good one and I totally agree. But the last point is invalid. If a new investigation would show that bin Laden was not responsible and that this was a flase flag op, that gets rid of the Patriot Act. That’s not a wasted effort. You’re going to say I’m assuming it’s a false flag op, and yes, that’s true. In looking for a perpetrator, my guiding question is cui bono? Who could possibly gain from committing this act and not taking credit for it? I think that if the case against ‘Islamofascist terrorists’ was at all strong, we would have seen the evidence by now.
We’re going to have to disagree as to how frivolous it is. The biggest problem is that most of the evidence that could prove his case has been destroyed (at the behest of a former prosecutor, which should raise questions). But to be honest, I’m not interested in defending alternative theories. I’m a sceptic. I don’t believe the official version.
i had looked at a couple of vids on 9-11, and was never convinced that it was an inside job… until I read the pathetic defense of the official account on this thread. that said, i agree with edward in that it is not in the best interest of LVMI to keep talking about this - leave it to digg.com.
The big issue with many of those defending the official version is that they do not realize they are the ones supporting the null hypothesis. It’s not enough to say an alternative theory has not been proved. Conspiracy theorists only have to prove that the official version is sufficiently improbable to be rejected. They don’t need to prove any alternative theory. And to require that would be unfair, because they don’t have access to all the facts (or shall we say they are not allowed to have all their questions answered, which would be the point of a new investigation).
I would suggest letting the LvMI decide that for themselves. I’m relatively certain that they are well aware of this thread. If they think it is not in the best interests of the LvMI to keep talking about this, they’ll remove the thread.
As a side note, I think that this debate has been long overdue. Now is the time to turn up the heat. If only we could dispense with the personal attacks and badgering, for they are the methods of trolls.
No, the big issue is that we’re not willing to reject the null hypothesis. In order to reject the null you need to have a relatively high level of confidence, e.g, 90%, 95%. I haven’t seen any material prompting this sort of level of confidence (nor when it is aggregated). Quite the contrary. A few bits and pieces here; things which anyone can find in a given theory. The holes found are all based on “likelihood”. NOTHING is a surety. All you can say is that it seems unlikely that the buildings fell as they did, unlikely that silverstein meant “pull it” in some other way, unlikely that an “unfit to fly pilot” could hit a specific target. This is all you have. Nothing says that these events are impossible. All it is, is speculation.
So, why not apply this to everything? It was “unlikely” that the Giants beat the Patriots. Conspiracy! It was unlikely that my mom would get a Bigmac instead of Quarter Pounder. Conspiracy! It was unlikely that when I threw my paper airplane it would fly 20 ft. farther than I had thought(because the wind suddenly picked up). Conspiracy! You see the point? Things are unlikely given the perceived variables and future conditons, or in this case, past conditions. But, ex poste, they happened precisely as they should. You’re saying the way in which 9/11 took place as it did from an “official” perspective is unlikely given the perceived variables and conditions. It is purely based on speculative perception of the given variables. You presume the pilot could not do what he did, you presume there wasn’t enough damage to wtc 7 to cause it to fall, you presume the meaning of a phrase that could interpreted fifty different ways. None of these things can be known!!! You have nothing substantive on your side. Nothing that irrefutably proves that it could not happen as is “officially” proposed. This can be used on any theory.
Not exactly, but close. Educated guesses are worth something, but you aren’t educated in the subject, and have even refused to educate yourself. So your guesses are worthless, not because they’re imprecise, but because they’re uneducated.
No, it doesn’t–any more than proving that the sixteenth amendment wasn’t ratified would get rid of income tax, or than proving that WMD intelligence was falsified would end the invasion of Iraq, or proving that Clinton was a brutal serial rapist would have ever gotten him convicted of impeachment. You have my sympathies, truly. If 9/11 DID turn out to be an inside job, I’d be less surprised than anyone. But there’s nothing you can “prove” that will reverse the Patriot Act: it’s now the law of the land, upheld by the supreme court, and renewed by a Democrat-controlled congress. It’s conceivable the people could force its reversal, but it’s vanishingly unlikely, and arousing the people sufficiently is a remote hope. They couldn’t even be aroused to support Ron Paul in significant enough numbers.
I’m actually referring to the entire constellation of “evidence” put forward by the truthers. So-and-so said “pull.” Such-and-such reporter said WTC7 had collapsed, while standing in front of the uncollapsed structure. Early reports disagreed about the size of the planes that hit the tower. Etc., etc. As I said, an actual crime will exhibit anomalies, because where there’s fire there’s smoke. But the fallacy of underestimating the probability of a set of anomalies applies strongly here, because in an event this big and confusing there will be many odd coincidences. This observation doesn’t disprove the truthers’ claims, but hopefully it does dampen your enthusiasm for the whole “where there’s smoke there’s fire” argument.
In this particular case, glaring holes in Jones’s case have already been shown. His claim that WTC7 was only lightly damaged has been debunked by photographic evidence. Lots of evidence is available which demonstrates that people anticipated the collapse of WTC7 for several hours before it happened–which means either that the damage clearly indicated potential of collapse, or else a large number of people on the scene, unaffiliated with the government, were all involved in the conspiracy. The quantity of thermite needed to do what Jones claims can actually be calculated, and it’s a massive amount. And so on. That doesn’t prove that a good case can’t be made. But it does prove that Jones hasn’t made one.
I’m with you there. I’m sure there are lots of errors and outright falsehoods in the accepted version of 9/11. But I haven’t a clue what they are. It’s a big leap from “politicians are lying criminals and should never be trusted” to “9/11 was a false-flag operation planned by the CIA.” I agree with you on the former. There just isn’t remotely enough real evidence to make me adopt the latter. And whatever is wrong or missing in the “official version” may never be known, any more than we’ll probably ever know who really killed Kennedy and why.
Not ergo, I said it was not credible (of a sufficiently low probability to make me not believe it). A plane travels in 3 dimensions and has way more controls than your car (unless your name is Bond). Children often surprise their parents by driving the family car. And you failed a test to drive a car, not a soapbox racer. I think my logic is fine. You might want to come up with a better analogy. And by the way, did you see the plane hit the grass? Or is that on the video for which the Pentagon will only release selected frames?
And I should add that in your analogy, you have just completed the equivalent of the Bourne Identity car chase in order to reach your target. Take a look at what professional airline pilots say about Hanjour’s manoeuvre.
the photo is fake. we found a photo that directly contradicts that photo that you posted earlier. i love how you can’t actually answer any of the questions i raised or address any of the evidence. i clearly show that the photo you posted is fake. you can’t debate against my point, so you’re forced to laugh at me. is a faked photo really that crazy of a notion? i don’t think it’s that crazy considering this photo was never seen until 5 years after the attack, and that the photo is the only peice of evidence to suggest structural damage to WTC 7. This photo is probably the strongest piece of evidence to support the official theory for the collapse and this piece of evidence has been questioned. rather than defend this peice of evidence, you’re basically saying that we have to trust the government, that the notion of fake evidence and a fake photo is laughable, and therefore we have to accept this photo as legitmate despite evidence to the contrary. wake up to reality… both those photos can’t be real.. look with your own two eyes.
you seem to write your little responses to the claims that people make, but you never touch anything i say. all you can do is laugh at the things i say because you can’t even begin to answer my questions. read my last post again and answer some of the questions i brought up, and please show me how both the NIST photo and the Zafer photo can both be real. i know that you’re happy to answer the easy questions, but when it comes to the real evidence and the hard questions, all you can do is ignore them because you and i both know that you would have no idea how to explain some the stuff i posted on earlier pages on this thread.
you don’t know anything about the war games, about the stock trades, about phantom AA 11, about the phyical evidence at the pentagon, the section of the pentagon that was hit, about mineta’s testimony, about richard clarke’s account, about NIST’s fake WTC 7 photo, whistler blower testimony from people like william rodriguez, richard grove, etc. how about the wire transfer from the pakistani general, or the able danger program, the ISI connections. There is a mountain of evidence that you chose to ignore. you stick to talking about controlled demolition where no one can ever win a debate… but you can only win a debate about 9/11 by ignoring all the evidence you have never even heard of before, or ignoring it because you have heard of it but have no explanation for it.
so i’ll give you an easy one to start with:
QUESTION: What evidence is there to prove that the Pentagon was struck by AA 77 on 9/11?
can you answer that one basic question? i have a feeling you wont be able to give much of an answer,so you’ll probably just ignore the question and go on debating someone else about whether the WTC buildings were demolition.
Read this. It’s one of the many refutations. Have you even read the arguments of the other side? You seem to think that no one is aware of your various points. They have all been quite easily debunked.
It just quotes a bunch of eye witnesses. So that’s a guy saying that another guy said that he saw a plane. Is that a proof ?
And then the author says
"Americans mindful of the dangers threatening the founding ideals of this nation need be especially cautious in such matters. The hazards can be illustrated by applying Gresham’s Law. In economics, this law teaches that bad money drives out good. In the information society, bad information drives out good information. "
That sounds like nonsense to me…I don’t feel inclined to pay attention to an author with such, ah, ‘creative’ talent for social sciences.
Just curious here. You want to defend the official (read government) version. Could you point to the evidence the government has provided. If it’s their story, I want to see their evidence.
I agree with you that the application of Gresham’s law is a little shaky. The law basically says that when currency is over-valued relative to, say, gold, people will buy and hold gold, taking it out of circulation, and leaving only the “bad” currency. There’s no direct analogy to information, because ideas aren’t exchanged for other ideas, and ideas can’t be hoarded.
On the other hand, there is a valid point to be made. An abundance of bad information increases suspicion of information in general, with the effect of discrediting the good information. Sort of an “I’m Spartacus!” effect http://tinyurl.com/yu4sg8.
that prison planet article that you linked does not claim that AA 77 hit the pentagon. It only provides evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. There is plenty of evidence to prove that a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11… however… my question was whether or not there is any evidence to prove that this plane was AA 77. Is there even any evidence to prove that the plane was a Boeing 757?
i am aware of all the debunking publications, but they tend to nit-pick, and basically try to prove our argurments false, rather than trying to prove the offical story true. so when you actually ask someone what evidence there is to prove that AA 77 hit the pentagon, they can’t do it. they can provide a lot of evidence to prove that a plane hit the pentagon, but there is no available evidence to prove that the plane was actually AA 77.
in the article you linked, they mention the film, the Pentacon and the fact that credible witnesses claim they saw the plane fly on a different flight path from the official account. If you watch the interviews, they all claim that the plane flew to the left of the Citco gas station. Also, when the flight data recorder was analysed by pilots for 9/11 truth, the flight path that was created from the black box did not match the offical flight path either. no explanation has ever been provided as to why the black box data and eyewitneses contradict the official flight path.
but there’s also the fact that Hani Hanjour was a horrible pilot (as described by his flight instructors) yet he managed to pull expert moves in the sky. He managed to strike the first floor of the pentagon without touching the lawn. He made a crazy 330 degree turn at high speeds to hit the accounting section of the pentagon the day after rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion missing… what a coincidence, they annouce that $2.3 trillion can’t be tracked, then the next day, the accounting section is destroyed and bunch of accounts and budget people are killed… i mean… come on… it’s not hard to see that this wasn’t a coincidence.
so when you look at specific details, like issues at the pentagon… there are questions that the debunkers simply wont answer. debunkers have answers for many of the basic questions, and they attempt to debunk controlled demolition theory and other claims that are easy to debate.. however, no one can answer these hard questions. you still haven’t answered any of my questions. you can keep debating people about WTC 7 until we’re all blue in the face… but the truth is, is that you cannot answer my questions or respond to my concerns.
like… why wont the FBI release video tapes showing the plane on its approach to the pentagon? we knows these tapes exist. it is admitted that there are up to 85 tapes which may show us what hit the pentagon, but they refuse to release them despite requests under the freedom of information act. the only video tapes they do release only show a little white blob… from the videos released, you can’t even tell if it’s a plane, let alone what type of plane. so how do you respond to that? you don’t find it strange that they wont release any video tapes of what hit the pentagon depsite freedom of information requests to do so?
i really hope i don’t get another link to some popular mechanics article or something as an answer, because i’ve read them all… i would like to see if you could actually answer or respond to some of these questions and issues i have raised.
Let me get this straight. So if it’s conducted by the government it’s fraudulent and not credible (since, of course, they’re trying to cover their asses). But if it’s not from the government it’s not legitimate. Is this a joke? Every line of criticism you throw at articles like the one I posted can be thrown at every argument on your side. Do you see the hypocracy?
