Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[Pebble]

Your list appears to be the unedited results of a quick brainstorming session. You need to offer an alternative choice for any one of the three stages in the chain of logic I described.
.

It is indeed a very rapidly concieved list, and by no means exhaustive, to demonstrate that one does not jump from disbelief in one explanation to an alternative, one must consider all possible variations and the let the evidence direct you toward the more plausible and supported alternatives. Then you must create models to test each credible hypothesis and move from there.

You appear to start with an assertion - you don't like the idea of buildings falling straight down after planes crash into them. You then hunt for some gaps in the evidence in respect of the official version. Having satisfied yourself that there are gaps, you then have to make the planes dissappear, since they don't fit with your conclusions. Pretty soon you have wandered so far from reality that everyone else is wondering about your mental health.

[Matt]

The videos show that WTC7 fell in a way that can't be explained by asymmetrical damage and random fires.

On the contrary the building fell in a way that has been expalined in exactly that manner. You unwillingness to read and understand this explanation does not make it go away.

There were no planes

On the contrary there were planes. There was wreckage from those planes. The planes were seen and some of them videoed live and from multiple angles. There were people on those planes, those people left grieving families.

You know this and still you lie. Why?

[Matt]

By analogy.

ANALogy isn't the science of pulling thing out of your arse you know.

[bryan]

There's quite a difference between 'proved' and 'generally accepted', and it would obviously depend how much time there had been for various explanations and criticisms to have been aired.
However, a widespread conclusion reached after much consideration couldn't be easily dismissed.

That said, it would depend what assumptions were used as a starting point - were they looking at a range of conditions for the structure, or assuming it was starting off perfect and as on the plans? If they did assume perfection, how reliable is that assumption.

If they assumed perfection, then concluding after truly exhaustive study that collapse in the way that happened would be highly unlikely/impossible would logically only mean that a perfect building [probably]couldn't have collapsed that way(*), not necessarily that a flawed one couldn't have collapsed that way.

If you were prepared to not only ignore the NIST's conclusions but to assume they were dishonest, you couldn't necessarily rely on anything they said about the state of the building before the damage and fire. If you were prepared to dismiss their conclusions as clear conspiracy, it would be illogical to trust any data they provided simply because it was convenient for your particular argument for you to trust it.

(*the 'probable' bit there could usefully be expanded on, but it'll have to wait)

Only a few days ago, you included professional journals as a source you would trust. Now you're saying you'd only accept their judgement if their assumptions were reliable. As a layman, how would you know whether that was true or not? It kind of defeats the object of trusting them in the first place.

In any case, you haven't answered the question. If it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the collapse could not have been caused solely by the debris damage and the fires, do you agree that the only logical alternative is an inside job?

[bryan]

Why don't you make a proper case - present your conclusion and provide the supporting evidence.

I'll translate this into layman's language:

"If you want to challenge the official version, you need to put forward a fully coherent alternative theory of your own."

Now, where have I heard that one before...?

[Admin]

I'll translate this into layman's language:

"If you want to challenge the official version, you need to put forward a fully coherent alternative theory of your own."

Now, where have I heard that one before...?

You clearly do believe that it was an 'inside job' based on your inability to reason properly - so it's a perfectly reasonable request to ask you to present your argument.

If you have an alternative theory, present it.

[bryan]

No, even if it were established that fires etc. could not have caused the collapse it does not necessarily follow that it was therefore an inside job or a controlled demolition - to conclude this is making the Denying the Antecedent fallacy (and a consequence of a false dichotomy!)

Stop hiding behind the names of logical fallacies and offer a plausible explanation of how the 19 Islamic hijackers theory could accommodate a controlled demolition.

[Admin]

Stop hiding behind the names of logical fallacies and offer a plausible explanation of how the 19 Islamic hijackers theory could accommodate a controlled demolition.

Is that the best you can come up with?

- If it's 2AM it will be dark outside;
- It's not 2AM therefore it's not dark outside.


Can you see what's wrong with the logic there Bryan?

Yes, it's called "denying the antecedent" (a logical fallacy) and it's how you are arguing your case.

Until you learn the error of your thinking I'm afraid you're always going to be seen as a complete and utter twit because you haven't got a clue.

[bryan]

But they aren't analogous in any way!

When I wrote the words: "the truthers' version", you said that what I wrote was bullshit because no truthers' version actually exists. By analogy, when I write "the Loch Ness Monster", you must think that's bullshit as well because the sentence that contains it goes on to say the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist.

[bryan]

Is that the best you can come up with?

- If it's 2AM it will be dark outside;
- It's not 2AM therefore it's not dark outside.


Can you see what's wrong with the logic there Bryan?

Yes, it's called "denying the antecedent" (a logical fallacy) and it's how you are arguing your case.

Until you learn the error of your thinking I'm afraid you're always going to be seen as a complete and utter twit because you haven't got a clue.

I can see what's wrong with the logic and the simplest way for me to show how you've created a false dichotomy would be to point out that when the second sentence is uttered, the time might be 1am or 3am and it could plausibly be dark outside even though the time is not 2am. In the same way, the simplest way for you to show how the choice between Islamic terrorists and inside job is a false dichotomy would be to suggest a plausible third alternative.

Here's a better analogy:

Outside it's either daylight or dark

If I wanted to show that to be a false dichotomy, I'd have (at least) two options.

I could repeat endlessly: "That's a false dichotomy".

Or I could say: "Well, it could be twilight."

[Admin]

I can see what's wrong with the logic

Yeay!

and the simplest way for me to show how you've created a false dichotomy would be to point out.....

No, I haven't created a false dichotomy. The fact that there is more than one alternative is precisely why the reasoning is fallacious.

the simplest way for you to show how the choice between Islamic terrorists and inside job is a false dichotomy would be to suggest a plausible third alternative.

No, no, no!!!

What you need to do is present evidence that there is a dichotomy. What you're doing is assuming that the 'inside job' hypothesis is actually required.

If you can convincingly show that there is something wrong with the 'official' version it may simply mean that the official version needs refining - it doesn't automatically mean that there needs to be an alternative hypothesis; and it certainly doesn't mean that the alternative hypothesis needs to the 'inside job' version.


I could claim that 'aliens did it'. The planes were holographic projections and the buildings were collapsed using invisible laser beams from a UFO in the sky.

If I say that "the buildings couldn't have collapsed symmetrically and there's no evidence of explosives" therefore it proves that aliens did it, would you agree that I had proven my case?

I'm just wondering as that's exactly the sort of argument you are making: the 'official' version doesn't stand up to my satisfaction therefore it must have been aliens.

i.e. the 'official' version doesn't stand up to my satisfaction therefore it must have been an inside job.

[tolman]

Only a few days ago, you included professional journals as a source you would trust.

Firstly, journals (in the sense of vehicles for publishing papers) don't really make judgements. They might have an editorial policy, but the views of people publishing papers are their own.
Though papers in proper journals (not vanity publishing affairs with dubious review policies) are peer-reviewed, if there's a serious issue, it'd be pretty dumb to jump to an important conclusion on the basis of a couple of papers.
At the very least, a sensible judgement of what professionals in general think (or at least the subset of professionals who actively contribute to the journal in question) should be based on looking at the progress of various ideas over time, and over a reasonable number of editions of the journal.

When it comes to deciding what the standing of a given journal is, that's something that I guess a whole cross-section of professionals would need to be asked about. A really good journal would likely have very few people saying it's second-rate, so if more than a small number of people expressed doubts about it, that'd suggest a degree of caution might be needed.

Now you're saying you'd only accept their judgement if their assumptions were reliable.

So you assumed a few days ago that I'd accept anyone's conclusions if, however good their calculations were, they stated the assumptions they'd worked from, and those assumptions looked problematic?

However talented or expert someone was, if they'd done the best possible job working from a set of assumptions to a conclusion, the reliability of the conclusion still depends the assumptions - that's basic logic.

For example, if someone had modeled a thousand different fire scenarios, but always began by assuming that every piece of metal was up to spec, every weld perfect and every bolt present and correct, then the conclusions they made about what could happen would necessarily only apply reliably to buildings in the condition they had first assumed.
No-one needs to be qualified in anything other than simple logical reasoning to understand that.

As a layman, how would you know whether that was true or not? It kind of defeats the object of trusting them in the first place.

Well, it'd be necessary for them to state what assumptions they had made in order for many people to conclude they'd covered sufficient possible initial starting points.
Examining assumptions isn't really about determining what is 'true', but about getting some idea of the limits of applicability of any conclusions without necessarily needing to understand the process of reasoning in detail.

In any case, what I seem to have said is:

Personally, on the technical side, I'll wait until the relevant trade journals indicate that more than a tiny fraction of qualified people are demanding another enquiry.

Which doesn't look like me placing absolute trust in journals to come to a final judgement, merely me trusting them to report relatively uncontentious news.

However, I guess you should be pleased I'm showing an open mind, and wouldn't simply mindlessly swallow what journals wrote as gospel, since you're so concerned about people doing that:

Scientists, engineers and demolition experts are not curious people. They accept what's fed to them by their industry journals.

Do I get a gold star?

In any case, you haven't answered the question. If it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the collapse could not have been caused solely by the debris damage and the fires, do you agree that the only logical alternative is an inside job?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that people had modeled all the starting conditions for the building structure they thought were feasible, that they had published all their models and calculations, and that there had been sufficient time for anyone who wished to comment to do so, and no-one had been able to come up with meaningful criticisms.

It's interesting that you use 'beyond reasonable doubt', because it comes back to what I said before about probabilities.
How would you quantify 'reasonable doubt' in such a case?

If it would take a 'difficult-to-believe' (but not impossible) set of circumstances to account for the collapse being natural, how would/should one balance that against the 'difficult-to-believe' claim that there'd been a huge conspiracy which laced three large buildings with demolition charges without anyone noticing, diverted four planes and murdered their passengers, faked three (or four) plane impacts, and managed to pull off a gigantic cover-up, even when some people involved in the plan and cover up are almost certain to have lost people close to them in the mass killings?

One couldn't just ignore the difficulties of creating a massive conspiracy and successfully keeping it secret

[bryan]

It is indeed a very rapidly concieved list, and by no means exhaustive, to demonstrate that one does not jump from disbelief in one explanation to an alternative, one must consider all possible variations and the let the evidence direct you toward the more plausible and supported alternatives. Then you must create models to test each credible hypothesis and move from there.

You appear to start with an assertion - you don't like the idea of buildings falling straight down after planes crash into them. You then hunt for some gaps in the evidence in respect of the official version. Having satisfied yourself that there are gaps, you then have to make the planes dissappear, since they don't fit with your conclusions. Pretty soon you have wandered so far from reality that everyone else is wondering about your mental health.

I'm not knocking brainstorming. It's just that you're supposed to put your ideas into some sort of order after you've scribbled them down.

[tolman]

I'm not knocking brainstorming. It's just that you're supposed to put your ideas into some sort of order after you've scribbled them down.

If the ideas form a list of possible explanations for something, what's the recommended ordering system?

[bryan]

What you need to do is present evidence that there is a dichotomy. What you're doing is assuming that the 'inside job' hypothesis is actually required.

We're dealing with two separate questions here. First, whether the damage and fires could have caused the collapse. Second, whether proof that the damage and fires couldn't have caused the collapse could be accommodated by a refined 19 Islamic terrorists theory or whether a radically different theory would be needed.

There's no point in arguing over the first question unless we can agree on where the answer will take us. You said earlier that even if the damage and fires couldn't have caused the collapse, it doesn't necessarily mean it was a controlled demolition.

Can we agree that if it was proved or at least generally accepted by qualified experts and the relevant professional journals that the collapse of WTC7 could not have been caused by debris damage and fires, the logical consequence would be that the building was demolished and 9/11 was an inside job?

No, even if it were established that fires etc. could not have caused the collapse it does not necessarily follow that it was therefore an inside job or a controlled demolition - to conclude this is making the Denying the Antecedent fallacy (and a consequence of a false dichotomy!)

If you believe the 19 hijackers theory is the only possible explanation, you need to suggest a plausible reason for the collapse other than debris damage and fires on the one hand, or controlled demolition on the other.