You know this and still you lie. Why?
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.
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
You know this and still you lie. Why?
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?
- 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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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
Last edited by tolman; 29th April 2010 at 01:09 PM.
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.