bryan's posts have certainly made my mate Brent Cross
You need an excuse? Just drink
her cheese slid off her cracker many moons ago
bryan's posts have certainly made my mate Brent Cross
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright, until you hear them speak.
My sister's a biker from Walker and my brother's a walker from Byker.
*Putting a Geordie spin on the game*
Okay, quick quiz for Bryan to see what you're willing to believe
1) Is the Queen human?
2) Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK?
3) Do aliens walk among us?
4) Did man walk on the Moon?
5) Did the Holocaust happen?
6) Did Diana die in a car accident caused by DUI?
7) Did aeroplanes crash into.... no, scrap that
Correct me if I'm wrong.
1. What is a "fringe theory"? Is it just a theory supported by a minority?
2. What is "almost superhuman power"? Would the use of gagging orders be considered "almost superhuman"?
3. How do you determine whether the theory has any merit?
4. I asked you what you meant by "conspiracy theory" and you gave me a Wikipedia definition. Can you not think for yourself?
Have you heard of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy?as in a perfectly-executed controlled demolition.
We have seismic records, a the demolition charges of a controlled demolition would have been apparent in those seismic records. The records show no such thing. Therefore there were no demolition charges
We have video records, the flashes from demolition charges would have been apparent in those video records. The records show no such thing. Therefore there were no demolition charges.
We have audio records, the reports from the demolition charges would have been apparent in those audio records. The records show no such thing. Therefore there were no demolition charges.
We have an analysis of the windows breakage patterns. Demolition charges would have been betrayed by a distinctive window breakage pattern. The analysis show no such thing. Therefore there were no demolition charges.
Demolition charges need to be rigged. It is likely that some evidence of this process would be apparent in reliable witness testimony. There is no such testimony. Thereore is is unlikely that anything was rigged.
I'll grant you that there are some aspects of the collapse that make it look like a bit like some controlled demolitions.
There are two problems with that:
1) Despite your bare assertion to the contrary these characteristics could equally be explained by a different model. Uncontrolled fire can cause and has caused steel framed buildings to collapse.
2) The collapse of WTC7 has none of the distinctive characteristics of a controlled demolition mentioned above.
The texas sharpshooter fallacy relates to a story about a man who shoots at the side of a barn. Examining where he has struck he then paints a bullseye around the bullet holes.
I think you may have done something similar (or the people who you got your ideas from) having seen the characteristics of the WTC7 collapse you've declared these to be the characteristics of controlled demolition.
This despite the fact that it did not fall into it's own footprint or that symetry is not a universal feature of CD.
They explain how NIST are wrong by listing some typical characteristics of destruction by fire that are not observed in the WTC collapses:
http://cms.ae911truth.org/Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
Met Office = Owner's Manual = NIST
If you want to use them as an authority, you need to be consistent.
However, I have been pointing out that people opposing the NIST really need to have more than tiny numbers on their side, and that if they actually have a good technical case, they shouldn't have too much hassle getting much more support (though obviously, the fewer people around like you, the better for them).
Either there are masses of uncommitted people out there (in which case people with a good technical argument might have an easy ride if they are correct) or there aren't (in which case the NIST opponents have a problem.
It's not up to me to say how many people are in any particular subgroup, merely to correctly point out that your categories were far too general for the reasoning you wish to base on them.
Indeed, you seemed happy to condemn anyone not signed up to your petition as not being fit to contemplate possible explanations in a hypothetical post-NIST world, which presumably means that the very people you are now praising as signing up to you, you would have condemned yesterday.
I wonder when your cut-off date will be between the Damned and the Righteous?
If they could show they had run good models across a range of initial building conditions and fire scenarios, and always ended up with results that looked unlike what happened, they'd probably have an easier job convincing other experts than making general comments about different fires in different buildings.
Also, if someone has done calculations, and someone else doesn't like the result, the best way to the first person wrong is to show exactly where their calculations are wrong, not merely to criticise the results.
If it was shown that the NIST explanation was wrong, then real seekers for truth would need to consider all possible explanations, with the plausibility of any explanation being based on all the knowledge then available.
Were the NIST shown in your hypothetical future world to be generally accepted as being so wrong as to be untrustworthy, then neither you nor I could automatically rely on their statements as to the building's initial integrity.
However, that would be precisely what you'd try to do in claiming that the building couldn't have been poorly designed/built/maintained
I'm the person pointing out that a demonstration of serious NIST failure would actually put things back much closer to square one than you would wish them to be put.
You really do seem to be projecting your own obsession and closed-mindedness.
One of the main reasons for pointing out that there are alternatives is that the idea of alternatives is clearly anathema to you, and it's fun to see you get so wound up and desperate trying to attack the possibility of an explanation which to everyone else is not obviously any more implausible than the Huge Conspiracy Of Incompetence that you propose.
It was you who was desperate to ignore that obvious fact, and try and pretend that my views on the weather actually did matter
And anyway, I don't rely on the NIST as an authority as such, more that I expect that if they were seriously wrong, they'd probably have more effective critics than they do have.
If their modelling was flawed, someone would have duplicated their work and got different results, etc
It's the same in science - generally it's less a case of believing in someone's assertions based on their authority, more the comforting knowledge that if the claims were wrong, then relatively soon that would be shown by people who could actually convince enough other people to make a difference.
You might argue that that is a lazy position to adopt, but in a world where you assure me that there are experts who know much more than I do who are doing their level best to prove the NIST wrong, it would seem that all that might need to be done is being done.
Don't forget the asymmetry here - you're the one desperate to prove there are no alternatives to your alternative. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong, and that you're failing epically to convince anyone.
Then they can show their choices of starting points to other experts, who can make their own mind up how open-minded the choices were.