Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[bryan]

Matt, thanks for the picture and info, I'll keep it handy in case I ever encounter another no-brainer, sorry no-planer.

Make sure you keep the link to the archives handy in case you forget what you saw on live TV again.

[bryan]

I suggest that it would be rather harder for most people to help cover up a mass-murdering conspiracy (which for all they knew might do it again, and/or be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life) and sleep easily afterwards.

If dodgy construction companies were willing to cut corners in the construction of the WTC, I think we can assume the same companies had a habit of cutting corners and that buildings all over America and possibly the world are at risk of suddenly collapsing at the first outbreak of an office fire. Would NIST sleep easy with the thought they'd helped to sweep something like that under the carpet?

That seems different to your earlier position, when you were attempting to ridicule the mere possibility of explanations other than 'NIST perfectly correct' and 'huge murderous conspiracy'.

You can't argue one minute that you wouldn't be surprised if NIST were incompentent or dishonest, then in the next breath quote the NIST report as gospel. Either failing would mean NIST can't be trusted.

Bear in mind that everyone knows that failures of design or construction or both happen - just look at the history of civil engineering.
You can't easily (or at least successfully) argue that Massive Murderous Conspiracies are more likely than (or even as likely as) imperfectly built buildings without showing that even one has ever actually happened.

Do you have evidence that NIST has covered up for companies that have failed to comply with building regulations?

Where do you like to think you showed that?

And do you think anyone other than you thinks you achieved what you claim?

I think I've shown it's a logical contradiction in your position to claim you have complete faith in the NIST report and at the same time suggest that NIST would cover up criminality that could result in buildings collapsing all over the place. And we haven't even touched on the physics of whether substandard building materials could cause the sudden collapse of the 57 steel columns.

What's responsible for your desperate lack of faith in humanity?

Whatever gave you the idea I lack faith in humanity?

[Croydon Bob]

If dodgy construction companies were willing to cut corners in the construction of the WTC, I think we can assume the same companies had a habit of cutting corners and that buildings all over America and possibly the world are at risk of suddenly collapsing at the first outbreak of an office fire. Would NIST sleep easy with the thought they'd helped to sweep something like that under the carpet?

That's a more plausible conspiracy theory than your "no planes" rubbish.

Whatever gave you the idea I lack faith in humanity?

Cos you think that the villains are the reptiloids don't you?

[bryan]

That's a more plausible conspiracy theory than your "no planes" rubbish.

That's not the point. If you're willing to even consider it, you can no longer quote NIST as a reliable authority.

[tolman]

If dodgy construction companies were willing to cut corners in the construction of the WTC, I think we can assume the same companies had a habit of cutting corners and that buildings all over America and possibly the world are at risk of suddenly collapsing at the first outbreak of an office fire.

I'm sure you can assume anything you put your mind to, but please don't drag me into your assumptions.

There are all kinds of reasons for building problems - poor design (at least in hindsight), variable quality materials, variable quality construction practices, unforseen material problems or interactions, etc. The existence, extent and effects of such factors would vary from building to building even with the same people, subcontractors, suppliers, building inspectors, etc involved.
To assume national or worldwide homogeneity in effects would be a very strange thing to do, especially as each organisation changes over time, and is only involved in so many projects at once. It would make as much sense as saying that because some buildings have failures due to the weight of people on a walkway, or wind loading, so should all other buildings.
It'd be even stranger to assume some kind of homogeneity of effects across a whole range of buildings, even when some could by design be much more or less vulnerable to particular construction failings.

Anyway, as even you know perfectly well, WTC7 didn't collapse 'at the first outbreak' of an office fire.

As I explained, and as is pretty evident anyway, fires left to burn for hours are an unusual happening. Even if your hypothetical argument were sustainable, and some other buildings were at risk of collapse in similar situations, the combination of significant fires (fairly rare) with lack of fire department response (very unusual) gives a very low combined probability, and even if such a combination of events happened, the buildings would be likely to have been evacuated long before the effects could occur.

In any case, all I was trying to do was point out how stupid it would be to assume that showing the NIST explanation was wrong would automatically prove demolition.

Now that even you have seemingly accepted that to be the case, that particular area seems to have been explored about as much as necessary.

You can't argue one minute that you wouldn't be surprised if NIST were incompentent or dishonest, then in the next breath quote the NIST report as gospel.

I said the idea of dodgy construction happening at around the period of construction wouldn't threaten my world view.
However, I said that my current expectation was that the NIST report was probably correct. I even stressed expectation and probably and pointed out by repetition that I was basing an expectation on probability in the hope that you might understand what I was saying. I'm really not sure how much more explicit I could have been.

I also pointed out what I based my expectation on, and that I'd be disappointed if they hadn't done a good job, but not devastated, explaining that I don't base my life on their being infallible.

I don't quote their report as Gospel (see later).

Do you have evidence that NIST has covered up for companies that have failed to comply with building regulations?

I don't need to have any to consider the possibility that they might, especially if the situation which would raise that possibility would be the hypothetical one where they had been shown to have provided a flawed explanation, and where you would be happy to suggest they're all colluding in a top secret mass murder conspiracy.
Compared to what you would suggest (desperately immoral action to cover up something
that has never actually been shown to occur), the positing of a far less immoral action to cover up something which clearly does occur (accidental design or accidental/venal construction failings) is, by far, much less a stretch of the imagination.

You can't possibly suggest that what want to believe is possible or even probable, while declaring that other possibility to be impossible or radically less likely. You can't even reasonably claim that it's obviously less probable than what you suggest, short of direct evidence to back you up.

I think I've shown it's a logical contradiction in your position to claim you have complete faith in the NIST report and at the same time suggest that NIST would cover up criminality that could result in buildings collapsing all over the place.

But of course, you're totally mischaracterising my position.

I don't claim to have perfect faith in the NIST report.
It's simply that as a technical report claiming to explain what happened, it obviously requires a technical argument opposing it from people claiming that something else happened, as a first step in their attempt to put a counter explanation and expect to be taken seriously.

That is, even if the NIST report was technically wrong, if someone couldn't provide a technical argument that demonstrated it was wrong, they wouldn't be in any real position to argue that they knew what really happened.

Even if someone did prove it wrong, that still wouldn't automatically leave their explanation as the only one in town. It's just that showing it failing would be a necessary first step.

Also, I'm not suggesting that they are covering up innocent or less-than-innocent design/material or construction failings, merely that if it was shown that their current explanation is lacking (a hypothetical scenario which you seem to be very keen that everyone should consider), it would be moronic in the extreme to assume that they couldn't possibly stoop so low as to cover up any historic failings while at the same time arguing that they could easily be covering up contemporary Mass Murder Grand Conspiracy (which could itself easily result in large numbers of future deaths).

Going to your earlier science analogy, I don't need to have perfect faith (or any particular faith at all) in a physics theory to tell someone claiming they know better than the theory that they need start by understanding and showing the problems with the existing theory.
In fact, unless I'm going to be one of those judging the newcomer's attack on the existing theory, I don't even need to understand the existing theory myself - pointing out the simple description in the previous paragraph of what has to be done is just stating the generally/logically obvious.

If someone comes along claiming that a given theory/explanation is wrong, and it's pretty evident they don't know what they're talking about, it's not having faith in the theory/explanation or defending it to observe that the claimant isn't really in a position to attack it.
One could make that observation while being entirely uncommitted to the theory, or a grave doubter in it, even an opponent of it.
It would take someone with a pathologically simplistic, black-and-white view of the word to assume that someone who pointed out when they weren't qualified to challenge an explanation must necessarily be a complete supporter or even general supporter of the explanation.

[tolman]

That's not the point. If you're willing to even consider it, you can no longer quote NIST as a reliable authority.

I think Bob is pointing to them as providers of an explanation which you (or at least the CTers with some technical understanding) have to begin by technically proving wrong.
And that's not simply a matter of saying you've done it, it's a matter of showing you've done it.

Also, I think you're a bit confused about the idea of authority in scientific/technical issues.

Assuming Bob thought they were an 'authority', it's not a case of unquestioningly believing in 'authorities', but as judging them as sources who on current knowledge seem to have a good chance of being right.
Considering the possibility that they might not be right doesn't necessarily require that judgement to be altered.
You're being too black-and-white again.

[PaulW99]

Bryan, have you told your family/friends/workmates/schoolmates/fellow inmates your fascinating ideas about 911 - namely that no planes crashed into the WTC Towers that day?

If you did tell them, how did they react?
If you did not tell them, why not?

[Matt]

Have you thought about how this piece of fuselage (which is actually two pieces of fuselage that just happened to land next to each other) managed to pass right through the South Tower, cross the Plaza and end up on the roof of WTC5?

No I haven't. Is there any reason it couldn't have fallen in that direction when the building fell?

All this "evidence" is fakeable.

In your opinion is there any evidence that isn't fakable?

I've examined the evidence and it fits the no-planes hypothesis better than it fits the planes hypothesis.

OK I've examined the above statement and it fits the confirmation bias hypothesis better than it fits the critical thinking hypothesis.

What is your evidence? Evidence that there weren't planes there. Evidence that trumps grieving families air traffic records passenger manifests dna identification physical evidence of aeroplane wreckage, thousands of eye witnesses live video evidence from multiple angles a lack of contradictory eyewitness or video evidence. Is the only argument you have that it could have been faked. Because even if that were remotely plausible (which it isn't) that argument doesn't suggest that it actually was faked.

I could just as plausibly construct a scenario where the Beijing olympics were faked but even if I convinced you that such a thing were possible that doesn't mean that the hoax actually took place.

[skbuncks]

I've examined the evidence and it fits the hypothesis that Bryan is faked. He is actually a semi-coherent brain living in a vat in David Ickes cellar.

skb

[bryan]

I'm sure you can assume anything you put your mind to, but please don't drag me into your assumptions.

I'm reluctant to assume that a construction company would comply with the regulations on every job except the construction of the WTC.

Anyway, as even you know perfectly well, WTC7 didn't collapse 'at the first outbreak' of an office fire.

According to NIST, WTC7 collapsed due to standard office fires.

In any case, all I was trying to do was point out how stupid it would be to assume that showing the NIST explanation was wrong would automatically prove demolition.

But you rely on the NIST report to disprove one scenario, then assume NIST are untrustworthy to suggest an alternative scenario.

It's simply that as a technical report claiming to explain what happened, it obviously requires a technical argument opposing it from people claiming that something else happened, as a first step in their attempt to put a counter explanation and expect to be taken seriously.

A common fallacy.

That is, even if the NIST report was technically wrong, if someone couldn't provide a technical argument that demonstrated it was wrong, they wouldn't be in any real position to argue that they knew what really happened.

You can demostrate something didn't happen even if you don't know what did happen.

Even if someone did prove it wrong, that still wouldn't automatically leave their explanation as the only one in town. It's just that showing it failing would be a necessary first step.

If it's the only plausible explanation, it's the only explanation in town.

Also, I'm not suggesting that they are covering up innocent or less-than-innocent design/material or construction failings, merely that if it was shown that their current explanation is lacking (a hypothetical scenario which you seem to be very keen that everyone should consider), it would be moronic in the extreme to assume that they couldn't possibly stoop so low as to cover up any historic failings while at the same time arguing that they could easily be covering up contemporary Mass Murder Grand Conspiracy (which could itself easily result in large numbers of future deaths).

My explanation assumes that NIST would come to whatever conclusion their employers requested, whether to cover up small-time fiddling or a huge international conspiracy. Your explanation requires NIST to be honest and dishonest at the same time.

Assuming Bob thought they were an 'authority', it's not a case of unquestioningly believing in 'authorities', but as judging them as sources who on current knowledge seem to have a good chance of being right.
Considering the possibility that they might not be right doesn't necessarily require that judgement to be altered.
You're being too black-and-white again.

Considering the possibility they might fix their model to cover up somebody else's wrongdoing requires taking their report with a pinch of salt.

[bryan]

Bryan, have you told your family/friends/workmates/schoolmates/fellow inmates your fascinating ideas about 911 - namely that no planes crashed into the WTC Towers that day?

If you did tell them, how did they react?
If you did not tell them, why not?

If I'd only told them they'd probably have thought I was mad, so I showed them the video evidence. They were shocked and they no longer trust the BBC.

[bryan]

No I haven't. Is there any reason it couldn't have fallen in that direction when the building fell?

Well, even the black box wasn't recovered from the collapse debris and on top of that the wind was blowing in the opposite direction!

What is your evidence? Evidence that there weren't planes there. Evidence that trumps grieving families air traffic records passenger manifests dna identification physical evidence of aeroplane wreckage, thousands of eye witnesses live video evidence from multiple angles a lack of contradictory eyewitness or video evidence. Is the only argument you have that it could have been faked. Because even if that were remotely plausible (which it isn't) that argument doesn't suggest that it actually was faked.

Evidence includes: unexplained destruction of air traffic records, unexplained lack of passenger manifests, no explanation where control samples of hijackers' dna were obtained, no explanation how aircraft parts survived, suspiciously few eyewitnesses on the day, plane in videos behaves just like computer simulations recreated later by a non-specialist, curious positioning of TV cameras at the time of the second plane's approach.

Grieving families are only evidence that family members went missing.

[bryan]

I've examined the evidence and it fits the hypothesis that Bryan is faked. He is actually a semi-coherent brain living in a vat in David Ickes cellar.

If not A or B, then what is C?

[Matt]

I've examined the evidence and it fits the hypothesis that Bryan is faked. He is actually a semi-coherent brain living in a vat in David Ickes cellar.

skb

David Icke has a brain?!

Just kidding. He was actually quite good on telly the other day reminiscing about the 1985 World Snooker Final.

[ZERO]

No I haven't. Is there any reason it couldn't have fallen in that direction when the building fell?

Or momentum carried it there at the time of impact.