'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
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.
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).
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 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.
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.
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?
Correct me if I'm wrong.
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.
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.
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
Grieving families are only evidence that family members went missing.
Last edited by bryan; 5th May 2010 at 10:54 AM.