Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[PaulW99]

Thanks for the option. I'll ignore you till you've demonstrated you have some knowledge of what was broadcast by the TV companies on 9/11.

I saw it live on tv, did you? Apologies for mistaking ABC for CNN, it was only 8 years ago.

[Pebble]

Yes, it's that time of year when Christians need to keep an eye on their kids!

Does this suggest that bryan believes that there is an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipowerful being observing everyones second by second actions and thoughts and judging them? If so, then any conspiracy theory is by comparison, a walk in the park.

[bryan]

I saw it live on tv, did you?

Thankfully, I don't watch TV, so I wasn't affected by the mass hypnosis. Instead, I've spent a lot of time in the archives I linked to earlier, watching the footage over and over again, sometimes flicking through scenes frame by frame. That's why I can help you fill the gaps in your memory. That's why I can rightly claim to be arguing from a position of knowledge while you're arguing from a position of almost total ignorance.

Apologies for mistaking ABC for CNN, it was only 8 years ago.

You base your belief on a few seconds of footage you saw live on TV, even though you can barely remember any details because it was 8 years ago? What an admission!

[bryan]

Does this suggest that bryan believes that there is an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipowerful being observing everyones second by second actions and thoughts and judging them? If so, then any conspiracy theory is by comparison, a walk in the park.

Take it as "they" not "we".

[Pebble]

Take it as "they" not "we".

Not a bad suggestion though, it would have explained so much.

[tolman]

Take it as "they" not "we".

Who mentioned "we"?

[bryan]

You pretty much suggested that if the NIST report was shown to have significant failings, the only possible alternative was demolition.
Now it's been very clearly and exhaustively explained how that position is wrong, whether you accept that or not, you're wasting your time trying to use that same failed argument.

Demolition is the only alternative we've found so far that doesn't come with inherent logical contradictions.

But that's a total misrepresentation of the situation.
Numerous innocent or less-innocent failings clearly *could* cause buildings to end up in an underperforming state, and it's not reasonable for you to argue that an organisation you accuse of knowingly covering up mass murder would have any problems ignoring such failings.

That in itself undermines your 'only one alternative' argument, which is all it needs to do to render that argument futile.

When you're assessing the plausibility of different possilbe explanations for the same event, you need to keep your assumptions consistent. You're dismissing one explanation on the basis that NIST's model is accurate, then accepting an alternative explanation based on the assumption that NIST's model is flawed.

I'm arguing that NIST are corrupt and would cover up mass murder and/or ignore failings whether innocent or less-innocent. That's consistent.

Given that the foundation of the hypothetical situation you want people to consider is that in that situation, the NIST explanation has already failed, in that hypothetical situation it could be taken as read that such failure had been demonstrated.

How can you take NIST's failure as read when a central plank in your argument against controlled demolition depends on their model being accurate?

As I pointed out at length in posts you're evidently incapable of reading, at the moment, I'm not claiming or expecting that the NIST has done anything wrong.
Since there are already people claiming the NIST explanation is flawed and claiming that they have experts on their side, they seem to be the people who should be objectively attacking the report with technical arguments.

But as I explained, if a truther can't show how the NIST explanation fails, they're not in any real position to suggest that their explanation is better.
If the NIST explanation resists serious attempts to disprove it, while that doesn't prove it's right, it strongly suggests it might have something going for it.
As a fan of the scientific method, I'm sure you don't need that explaining further.

There isn't a paradox.

If you wanted the 99.994% of structural engineers who haven't challenged NIST's explanation to consider the 'innocent or less-innocent failing' alternative, you'd have to attack the report with technical arguments. The paradox is, you've already claimed the report can resist such attacks.

If the CTers already think they can show the NIST report is terminally flawed, as I've already said, demonstrating that is the first step they should take. If they have experts on their side and they are right, they can do that perfectly well on their own, and if they do it successfully (not just to their own satisfaction, but to other peoples'), they would seem likely to gain support.

Were there a group of people arguing that a scientific theory was wrong, they don't need more people to back them up and argue louder, they need to show their argument and argue smarter.

The reason more people are backing them up and arguing louder is because they are gaining support after showing their argument and arguing smart.

[tolman]

Demolition is the only alternative we've found so far that doesn't come with inherent logical contradictions.

But that's only because you see paradoxes and contradictions where they don't exist.

When you're assessing the plausibility of different possilbe explanations for the same event, you need to keep your assumptions consistent. You're dismissing one explanation on the basis that NIST's model is accurate, then accepting an alternative explanation based on the assumption that NIST's model is flawed.

As I've already explained, I'm not dismissing conspiracy theories because I claim the NIST explanation is perfect, I'm pointing out that in order for such theories to get taken seriously by other than the current believers, demonstrating how/why the NIST explanation is objectively wrong is the first step that needs to be taken.
Pointing that out does not requires any faith whatsoever on my part in the NIST, it's simply that they've provided a technical explanation which will stand until someone knocks it down.

Not only that, but I'm not 'accepting' an alternate explanation, I'm merely pointing out that that explanation exists to demonstrate the failure of your argument that your explanation is the only alternative to the NIST.

Not only that, but your

When you're assessing the plausibility of different possilbe explanations for the same event, you need to keep your assumptions consistent.

is totally meaningless anyway.
If one is considering more than one possible explanation, how can one keep consistent assumptions which aren't compatible with all the explanations under consideration?

I'm arguing that NIST are corrupt and would cover up mass murder and/or ignore failings whether innocent or less-innocent. That's consistent.

There's nothing big or clever about being 'consistent' in a context where it''s just another word for 'prejudiced'.

How can you take NIST's failure as read when a central plank in your argument against controlled demolition depends on their model being accurate?

Because I was operating in a particular hypothetical scenario which you suggested which was based on assuming their failure.
Within such a hypothetical scenario I'm allowed to accept starting conditions as read without that acceptance having any connection with what I actually think is or isn't likely.

Look at my analogy about the weather - if you say "It will rain tomorrow, and if so, we must do X" and I reply "But in that situation we could do Y instead", within that sentence and its imaginary context you could argue I'm taking the rain as read, but it's also abundantly clear that as far as the real world is concerned, I'm not making any personal judgements at all about the likelihood of rain tomorrow.
I might be convinced tomorrow will be dry, or think rain highly unlikely, but that's no barrier to engaging in the hypothetical scenario.

If you wanted the 99.994% of structural engineers who haven't challenged NIST's explanation to consider the 'innocent or less-innocent failing' alternative, you'd have to attack the report with technical arguments. The paradox is, you've already claimed the report can resist such attacks.

You're double-wrong again.
I have no need to attack the report, since presumably brilliant CT engineers are about to do so, and I have no particular reason to assume it is wrong, even though I'm prepared for someone to show otherwise.

Also, I haven't said the report can resist [unspecified] attacks, I've just said that so far it appears to have done so, indicating it is either correct or that so far the CTers haven't bothered competently attacking it, or at least demonstrating their attack in detail in public.
Were they able to do so, likely they'd be able to expand their ranks by more than a slow trickle.

The reason more people are backing them up and arguing louder is because they are gaining support after showing their argument and arguing smart.

But if they can clearly show they're right, they don't really need people arguing loudly, particularly people like you.
If they have a good technical argument, having people on their side who don't understand it shouting at people, committing every possible error of logic, and making a fool of themselves isn't going to advance their quest very much.

[PaulW99]

Thankfully, I don't watch TV, so I wasn't affected by the mass hypnosis. Instead, I've spent a lot of time in the archives I linked to earlier, watching the footage over and over again, sometimes flicking through scenes frame by frame. That's why I can help you fill the gaps in your memory. That's why I can rightly claim to be arguing from a position of knowledge while you're arguing from a position of almost total ignorance.




You base your belief on a few seconds of footage you saw live on TV, even though you can barely remember any details because it was 8 years ago? What an admission!

Let me get this straight. I saw it on TV and you didn't, therefore when I talk about what was on TV I'm arguing from ignorance?

My memory of it may not be perfect, but it's better than yours, because you didn't even see it! Maybe if you had, you wouldn't have these mad ideas.

[PaulW99]

Bryan, I've asked this before but you gave a nonsense answer.

What evidence would it take for you to admit that planes flew into the WTC?

The reverse is simple. I, and I'm sure most here, would completely change our tune if the 19 hijackers turned up on Larry King tomorrow night. Or if the victims on the plane held a press conference. Or any other number of things.

If nothing would change your mind, then your belief isn't based on evidence, it's based on what you want to believe.

[PaulW99]

I saw the movie '2012' a while back. Not very good, but what struck me most was how unrealistic a lot of the disaster scenes looked. Imagine that, 8 years of technological advances later, and a huge budget, and they still can't make anything even close to the realism of the supposedly faked videos of planes hitting the World Trade Center towers.

What does that tell you?

[chaggle]

Let me get this straight. I saw it on TV and you didn't, therefore when I talk about what was on TV I'm arguing from ignorance?

My memory of it may not be perfect, but it's better than yours, because you didn't even see it! Maybe if you had, you wouldn't have these mad ideas.

Don't you understand? You saw it live therefore you were hypnotised! That's what he thinks

This thread gets more and more bonkers with every post. I'm not even finding it funny any more - just boring.

[Matt]

Demolition is the only alternative we've found so far that doesn't come with inherent logical contradictions.

Oh but it does. The video record doesn't show the flashes and window breakage patterns associated with demolition charges going off prior to the collapse. That audio record doesn't register the huge bangs from demolition charges going off prior to the collapse. The seismic record doesn't register demolition charges going off prior to the collapse.

These all mean that your theory is logically impossible.

Whereas your argument against the explanations provided by the structural engineers investigating the collapse betrays no understanding of the issues involved and you've proven unwilling to learn. You're reduced to ad hominem against one set of engineers whilst lauding Richard Gage and his signatories as brave whistle blowers. When I suggested a method by which we might settle these conflicting arguments to authority without you having to learn how to assess these arguments from a technical standpoint you were conspicuously silent.

I'll suggest it again for you. It's not the sheer weight of numbers that impress me it's the proportion of the profession vs the proportion of the mainstream that doubt the so called official story.

If it turns out that having an education in structural engineering increases the proportion of respondents who support controlled demolition over the base level for the general population then I'll accept that they must understand something that I don't.

Are you game or would you rather go back and address where I countered your pretend evidence for no-planes?

[bryan]

Not a bad suggestion though, it would have explained so much.

You have more in common with them than I do, with your modern-day blasphemy laws enforcing a version of history you've had carved into stone.

[bryan]

Let me get this straight. I saw it on TV and you didn't, therefore when I talk about what was on TV I'm arguing from ignorance?

My memory of it may not be perfect, but it's better than yours, because you didn't even see it! Maybe if you had, you wouldn't have these mad ideas.

I've seen the same images you saw, but I've seen them scores of times and as recently as a couple of days ago.