And you obviously know the science? All aspects of it? Everything from physics to engineering? Or are you relying on your "experts" that mysteriously fail to gain credibility in the scientific community?
Oh dear, it's the Gish Gallop, from a truther... Fail to address what I actually wrote, and instead spew out lots of new and irrelevant claims in the hope that I'll be too exhausted to bother to refute them.
You are ignoring all the first hand interviews with the Firemen and Janitors inside the building
talking about secondary explosions. Actually the Janitors reported explosions moments after the thud overhead.
But then again, that would be conspiracy theories right ?
Not at all. What you are describing is witnesses interpretating something to what they think it should mean, or other people interpreting the witness statements without sufficient data to support their assertions. Ponder this for a moment:
Loud noises are not necessarily explosions
Explosions are not necessarily caused by bombs
If I observe a hazy figure in the night, and conclude that it is a ghost, is my conclusion automatically right because I was there to observe it? Of course not. Just because I saw something doesn't mean that I picked the right explanation from a list of many possible explanations.
Like a creationist, you are now going to try to use the "it's self-evident" argument. "It should be self-evident that all this wonderful life on earth could arise without a creator." The argument is completely bogus, of course. Just because you interpret something in a certain way or think that something is self-evident doesn't mean that the actual evidence supports your position.
Then you are inevitably going to present me with yet another creationist, er, truther argument: "Yeah? But how about this", and then you pick another item from your laundry list of prepared truther arguments that I've heard a million times before, and it still doesn't convince me. Just like a creationist going "oh, but the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, so Evolution could certainly not have created that!" fails to impress me, every single time.
I wasn't there, I only saw the live video footage. But demolitions are not always started top to bottom.
I'm pretty sure that they are, actually.
I would point you to many engineering sites that commented on this the day after, but those pages were all ordered removed
Why did they comment on this the day after? Who ordered them removed? It doesn't really matter as far as this discussion is concerned. It's just another item on your creationist, er, I mean truther laundry list of "wow isn't that odd, so my position must be right even though all the actual evidence doesn't support my position!" But it would be interesting to know what you are referring to anyway. They ordered them removed? Why don't "they" order all 9/11 truther pages removed today?
If they had tried to blow up such a structure in one shot bottom up, well it's too tall to even consider this anyways...
Structures aren't blown up in one shot (just like life didn't just pop into existence from nowhere, which creationist claim to be the case). Controlled demolitions are series of explosives, timed carefully. Which is why it's extremely unlikely that this happened, because it would take a long time to set up this kind of thing, and they have to tear down parts of the building, and so on. I think people working there would notice:D
The problem is, either he lies, or he changes his mind far too quickly.
Or is simply pragmatic. He found that the bill had very important parts to it. I agree that he shouldn't have voted for it, but he felt it was the right thing to do even if it wasn't the ideal thing to do. Again, pragmatism.
Quote mining? Another creationist tactic. Understand this: They are scientists. They are supposed to explain what they can tell you, and with what certainty. Unlike 9/11 truthers, they are being scientific, and intellectually honest. They explain the limitations of the model, and their conclusion takes these limitations into account under the heading "Accuracy Appraisal":
"Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well. The close similarity of the timing and the nature of the events up to the initiation of global collapse is strong confirmation of the extent and nature of the structural failures in the interior of the building and the accuracy of the four-step simulation process. The overall simulation of the collapsing building with damage better matched the video observations of the global collapse. The global collapse analysis confirmed the leading collapse hypothesis, which was based on the available evidence."
Your quote mining is like reading the standard creationist argument where Darwin says that if we can't explain the evolution of the eye, Evolution is in trouble. They then triumphantly present this text as "proof" that even Darwin knew that his theory was flawed. What they don't do is to quote the next paragraph, where Darwin actually explains how the problem he just posed can be solved.
Similarly, you quoted only some parts to raise doubts about the conclusions in the document. You didn't bother to look at the data presented. You simply quoted the standard way scientists put forth their findings and presented it as if it was a contradiction. Like creationists like to yell about how evolutionary biologists use a lot of words like "seem", "may", "could", etc. Those words, according to creationists "prove" that scientists are actually doubting their own conclusions.
I am claiming that the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.
No, they are not. It did collapse due to fire, so the probability is 1. The probability argument is completely bogus. You are using it as a way to make people ignore the actual facts and go "hey, that sounds improbable, so we might as well ignore the facts".
The "official" claim is: on 9/11, THREE buildings -- one of which had not been struck even by much debris, not to mention any airplanes -- fell down due to a cause that had never been observed before in the history of the world, or since!!
The cause being huge airplanes filled to the brim with fuel smashing into the twin towers at great speed.
A lot of things that have never been observed before in the history of the world happen all the time. For example, for a lame example, check out some of the documentaries about plane crashes. They discover new reasons every time. A series of "improbable" and unfortunate events that caused the crash. Had merely one part of the chain not happened, the crash would have been avoided. But it happened, and they learned from it, and ensured that the same chain of events, however unlikely, would not take place in planes in the future.
"Improbable" chains of events happen all the time. "Improbable" is completely invalid as an argument when the facts speak for themselves.
I am saying that it is UNLIKELY that it happened by accident, given all the other unlikely "accidents" that happened in the same direction.
This is not an argument. Evolution was highly unlikely. Then it happened. Now the likelihood of Evolution occuring is 1.
When you have a number of independent events, the probability that they would all happen together by accident is the product of their individual probabilities.
You sound like a creationist talking about Evolution.
When things occur with probabilities that are THAT low, it should throw up a red flag.
What things?
It was extremely improbable that you and I communicate with these specific words at this specific time. But it happened. Your argument is basically "it surely didn't happen because it sounds extremely improbable".
I am? What do you base that claim on? I'm automatically obedient just because I disagree with you?
They said fire took them down, NIST are a bunch of engineers, therefore, NIST is guided by science, not the dept. of Commerce. Period.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. NIST are a bunch of engineers as well as physicists and other scientists. They have published a thorough report which the 9/11 truthers have rejected out of hand "cuz itz te gubmint". Instead of automatically rejecting something on arbitrary grounds just because you don't like the conclusion, try looking at the data they are presenting.
URL?
Try this comment, which was in fact posted as part of this discussion.
Just check Penn & Teller's episode on conspiracy theories for something that was on TV, and try to attend a 'Truther' public demonstration and see what shit they get from near passerbys to 'support their troops' and other FOX news gibberish.
I'm afraid this isn't what I was asking about. I want an URL to a real discussion on the subject where this happens. Whenever I see these discussions popping up, I never see what you descrive. That some nutcase on the street shouts something as he passes by is not what we are talking about.
No. But NIST isn't on science's payroll, but the government's. A government that tried it's very best and succeeded in preventing any kind of independent, private investigation on the events of 9/11. I think it's fishy. If you don't, ok.
As someone who believes in a small government, I am still not as gullible as to fall for truther lies. For example, the lie that no steel building has collapsed due to fire in the past. And even if this were the case, just because something happens for the first time doesn't mean that it was a government conspiracy.
And there's a difference between "there's something fishy" and "the government blew up the WTC".
I don't smoke crack, I believe men landed on the moon and I think evolution is bullet-proof. See? Rational.:-)
Rational to a certain degree, certainly, but the 9/11 truther movement is almost exactly like the Intelligent Design (creationist) movement in its methods. It relies on lies and misinformation which is repeated over and over and over again, and when presented with the evidence one asks for, one simply dismisses it or moves the goalpost.
I want the government to keep its nose out of my business as much as anyone else, but it's crazy to dismiss everything the government does just because it's the government. Heck, it isn't even my government. Why on earth should I feel compelled to defend it? In fact, I am not. I am defending the scientific method and rational though. The facts will lead you to the conclusion that 9/11 truthers are full of horse droppings.
You see, I make up my mind, not based on what the government does, but based on what the facts tell me.
If you are referring to me, the US government isn't my government. I wasn't born there, and I have never lived there.
What's scary is when 9/11 "truthers" ignore research that has uncovered flaws in existing buildings to push their crazy conspiracy theories. This investigation has uncovered weaknesses in building constructions that, when addressed, could save lives.
As for recognizing a controlled demolition, does that include twin towers as well? If so, you may not be aware of this, but controlled demolitions are from the bottom up. The twin towers fell from the top down:)
Right. My point was that the 9/11 "truthers" who insist on ignoring the science are taking the focus away from improving buildings based on what was learned from WTC7, and to crazy conspiracy theories that add nothing to public safety.
He did not claim to have made the request, and he didn't say "pull the building". He said "pull it", where "it" referred to the firefighting effort inside the building.
Arguing with officialists is like arguing with creationists. They've already been told, it's a matter of obedience.
Seeing as I'm not from the US, nor do I live there, what officials am I supposed to be obedient to? Am I an officialist who does what I'm told because I'm obedient to US authorities even though I'm not even anywhere near the country?
Physically, building have catched fire, steel have expanded, seals have broken, and that gone on for more than one day and those much older buildings haven't collapsed.
Lots of steel buildings have collapsed due to fires in the past.
And then come the 'emotional plea' arguments, that have more to do with creationists than anything else. "Don't you respect the sacrifices of the firemen? Why are you so un-American? How can you BELIEVE the gov't would do something like that?"
URL?
But don't hide behind science.
Right. Like creationists, we should ignore science and go with our own beliefs instead?
The owner did not say that. He said that they wanted to "pull it", where "it" referred to the group of firemen in the building, or the firefighting effort.
Like creationists, you dishonestly make use of quote mining to make a quote appear to be something it isn't.
Who claims that he does? He was called up with an update on the situation, and he decided that it wasn't worth risking the lives of those firefighters. It was his building, so he said that they might as well pull the group of firefighters out of the building.
You know that most of these people you call "truthers" simply want more evidence.
That's a typical creationist tactic right there. "There is not enough evidence of Evolution. Show me the evidence!" And when you do, he will say "that isn't evidence" or "that isn't good enough". You have just been presented with a thorough report on the WTC7 collapse. The evidence is right there. Like creationists, however, you simply choose to ignore it.2
Your point being? It was hit by falling and burning debris, actually. Did you even bother to read the Slashdot summary?
The owner of the building admitted to it being demolished
No, he said that they agreed to pull a group of firefighters out of the building because it was looking extremely shaky.
There are videos of reporters describing building 7's fall while it is still standing in the background.
Your point being? They were running archived footage in the background. It was a simple mistake. And it was only one - from the BBC.
It took SEVEN years for investigators to come up with a reason for the building to fall the way it did. Is it possible that the SEVEN years were spent honing a story plausible enough to convince even the most skeptical people of it's truth?
Or is it possible that, unlike conspiracy theorists, actual rational scientists take the time to do the damn research before jumping to conclusions?
You need to read this comment, which points ou that you are wrong:
"There are many examples of other steel buildings that collapsed due to fire before 9/11."
Also pretty interesting considering WTC 7 didn't even get hit by anything...
Not hit by anything? It was hit by falling and burning debris from the twin towers! Are you even paying attention? Did you even bother to read the summary in the Slashdot story?
This shows why conspiracy theorists are potentially dangerous. Not directly, but if they manage to influence decision making and take away the focus from making buildings safer based on these findings, we may see such collapses in the future.
As a result of the investigation covered by this story, they discovered weaknesses in current building designs, and we could potentially save lives in the future by applying new building standards to deal with these weaknesses. 9/11 conspiracy theorists, however, would ignore these findings and stick firmly to their "they bombed it" stance, or whatever they are saying nowadays.
9/11 conspiracy theorists are trying to prevent us from learning from the mistakes made in constructing these building. They are trying to deflect everyone's attention to other things. Things that won't make buildings safer in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
And you obviously know the science? All aspects of it? Everything from physics to engineering? Or are you relying on your "experts" that mysteriously fail to gain credibility in the scientific community?
Not at all. What you are describing is witnesses interpretating something to what they think it should mean, or other people interpreting the witness statements without sufficient data to support their assertions. Ponder this for a moment:
If I observe a hazy figure in the night, and conclude that it is a ghost, is my conclusion automatically right because I was there to observe it? Of course not. Just because I saw something doesn't mean that I picked the right explanation from a list of many possible explanations.
Like a creationist, you are now going to try to use the "it's self-evident" argument. "It should be self-evident that all this wonderful life on earth could arise without a creator." The argument is completely bogus, of course. Just because you interpret something in a certain way or think that something is self-evident doesn't mean that the actual evidence supports your position.
Then you are inevitably going to present me with yet another creationist, er, truther argument: "Yeah? But how about this", and then you pick another item from your laundry list of prepared truther arguments that I've heard a million times before, and it still doesn't convince me. Just like a creationist going "oh, but the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, so Evolution could certainly not have created that!" fails to impress me, every single time.
I'm pretty sure that they are, actually.
Why did they comment on this the day after? Who ordered them removed? It doesn't really matter as far as this discussion is concerned. It's just another item on your creationist, er, I mean truther laundry list of "wow isn't that odd, so my position must be right even though all the actual evidence doesn't support my position!" But it would be interesting to know what you are referring to anyway. They ordered them removed? Why don't "they" order all 9/11 truther pages removed today?
Structures aren't blown up in one shot (just like life didn't just pop into existence from nowhere, which creationist claim to be the case). Controlled demolitions are series of explosives, timed carefully. Which is why it's extremely unlikely that this happened, because it would take a long time to set up this kind of thing, and they have to tear down parts of the building, and so on. I think people working there would notice :D
Or is simply pragmatic. He found that the bill had very important parts to it. I agree that he shouldn't have voted for it, but he felt it was the right thing to do even if it wasn't the ideal thing to do. Again, pragmatism.
Why are you using this as an example? I just watched it, and his position seemed crystal clear.
Scientist: 1) Observation, 2) hypothesis, 3) testing, 4) conclusion.
Truther/creationist: 1) Conclusion, 2) lies, deception, quote mining.
Your quote mining is like reading the standard creationist argument where Darwin says that if we can't explain the evolution of the eye, Evolution is in trouble. They then triumphantly present this text as "proof" that even Darwin knew that his theory was flawed. What they don't do is to quote the next paragraph, where Darwin actually explains how the problem he just posed can be solved.
Similarly, you quoted only some parts to raise doubts about the conclusions in the document. You didn't bother to look at the data presented. You simply quoted the standard way scientists put forth their findings and presented it as if it was a contradiction. Like creationists like to yell about how evolutionary biologists use a lot of words like "seem", "may", "could", etc. Those words, according to creationists "prove" that scientists are actually doubting their own conclusions.
No, they are not. It did collapse due to fire, so the probability is 1. The probability argument is completely bogus. You are using it as a way to make people ignore the actual facts and go "hey, that sounds improbable, so we might as well ignore the facts".
The cause being huge airplanes filled to the brim with fuel smashing into the twin towers at great speed.
A lot of things that have never been observed before in the history of the world happen all the time. For example, for a lame example, check out some of the documentaries about plane crashes. They discover new reasons every time. A series of "improbable" and unfortunate events that caused the crash. Had merely one part of the chain not happened, the crash would have been avoided. But it happened, and they learned from it, and ensured that the same chain of events, however unlikely, would not take place in planes in the future.
"Improbable" chains of events happen all the time. "Improbable" is completely invalid as an argument when the facts speak for themselves.
This is not an argument. Evolution was highly unlikely. Then it happened. Now the likelihood of Evolution occuring is 1.
You sound like a creationist talking about Evolution.
What things?
It was extremely improbable that you and I communicate with these specific words at this specific time. But it happened. Your argument is basically "it surely didn't happen because it sounds extremely improbable".
I am? What do you base that claim on? I'm automatically obedient just because I disagree with you?
I don't understand what you are trying to say. NIST are a bunch of engineers as well as physicists and other scientists. They have published a thorough report which the 9/11 truthers have rejected out of hand "cuz itz te gubmint". Instead of automatically rejecting something on arbitrary grounds just because you don't like the conclusion, try looking at the data they are presenting.
Try this comment, which was in fact posted as part of this discussion.
I'm afraid this isn't what I was asking about. I want an URL to a real discussion on the subject where this happens. Whenever I see these discussions popping up, I never see what you descrive. That some nutcase on the street shouts something as he passes by is not what we are talking about.
As someone who believes in a small government, I am still not as gullible as to fall for truther lies. For example, the lie that no steel building has collapsed due to fire in the past. And even if this were the case, just because something happens for the first time doesn't mean that it was a government conspiracy.
And there's a difference between "there's something fishy" and "the government blew up the WTC".
Rational to a certain degree, certainly, but the 9/11 truther movement is almost exactly like the Intelligent Design (creationist) movement in its methods. It relies on lies and misinformation which is repeated over and over and over again, and when presented with the evidence one asks for, one simply dismisses it or moves the goalpost.
I want the government to keep its nose out of my business as much as anyone else, but it's crazy to dismiss everything the government does just because it's the government. Heck, it isn't even my government. Why on earth should I feel compelled to defend it? In fact, I am not. I am defending the scientific method and rational though. The facts will lead you to the conclusion that 9/11 truthers are full of horse droppings.
You see, I make up my mind, not based on what the government does, but based on what the facts tell me.
What's scary is when 9/11 "truthers" ignore research that has uncovered flaws in existing buildings to push their crazy conspiracy theories. This investigation has uncovered weaknesses in building constructions that, when addressed, could save lives.
As for recognizing a controlled demolition, does that include twin towers as well? If so, you may not be aware of this, but controlled demolitions are from the bottom up. The twin towers fell from the top down :)
Right. My point was that the 9/11 "truthers" who insist on ignoring the science are taking the focus away from improving buildings based on what was learned from WTC7, and to crazy conspiracy theories that add nothing to public safety.
He did not claim to have made the request, and he didn't say "pull the building". He said "pull it", where "it" referred to the firefighting effort inside the building.
Seeing as I'm not from the US, nor do I live there, what officials am I supposed to be obedient to? Am I an officialist who does what I'm told because I'm obedient to US authorities even though I'm not even anywhere near the country?
Lots of steel buildings have collapsed due to fires in the past.
URL?
Right. Like creationists, we should ignore science and go with our own beliefs instead?
And I notice you are pulling that old creationist argument: "I can't believe it happened, it's so unlikely, it didn't happen!"
Another creationist argument: "It's improbable, so it didn't happen!"
Like creationists, you dishonestly make use of quote mining to make a quote appear to be something it isn't.
Where?
It was a simple mistake. What's so unbelievable about a simple mistake? People make mistakes all the time.
Who claims that he does? He was called up with an update on the situation, and he decided that it wasn't worth risking the lives of those firefighters. It was his building, so he said that they might as well pull the group of firefighters out of the building.
Seriously?
They are worse off than I thought.
If you are wondering why, those "Thermate signatures" aren't "Thermate signatures" at all.
So the people at NIST are not engineers, physicists, etc.?
That's a typical creationist tactic right there. "There is not enough evidence of Evolution. Show me the evidence!" And when you do, he will say "that isn't evidence" or "that isn't good enough". You have just been presented with a thorough report on the WTC7 collapse. The evidence is right there. Like creationists, however, you simply choose to ignore it.2
Silverstein isn't in the demolition industry, mind you.
Your point being? It was hit by falling and burning debris, actually. Did you even bother to read the Slashdot summary?
No, he said that they agreed to pull a group of firefighters out of the building because it was looking extremely shaky.
Your point being? They were running archived footage in the background. It was a simple mistake. And it was only one - from the BBC.
Or is it possible that, unlike conspiracy theorists, actual rational scientists take the time to do the damn research before jumping to conclusions?
The collapses violated no laws.
"There are many examples of other steel buildings that collapsed due to fire before 9/11."
Not hit by anything? It was hit by falling and burning debris from the twin towers! Are you even paying attention? Did you even bother to read the summary in the Slashdot story?
As a result of the investigation covered by this story, they discovered weaknesses in current building designs, and we could potentially save lives in the future by applying new building standards to deal with these weaknesses. 9/11 conspiracy theorists, however, would ignore these findings and stick firmly to their "they bombed it" stance, or whatever they are saying nowadays.
9/11 conspiracy theorists are trying to prevent us from learning from the mistakes made in constructing these building. They are trying to deflect everyone's attention to other things. Things that won't make buildings safer in the future.