Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
That's a lot of text to write to simply demonstrate that you don't seem to even entertain the possibility that people disagree with your positions for non-biased, non-faith-based reasons, or maybe it's just specifically me. You seem to have a glaring problem with a significant lack of humility in your argumentation, you deny that these might be topics of legitimate controversy (and that's me being nice, there isn't any evidence that most experts consider a lot of this guff legimitately controversial at all) and that people honestly and rationally disagree with you. Who does disagree with you for non-biased reasons, Q, anyone? You've pretty much stated what my problem is: you are presenting evidence that is merely suggestive of an alternative to the official story. I am skeptical of this idea that you need to 'add it all up'; it's not the quantity, it's the quality, it makes it sound like I'm going to get to point 143 and say 'a-ha, of course!', which, hey maybe that's the way it really does work, but I doubt it, especially since you seem to think the evidence is all of equal strength. My honest appraisal so far is that you haven't presented anything that does not have a reasonable non-demolition alternative, I may have forgotten something so feel free to correct me. Actually, maybe this is one of our fundamental differences, do you think it's even necessary to address these non-demolition alternatives, or is it sufficient to you to only show that a demolition is a possibility?
I'm just going to let you have your say about the 'official story', whatever, it doesn't really have anything to do with anything. The purpose of this thread was to hear the case for a CT as W Tell felt that CTists had an uphill battle because of the government's story, and so I offered to attempt to hear it out from scratch. You and I have specifically narrowed this to a discussion of a demolition, so we are supposed to be analyzing the case for it. I'm not blaming you for the various conversations concerning the official story, I've instigated most of those, but I have never thought that the subject of this conversation was, 'who has the better explanation, the official story or the CTs'. I know you've tried, but I think you've very much failed, to show how disputing a certain aspect of the official story can be used as an argument for demolition (your founded but unscientific conclusion is that the results of a scientific study pretty much eliminated the possibility of a collapse due to fire and damage for example), but that really isn't the case, as I've said before it just moves us back to 'we don't know'. To your question, no, I don't believe Bazant's conclusions, I can't even adequately explain his study or his conclusions so I can't have a valid opinion on it specifically. I do currently think that a collapse due to fire and damage is at the very least an equal alternative to a demolition alternative, and certainly satisfies Occam better than a demolition.
It was actually to demonstrate that, despite your protestation - “What official story … ?” (anyone can decide for themselves whether that was a genuine question or attempt to present innocence) - I don’t see your line of discussion as objective. Who does disagree with the false flag attack on 9/11 for non-biased reasons? Those lacking knowledge and/or logic. There are other explanations, and it can be a combination - for example, I’d say that your disagreement comes from the bias derived of a long-held view and an admitted lack of knowledge.
About the quantity of evidence, ending in your reference to Occam - in conjunction, this is precisely what the false flag has in its favour. First, let’s confirm Occam’s Razor. It is not, as commonly misconceived, the simplest or most mundane explanation. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.
In the words of Occam: -
"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"
And as described by Newton: -
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."
We know there are hundreds of data points, but let’s take just three that we have raised/discussed: the Israeli agents detained on 9/11, the NIST results (showing an impact and fire based collapse unlikely) and the WTC2 molten flow. Applying Occam… should we say that these are the product of three disparate circumstances requiring three unrelated explanations? That is what you have done to date. Or should we apply a single answer which explains all in one attempt - a demolition of the WTC buildings? Then remember that there are not three such data points, but
hundreds that fit the very same pattern. How many explanations do you need, where one would do? Apparently as many as are necessary to maintain the official pretext for war.
Yes, there certainly must come an ‘a-ha’ moment for any questioning, rationale and unbiased person. The sheer number of dissimilar explanations the official story must promote, many unlikely even in isolation, is unreasonable. And the official story must be correct every single time in its multitude of explanations… the demolition theory must be correct only once.
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
What do you mean, 'for whatever reason'? I've told you multiple times that I've purposely put some topics on hold because I want to talk about others, that I've gotten too busy to respond, and I've specifically pointed out my despair at your 'no best evidence' position, and am still deciding ultimately how to proceed on this without going through hundreds of points for the next few years with you. Not that it's not interesting stuff, but again I don't want it to turn into 'work'. At a meta-level, is there another explanation for the WTC2 molten flow/thermite reaction than a loose thermite demolition charge, or doesn't it matter? It might be a thermite device, is that good enough? There's no other explanation for the 'explosion' sounds, really? Are there any reports from survivors in stairwells having the wall blasted in from the pre-collapse charges? The list of things that I'm sure you've seen of things that explode in fires cannot be the cause of these explosions? I don't think I can tell the difference necessarily between an explosion and something large or loud falling, our other earwitnesses can?
Ok, so it’s not that the evidence does not exist, but that you’ve been too busy to look at it.
I don’t see any reasonable alternative explanation for the WTC2 molten metal/thermite flow - do you have a suggestion? This must be the third time I’ve asked now. If you have anything reasonable, is it a better fit than thermite? I’ve been unable to provide a better explanation.
Regarding the explosions prior to collapse, to save me typing it again, please see my post #954
here, to which you did not respond. When the first impression of a firefighter is “bomb”, are you going to add yet another disparate explanation to the list of hundreds, or adhere Occam and invoke the regular/all-encompassing answer: demolition?
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
It would help if we're going to get it straight that you turn down the exaggeration knob long enough so that you were actually being truthful. Never, never, never, have I ever said 'cannot be correct', quote me please. What I have argued is that, especially when you set the surreal standard of 'blatant', that the fact that an overwhelming part of the relevant scientific community has not expressed any support for truther's theories, and many have done exactly the opposite, is a data point that needs a satisfactory explanation. Do you disagree? Considering how long we talked about it and the armchair pseudo-psychologizing you've offered up to explain this point, I didn't think so. That seems a lot straighter to me than your retelling. I've given you plenty of opportunity to back off and get real on your 'blatant' demolition nonsense, but you don't, that is your decision, not mine.
The number of experts don't prove our arguments right or wrong either way. Here's my argument. 'Blatant' means 'obvious', Q. Obvious demolition involvement in the most famous, spectacular building collapses in history means that many/most of the experts in the relevant fields, who have manyfold more experience and expertise than you in evaluating these specialized questions, must know or realize that the buildings were demolished. Yet, they don't say anything, and many argue the opposite. If you don't think this needs an adequate explanation or is curious at all, we can drop it and let everyone decide for themselves what they think about it, I'm very comfortable with my criticism and you seem equally so with your explanation.
1) It is your argument against the blatant demolition.
2) I provided a plausible counter explanation.
3) Your argument against the blatant demolition failed.
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
You may have raised it, even with your 'sale' of it with the word 'want', now you just need to address it. This circumstantial evidence point is exactly why I keep asking about why you just acknowledge one possibility so frequently; it is the other possibilities that are currently causing a big problem for your circumstantial case, they have to be not just minimized, but pretty much eliminated since your evidence is this circumstantial.
In many cases I believe the alternatives offered by the official story
are minimized or eliminated but the biased want to cling on to them (WTC2 molten metal flow?) and where they are not, as discussed, Occam leads the way through the one overarching answer: demolition.
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
This is a perfect example of what I think maybe the biggest problem as I mentioned above, we are having two different discussions in two different contexts. I am not the person to best defend the official story, I never thought that was my role here. And come on, 'the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war', ridiculous. My version of skepticism has one purpose, emotionless and unbiased by the implications: to try to ascertain what is most likely to be true, and most of all, to ensure that what I believe is true is actually well supported. Your overcertainty distorts, omits, and spins the evidence to suit your argument, and you try to argue that that's okay because of the implications. Here's another overconfident quote I'm sure you've heard: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
[. This coincides well on your consequences angle also; much better for us to go destroy Iraq than suffer an atomic terrorist attack in the US, no? Do you need more examples of one-sided evidence and overconfident statements being used to lead us to war? That's where your brand of argumentation, definitely non-skeptical, takes us.
You've brought up Bin Laden a few times, I'm not sure why, I think it's because you're trying to tie me to the official story or something and score points, not sure. Is the official story being incorrect concerning Bin Laden's role a piece of evidence
for a demolition? If not, since I'm drowning in points already I don't think I'm ready to cover him. From what very little I've read about it, about all I can say is that I think there is a misconception among the general populace that he was more directly involved than he may actually have been.
To state the obvious - if the official story is not correct then an alternative is correct. It is telling how often the official theories fall down when they should not, if true. There was no barrier to NIST proving the collapses were a result of impact and fire, but they failed horribly… I wonder why.
Regarding the Rice quote on Hussein, the problem is that the overconfidence led to war. Regarding the official story of 9/11, the problem is that the overconfidence led to war. Regarding my confidence, this leads only to precaution and at worst, investigation/trial.
I did have the impression that we temporarily put the demolition discussion on hold and were branching into other areas, thus my mention of bin Laden. I guess it can be indirectly linked if you wanted, because if bin Laden were not so responsible as the official story would claim for actions, then we might wonder what else is not so to blame for the events witnessed.
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
Don't intelligence services sometimes intentionally help potential criminals in order to sting them? Just happened recently I believe, they set up some guy who thought he had a van full of explosives and was going to blow up some building, but he was working with undercover people the whole time. Regardless, and I realize I may be bringing something over from the other thread, does this have anything to do with a demolition? They may have been assisted in a plot to just crash planes into buildings?
Again this is an area we branched into separate from demolition. That is an interesting explanation you provide to add to the hundreds needed to defend the official story in place of the one answer: false flag operation. But honestly, it is interesting and at first glance would fit events in isolation. I certainly like it more than the “incompetence” arguments I’ve heard before. Yes, a deliberate entrapment operation involving assistance to the terrorists explains the very proactive moves made. In isolation I can’t come up with a reason that couldn’t have been so. Let’s say CIA agents on the case wanted a crime (not realising the magnitude of what was to be committed) and watertight case to put the terrorists away for good, and in detention use them as a source of intelligence, rather than arresting the terrorists too soon and, lacking concrete evidence, having to deport them on a VISA violation.
It appears to make sense, but wait, a few problems come to mind: -
1) It does not rule out that someone in the chain of command wanted the 9/11 attack to play out to provide pretext for their war aims, this sting operation could have been a cover, and indeed through the wider evidence we know there were U.S. officials with such motive.
2) In a genuine case of entrapment, the idea for committing the crime must come from the accused, rather than government agents. Here it gets really interesting because the wider evidence indicates that in 1999 agents presented the 9/11 operation at bin Laden’s doorstep… so was it really the idea of the two terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, assisted by intelligence? Yet, bin Laden had discussed the idea even before that. Surely we cannot be looking at the biggest case of entrapment imaginable - an attempt to entice 'Al Qaeda' into an attack? But for what purpose? You see, it’s still suiting the motive in 1) above. In addition, the same agents who presented and made possible the operation were on the planes - were they double-crossed?… the idea of entrapment as a complete answer is not making so much sense now. It’s all getting convoluted rather than simply accepting a false flag operation.
3) Accounting for everything else, from the Pentagon cover-up to the blatant WTC demolition, it simply does not fit.
Further thoughts welcomed.
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
What exactly is wrong with me or anyone taking the position, "I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11 other than planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings and they collapsed. There isn't enough evidence to say too much beyond that."? Because that's exactly the scenario where 'well it could be' is a problem for you and not for me.
No, that is a problem for the declaration of war, not for taking precaution and demanding comprehensive investigation.
Liquid Gardens, on 23 October 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
Indeed, it's been a good conversation, and again I think we're fine as far as tone and attacks, I've been in far far worse, this is sunshine and ice cream in comparison, and this stuff doesn't phase me, we're yappin on the intertubez. I see some light at the end of the tunnel of work swampage, so my next step is to respond to your post you mentioned and see if we can get back to our points. I do want to think about, and feel free to continue, this conversation about epistemological topics, I need to think about to about how to proceed; are we talking about the demolition case, or are we comparing two theories? Or should I just approach it more benignly and look at it as you giving me a brief tour of the case for a CT, not sure yet.
Well if you decide and let me know I’ll try to stick to it.
3
