Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Gravy]

Who says you "have to" correct me? I prefer reputable sources like the washington post etc to anonymous websites like 911myths.com

It's not anonymous. It's run by Mike Williams. His bio and reasons for starting the site are right there for all to read. He posts here as MikeW, and you can reach him at mike@911myths.com. See how easy that was?

 

[Pardalis]

Let's play it your way Russell, and let's assume you're right about the CD. I'm off to bed now, but when I return, let's get our heads together and let's figure this thing out and let's find out who did this, who are the people the Bush administration paid off to plant these explosives in these towers. Let not these bastards get away with it.

Are you with me on this?

Now let's get to work and find the culprits.

Off to bed.

 

[R.Mackey]

Who says you "have to" correct me? I prefer reputable sources like the washington post etc to anonymous websites like 911myths.com

Nice catch, Gravy, I missed that one in all the juvenility...

We'll call that bluff, Jessie. The moment you have the Washington Post claiming to have evidence of controlled demolition, you will also have our full attention.

Best of luck!

 

[Gravy]

It's not possible for 3 steel frame buildings to have non symmetrical damage and fall symmetrically straight down on the same day within 3 blocks of each other with fire as a primary cause for the first time in history.

It's mutually exclusive with physics and probability.

Second request: please provide your figures that prove that the "official version" must be false. If you cannot, just say so. This is about the truth, right?

 

[LashL]

Yes - it is different if you want the context to find reasons to discredit him I agree.

But if you just want the words he said about WTC 7 my version was just fine.

No, it's not about wanting the context "to find reasons to discredit him". It's wanting the context because context is important. It makes no difference whether his views support the official version of events or the conspiracy theory of events, context is always, always important.

It's not about trying to discredit him, it's about assessing his evidence. You, as a researcher, should do the same, every single time.

I'm surprised that you, as a researcher, do not understand this.

So, no, your grossly abbreviated version was not 'just fine' - not by a long shot. Context and perspective matter. You cannot just take the isolated few words that you like and ignore the rest of the interview, and still believe that you are presenting his views on WTC7 accurately and completely.

 

[Gravy]

Nice catch, Gravy, I missed that one in all the juvenility...

We'll call that bluff, Jessie. The moment you have the Washington Post claiming to have evidence of controlled demolition, you will also have our full attention.

Best of luck!

We keep telling the CTs to bring their evidence to Bob Woodward, and as far as I know, not a single one has done so.

 

[gumboot]

it's... about wanting the context "to find reasons to discredit him"... It makes difference whether his views support the official version of events or the conspiracy theory of events...

It's ... about trying to discredit him... You ... every single time.

So...your grossly abbreviated version was ... 'just fine'... You ...still believe that you are presenting his views on WTC7 accurately and completely.

*Edited by Gumboot for effect.

See how important context is? If there's one thing a documentary filmmaker understands, it's cherry picking. Why do you think the people on those reality TV shows always look like tools?

-Gumboot

 

[jessicarabbit]

Second request: please provide your figures that prove that the "official version" must be false. If you cannot, just say so. This is about the truth, right?

Heres a basic calculation. It isn't proof but its a good indicator.

So, let's be very generous and estimate an 80% probability of collapse for WTC1 and likewise for WTC2. Knowing that government experts saw the probabilitiy of collapse for WTC7 as very low, we'll be generous and assign a 50% probability to that event.
In that case, the probability that all three buildings would collapse is 0.82x 0.5 = 32%, implying a 68% probability of conspiracy.
However, a slightly more realistic collapse probability for WTC7 is 25%. Keeping the tower probabilities at 80%, the new calculation gives an 84% probability of conspiracy.
Now suppose we be extremely generous and consider the collapse of the twin towers as a single event with a 95% probability. We multiply 0.95 x 0.5 and get a 52.5% probability of conspiracy.
If we still consider the collapse of the twin towers as a single event but plug in a more realistic probability of 70% and plug in a more realistic 10% (still too high) for WTC7, we have a probability of conspiracy of 93%.

 

[LashL]

My fault.

I was generically using "you" as a JREFer.

I apologize.

EDIT: Did you remember using the word kook?

You should be more careful about quoting someone's post specifically and then responding "generically". It's sloppy at best, but your apology is accepted.

That said, I think it's equally sloppy of you to ascribe to JREFers "generically" that which you have just finished apologizing to me for. I don't think that you can support the suggestion that your description is applicable to very many JREFers at all.

And no, I don't remember using the word "kook". You could do a search if it's of particular interest to you.

 

[Dazed]

How is that an indicator of anything?

You pulled all of your numbers out of the air. They're meaningless.

 

[apathoid]

If there were controlled demolitions in the WTC towers, then that means that there are hundreds of people out there that haven't been arrested and charged for these crimes.

Russell, I'm with you on this.

I'm curious to know from Jessica, US, or even Russell how they are going to feel about all of this in 5-10 years when Bush, Cheney, et al are long gone - and still not a single conspirator has come forward and the entire body of civil and structural engineering worldwide maintain their current stance on a fire/damage driven collapse. Will you only be starting to doubt your beliefs, will you have long abandoned them, or will your beliefs be just as strong as ever?

 

[gumboot]

Heres a basic calculation. It isn't proof but its a good indicator.

Statistical liklihood of an event occuring does not prove the event did or did not happen.

I had a friend whose father fought in North Africa in WW2. During an engagement he was wounded. The kiwis were being driven back, so he was left behind. As the Germans captured the ground, a German medic treated him.

The kiwis counter-attacked and drove the Germans back, but the Germans again re-captured ground before the kiwis could recover their wounded comrade. Once again the same German medic treated him.

This went on for several days, and ultimately his life was saved and he was shipped off to Colditz.

After the war he returned to NZ.

Jump ahead 60 years. He was out drinking with his mates from 2NZEF (guys who fought in WW2) in Auckland. They meet a bunch of Germans. Mate's father recognises one.

"You were in Rommel's Afrika Corps weren't you!"
"Yes"

Tensions rise as the Germans and kiwis face off.
"You were a medic weren't you!"
"Yes"
"I know you"

It was the same medic whom had saved his life.

They are now best friends.

Now, I don't want to even GUESS at the statistical liklihood of this happening. but it did.

-Gumboot

 

[LashL]

Heres a basic calculation. It isn't proof but its a good indicator.

It's a good indicator of what, exactly? And source, please.

 

[Gravy]

Heres a basic calculation. It isn't proof but its a good indicator.

I was really interested in the physics calculations, but let's have a look at the amazingly silly "probability" claim.

So, let's be very generous and estimate an 80% probability of collapse for WTC1 and likewise for WTC2.

Generous? Based on what calculations? If you cannot provide such calculations (and I know you cannot), then the probability remains 100%.

As an aside, unrelated to numbers, keep in mind that although to most people the collapse of the south tower was a surprise, after it collapsed the collapse of the north tower was expected. That's why the evacuation order was given.

Knowing that government experts saw the probabilitiy of collapse for WTC7 as very low, we'll be generous and assign a 50% probability to that event.

The government experts, all of them, plus private experts who were on the scene, agreed that WTC 7 was in danger of imminent collapse. That's why the evacuation order was given. Will you finally read my paper, Jessica?

Therefore, since the numbers you started with are complete bunk, your "probability" calculation is complete bunk. Agreed?

Russell, your physics please.

 

[jessicarabbit]

But multiply the probability of three collapses with the probability of the other mutually exclusive events. It produces a highly unlikely scenario.

 

[jessicarabbit]

I was really interested in the physics calculations, but let's have a look at the amazingly silly "probability" claim.

Generous? Based on what calculations? If you cannot provide such calculations (and I know you cannot), then the probability remains 100%.

As an aside, unrelated to numbers, keep in mind that although to most people the collapse of the south tower was a surprise, after it collapsed the collapse of the north tower was expected. That's why the evacuation order was given.

The government experts, all of them, plus private experts who were on the scene, agreed that WTC 7 was in danger of imminent collapse. That's why the evacuation order was given. Will you finally read my paper, Jessica?

Therefore, since the numbers you started with are complete bunk, your "probability" calculation is complete bunk. Agreed?

Russell, your physics please.

They aren't my calculation. I admit they are guess work.

I want credentials before I read papers

 

[Gravy]

But multiply the probability of three collapses with the probability of the other mutually exclusive events. It produces a highly unlikely scenario.

Jessica, what are the odds that you would be born? Think about it.

 

[Moving On]

Area 5: Assessment of Most Probable Structural Collapse Sequences

[SIZE=-1]One purchase order for Area 5 has been awarded to the team of Dr. Daniele Veneziano and Dr. Jozef Van Dyck as independent consultants to provide technical expertise and assistance for the formal probabilistic assessment approach that will be developed and implemented to support the determination of the most likely sequence of events leading to the structural collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7. The analysis will integrate multiple disciplines effectively and discern which input and analysis parameters significantly influence the analysis methods used to simulate these events. Several methods shall be considered: [/SIZE]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Probabilistic and statistical methods, particularly event tree and Monte Carlo methods, Bayesian updating, stochastic modeling, and uncertainty quantification in complex systems.[/SIZE]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Application of probability and statistical methods to structural systems; structural reliability analysis; structural load modeling and analysis of combinations of loads; probabilistic risk assessment of engineered facilities.[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/awards0322.htm
[/FONT]

I'll let these guys handle it and get back to you later.

 

[Moving On]

No, it's not about wanting the context "to find reasons to discredit him". It's wanting the context because context is important. It makes no difference whether his views support the official version of events or the conspiracy theory of events, context is always, always important.

It's not about trying to discredit him, it's about assessing his evidence. You, as a researcher, should do the same, every single time.

I'm surprised that you, as a researcher, do not understand this.

So, no, your grossly abbreviated version was not 'just fine' - not by a long shot. Context and perspective matter. You cannot just take the isolated few words that you like and ignore the rest of the interview, and still believe that you are presenting his views on WTC7 accurately and completely.

Damn GED!

 

[jessicarabbit]

Jessica, what are the odds that you would be born? Think about it.

It doesnt work that way.