Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Travis]

I'm wondering how there is enough thermite going off to cut the horizontal trusses and yet does not light up the whole building like the Griswold house in National Lampoons Christmas Vacation. Super thermite that is also invisible? If the bad guys really have that technology there really isn't any point in even trying to oppose them. In fact if they had that technology they wouldn't even try to create a fake terrorist attack to get us in a war they'd just get us in a war and say "what are you gonna do about it?"

 

[twinstead]

Of course they will say so. But why should I do that? I want to be refuted. I want to be wrong. That's the only way to really gain knowledge. But you shouldn't listen to me, but instead let the choice of who I ignored speak for itself. Did I put the people with the good and compelling arguments on ignore, or did I ignore the spammers, hiveminds, and the mentally challenged?

This goes both ways. Of course YOU will say the above. You may claim to want to be refuted, but in my mind, in others on this forum, and according to plenty, dare I say the VAST majority of REAL experts world wide, you have indeed been refuted.

So. Who gets to decide on what is refuted and what is not? You? Us? Who?

 

[Dabljuh]

dare I say the VAST majority of REAL experts world wide, you have indeed been refuted.

Without me actually having been refuted? The way of thinking you're following must be fascinating!

So. Who gets to decide on what is refuted and what is not? You? Us? Who?

Here's a way of thinking I can identify. You believe that there should be some superior authority to decide on what's true and what not. That is of course practical and how it works in the real world most of the time, as a single individual cannot possibly know everything. So we listen just to other people who have more of a clue and go by what they say. That's natural.

But that's not skepticism. With skepticism, you are always the only authority to decide on what's refuted and what not. And if you have the integrity, you'll realize that you don't know enough about pretty much any topic - so you would not ever outright dismiss theories without being able to clearly and without a doubt refute them.

But instead of going "That's possible" for the things that cannot be refuted without a doubt, JREF tries to determine truth by mob rule and hivemind. More people say opinion X than Y, so X must be true. That's fatal to intellectual integrity.

 

[Dabljuh]

I'm wondering how there is enough thermite going off to cut the horizontal trusses and yet does not light up the whole building like the Griswold house in National Lampoons Christmas Vacation. Super thermite that is also invisible? If the bad guys really have that technology there really isn't any point in even trying to oppose them. In fact if they had that technology they wouldn't even try to create a fake terrorist attack to get us in a war they'd just get us in a war and say "what are you gonna do about it?"

Human perception is flawed. I can look at a picture and conclude "That's thermite" and you can look at the very same picture and say "I don't see any thermite". Of course I can argue why this is thermite and you can argue why this isn't thermite (and we're at the point where thermite is the most PROBABLE cause for the observed phenomenon) and you still choose to reject it. Why do you think that is?

 

[Dabljuh]

I think that this demonstrates that he cannot answer your questions.

Dave

Wouldn't that be an argumentum ad silentio fallacy?

 

[Dabljuh]

Dabljuh

You forgot chemtrails. What kind of conspiracy nut are you anyways? They really need to have a certification program. I believe the only conspiracy theory you're legally allowed to dismiss is the moon landing one.

Every theory is viable until you are able to refute it. (with some limits) If you dismiss theories without examining the evidence you have no basis to believe that your opinion is correct. In fact, your opinions would simply be determined by chance, or by whatever the MSM or your parents told you.

I can reject the "fake moon landing" idea with real evidence in 30 seconds. Why do you reject it if you have never examined the evidence? I might be wrong, after all.

And with regards to chemtrails... While it is clear that real chemicals can be - and are being - delivered by real planes in the real world, and occasionally even with humans as the targets, I think the chemtrails-people are for the most part just arguing from a point of view where they have not the slightest understanding how modern air traffic is organized or how to explain certain metereological phenomena - then they point out girder patterns in the sky and go ZOMG CHEMTRAILS!!!1

 

[Dabljuh]

So GWB is brilliant and well-loved and the Iraq War a smashing success?

You wouldn't know how right you are with regards to the Iraq War. Do you believe the goal of the Iraq War is to bring these people "freedom" or even to give the country so much stability that US oil companies can exploit the oil reserves?

No, the army's goal for what they're doing in Iraq is simple: Waste as many taxpayer dollars as possible for as long as possible. And they're exceeding their goal every year.

As for GWBush... I wouldn't call him brilliant, but he's at least capable of fooling people dumber than him into thinking he was a genuine fool. If 10 years from now the full strength of Bush's corrupt maladministration were to surface, who would blame Bush himself? The guy is obviously too dumb to orchestrate or even notice something like that. No, people would scream for the blood of Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, but more or less ignore Bush himself, thinking he was merely a gullible puppet. So his strategy may be a lot smarter than you think in the end.

 

[Dabljuh]

Not to be snarky, but sometimes they are one and the same. I have seen wonderfully intelligent people post pointless, insulting posts. I have been the creator of pointless, insulting posts. I did not read through this thread with an eye to determining who was worthy of ignoring and who was not. I am more interested in why you made such "ignoring" public, rather than choosing quietly which posts deserved response and which ones did not.

Basically, I wanted to tell people that I expect certain standards (no, you don't need to be polite, but you at least have to make a point)

The only person I feel somewhat bad about ignoring is ElMondoHummus, who did actually try to make a point, honestly and genuinely, but simply lacked the intelligence to do so. As for the rest, they're mostly spammers without the slightest bit of sense and usually with a level of hostility and ignorance (typical of JREF) that makes them just entirely useless for the sort of purpose I'm using JREF for. So I don't want them in the thread as they only decrease the signal-to-noise ratio and I tell them that by simply ignoring them.

Are you suggesting that the prevalent opinion of these topics is incorrect, and some other perspective is superior?

I wouldn't say the prevalent opinion is "incorrect" but I would subscribe to the statement that some other perspective than the prevalent is superior.

I am curious - are you an economist, or do you work in a related field? If so, how much application does game theory have in your occupation? I took some classes in this during grad school and was fascinated by the applications.

I'm an economist in the way that I studied economics. I don't currently work as an economist though (which would be for a newspaper, investment firm, or a government agency)

I agree with you, game theory is an extremely fascinating subject with a high degree of relevance to the real world. For the last 10 years or so it's taken the microeconomics studies by storm, what with the internet allowing people to write PhDs on volounteers playing simple economy-related browser games.

Since I am personally more interested in macroeconomics, I find Systems Theory and Cybernetics to be a very underrated field. The idea of game theory focuses on the players finding a strategy that forms an equilibrium according to their individual goals, whereas systems theory and cybernetics focus on the rules of the system itself determining the quality of the equilibrium (or not an equilibrium at all). This field has, I find, more use in macroeconomic studies but has been largely ignored with the rise in popularity of game theory with economists.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Every theory is viable until you are able to refute it. (with some limits) If you dismiss theories without examining the evidence you have no basis to believe that your opinion is correct. In fact, your opinions would simply be determined by chance, or by whatever the MSM or your parents told you.

I can reject the "fake moon landing" idea with real evidence in 30 seconds. Why do you reject it if you have never examined the evidence? I might be wrong, after all.

And with regards to chemtrails... While it is clear that real chemicals can be - and are being - delivered by real planes in the real world, and occasionally even with humans as the targets, I think the chemtrails-people are for the most part just arguing from a point of view where they have not the slightest understanding how modern air traffic is organized or how to explain certain metereological phenomena - then they point out girder patterns in the sky and go ZOMG CHEMTRAILS!!!1

I see, so all you do is go around pretending that anyone who proves ou to be wrong on your points as has happened repeatedly here, simply doesn't research the issues. And anyone who doesn't play along with these notions that the government is behind all these conspiracies, you simply accuse of not examining evidence.

Isn't that funny coming from you, a person who clearly has not examined the evidence and clearly has no idea what he is talking about? Your example of chemtrails is exactly what you have been doing yourself in this very thread. You're a con artist plain and simple. And when you get pointed out for it here, you go on your little tirades and pretend it's not YOU that's crazy, it's everyone else.

how sad...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"Basically, I wanted to tell people that I expect certain standards (no, you don't need to be polite, but you at least have to make a point)"

This is incorrect. The problem is that people on this forum have standards and you do not. You try to avoid scientific method and use hearsay. And when people don't simply go along with yoru heasay you make **** up. Your methodology is to start with a pre-determined conclusion and try to only look for points that confirm that while dismissing and ignoring everything else. Your claims to molten metal being the perfect example. Trying to use unreliable and unscientific methods of determining a materials make up because it's the only way to enforce that pre-determined conclusion. all the while ignoring all the blatantly absurd results from it. But you see a building collapse and think "OMG a controlled demolition!" Just like the idiots seeing patterns in the sky and thinking chemtrails

 

[SDC]

It's evident that Dabljuh is/ was two separate individuals. Look at the writing style, as well as the remarkably different areas of alleged "expertise." The Jew-baiting of the Bad Dabljuh but not in this one. The hint in the name, for that matter.

 

[Myriad]

Every theory is viable until you are able to refute it. (with some limits)

Yes, and one of those limits is that the phenomena that the theory purports to explain must actually exist, and if they do, are not already explained by other better-supported theories.

I could create a theory of why the moon gets shy and hides itself every month, which you wouldn't be able to refute. (No one has expertise in the moon's feelings, so any reason I give for why the moon gets shy would be irrefutable.) But you wouldn't need to refute it; you need only show that the disappearance of the moon on a monthly cycle is already adequately explained as the expected consequence of well-understood and thoroughly documented processes affecting the relative positions of earth, moon, and sun.

Similarly, it's irrelevant whether your thermite theory is refutable or not, because it is not necessary to explain any of the phenomena it purports to explain. It's as irrelevant as Max's heat-weakening theory, Apollo20's Ammonium Perchlorate theory, and my iron-deadweights-dropped-from-high-altitude-dirigibles theory, and for the same reason. The observed phenomena are already adequately explained as the expected consequence of well-understood and thoroughly documented processes affecting a steel structure and its contents exposed to collision damage and fire.

That is why, to make it appear relevant, you had to start out with an unsupported and non-credible assertion in your very first post in this thread: that the cores of the towers were each capable of supporting six times the weight of an entire tower. To anyone with the slightest knowledge of structural engineering (or of the most basic economics of building construction), that's as silly as if I introduced my embarrassed-moon theory by first asserting that the moon doesn't actually orbit the earth, in order to make it seem like there were phenomena that my theory was needed to explain.

And that, in turn, is why once you have satisfied yourself that your unnecessary theory has survived the JREF forum's most desperate attempts to refute it, there is no next step after that. The press, the courts, academia, corporate interests, professional societies, and political organizations will all readily perceive that your theory is useless and so it's "irrefutability" is of no import. Even truthers will pay you little attention because ultimately all you're doing is repeating what other, better-known, more widely published truthers are telling you. Why get their lies second-hand from you, when they can more easily get them directly from the people making them up? You will get no hush money because hush money is only paid to someone who knows something important enough to be hushed. An unnecessary theory, unsupported by evidence, not even well-formulated enough to be refutable, doesn't come close.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Travis]

Human perception is flawed. I can look at a picture and conclude "That's thermite" and you can look at the very same picture and say "I don't see any thermite".

Explain how the equivalent of thousands of cutting torches going off at the same time could be completely missed by everyone and every camera?

Of course I can argue why this is thermite and you can argue why this isn't thermite (and we're at the point where thermite is the most PROBABLE cause for the observed phenomenon)

You have yet to demonstrate any phenomena related to the collapses that are in any way indicative of thermite.

and you still choose to reject it. Why do you think that is?

I also reject the existence of ghosts and goblins, and for the same reasons, they only exist in the imaginations of others.

 

[twinstead]

Without me actually having been refuted? The way of thinking you're following must be fascinating!

But I believe you HAVE been refuted. You just disagree. Which brings us back to my post in the first place.

Here's a way of thinking I can identify. You believe that there should be some superior authority to decide on what's true and what not. That is of course practical and how it works in the real world most of the time, as a single individual cannot possibly know everything. So we listen just to other people who have more of a clue and go by what they say. That's natural.

Exactly. I can only defer to experts because I'm a layman. I rely heavily on a consensus of expert opinion. This is where you begin to falter in my mind. You are an abject minority. It doesn't totally mean you're wrong, of course, but by the way I must judge highly technical subjects it's one strike against you.

But that's not skepticism. With skepticism, you are always the only authority to decide on what's refuted and what not. And if you have the integrity, you'll realize that you don't know enough about pretty much any topic - so you would not ever outright dismiss theories without being able to clearly and without a doubt refute them.

Like I said. I wouldn't be capable of refuting them anyway. I MUST defer to those who know more about the subject than I. You are making declarations about things that have demonstrable alternative, non nefarious explanations. You are outright dismissing the 'official story' even though the evidence to support it is strong enough to convince the majority of scientists. That is also not skepticism.

But instead of going "That's possible" for the things that cannot be refuted without a doubt, JREF tries to determine truth by mob rule and hivemind. More people say opinion X than Y, so X must be true. That's fatal to intellectual integrity.

Frankly, it's hard to say "that's possible" for something that has such a lack of evidence for its existence. I don't see you saying "that's possible" concerning the 'official story', because you may not be aware but the evidence STRONGLY supports the generally accepted account of that day for the most part, at least in general terms.

Besides, if something cannot be refuted without a doubt, ones only choice is to go with the explanation that is supported by the most evidence. Of course, then we get into a debate on the very nature of evidence, I suppose. For example, it is my opinion that simply looking at some lossy video of a stream of something melted without any control whatsoever and declaring that by its color you can determine not only what the material is, but announce it is most likely a result of thermite job is NOT skepticism. You don't really even know what the real color was.

But, I'm no expert. I just think you are being quite arrogant and condescending in a debate where your position is hardly tenable. There have been hundreds of threads on this and other forums of people debating crazy theories with little or no real evidence for hundreds of pages and declaring themselves winners because they weren't refuted.

This brings us back to my original post. Skepticism takes one on the path of most evidence. You've got a long way to go to convince me what you're doing is skepticism and what I am is not.

 

[~enigma~]

Every theory is viable until you are able to refute it. (with some limits)

Really?!



Your going to have to give me a concrete example because I believe you are mistaken. BTW, speak very slowly because I am not fluent in idiot.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Holy...

wait...you've been joking this whole thread, haven't you? This has all been one big prank.

Nice one...uh...Unsecured Coins???

I wondered about that also. But often times I'm guilty of wrongfully thinking a believer does not actually believe what they say (I've been rightfully criticized for it here).

Who knows.

LLH

 

[Corsair 115]

Even granted this - the observed bright white-yellowish glow in broad daylight displayed by the substance initially can not, and in no case whatsoever, be a product of the diffuse fire which burns orange hot at best.

So using your eyes and estimating the colour of something are a completely accurate and foolproof way of judging the temperature of something?

You seem blissfully unaware of the crucial importance in the role of colour calibration when it comes to judging the colour of something in a digital image. Clearly you do not work in the publishing field doing colour correction, or else you would have known just how much colour in an image is subject to a great many factors.

 

[twinstead]

So using your eyes and estimating the colour of something are a completely accurate and foolproof way of judging the temperature of something?

You seem blissfully unaware of the crucial importance in the role of colour calibration when it comes to judging the colour of something in a digital image. Clearly you do not work in the publishing field doing colour correction, or else you would have known just how much colour in an image is subject to a great many factors.

Yes. And you'd think that if one did indeed decide to make a declaration based on this color estimation, one had better have some pretty strong corroborating evidence just in case.

 

[van_dutch]

I read up on my black body radiation (had forgotten most of it since I haven't thought about them since physics classes). It still doesn't answer my and others questions about the method that was used to determine the temperature. An estimation just doesn't cut it in terms of hard science. I was looking back on previous posts and the claimed temperature was 1500C. Recently is has been 1300C, what happened to that 200C? Errors in estimation? Perhaps then the 1300C number is also too high........

 

[1337m4n]

JREF tries to determine truth by mob rule and hivemind. More people say opinion X than Y, so X must be true. That's fatal to intellectual integrity.

Most of JREF is atheist; is making crap up all you do?