...This (I believe) is where ozeco41 was trying to steer him but, apparently he's not interested.
That is close enough for me to work on DGM.
How do we progress the explanation with Major_Tom?
I chose the path outlined in my previous posts because I wanted to help M_T look at collapse initiation from a perspective different to his own.
Members will be aware of the expression "cannot think outside the box" (alternative versions "outside the square" or "trapped in the nine dots" - explanation available if anyone is not familiar with the concept(s).
M_T gives all the signs of being mentally locked inside his process of relying on "observables". But so do many other members here - the focus on M_T only arises because he happens to be on the losing side in the powers plays "debunkers" v "truthers".
To be more precise he is not on the winning side because the dichotomy is a false dichotomy. So on this forum is it "Debunkers" v "all the rest who are not of us and therefore must be against us."
So those are two factors:
1) Trapped in the limits of his own approach; AND
2) The false dichotomy of "truthers" v "debunkers".
Let me add a third factor:
3) Failure to distinguish part of the scenario from the whole. Failure to separate the details from the global overview.
Now those three give me a foundation to suggest a way forward to address M_T's approach to analysing the WTC Twin Towers Collapses - initiation phase.
The first comment I will make is that M_T is not the only person who is vulnerable to the biases resulting from those three factors. Restating "1) Trapped in the limits....etc" you cannot see your own blind spots is a truism by definition. All of us have "blind spots" (even me
) We may be able to see other peoples blind spots. We cannot see our own. We may not see other peoples' blind spots if they are the same as or close to or own.
M_T's recent posts show where he is failing to deal with those three factors. But other members are also showing exactly the same biases, flaws, errors. It will take someone else to point out mine if I commit the same types of errors.
Lets take a couple of examples - M_T first but I will balance the anti-MT leaning by picking on some other members either in this post or a subsequent post. Be warned...
You miss the entire point.
One method limits itself to observables, measurables and provables.
Another method injects speculation....
False dichotomy AND false emotive implication. It is not "One method" (Major_Tom's) versus all the rest falsely lumped together as one.
Nor is "speculation" with the implied connotation of "guesswork" the only option to Major_Tom's implied reasoned objectivity.
How ironic the M_T follows this with his own denunciation of the binary mindset.
...You need the "truther" and "debunker" labels. I don't. It is just the way your minds seem to group things (hence the title of the thread).
.....................
...So which box do I fit in, from the binary point of view?
So he denounces the "binary point of view" immediately after a bit of post where he uses a binary pov to classify the rest of us.
Let me look briefly at "global" v "detail". This area of confusion seems to arise in most criticisms of M_T (and femr2 BTW) (and, yes, they bring it on themselves) (but that does not excuse the rest of us using false logic.)
DGM puts it in a suitably neutral setting:
So how does it actually effect the theory that damage and fire took down the building? We're all ears, you just don't seem to want to go there.
The part you can't seem to get around is, NIST could be 100% wrong, there's still no reason to believe that damage and fire did not caused what was seen.
Is there?
I will pause there - one of my retirement hobby jobs is driving buses and I just recieved a "Help Eric!!!" phone call for a replacement driver.
WATCH THIS SPACE
