Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[MarkLindeman]

ozeco, yes, we seem to be at least in the same neck of the woods -- and I like your approach to getting squarely on point.

How many truther side pro CD papers lack the coherent hypothesis which I have been referring to? All of them that I am aware of.

So I will make it easier - point me to one example of a Pro CD Claim which has a coherent hypothesis.

Indeed.

My main point to him was that there is a complete absence of anyone in the Truther Movement writing down the technical details of what they think and then having those details verified by an independent team, company or organization of experts of one's choice. This is the basis of adult discussion. What I get instead are papers written by unqualified people that are not independently reviewed. The Truthers send you the unreviewed paper and then want to engage in a technical engineering debate---a useless way to reason if there ever was one.

Indeed.

...So this guy, Tom McLaughlin, worked out the figures I have posted here to make his engineering claim amateurs could not have flown the planes. His presumption--I would think--is that the planes were taken over by remote control by the US government. I'm still waiting on him to explain his theory.

Right. ozeco was a bit brusque about all this, but it obviously isn't much of a technical analysis if we have to guess what its point is supposed to be.

It's also... interesting that a civil engineer decided to start with (presumably) an aeronautics argument.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm too sleepy to riff effectively on all this -- and maybe it's a derail anyway -- but a few thoughts in response to davefoc and, less directly, ozeco.



I'm not sure specifically what you have in mind, but it seems to me that skepticism is an additional element in someone's cognitive repertoire -- not an exemption from the other elements. So, absolutely the same belief drivers that influence the general population are in play with skeptics.

So, I somewhat disagree (I think) with ozeco: although certainly some conspiracists don't seem able to reason their way out of a bag, I don't think that trutherism or conspiracism generally stems from an absolute inability to reason in a particular way. I think that the human mind tends to "fill in" holes in our reasoning much as it fills in holes in our visual field. Seeing those holes takes practice, and is never automatic no matter how much practice we have. Whatever beliefs we are predisposed to, for whatever reasons, by default we tend not to challenge those beliefs.

That said, it's striking when people's response to "what is your alternative hypothesis?" doesn't go beyond "I am just asking questions" or "we should investigate, not speculate" or some other avowal that attempting to explain the events under discussion is not a proper use of reason. I imagine that sometimes, but not always, that is spurred by some cognitive inability.

Mark, Davefoc, and Oz, if you haven't already read it, I recommend "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Kahneman. It covers why seemingly rational individuals can get fixated on an irrational idea and hold to it, with research to back up the conclusions on why people do it.

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco, yes, we seem to be at least in the same neck of the woods --

Yes - it is one of my two main interest areas -- put simply with the same risk as before of looking like I'm making an exclusive/global claim 'Why do they think that way?" OR expressed more "brusquely" as "Can they think?"

...and I like your approach to getting squarely on point....

Thank you again. My second interest point being the fundamental errors of debate/discussion procedure - errors either logical or procedural. Again put very simply "most" truther argument put here seems to take the form - from the truther side:
1) "Here is a single aspect which is an anomaly that I don't understand" such as "there was thermXte in the dust at WTC" Which is dubious as a claim of fact and meaningless without a complete coherent hypothesis to put it into context.
2) Usually attached to a more global claim such as "Therefore there was CD involved in the collapses". That Claim either explicitly made or more often simply implied - see item 4 to follow. There are several quantum leaps of logic not addressed there - - which make up the missing coherent hypothesis. So there is no claim to answer even at this stage.
3) So you debunkers prove it wrong. Which brings in three logical or procedural errors viz:
a) Reverse burden of proof - it is the claimants burden of proof to extablish a claim. Not our burden to prove wrong a claim which has not been made out. (BTW that is one of the key issues I "brusquely' identified for Frank )
b) Requirement to prove a negative - a logical error and potentially only the first of multiple such as the truther shifts either goalposts or topic. AND
4) Ambiguity between prove the single item wrong AND prove the falsely based CD claim wrong. Where it is easy to rebut the single item claim - which many members would do - except it goes nowhere as we can see from multiple threads on this forum.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by frank3373
My main point to him was that there is a complete absence of anyone in the Truther Movement writing down the technical details of what they think and then having those details verified by an independent team, company or organization of experts of one's choice. This is the basis of adult discussion. What I get instead are papers written by unqualified people that are not independently reviewed. The Truthers send you the unreviewed paper and then want to engage in a technical engineering debate---a useless way to reason if there ever was one.

Where Frank is spot on target saying in his words what I have been saying in mine.

Right. ozeco was a bit brusque about all this, but it obviously isn't much of a technical analysis if we have to guess what its point is supposed to be....

If the argument is flawed at the overall or context level I see no point in debating details. Plenty of members will debate details. But they remain details of a claim which has not been made out and they are irrelevant until put in a coherent context - something truthers do not do - and I am claiming many truthers cannot do due to limited reasoning skills. So I will focus on the big issues which means
a) leaving the details to others WHILST
b) knowing that the truther wants discussion in the details for one or both of the two obvious reasons.

...It's also... interesting that a civil engineer decided to start with (presumably) an aeronautics argument.

Don't forget, for whatever relevance it may have, that I am a civil engineer; military engineer and part of a lawyer - qualified but not practising on that one.

The test is "Is what he says true?" NOT "What qualifications does he hold OR "Has he written peer reviewed papers on the topic." Which is my third hobby horse......

And to be explict as to where this fits on the topic...."Are there any pro CD papers which satisfy the standard of "worthy of a response?" Maybe I set the threshold too high.

 

[ozeco41]

Mark, Davefoc, and Oz, if you haven't already read it, I recommend "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Kahneman. It covers why seemingly rational individuals can get fixated on an irrational idea and hold to it, with research to back up the conclusions on why people do it.

Thanks for the reference. My theme of "convergent v divergent thinking" is from my own experience in management but I do read books by experts so I'll look that one up.


PS Edit - Got it plus "Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (30 Minute Expert Summary) will be auto-delivered wirelessly to your Kindle via Amazon Whispernet. You can go to your Kindle to start reading."

Kindle now recharging its battery.

 

[BasqueArch]

Why do rational people hold other irrational beliefs?

My highlight.

Your post resonated with me. How we come to believe what we believe and how open we are to change beliefs in the light of new information is something that I have thought quite a bit about, but I don't have anything useful to say about it beyond your observation that we have a hard time viewing our own belief forming process objectively. I will say that the skeptics in this forum appear to me to be more willing to challenge their own views and less willing to form beliefs strongly influenced by biases than the population at large, but it also appears to me that skeptics aren't quite as different as we think we are with regard to that. A lot of the discussions around here suggest to me that the same kind of belief drivers that influence the general population are also in play with the skeptics that participate in this forum.

As to the truther thing specifically, I wonder exactly what to make of the reasoning capability of a truther advocate. Do they just have a limited ability to reason on a specific issue or is it something that affects their whole interface with the world in general?

rank3373 mentioned a civil engineer his interaction with a civil engineer that was a truther. Speaking as an ex engineer it surprises me that any engineer that could function reasonably well in his profession would hold such a nonsensical view. How is it possible to have such a glaring inability to reason in one area workout in a profession where reasoning ability is a requirement for doing your job?

Foremost Goal of Individuals Thesis
This question assumes that the foremost individual goal is to be consistently rational, objective about all areas of their life. It is not.

The first and foremost goal of individuals above all else, is to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort; to believe and do what pleases one first. ⁽¹⁾
The expression of this individual goal varies with particular individual preferences that are the result of a combination of nature and nurture inputs.
It explains among other things, choosing between two evils, suicide, altruistic behavior.

Belief: A proposition or claim presented as being true by the speaker.
This is a neutral definition of belief and is often confused with false-belief.

False belief (syn: ignorance): A belief not supported by facts and valid analysis.
(I believe ) Smoking is not harmful to one’s health; (I believe) The Towers were demolished by a number of evil US government employers and employees and private contractors and concealed by lying worldwide private and public engineers, to start a war to steal the resources of Muslim countries. (It is cheaper today to buy the commodities in the open market).

True belief (syn: knowledge): A belief supported by facts and valid analysis.
(I believe) Steel buildings can disproportionately collapse solely due to damage by fire. (I believe) a² + b² = c² (Euclidian)

Untestable belief : (e.g. metaphysical statements) A belief that is not testable by facts and valid analysis. (I believe)There is a God ; (I believe) Agate balances ying-yang energy.

Objective: Universally valid, based on facts or reason.

Subjective: Not universally valid, based on personal preferences.

Thesis and subjective and objective examples
A few examples of this thesis, for subjective preferences, beliefs and behavior:

Subjective preferences, beliefs, behavior examples:
Doctors who smoke:

Man who has sex with his car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0S642NtHtE

Widow who eats her husband’s ashes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJKLNlKpNAE

Extreme body modification:

Choosing a mate that one finds attractive, though nothing but trouble.

Or choosing a compatible mate.
I like chocolate. I don’t like boiled beef tongue.
Women in public should cover all their bodies and not drive nor study in school.

Some objective belief examples:
Science, math, logic, technology, engineering, medicine.

Thesis and 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses
In this field of 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses, it pleases debunkers to be rational, scientific, objective, and believe by the corroboration of the consensus findings of numerous engineers and technical experts that fires caused the collapse of the towers.

It pleases truthers to believe in CH without evidence and often against it; to be oftentimes unconsciously irrational, subjective, in support of their beliefs. To be objectively wrong and sometimes lie because the ends justifies the means- that though they are wrong about the facts and evidence, they believe and hope that they may still be proven right.

“You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.” - Twain or Swift

Examples:
Truthers try to prove to themselves and others that their subjective beliefs are objective-universal.
Harrit, et al’s findings show that their chips are not thermite, yet conclude so. They hide other test results that disprove their claims, a scientific mortal sin.

Richard Gage, other truthers believe their falsified claims.

CH claims are political or religious, and subjective, not scientific and objective:
“At the end of one of his lectures, 9/11: The Myth and the Reality, Griffin was asked why a theologian would take such an interest in 9/11, to which he replied: ‘If 9/11 is not a religious issue, then I don't know what is.’"[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

Senenmut’s continued signature that "’The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.’”
--Former CIA Director William Colby “ , even though Senenmut is aware this quote has been shown to be a fabrication, a lie.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207647&highlight=colby

Conclusion:
All individuals are a combination of objective and subjective beliefs and behavior, just in different areas and in different proportions within these areas: work, personal life, beliefs.
A civil engineer, and other truthers, can be functionally objective in their work field and at the same time be subjective about conspiracy hypotheses beliefs, because above all else this pleases them first.

⁽¹⁾ Paraphrased from “What Is Man” – Twain.

 

[Frishman]

The list of "100 debunking studies" has been itself debunked.
Many of the studies cited had nothing to do with the WTC collapse issue at all. For example, the first on the list, by Kuligowski in the Fire Safety Journal, "Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants" just shows how people move around during an emergency. So what?
Some studies actually question the official story rather than uphold it. For example, Cherepanov says in the Materials Science article, "It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall." Truthers agree that it should have taken more than 10 seconds.
This indicates that those proposing the "100 studies" as debunking, have not really read them. It seems like someone did a search for any article that contains "WTC" or "9/11" then claimed that the studies support the official story when they don't.

 

[ozeco41]

The list of "100 debunking studies" has been itself debunked....
....This indicates that those proposing the "100 studies" as debunking, have not really read them. It seems like someone did a search for any article that contains "WTC" or "9/11" then claimed that the studies support the official story when they don't.

This is a generic disease which affects both "sides" of the polarised debate. The practice of referring to authorities as proof in itself RATHER than drawing evidence from authorities and legitimately incorporating the evidence into a coherent and logical framework.
We see it routinely from the truther side. We appear not to notice the same level of weak argument from the "debunker" side. There's more of them and criticising is a bit risky - it even makes me think twice.

Plus a few lonely individuals stuck in the middle ground of objectivity and validly reasoned argument.

...For example, the first on the list, by Kuligowski in the Fire Safety Journal, "Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants" just shows how people move around during an emergency. So what?

Depends on context - evacuation was one of the four objectives of the NIST study.

...
Some studies actually question the official story rather than uphold it. For example, Cherepanov says in the Materials Science article, "It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall." Truthers agree that it should have taken more than 10 seconds...

It did - so the truthers are chasing their own strawman. The real issue here is "defining the objective" why are you on this forum (or Cherepanov in the article) raising the issue? If we don't know why it is being stated we cannot respond.

 

[Spanx]

Something else springs to mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ppsDNkBLGY&feature=youtube

 

[beachnut]

The list of "100 debunking studies" has been itself debunked.
Many of the studies cited had nothing to do with the WTC collapse issue at all. For example, the first on the list, by Kuligowski in the Fire Safety Journal, "Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants" just shows how people move around during an emergency. So what?
Some studies actually question the official story rather than uphold it. For example, Cherepanov says in the Materials Science article, "It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall." Truthers agree that it should have taken more than 10 seconds.
This indicates that those proposing the "100 studies" as debunking, have not really read them. It seems like someone did a search for any article that contains "WTC" or "9/11" then claimed that the studies support the official story when they don't.

The collapse of the WTC was slower than 10 seconds. But it fell at the speed a gravity collapse due to fire takes. To say otherwise is delusional, but go ahead get out your stop watch and tell use why the time is not what a gravity collapse would be. BTW, CD is gravity collapse, the energy of explosives is much less than the energy of collapse due to gravity.

There is no official story, there is what happened on 911, and the collapse of the WTC is the official story. A gravity collapse due to fire. No studies needed to understand gravity collapse and fire.

 

[batvette]

Its extremely hard to separate the people that are posting blind emotively fueled reactionary debunking material from the people that really have started with a completely open mind and looked only at the definite facts. Of course the usual (sometimes psychotic esque) people/tw00fers who think that it was a laserbeam weapon fired from a UFO run by jews and funded by the Queen are easy to spot by the amount of garbage they spew everywhere.

You're trying to present yourself as impartial or "open minded" but you're not too successful at such a ruse if you are posting such sneakily biased "observations".
You would suggest that the only truthers who are psychotic are the ones promoting laser beams from UFOs but it's pretty clear that the majority of truthers practice the "I just have questions" game then refuse to recognize obvious factual answers to their questions. Or present their talking points in a form resembling willful ignorance. Like "never in history have skyscrapers collapsed from fire". (I hope I needn't explain the multiple levels of dishonesty in that argument)
About all I see as anything close to what you describe from debunkers is not so much their content but the attitude in delivery and that is motivated by the frustration induced by truthers employing the above tactics and more.
Frankly, unless you are already paranoid and worried about government lying about everything and the illuminati causing your total lack of influence over your own destiny, the impartial open mind should be the one that accepts the NIST report and the 9/11 commission's findings and takes a skeptical but complete view of any evidence the truthers had. Of course they had none so this should have already ended.
Really, do you think it is normal for the average person to hold there is an equal chance that all of Congress is in on the conspiracy and produced a fraudulent report.... OR it could be correct? Is that what an open mind means to you?
Or that the normal open mind equally considers the events as reported by thousands of people in media that day and since was as they reported... or that it's equally possible they are all in on perpetrating a grand illusion and nothing they say can be trusted, yet I have all the secret answers because I "did the research" that other sheeple can't do?
I'm sorry but I don't think there is anything open minded about grasping the conspiracy theory, and it was proven to me again today by a "Pentagon no-planer" by his refusal to answer:

If anything but flight 77 hit the Pentagon, why would American Airlines say it was their plane, when it ultimately cost them hundreds of millions, if not billions in lost business and stock value? Why would their insurers pay out hundreds of millions themselves, wouldn't they say "hey that wasn't our plane at all! we're not responsible"?

Or did Bush pay them? More than, combined, billions they lost? Complicit in mass murder just to break even trading dollars?

No I think there is nothing open minded in even considering such a thing.

 

[batvette]

Can I point out something you surely already realize but truthers want to forget.. that a visual observation of the collapse WILL show much external debris falling at free fall speed because it free fell- being ejected outside the building's footprint? And this plus the billowing dust obscured the view of the much slower core collapses?
In short, NOT ALL THE DEBRIS FROM ANY GIVEN FLOOR FELL AT THE SAME SPEED.

(I bristle at the very use of the term free fall speed. Even if explosives HAD been used there would be collisions of objects, it implies unless we see a cartoon style version like the building teeters and falls on its side or pancakes like thump.... thump.... thump.... then we have a smoking gun.)

I can hold 100 lbs over my head for several seconds. If it were replaced instantly by 3000 lbs would you characterize its fall through me as free-fall? Probably. Well that's the factor we saw when momentum gathered in 3 meters.

 

[beachnut]

You're trying to present yourself as impartial or "open minded" ...
No I think there is nothing open minded in even considering such a thing.

Zeuzzz left the thread 15 Feb 2011, he is waiting for an independent study, he missed the hundreds done long ago; the biggest investigation in history.
The old, "on the fence game". Like a kid in first grade, on the fence about 2+2; waiting for a new independent inquiry, not using the "official story" from the evil teacher.

Point taken.

However I think im still on the fence, and I think im going to remain on it. At the end of the day it's not as if some new piece of data or compelling evidence is going to come out, now nearly ten years after the event, to prove either side of the argument right. I seems that both sides of the argument cant even agree on what their arguments are anyway.

A new independent inquiry is needed until I re-engage in this rabit hole of 9/11 conspiracy theory mania.

And thanks for the non emotive replies that were actually factual people.

*exits rabbit hole*

He made a mistake thinking 911 truth had something to debate.
He had an open mind; did logic and critical thinking skills sneak out?
He was on the fence with 911 truth BS thick on his shoes.
He will not be back, the independent inquiries were done before 2011, his open mind missed them.
Eternal fence sitting, the covert 911 truth followers, on the fence, waiting for Gage's independent inquires.
911 is fact based, he was chasing some gish gallop 911 truth junk. Think he keeps falling off the fence on the 911 truth Fantasyland. It is hard to BS with woo on 911 issues.