WTC 7 report aftermath - Truthers claims that we'll be hearing

[johnny karate]

Run away from what? The self-deception & intellectual dishonesty of JREF debunkers (or, to borrow a term from Truzzi, scoffers)? The countless double standards and rabid hostility that debunkers imbue upon almost every thread?

No, that's incorrect. My statement was very clear and self-explanatory. I'm surprised you had so much difficulty in comprehending it.

As a Truther, you run away from any and all issues that prove to be inconvenient to your position and instead choose to focus on specific details or anomalies that you think add up to prove a hypothesis you already believed.

Case in point. I will now ask you two questions regarding 9/11. Let's see how quick you are to not answer them.

Why do you think no firefighters that were present at WTC7 have come forward to support the theory that it collapsed due to a controlled demolition?

Why do you think that not a single professional investigator or law enforcement official on the planet has exposed 9/11 as an inside job?

Very few people here are interested in genuine scientific debate.

Very few people have the knowledge or expertise to engage in such a debate. This includes me and you. There many ways to expose your beliefs as silly and contrived without resorting to scientific debate. And of course, your attempt to frame the debate in such a specific way is just another example of Truther cowardice that I outlined earlier.

 

[RedIbis]

Of course you think it's a good post. Deep has a CT brain just like yours. Not a brain that cares about genuine evidence. Not a brain educated in the relevant fields to make intelligent observations. Not a brain containing information gained through actual experience in the relevant fields. A CT brain. A brain that takes in hearsay, innuendo, speculation, while ignoring evidence and facts which conflict with their CT.

Here is the one that supersedes those provided and applies directly to you and your CT friends:

And yet you've still managed to overlook this very accurate and perceptive quote.

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George

 

[boloboffin]

There are disagreements over opinion and there are disagreements over facts. When people come here time and again pretending their opinion supersedes fact, then they shouldn't complain about the well-deserved derision that comes their way.

 

[Stellafane]

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George

True. But this doesn't mean that all who disagree with you also deserve respect. I certainly respect many people with whom I seriously disagree. But I don't respect juvenile behavior, insults, lying, and the like.

Let's take a look at this thread, for example. Way back in post #46, I asked Roundhead the following question:

Why fly planes into buildings you're blowing up with explosives, when you can just blame the explosions themselves on terrorists???

Roundhead never answered (perhaps because he knew the question is all but impossible to respond to without sounding demented), so in post #139, I threw it open to any Truther to answer the question. But none did, so in post #184, I asked you specifically if you cared to answer it. To your credit, you did (in post #188). Now I think your "not visual enough" explanation was downright silly (and frankly still do), and told you as much as the time. Perhaps you don't think I showed your reply the proper respect. But in all truthfulness, how much respect does an answer like that actually deserve?

Be that as it may, in post #209 I asked Homeland Security whether he might like to take a crack at my question. He did (post #213) by offering the theory that the government (or whomever he believes is involved) did this to avoid getting sued. When asked for further explanation by Wildcat, HI wrote post #218. In it, he appears to say that terrorists were responsible for the CD that brought down the WTC buildings, and that someone attempted to cover this up by blaming it on the planes.

Now carefully consider what I just wrote; if necessary go back and re-read post #218 to make sure this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from what is written there. This immediately begs for further clarification, because if terrorists were indeed responsible for the CD of the WTC, then who crashed the planes? Was it the terrorists, as part of a crash/CD one-two punch? Or did someone discover the explosives, and then on the spot staged a fake hijacking to cover up the terrorists' CD? Wildcat (and later I) asked HI to please explain what he thought happened, because post #218 was such an apparent head scratcher.

This was the point in the thread where things went very south very fast. Rather than answer this question (which, it would appear, places him in the position of either admitting terrorists were entirely responsible for 9/11, or some alternate theory so bizarre it could never be taken seriously by anyone), HI immediately tried to turn the tables by asking me some question about whom I think should be held accountable for 9/11. This question was so obviously off-track that it eventually got moved to its own thread. Before that happened, I kept repeating my question about what HI thought happened and whether terrorists were responsible, refusing to be distracted. HI responded with insults (I'm "hysterical" and apparently need "medication") and lying (he claimed he answered my question about what he thought happened, which he never did).

Now I ask you: When you ask someone a very simple and straightforward question that's entirely on topic, and instead of responding the person resorts to irrelevancies, insults, and lies, just how much respect do you think that person deserves?

 

[T.A.M.]

Since Red posted it, I was exposed to it, so I will voice my opinion on it...

Deep44 posted:

Run away from what? The self-deception & intellectual dishonesty of JREF debunkers (or, to borrow a term from Truzzi, scoffers)? The countless double standards and rabid hostility that debunkers imbue upon almost every thread?

Very few people here are interested in genuine scientific debate. Just look at this thread - attempts to isolate the physical characteristics of the WTC7 collapse (i.e., "what" happened) are derailed with speculation about "how" any alternative plan could have been carried out, or "who" was responsible for doing so.

The question of "what" must precede the questions of "who", "how", and "why". For example:

* claiming that "it would be impossible to sneak explosives into the building unnoticed" is irrelevant in the context of determining if WTC7 was brought down by CD. It's a "how" question in a "what" argument.
* claiming that "a conspiracy to destroy WTC1/2/7 would be impossible to keep quiet or to coordinate" is irrelevant in the context of determining if WTC7 was brought down by CD. It's a "who" question in a "what" argument.
* claiming that "there would be no reason for them to bring down WTC7 in addition to WTC1 & WTC2" is irrelevant in the context of determining if WTC7 was brought down by CD. It's a "why" question in a "what" argument.

There's also the tendency to outright reject any evidence that is circumstantial in nature (i.e., claiming 'zero evidence'), usually with an unproven counter claim.

It doesn't take long for most visitors to figure out that they are wasting their time looking for truly skeptical or scientific opinions here.

1. Hostility is put in many threads because despite being show the same evidence, that proves the theories all but Woo, people insist on repeating them (the theories), insist that they are proof, insist that they are evidence, when they are not. They are coincidences and speculation, and NOTHING MORE.

2. I have little time for rabid idiocy, which is demonstrated by 95% of the truthers that post here...hence I am quite liberal with the anger and the distaste. Call it arrogance, call it what you like, but most of the "truthers" that post here are intellectual morons spewing **** they heard from someone else, with no idea how to use logic or common sense. No idea when they are out of their league or intellect level on a given subject.

3. I like Scoffers, it is accurate, as I do scoff at the ******** most truthers bring to this forum...it is worthy of scoffing.

4. Scientific debate? Show me some science that proves something is wrong with NIST's conclusions and we have a start. So far I have found none. Most debate here concerning nothing related to science anyway. The hijackers are still alive. Planting Explosives. A missile hit the Pentagon. Where is the science in this????

5. I can say that I am God. Should we carry out an honest debate on it???? no, because the statement is so ****ing stupid, so insane, it does not merit debate. Same goes for 95% of truther theory.

6. Your claims of irrelevancy are completely bogus. It is ALL IMPORTANT, that the ALLEGED cause of event A be proven. The collapse of WTC7 occurred. There is nothing more here then to prove how. NIST has done so, the truthers HAVE NOT. End of story.

7. I am sure most visitors here who are TRULY looking for clarification and LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS to some questions they may have, find EXACTLY what they are looking for. Those who are not, are usually looking to pick a fight, or think they have the evidence to prove their crappy theories. Most of those people soon leave, or explode and are banned.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

And yet you've still managed to overlook this very accurate and perceptive quote.

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George

And you still manage to smear Larry Silverstein despite being unable to produce an example of a lie he's told. I'm afraid we didn't fall for your antenna nonsense.

 

[RedIbis]

And you still manage to smear Larry Silverstein despite being unable to produce an example of a lie he's told. I'm afraid we didn't fall for your antenna nonsense.

Granted, you are extremely disrespectful, but I thought it was the other quote which would be more applicable to your "style."

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

 

[Toke]

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

There is a major difference between
"people who don't see things as clearly as you do"
and the thruther mindset.

The former will get a patient and polite explanation by the friendly and knowlegeable people here.

The later risk ridicule for their refusal to look at reality.
Sometimes laughing is all you can do.

In case of doubt most will err on to the friendly side.

 

[Stellafane]

..."You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

I'll grant you that this is very good advice, some that I have not always heeded as thoroughly as I should. And in return, I ask you: Do you think the way Homeland Insurgency conducted himself in this thread merits respect?

 

[Pardalis]

claiming that "it would be impossible to sneak explosives into the building unnoticed" is irrelevant in the context of determining if WTC7 was brought down by CD. It's a "how" question in a "what" argument.

OK, I'll bite. What explosives were used, and what is your evidence?

claiming that "a conspiracy to destroy WTC1/2/7 would be impossible to keep quiet or to coordinate" is irrelevant in the context of determining if WTC7 was brought down by CD. It's a "who" question in a "what" argument.

OK, what is the evidence that it was brought down by CD?

claiming that "there would be no reason for them to bring down WTC7 in addition to WTC1 & WTC2" is irrelevant in the context of determining if WTC7 was brought down by CD. It's a "why" question in a "what" argument.

OK, what is your evidence that WTC 7 was CDed?

There's also the tendency to outright reject any evidence that is circumstantial in nature (i.e., claiming 'zero evidence'), usually with an unproven counter claim.

Well RedIbis seems to say that only physical evidence is valid.

What is your physical evidence for CD?

What is your circumstantial evidence for CD?

 

[1337m4n]

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George

I'll be sure to show proper respect to the next person who calls me shill, traitor, sheeple, etc.

 

[1337m4n]

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

"When you're losing an argument, never admit that you're wrong. Instead, try to derail the thread with a fancy-sounding but irrelevant quote from some famous dude."

-Me, just now.

 

[pomeroo]

Granted, you are extremely disrespectful, but I thought it was the other quote which would be more applicable to your "style."

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

I won't pretend to respect people who promote pernicious nonsense. Patience is a virtue, and I like to think that I can listen respectfully to someone who sincerely holds a belief that I find hard to accept. But, disingenuous bobbing and weaving is not honest debate.

 

[tsig]

Granted, you are extremely disrespectful, but I thought it was the other quote which would be more applicable to your "style."

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

Respect has to be earned. Your credit card is maxed out.

 

[Pardalis]

There's also the tendency to outright reject any evidence that is circumstantial in nature (i.e., claiming 'zero evidence'), usually with an unproven counter claim.

Oh, and BTW, I disagree with that statement.

Since the intentional demolition theory, as opposed to the accidental collapse theory, implies that a crime has been committed, then the evidence for it has to be more than circumstantial.

The burden of proof is greater for your theory because of its level of complexity, and high implausibility (human failure, great deal of secrecy and the ultimate cover-up, which adds by necessity alot more need for evidence).

So the game is not set at 50/50, your theory starts with a great deal more need to be proven than a naturally occurring phenomenon, no matter how unique it is.

 

[beachnut]

Good post. I especially like the two quotes on the end. Very true around here.

Liking quotes is good, it is the only thing you can do when you are void of evidence, making all your 9/11 far out claims pure fantasy!

Saying you like his quotes makes up for not having EVIDENCE? 9/11 truth

... "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." -Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting

Truthers are to in a constant state of ignorance on 9/11. I am not making fun of it, I am disgusted you failed to take advantage of what you should have learned in grade school, cause and effect; instead you bring your biased ideas.

I will end with a better quote that nails 9/11 truth believers who lack knowledge and fail to exercise rational thought.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein

"A danger sign of the lapse from true skepticism in to dogmatism is an inability to respect those who disagree" - Dr. Leonard George

So the best quotes win? Einstein beats all your quotes and explains the problem you have with facts and evidence. All the great quotes in the world will not make you right, you need real reality based evidence not hearsay and failed opinions, and neat quotes.

"Even the least among you can do all that I have done, and greater things."- Jesus
"Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave”- Muhammad

You need to heed your own quotes, and few more. But, quotes are no substitute for evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The new report claims that WTC 7 fell 40% slower than free fall speed.
Look at this, it claims the building fell faster than free fall speed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html
I know you guys don't believe the building fell faster than free fall speed, so please show me the error this website made in your opinion.

I've been away for the weekend, so I didn't see this till today - sorry for regurgitating an old topic when the thread's moved on, but I hadn't seen a proper response.

The main thing Hoffman (I assume it's him, it's from one of his websites) is doing wrong here is that he's not bothering to fit the data correctly, just pulling a number out of thin air and drawing conclusions from it. He makes an arbitrary choice of t0=0.65, which he doesn't justify, assuming a collapse starting 0.15 seconds after the second frame. He then calculates the residual differences, and as you can see they're steadily increasing from -4 feet to +9 feet. That alone makes it clear he's using the wrong acceleration; the fall is continuously falling behind the freefall drops.

Doing a proper least squares fit to a parabola gives me a start time of 0.57 seconds, 0.07 seconds after the second frame, and an acceleration of 14.62 feet per second squared - about 91% of gravitational acceleration. This gives an excellent fit to the data, with all but one of the points falling within Hoffman's estimated error of three feet (frame 3 is out by 3.25 feet, only trivially greater). Therefore, the building facade fell, over this interval, some 9% slower than freefall.

It's laziness leading to an incorrect conclusion, something Hoffman is often guilty of. It takes a few moments to do a least squares fit.

Dave