Expert vs. Expert....

This is the place for secular issues.Discuss society and Politics, social action, the Christian identity and chruch's place in the world. We can also discuss science.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am
Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by URBILD » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:45 pm

fleetmouse wrote:Here's what I see as the argument in the OP video: we're not sure exactly how those buildings collapsed, and there are different opinions on the forensic technical details of the matter, therefore there must have been a conspiracy within the US government and media and etc. etc. except "they" can't get their details straight. Wouldn't it look more like a conspiracy if there were only one interpretation of forensic technical details and all government agencies and media outlets promoted solely that?
Fleet, I think you didn't understand the OP... WHICH is that all of the desperate official/ gov. explantions of the collapses point to the same white elephant,....

and I think,....I HOPE,... you are smart enough to know that it isn't simply that the collapses were a gov. conspiracy.. :geek:

User avatar
met
Posts:2813
Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by met » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:50 pm

fleetmouse wrote:Why did the intelligence of the truthers come into it?

Strictly speaking, they could all be complete idiots and still be right. And they could all be geniuses and be wrong.
What's the difference between true belief and knowledge? The arguments are generally technical and detailed.... the kind of stuff "smart people" pay closer attention to.


Not like me! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

(No, seriously. Nothing against Americans but I try not to let American issues dominate my world. Any more than American culture, movies, music, TV, all of which I mostly try to ignore. I'm in Canada and I wanna being just a "junior American." Otherwise I might look harder at it. It's interesting. The Albanian gov't did such a trick once, bankrolling terrorists to create fear by terrorizing their own population, so why not some other gov't? Especially that of a power in decline.... )
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:37 am

(double post, sorry)
Last edited by fleetmouse on Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:38 am

URBILD wrote: Fleet, I think you didn't understand the OP... WHICH is that all of the desperate official/ gov. explantions of the collapses point to the same white elephant,....
What's more alarming as a symptom of conspiracy:

1) "They" DON'T agree on everything
2) "They" DO agree on some things

Is there some balance of agreement and disagreement that would look innocent? Or if perhaps "they" did manage to strike just that balance, would it appear contrived and therefore indicative of a conspiracy?
and I think,....I HOPE,... you are smart enough to know that it isn't simply that the collapses were a gov. conspiracy.. :geek:
Oh no, of course not. I know exactly what you're hinting at. Of course, I can't say it in a public forum like this. *wink*

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:14 pm

met wrote:What's the difference between true belief and knowledge?
Ask a stopped clock.
The arguments are generally technical and detailed.... the kind of stuff "smart people" pay closer attention to.
I think the technical details a) don't make the case by themselves and b) serve to distract from larger problems in the conspiracist narrative - for example, in the case of the Pentagon - all the squabbling over the exact trajectory of the plane and the amount / patten of debris distracts from the question of what happened to the fucking plane full of passengers if it was actually a missile that hit the building?!

Or in the case of the WTC - how, precisely, were three enormous and well trafficked buildings rigged for demolition with not a single person noticing or spilling the beans?

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by URBILD » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:47 pm

fleetmouse wrote:
What's more alarming as a symptom of conspiracy:

1) "They" DON'T agree on everything
2) "They" DO agree on some things

Is there some balance of agreement and disagreement that would look innocent? Or if perhaps "they" did manage to strike just that balance, would it appear contrived and therefore indicative of a conspiracy?
Sounds like you might be rephrasing your initial misunderstanding. The point is that the symptom of scientific fraud can be found in the number of times defenders of the official narrative are willing to spin contradictory and unscientific theories in order to avoid a conclusion that is politically unfavorable.

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by URBILD » Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:57 pm

fleetmouse wrote:I think the technical details a) don't make the case by themselves and b) serve to distract from larger problems in the conspiracist narrative - for example, in the case of the Pentagon - all the squabbling over the exact trajectory of the plane and the amount / patten of debris distracts from the question of what happened to the fucking plane full of passengers if it was actually a missile that hit the building?!
Hardly a problem. The majority of skeptics of the official conspiricist narrative do not hold the missile/no-plane theory. IOW, it isn't a representative position of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Or in the case of the WTC - how, precisely, were three enormous and well trafficked buildings rigged for demolition with not a single person noticing or spilling the beans?
Again, not much of an issue as defenders of the official conspiracy theory would like to make it out to be. This has been addressed numerous times: http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#access
How could the Twin Towers, with so many tenants, and so many columns (240 perimeter columns, and 47 core columns) be wired for a controlled demolition without the operation being noticed?

This question assumes that the demolition of the Twin Towers would have to be set up like a conventional commercial one, with fuses and large numbers of cutting charges. First, note that the demolitions could have been controlled using wireless detonators, which have been commercially available for decades. Attack Scenario 404 describes how the charges could have been activated via radio signals in a precise fashion controlled by a computer.

Second, the demolitions may have been achieved without accessing the perimeter columns. The fact that the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of pulverized concrete, hurling steel assemblies up to 500 feet in all directions shows that they were destroyed with much more energy than a conventional demolition -- perhaps two orders of magnitude more. That gave the planners much more leeway in the placement of charges required to totally destroy the buildings. The core structures contained the building services such as elevators, and plumbing and cabling shafts. It would have been easy for people who controlled building security to surreptitiously install devices in hidden portions of the cores. Any such job would have been far simpler than the structural retrofit of the CitiCorp Tower in New York, carried out unbeknownst to the building's very tenants. 1

Third, explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials.

User avatar
URBILD
Posts:307
Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by URBILD » Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:18 pm

fleetmouse wrote:I think the technical details a) don't make the case by themselves and b) serve to distract from larger problems in the conspiracist narrative -
Just to share a little more of my wisdom.... :geek:

The true distraction, as I see it, is when defenders of the official 9/11 narrative take a decidely un-empirical approach to the issue. Rather than looking at the evidence, defenders desperately look for an easy 'knock-down' a priori argument to silence any skepticism.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:54 pm

URBILD wrote:Third, explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials.
You have got.

To be joking.

The supposed thermite cutter charges, from everything I've seen, had to be directly attached to the steel columns in very particular ways, and at very particular angles. Can you imagine dozens of workers being told, "listen, attach one of these harrumph smoke detectors to the columns every ten feet. And don't look inside them. And also tear these ceiling columns along the dotted lines and secure them around the columns at a 45 degree angle, then make sure one of the, ahem, smoke detectors is wired to each ceiling tile"

This is beyond ad hoc. I'm going to call this The Fallacy of Randomly Pulling Things Out of Your Ass

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Expert vs. Expert....

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:22 pm

URBILD wrote:Hardly a problem. The majority of skeptics of the official conspiricist narrative do not hold the missile/no-plane theory. IOW, it isn't a representative position of the 9/11 Truth movement
I thought David Ray Griffin supported a missile theory? Isn't he representative?

Post Reply