January 08, 2012

Hitchens Tribute and a Tribute to Logic


 Logic > everything

 I hope you watch it with honest eyes

Posted By Acombfosho at 09:26 AM

24 Comments

Tags: truth and reason

24 Comments:

nawhead posted on January 08, 2012 at 17:04 PM

Luckbox

interesting setup from vid 1 to 2. but the 9/11 video has a 10 minute long introduction that basically reads as: "we're not crazy, really, we're not, we like science and logic," tediously giving everybody's work history to excuse their belief in a conspiracy theory. WARNING 1. cognitive dissonance ahead...

and the first real "aha" moment for the viewer is supposed to be when they start talking about the structural steel being shipped off to China before it could be investigated. but what they seem daft on (cognitive dissonance is like that) is that millions of people saw the planes hit the buildings, and we assumed that was why the buildings fell, so there was no initial investigation into what "actually" happened and that's why the trash got cleared so quickly. and building 7's cleanup probably just got lumped in with the cleanup project of the other towers because that's what happens in the real world. why would we investigate the rubble when there was no mystery to solve? it's as if 100 people sees a shooting in a public place and the police come and take the body away and clean up the blood quickly. it's not some shocking cover-up.

are these people architects and engineers or police investigators? they proved they're experts in the intro and now they're giving expert testimony in the wrong field. WARNING 2.


nawhead posted on January 08, 2012 at 17:38 PM

Luckbox

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/the-umbrella-man.html


mitch posted on January 08, 2012 at 18:43 PM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

The umbrella man is awesome.

Hitchens is awesome.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Skeptics Guide to the Universe have covered the 9/11 conspiracies pretty well over the years.


Acombfosho posted on January 08, 2012 at 18:47 PM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

The film does not mention any conspiracy whatsoever. Aside to say "They are not interested in conspiracy theories!". They are calling for a full investigation into why 3 towers collapsed, when no high rise towers have collapsed due to fires before or since. They are using the scientific method, nothing else.


TtheAntlers posted on January 08, 2012 at 20:52 PM

Pic6

9/11 videos are pretty much universally LOL.


Acombfosho posted on January 09, 2012 at 02:39 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

Forget it was 9/11, just imagine it was nothing to do with a terrorist attack, and therefore no emotional sentiment or attachment to it.

Instead see it as an airline accidentally flew into the wtc, causing fires. Then 3 buildings totally collapse to dust. If this were the case, then there would be a national out cry from all architects and engineers about how total failure could occur in any of the buildings, let along 3.

Sadly, because the day itself is wrapped up in a special blind patriotism flag, the point of view of reason and logic is lost.

There is clear evidence, and thousands of experts (professional and licensed architects and engineers with over 20,000 years of combined experience) saying this is clearly not due to fires, so lets investigate it properly. No conspiracies mentioned, just hard out scientific reasoning.


TtheAntlers posted on January 09, 2012 at 05:41 AM

Pic6

You're right, it's not due to fires. It's due to an aircraft weighing ~150 tons that is also full of explosive jet fuel crashing into a building at several hundred miles an hour, which initiated a collapse. Seriously; a massive plane impacts at high speed and you think that all that did was cause a fire?


Acombfosho posted on January 09, 2012 at 05:52 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

Antlers. The problem with the above is that it defies three things. One, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and it completely collapsed. Two, Frank D. martini who was construction manager of WTC complex said "We over designed the building to withstand almost anything, included a fully loaded 707 which was the largest jetliner at the time.. In fact I believe that the buildings could withstand multiple airliners." quoted from Discovery Channel Documentary 'the World Trade Centers' which aired in January 2001. Third, you are describing something which defies the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy, these are being blatantly ignored.


mitch posted on January 09, 2012 at 06:00 AM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

Acombfosho, what they're implying (controlled demolition) is by definition a conspiracy theory.


TtheAntlers posted on January 09, 2012 at 13:50 PM

Pic6

Acombfosho. The problem with your three things is that it defies three things:

1. Is it entirely inconceivable that ground tremors created by buildings of enormous weight hitting the ground ended up damaging a building's foundation that it ended up falling as well? Earthquakes take out buildings all the time.

2. The flippant statement by Martini sounds eerily similar to the Titanic's engineers touting it as 'unsinkable'.

3. I also took the time to read about the COnservation of energy, just for this, and I still don't see how a collapse scenario involving catastrophic structural damage that an airplane would have caused flies in the face (See what I just did?) of said law.


nawhead posted on January 09, 2012 at 17:41 PM

Luckbox

i think you have it backwards when you say "because the day itself is wrapped up in a special blind patriotism flag, the point of view of reason and logic is lost." if there wasn't emotional pain attached to this day, there wouldn't be thousands of 9/11 stories by people trying to explain what "really" happened. traumatized and fearful people make up stories to ease their psyche, it's a way to regain control in a fearful situation.

"Instead see it as an airline accidentally flew into the wtc, causing fires. Then 3 buildings totally collapse to dust. If this were the case, then there would be a national out cry from all architects and engineers"

outcry about what? that their predictions were wrong? that buildings aren't designed perfectly for every scenario? that life isn't perfectly predictable? and it would be different if it was an accident. but that's not what happened, and you seem to want people to pretend it was an accident and proceed from there. but your logic is all screwed up. it wasn't an accident, so it went down differently.


mitch posted on January 09, 2012 at 18:16 PM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

I think it's important to note that very few if any of us are in the position to discuss this from a technical point of view other than regurgitating points from "authority" figures or just from our simplistic idea of how ridiculously complex systems work.

Also just because some experts say something doesn't necessarily mean they're on to something. Look at the quantum physicists associated with Deepak Chopra who will tell you the moon is in a non-localised state if no one is looking at it and our intentions can effect the molecular structure of water. Or the sheer number of Scientists who are also Creationists (obv low %, but there's a lot of scientists)...

"There is clear evidence, and thousands of experts (professional scientists with over 20,000 years of combined experience) saying the world is 6,000 years or and/or god created all living things"

I would be surprised if that wasn't a true statement, which leads us to a bit of a problem with these kind of things. I'm certainly not saying they're wrong though, or right, I sometimes fall for this bias and notice many other people do too.


mitch posted on January 09, 2012 at 18:31 PM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

Oh forgot to add, the groups I used as examples above will make arguments towards their position that sound very rational, logical and based in science to a person not at a high level in that specific field. It follows that in some cases it will be very hard for the receiver to accurately assess this information. Therefore I think it's very important to seek out opposing sides with an open mind in any area you have beliefs in but not the understanding to back it up. Unfortunately people tend to go the other way.


Acombfosho posted on January 10, 2012 at 00:00 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

Well I like the discussion going on here, good job. It is fair to say this:

"It is my opinion, based upon the footage I note in OP, that it is highly unlikely only fires collapsed those three buildings. AS no buildings before or after have exhibited any of the same design flaws. It is important to investigate this and let the evidence speak for itself."

Beyond that mitch is right, we will just be quoting various 'authority' figures. I just can not watch the hitchens video, then watch wtc 7 collapse, and see nothing wrong with the picture of a 48 story building collapsing symmetrically through itself in less than 7 seconds... regardless of whatever it 'implies'.


Acombfosho posted on January 10, 2012 at 00:23 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

Getting back to Antlers. We are having a discussion so let's continue to it's logical conclusion.

I will answer your points in order.

1. Is it entirely inconceivable that ground tremors created by buildings of enormous weight hitting the ground ended up damaging a building's foundation that it ended up falling as well? Earthquakes take out buildings all the time.

It is not entirely inconceivable that tremors and earth quakes destroy buildings. However, its comparing apples to oranges. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gz_aerial_wtc7.jpg this is a picture of the destroyed wtc7. All three buildings surrounding it are visible and fully intact. Was wtc7 just poorly designed? Or can a more logical explanation answer that.

2. The flippant statement by Martini sounds eerily similar to the Titanic's engineers touting it as 'unsinkable'.

You can view the video here. Does he sound flippant to you still? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

3. I also took the time to read about the Conservation of energy, just for this, and I still don't see how a collapse scenario involving catastrophic structural damage that an airplane would have caused flies in the face (See what I just did?) of said law.

Wait. You read up on the law of conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy and you still don't see how there is a problem with the free fall speed collapses? Here is a referenced article. http://knol.google.com/k/official-theory-of-9-11-wtc-tower-near-free-fall-collapses-violates-laws-of#

For clarification, I find no joy in this. It isn't nice to think that perhaps the official version of events is not true. There is no pleasure to be derived from any investigation which reveals something or nothing. But, one cannot simply look beyond the evidence.

Next time you are in a tall building, really imagine that entire structure falling through itself at faster than 10 floors a second (110 story wtc 1 and 2 collapsed in less than 12 seconds). Then suggest to yourself that fires could do it. It is beyond absurd.


TtheAntlers posted on January 10, 2012 at 01:42 AM

Pic6

1. What I suggested was really nothing more than conjecture, which unfortunately is really the best that any one of us here can do at this point.

2. Sounds like Captain Cocksure engineer playing himself up for the TV by making grand statements that he could never truly account for. So, to answer your question, yep.

3. Your 'referenced' article has only seven sources, and at least four are of dubious merit at best. Find me ANY authority on academic writing that says that extrapolating facts from obscure and/or biased sources is an acceptable practice and I will personally mail you 11 Asian mail-order brides postage paid.

To address your fire fixation, the fires themselves (Jet fuel burns at up to 1500 degrees F) didn't MELT the steel (Which melts at 2750 Degrees F), but steel does lose 50% of its strength at 1100 degrees F. Never mind that most office material is very very combustible. Steel also conducts heat very well, which would explain why other floors didn't maintain their rigidity.

I know you're quite content to imagine yourself wielding a shining warhammer of truth and bashing through the walls of my hut made of sticks and ignorance, but these conspiracy theories have fizzled out for a reason, and that reason is there really isn't evidence to back up these extraordinary claims.

Here's the source I used for the steel thing, it's pretty comprehensive, referenced, and published in a fairly reputable and widely read publication: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

I hope you read it with honest eyes.


Acombfosho posted on January 10, 2012 at 02:15 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

I have read that several times before this date and thanks for posting it again. My thesis for university was about the political side of September 11th so frankly I would be surprised if I hadn't seen any of the things related to it. Politics aside, science is the most important here. Popular Mechanics not once mentions the laws of conservation of momentum or energy. There is a good book you can read, should you choose to http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X which I have read. Extensively sourced and reads with clarity.

At this point though, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.


mitch posted on January 10, 2012 at 07:47 AM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

One thing I've never really seen discussed but have always found interesting about WTC 7 is if you have a government that is so capable and efficient (and relatively incapable at everything else) that can manufacture this almost flawless event and fool the overwhelming majority or people + experts in the field, why would they be dumb enough to blow up that building without an obvious and convincing cover story. Wouldn't you think their top priority above everything else would be to make this not look like they did it. So I don't understand how a super intelligent group of people with a pretty flawless plan in almost every other area would even consider this, it seems quite paradoxical to me.

For example if they really wanted to blow up WTC 7 why not "plant" and "car bomb" in a parking garage or come up with any number of stories to cover it's demolition.

I mean WTC 7 is the corner stone for 9/11 conspiracies, but once you accept that a ton of anomalies happen in large, complex events like this and stop using arguments of ignorance (we can't explain why it happened/is like this therefore... government conspiracy) then WTC 7 doesn't seem like a super strong argument to be, or perhaps even an argument against it being a set up. Of course we can go back and forwards on technical evidence, and there's decent arguments on both sides, but could we universally agree WTC 7 implies a huge fuck up you really wouldn't expect to happen if you look at how the rest of the plan was carried out... or just a random anomaly that happen naturally when immense weights crash in to goliath structures at insane speeds?


mitch posted on January 10, 2012 at 07:50 AM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

Oh and does anyone know if it's possible to blow up a building without making it totally look like you blew it up? Like placing asymmetrical charges with delayed timing or something (obv I have no idea)? Once again you think that'd be close to the top of the list too.


Acombfosho posted on January 10, 2012 at 09:40 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

Mitch, people can speculate all they like as to the ifs and buts and maybes. And it is not what the OP film is about.

What requires more focus is the building collapsing at all and THAT should be thoroughly investigated, based on the evidence, the video evidence and eyewitness testimony, looked at under the scientific method, and the hypothesis which fits the data being the outcome of the report. That is logical. That's what science is.

One hypothesis is that fire did it, the other that explosives did it. Lets look at the data.

The twin towers:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

3.Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4.Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5.Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

6.Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

8.Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front

9.Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

10.Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

Which hypothesis best fits this data?


mitch posted on January 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

Yeah I agree that more investigation should be done, but I think that logic falls down if it's not considering the implications of any hypothesis.

Take the fast than light neutrinos. Right now all the data points to this being true. They currently can't debunk it, all known potential errors in the experiment are accounted for within the error margins. According to your logic and scientific method we should be thinking this is plausible, maybe even likely as all the data fits perfectly with the hypothesis. I mean there literally isn't one data point that goes against this yet, it's not even anomaly hunting. But any legit scientist will tell you that the chances of it being true is extremely remote because the implications of it are so absurd. You don't see a documentary with scientists providing all the data, talking about the scientific method and trying to say there's strong plausibility towards this.

So I would say taking EVERYTHING into account the hypothesis that best fits the data would be that all these reasons can be explained by planes flying into the building and the ensuing fire, and it would be cool to see a study look into that. I'm not saying controlled demolition definitely didn't happen, it just seems to me like a remote possibility (not because of the data but because of the implications), and whilst I think it should be looked into the problem I have with the 9/11 truthers is they generally don't seem to acknowledged that.


mitch posted on January 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

161191_100001907278559_7893347_n_2_

"You don't see a documentary with scientists providing all the data, talking about the scientific method and trying to say there's strong plausibility towards this."

On this point, you do see documentaries with scientists providing all the data, possible explanations and implications if true, but they make it extremely clear how much of a long shot this is and why.


Acombfosho posted on January 10, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

The implications are obviously huge, that's why so many people refuse to even begin to look at the data. However, the data is the data, and it can't be manipulated or changed, just as the laws of physics don't change, based upon what implications they may or may not have for politics.


mojtaba79 posted on June 25, 2017 at 11:49 AM

Avatar


عکاسی مینیمال
مقاله آموزشی کامپیوتر
اخبار هنری و فرهنگی ایران
خودرو برلیانس
سایپا فروش
وقف غفران چیست
گیاهخواری و خام خواری
ثبت آگهی رایگان فروش گوشی
مقالات کریتیولایو
اخبار دیجیتال سیما
زمین شناسی به انگلیسی
آموزش جوملا فارسی
ادبیات بومی چیست
درب اتوماتیک کرکره ای کرج
فیلم کلبی وان
اخبار گمرک بازرگان
اخبار سیاسی بدون سانسور
مهماندار هواپیما ماهان
مدافع حرم حضرت زینب
هواپیمایی معراج
اخبار خودروی ایران
فوتبال 120
اخبارجالب انگیز
اخبار سینمای هند
اخبار ایران بی بی سی
اخبار حوادث هرمزگان
عطر و ادکلن زنانه
طراحی سایت وردپرس کرج
فتوشاپ دانلود
سایت مذهبیون
اخبار جاده های خراسان رضوی
اخبار ورزشی استقلال تهران امروز
آموزش php و mysql
بازی رایانه ای رایگان
اخبار جالب و خواندنی
اخبار ایران بی بی سی
ثبت رایگان آگهی فروش ملک
مطالب خواندنی کوتاه
مطالب خواندنی کوتاه
موبایل شیائومی mi5
مقاله جدید مهاجرانی
عکس هنری با کیفیت بالا
اسپیکر هدفون
تاکسیدرمی
کانال تلگرام من و تو
حوادث کرچ
طبیعت
رنگ کاری چوب کرج












 

Log in or to leave a comment!

About Me

Korea-snsd-sooyoung

Acombfosho

Archive