General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I was talking about these few clips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfxkcBmZfK0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&feature=relmfu from the day

all that proves is that people heard explosions. explosions have many causes. bomb is only one possible cause. and again, perceiving cause is not real evidence.

also, those sounds are going off all over the place. some way before the buildings even fall. for a controlled demolition, it seems pretty inefficient.

it only states that past evidence cannot prove a theory to be true. that all theories can only be falsified, not proven. it's a philosophical insight into the impossibility of knowing the future perfectly from past evidence.

Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience. One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions. {wiki}

Anyway, let's use your definition. 'All theories can only be falsified, not proven.' Let's falsify the official theory that the United States government wants you to believe. namely, Fires melted the steel and caused complete destruction of all concrete and steel framing in a rapid onset collapse.

Falsification http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=kevin_ryan

I am enjoying this debate and we're both clearly keen on thrashing it out, so please continue.

And fwiw I'm open to being wrong about this. I don't believe the moon landing hoax, nor JFK, Aliens, or countless other conspiracy theoires which can easily be cast aside has 'nutjob', neither have I looked into those events. Again, I just can't see the WTC7 falling through itself and honestly look myself in the eye and say "Yeah, fires did it." There isn't an ill will on my part against Americans (in fact many of my closest friends are American), and you rightly assert in your OP the following

you believe you're performing a greater good by spreading the alternative theory of 9/11. You're willing to make sacrifices, namely your public reputation, in order for a greater good. This is very basic human nature. Strong beliefs want to propagate. I also believe I'm doing a greater good by steering people away from bad thinking, and I want to spread my message as well.

I do believe that we have been lied to about 9/11 and I do think it is important to talk about it publicly. There isn'y any malicious intent on my part, nor against you, other than to disagree with your view that the story we have been told about 9/11 by the U.S. government is 100% true.

The reasons I disagree with their version of events I feel I have explained fairly well, namely, eye witness testimony to the contrary (civillians, firefighters, police officers) and to quote Kean and Hamilton 'Without Precedent' - no other buildings have ever exhibited rapid onset of collapse through themselves due to fires.

Those points aside, I welcome discourse on the issue and again I am open to being wrong about this entirely. I clearly don't benefit socially or financially by being right about this. It's way more important than that.

Sometimes I think that it's just worth saying an unpopular opinion if then people actually question why they hold those opposing opinions in the first place and society as a whole can somewhat progress.

One of my favourite quotes as I mentioned before very much explains my mindset.

"A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. " Dresden James

So in conclusion, it's fine by me if we disagree, I gave you reasons why I disagree, you give me reasons why you agree. Cool. You are a nice bloke and when or if we ever meet up, we'll have a beer together. Peace and also thank you for the discussion.

[Acomb, i will reply to your reply in a few hours. i just popped in to post this.]

I'm reading and taking notes on "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman right now, and there's some good explanations about the flaws of our intuitive minds which could explain our desire to believe in grand, causal theories:



Now I will show you a logical argument-two premises and a conclusion. Try to determine, as quickly as you can, if the argument is logically valid. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

All roses are flowers.
Some flowers fade quickly.
Therefore some roses fade quickly.

A large majority of college students endorse this syllogism as valid. In fact the argument is flawed, because it is possible that there are no roses among the flowers that fade quickly. Just as in the bat-and-ball problem, a plausible answer comes to mind immediately. Overriding it requires hard work-the insistent idea that "it's true, it's true!" makes it difficult to check the logic, and most people do not take the trouble to think through the problem.

This experiment has discouraging implications for reasoning in everyday life. It suggests that when people believe a conclusion is true, they are also very likely to believe arguments that appear to support it, even when these arguments are unsound.

A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. [Ed: repetition induces cognitive ease. cognitive ease leads to lazy thinking]

Mood evidently affects the operation of System 1: when we are uncomfortable and unhappy, we lose touch with our intuition.

These findings add to the growing evidence that good mood, intuition, creativity, gullibility, and increased reliance on System 1 form a cluster. At the other pole, sadness, vigilance, suspicion, an analytic approach, and increased effort (bad fonts, unclear language) also go together.

"We must be inclined to believe it because it has been repeated
so often, but let's think it through again."

"Familiarity breeds liking. This is a mere exposure effect."

"I'm in a very good mood today, and my System 2 is weaker than
usual. I should be extra careful."

A story in Nassim Taleb's The Black Swan illustrates this automatic search for causality. He reports that bond prices initially rose on the day of Saddam Hussein's capture in his hiding place in Iraq. Investors were apparently seeking safer assets that morning, and the Bloomberg News service flashed this headline: U.S. TREASURIES RISE; HUSSEIN CAPTURE MAY NOT CURB TERRORISM. Half an hour later, bond prices fell back and the revised headline read: U.S. TREASURIES FALL; HUSSEIN CAPTURE BOOSTS ALLURE OF RISKY ASSETS. Obviously, Hussein's capture was the major event of the day, and because of the way the automatic search for causes shapes our thinking, that event was destined to be the explanation of whatever happened in the market on that day. The two headlines look superficially like explanations of what happened in the market, but a statement that can explain two contradictory outcomes explains nothing at all. In fact, all the headlines do is satisfy our need for coherence: a large event is supposed to have consequences, and consequences need causes to explain them. We have limited information about what happened on a day, and System 1 is adept at finding a coherent causal story that links the fragments of knowledge at its disposal.

Read this sentence:
After spending a day exploring beautiful sights in the crowded
streets of New York, Jane discovered that her wallet was missing.

When people who had read this brief story (along with many others) were given a surprise recall test, the word pickpocket was more strongly associated with the story than the word sights, even though the latter was actually in the sentence while the former was not. The rules of associative coherence tell us what happened. The event of a lost wallet could evoke many different causes: the wallet slipped out of a pocket, was left in the restaurant, etc. However, when the ideas of lost wallet, New York, and crowds are juxtaposed, they jointly evoke the explanation that a pickpocket caused the loss.

"She can't accept that she was just unlucky; she needs a causal story. She will end up thinking that someone intentionally sabotaged her work."

Anyway, let's use your definition. 'All theories can only be falsified, not proven.' Let's falsify the official theory that the United States government wants you to believe. namely, Fires melted the steel and caused complete destruction of all concrete and steel framing in a rapid onset collapse.

Falsification http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=kevin_ryan

doubt and falsification are not the same. we have a scientific theory ("scientific" in that it can be falsified, however difficultly) of the event. in order to falsify a scientific statement, we have to test it. the alternative theorists have yet to do this.

doubting and disagreeing is not testing or falsifying.

I am enjoying this debate and we're both clearly keen on thrashing it out, so please continue.

are we really hashing it out? we have yet to even hash out WTC 7. was it not the most solid evidence for controlled demolition? why are we shifting to the weaker arguments now?

by the standards of the alternative theorists, a deflection of any point is evidence of a cover-up. can you not see how dishonest and underhanded this kind of non sequitur logic is?

Again, I just can't see the WTC7 falling through itself and honestly look myself in the eye and say "Yeah, fires did it."

then you've assumed a conclusion before the arguments. if the conclusion was "self evident" even before the evidence came in, then it was not a rational conclusion in the first place.

you've built up a possibly valid or invalid initial belief by choosing to use evidence based on circumstantial evidence and logical fallacies. but that's not your fault, since that's the only evidence for the alternative theory.

for the same reasons all other theories based on circumstantial evidence and logical fallacies fail to convince you, apply the same level of criteria to this.

I don't believe the moon landing hoax, nor JFK, Aliens, or countless other conspiracy theoires which can easily be cast aside has 'nutjob', neither have I looked into those events.

the evidence for those other theories are "self evident" as well.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts

I clearly don't benefit socially or financially by being right about this.

you said before you wrote your college thesis on this topic. you have a lot emotionally invested in being right since the implications of being wrong must be devastating.

i hope you reflect carefully on this and my last post.


and a few more quotes, since we both like them so much.

"How pathetically scanty my self-knowledge is compared with, say, my knowledge of my room. There is no such thing as observation of the inner world, as there is of the outer world." - Franz Kafka

"So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." - Benjamin Franklin

something pretty big we missed: Falsifiability

scientific statements are falsifiable.

unscientific statements are not.

"planes took down the towers" is falsifiable. if we test this theory many times using some realistic model and the towers never fall, it's safe to say the theory is probably wrong. it won't be easy, given the scale of the event, but it is possible.

"an inside conspiracy blew up the towers" is not falsifiable. since only the complete lack of evidence can falsify this statement, its supporters can forever say that the hard evidence is yet to be found. the theory can always retreat into that which is the unknown.

it's no different from trying to prove the nonexistence of The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Playings devils advocate here, I said I am open to being wrong, and so far rather than address the points I raised you've chosen to talk about something else. Are you open to being wrong about what you think?

For now it appears to me as if you are rambling about theories of proof and using tangents to obscure what I consider to be perfectly valid points, namely no precedent for such events (fires causing free fall collapse) and eyewitnesses reporting "there were explosions".

Saying people were 'trying to make sense of the event' in hindsight is not the same as hundreds of people who witnessed the events first hand who gave their honest opinion when asked the same day. Nor is saying 'keep saying the buildings fell down funny' a dismissal of physics.

Despite how clearly awkward this discussion could become, it is a testament to rationality that this thread has remained open.

The bare fact that more than ten years post the incident has had a discussion of this scals occur shows a few things of itself.

Evidently

First, we haven't had a real discourse on this matter as a public whatsoever. (Unless you think that a public discourse is what the MSM spouts)
Second, it's still painful to think about, and the implications are huge.

no precedent for such events (fires causing free fall collapse)

How many buildings have had comparable fires and not fallen? How does their structure compare with the buildings that fell on 9/11? Were they damaged by large debri as in the case of WTC7?

eyewitnesses reporting "there were explosions"

There are plenty of reasons one can hear explosions, collapsing and falling objects can make similar sounds. Also there are plenty of other things than bombs you could attribute explosions to, especially since there was a fire in the building. This point is weak tbh.

How many buildings have had comparable fires and not fallen? How does their structure compare with the buildings that fell on 9/11? Were they damaged by large debri as in the case of WTC7?



There are plenty of reasons one can hear explosions, collapsing and falling objects can make similar sounds. Also there are plenty of other things than bombs you could attribute explosions to, especially since there was a fire in the building. This point is weak tbh.

Like gas pipes for instance.

Playings devils advocate here, I said I am open to being wrong, and so far rather than address the points I raised you've chosen to talk about something else. Are you open to being wrong about what you think?

i have been addressing the points. i've made several detailed line by line analysis of your points. how can i even understand the events of that day let alone change my mind when you won't even answer my questions?

so please respond to this post

this post

this post

For now it appears to me as if you are rambling about theories of proof and using tangents to obscure what I consider to be perfectly valid points, namely no precedent for such events (fires causing free fall collapse) and eyewitnesses reporting "there were explosions".

there is such a thing as evidentiary procedure. if a court only has circumstantial evidence and ties it all together with a logical fallacy, that's a kangaroo court. all the evidence that's been brought forward is weak. many people have pointed out the weakness of the evidence. if you believe in the power of random street people's testimony ("i heard a bomb"), why won't you listen to the people in this thread?

and again, there are perfectly valid explanations to explain the events of that day without the alternative theory. we have yet to truly "debunk" theory 1.

and both sides have expert witnesses. just because there are expert witnesses for the theory 2 about how "the buildings fell funny" doesn't invalidate theory 1. if you want to invalidate theory 1, test it scientifically. raise the funds (millions are being made in 9/11 inside job books and websites i assume), build a replica, test it.

Saying people were 'trying to make sense of the event' in hindsight is not the same as hundreds of people who witnessed the events first hand who gave their honest opinion when asked the same day. Nor is saying 'keep saying the buildings fell down funny' a dismissal of physics.

what exactly is your standard of proof? you've been repeating the power of numbers, "hundreds of people heard bomb explosions," and "1500 experts doubt the government theory."

but i say, millions of people at ground zero and watching TV didn't hear bomb explosions that day. tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of experts who looked at the government theory didn't find fault with it and don't believe in theory 2.

repeating that "hundreds heard" and "1500 experts disagree" is only reinforcing survivorship bias.

we are the silent majority and we say, "we are not convinced" (in a very soft tone no less). why won't you listen to us? if this was an actual court case, the jury is voting 11 to 1 for not guilty. and the 1 loud voice usually sounds like the guy in 12 Angry Men.

we've been looking at the evidence for days now and nobody's changing sides afaik. either we're both just not convincing enough, or else this is a religious/political debate and not actually about the events of that day.

Despite how clearly awkward this discussion could become, it is a testament to rationality that this thread has remained open.

The bare fact that more than ten years post the incident has had a discussion of this scals occur shows a few things of itself.

Evidently

what is evident? i see proof of something going on, but it's probably not what you're seeing.

First, we haven't had a real discourse on this matter as a public whatsoever. (Unless you think that a public discourse is what the MSM spouts)
Second, it's still painful to think about, and the implications are huge.

what is MSM?

and also, people in power don't talk to courts for the same reason normal people are told by their lawyers not to talk to cops just to "prove they're innocent."

don't talk to cops

don't talk to cops 2

dont' talk to cops 3

don't talk to cops 2

omg, i just linked to a white supremecist website. well, it's still good advice.

here's the direct link:
Don't Talk to Cops by James Duane (law professor and former defense attorney)

all that proves is that people heard explosions. explosions have many causes. bomb is only one possible cause. and again, perceiving cause is not real evidence.

also, those sounds are going off all over the place. some way before the buildings even fall. for a controlled demolition, it seems pretty inefficient.

Ok - so what else accounts for all of the explosions better than explosives, or do you simply think they were all gas tanks, all simultaneously detonating over the 110 floors and 48 floors in WTC7 to cause a symmetrical free fall?

How can such a massive volume of expanding pyroclastic clouds be formed and all the towers be completely pulverized to dust?

How about what The Leading Former (he since passed away) Demolitions Expert from Europe - Danny Jowenko says? And confirmation here.

Or MIT Engineer Jeff King?

or even this simple experiment video which explains the basic laws of physics ?

Finally, Steel doesn't melt in office fires. That's why we use steel in buildings. That's why no buildings have ever fallen due to fire before. .

The plane's that hit were similar to the B-25 bomber that flew into the Empire State building and this link which ended up killing 14 people and resulting in fires, BUT the Empire State Building did not collapse. It's standing today obviously. Any other office building that has had fires in it has never completely collapsed either. Never.

Frank DeMartini who constructed the WTC Twin Towers knew accidents happen, and over designed it to 'sustain multiple impacts from airliners.' for this very reason.

Why was molten steel found in all three buildings, when office fires can't even burn hot enough to ever get to molten steel temperatures?

Yet on 9/11 despite this never happening before, three buildings collapse through their footprints due to fires. Believe what you want, but for me all of the above makes it quite obvious to a non-partisan observer that the governments version of what happened on 9/11 cannot be anything but false.

oh and MSM is Main Stream Media btw. There's never been an open discussion on any 'main stream media' outlets.. aside from Russia Today's full debate coverage and short clips on Al-Jazeera (which while available in the USA and Europe still aren't really considered mainstream).

uh oh, the tape is stuck in a loop.

you're a good man, Acomb. smart people never go crazy. nope. never happens.

oh well, i tried.

Haha, so now you're implying I'm crazy simply because I agree with demolition experts, that the laws of physics do not become suspended on special occasions, and that molten steel under the buildings can't be caused by the office fires because it is impossible for those types of fires to reach molten temperatures?

You don't like it so you simply resort to name calling.

It's clearly evident I have made an informed decision about the twin towers and WTC 7 demolitions due to the number of substantiated points I have raised and shared in this discussion; so calling me crazy is just easier for you than to address these huge flaws in the governments hypothesis of events.

Again this isn't something I just thought up one day while I was bored, I looked with an open mind at the evidence both sides presented (The governments fire hypothesis vs controlled demolition hypothesis) and decided that the controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the evidence. And thousands of experts who actually have studied these fields of engineering, demolition and physic agree. Are they all nut jobs according to you too?

This debate is clearly done. Unless scientific research can prove the fire theory (which so far none has surfaced), or if somehow another event in the future (like an accidental plane flying into a building or a huge fire) in a similar steel framed building suddenly results in free fall collapses (still without precedent in history)- then I will continue to agree with what the scientific method dictates.

Namely look at all the evidence, come up with a hypothesis that best fits the evidence, reject hypothesis's which don't fit the evidence (fires). Come to a conclusion when all of the evidence matches a hypothesis (controlled demolition).

It was fun anyway - hopefully some more people will have looked at this thread and while perhaps not commenting at least would have had a look at a lot of the various stuff. Perhaps some people never even knew about this and formed a new opinion, which is great. Thank you for your efforts.