[Winstonm]

Quote

people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

Maybe someone can help me, here, but I understand that Occam's razor has to apply to all known facts and data - not simply the ones that fit a hypothesis.

Quote

what other explanation is being put forth

None at this point, other than the alternate hypothesis that demolition fits all the known facts and data, and thus should be investigated as a potential cause - if it fits the facts, it should be ruled out by evidence and not discarded as implausible.

Note, that if demolition did not fit all the observable facts, then it would become an implausible explanation.

[Al_U_Card]

AS you say, Occam's razor says that if it looks like a demo, sounds like a demo and acts like a demo....it must be a demo.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 24 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

None at this point, other than the alternate hypothesis that demolition fits all the known facts and data, and thus should be investigated as a potential cause - if it fits the facts, it should be ruled out by evidence and not discarded as implausible.

Note, that if demolition did not fit all the observable facts, then it would become an implausible explanation.

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 24 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

people talk a lot about occam's razor in this forum, doesn't it apply here?

Interesting question.

When one is facing a choice between two models accounting for a phenomena, and both fit the data, it would be awkward if one had to assume some mixture of the two models, say model A with probability 50% and model B with probability 50%. Here, it is advisable to chose the simpler model as long as no data are available that can support one model and reject the other.

When it comes to economical/legal decisions, the situation is different. We cannot say "we assume the suspect is guilty because that's the simpler explanation". We have to deal with uncertainty.

However, the simpler theory is often the same one as the theory that is a priori most likely. So if "guilty" is simpler than "innocent", and both theories fit the data, "guilty" will generally also be more likely I think.

So I wouldn't say the Occam's razor applies here, strictly speaking, but at some philosophical level the analogy is probably apt.

Just some random thoughts from a scientist with some amateur interest in philosophy. I'm sure a lot of philosophers have addressed this issue.

[Al_U_Card]

Surely, the system would not allow for a guilty verdict based solely on circumstantial evidence? That could only be possible philosophically, of course.

[hotShot]

luke warm, on Apr 25 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

Inside the building it could have bounced against the next intact floor or ceiling or it could have rotated somehow or hit some important structure full speed.
The temperature the fire could reach depends strongly on the airflow, the way the kerosene leaked out of the tank etc.

These missing informations are made to input parameters of the simulation model and their setting changes the results.

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Apr 25 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 25 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

I read through the report and I find no inconsistencies or anything that requires more explanation beyond what I've given here. And I'm more than a little tired of "but it was in a peer reviewed publication!".

Could I believe that, for example, the NIST was protecting the builder from lawsuits regarding substandard steel or poor design? Sure. Do I see any evidence whatsoever that somebody planted explosives in order to make the buildings fall? Nope.

I'm having a hard time seeing how anybody else could "find" this evidence either.

We often try to find conspiracy in tragedy, whether it's an assasination, a car accident, or the towers being crashed into by a plane. The fact that there are conspiracy buffs that come out of the woodwork when there's a national tragedy does not mean that there's a conspiracy.

[Al_U_Card]

Or we could just ask the CSI writers to figure it out. They usually can come up with all the details and in record time too!!!

Seriously, if sections of floor were collapsing and this caused the booming sounds or if the violent reactions of the walls in the lobby were due to pressure waves transmitted through the structure by the core columns at plane impact.....then why not be able to show how....? The buildings were made in Manhatten. They knew that they wouldn't last forever. Their construction in terms of height and composition was perhaps shoddy or well-designed. It all depends on their purpose.

Mr. Silverstein made one hell of a purchase. 15 million to 7 Billion in 9 months.(plus six years, with interest? including court time) That beats Hil-Billie's record from Whitewater....

Where's that coffee that I am smelling?

[Al_U_Card]

This is a good quick resumé of the collapses.

http://ca.youtube.co...feature=related

I really like the clarity. Especially the first tower and the steel "beam" that gets ejected from the core and plummets down well ahead of the descending "crush-down" phase of collapse. The appearance and status of the "spire" is also interesting.

[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Apr 25 2008, 07:36 AM, said:

hotShot, on Apr 25 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 25 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

i'm pretty sure you're right... he says he's not thinking conspiracy, but i honestly don't see how that's possible if he thinks there was, in addition to the planes, demolition

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Apr 25 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Apr 25 2008, 07:36 AM, said:

hotShot, on Apr 25 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 25 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

i'm sorry, i'm still not getting it... by demolition do you mean it occurred at the same time (or *very* shortly after) the planes hit? how could using 'demolition' as an explanation not be conspiratorial?

By demolition they mean, what the impact of the airplane exactly did to the structure.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

i'm pretty sure you're right... he says he's not thinking conspiracy, but i honestly don't see how that's possible if he thinks there was, in addition to the planes, demolition

Jimmy, you are not seperating the events.

First, there is investigation; second, there is determination of cause.

What you keep saying is that any other cause is impossible, therefore a diligent investigation is not needed.

Hey, we all saw what happened. Why investigate? Right?

What I am saying is: Wrong. Investigate first. Then, if the cause was controlled demolition, then it is time to find out the how.

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe.

Let's at least be accurate here. There is NO proof of your claim. The NIST has not published a cause for the collapse of building 7. Other WTC buildings were closer and suffered greater damage and more significant fires, yet did not collapse.

Even if one initially accepts the NIST version of the towers, consider the remarkable series of events that had to occur for a single building to collapse straight down - and then remember that this occured 3 times in a single day.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not really after you.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I'm pretty sure that's not what Winston means when he says demolition.

No, I am speaking of controlled demolition. But where Jimmy gets lost is that this is a question in and of itself. Were the towers' collapse controlled demolition, yes or no?

If no, that ends the need to look further at that hypothesis.
If yes, then that leads to a second question.

How was it done? It is only when you reach this second question that any possibility of a conspiracy arises.

Prior to that, you are simply looking for the scientific evidence that explains what happened.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The fact that there are conspiracy buffs that come out of the woodwork when there's a national tragedy does not mean that there's a conspiracy.

There is another side to this, as well. The fact that there is a large percentage of the population who will never doubt the official version makes it much easier to cover up a massive, illegal event, and get away with it.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Apr 25 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe.

Let's at least be accurate here. There is NO proof of your claim.

Before quoting one of my posts, please read it to the end.

Thank you.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 25 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

What you keep saying is that any other cause is impossible, therefore a diligent investigation is not needed.

actually what i'm saying is that even offering up "... controlled demolition ..." as a cause shows at the very least a willingness (if not an outright hope) to believe there was a conspiracy...

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?
2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

Quote

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.

what less probable hypothesis that fits all the facts are you speaking of?

Quote

There is another side to this, as well. The fact that there is a large percentage of the population who will never doubt the official version makes it much easier to cover up a massive, illegal event, and get away with it.

i don't doubt the official version that we did not shoot down an alien spacecraft near roswell... i don't doubt the official version that we did indeed land on the moon

it seems to me that the onus is on those who dispute the "official version" - and occam's razor does apply here

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 25 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

Quote

The fact that there are conspiracy buffs that come out of the woodwork when there's a national tragedy does not mean that there's a conspiracy.

There is another side to this, as well. The fact that there is a large percentage of the population who will never doubt the official version makes it much easier to cover up a massive, illegal event, and get away with it.

I am lost what event was illegal?


If you mean blowing up buildings I assume a zillion govt lawyers or secret courts over the decades approved it under some unknown law. As Jimmy said I doubt they blew up one or more buildings as a spur of the moment thingy.

Just the other day Mrs Clinton said if Iran attacked Israel with nukes, America would wipe Iran off the map. What treaty says that? When did Congress approve that? I assume this is an illegal act she promised to do, yet she won Penn big! I repeat she promises to do an illegal act ( I assume it is illegal) and she wins the election!

Bush may or may not blow up one or more buildings, legally or illegally. Mrs. Clinton threatens to blow an entire country of tens of millions of people away.

[Winstonm]

Materials Engineering, Inc, has this to say about thermite residue testing. (emphasis added.)

Note, this quote is not about a test run on any WTC residue.

Quote

When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.

MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.

This seems to dispute claims that testing for thermite would have been inconclusive.

[Winstonm]

Quote

actually what i'm saying is that even offering up "... controlled demolition ..." as a cause shows at the very least a willingness (if not an outright hope) to believe there was a conspiracy...

No, once again. What is required is simply the scientific method applied to a problem. Again, a valid hypothesis has to be able to explain all the known conditions. When a certain hypothesis explains all the observable data, it should then be tested.

Quote

1) do you agree that if there was a controlled demolition there had to have been a conspiracy?

That is irrelevant to utilizing the scientific method to solve a problem.

Quote

2) do you personally believe there is a higher possibility that there was a controlled demolition than that there wasn't (i know you don't *know* that, i'm asking what you think, what you believe to be true)?

It doesn't matter. The point is was this a scientific investigation, using scientific methods, or was it a political investigation, where certain possibilities were not addressed?

Quote

But it is wrong to create a hypothesis that dosn't fit all the facts and then claim that a less probable hypothesis that does fit the facts is invalid - it can only be invalidated by facts, not innuendo.


what less probable hypothesis that fits all the facts are you speaking of?

Controlled demolition would be one. I am unaware of other hypothesis that fit all the known facts.

As I have said before, the NIST hypothesis is not satifactory because they simply ignore and leave unexplained observable data - the models only reach the point of collapse initiation - so they do not explaim the free fall speeds of collapse, the hot spots left for weeks afterwards, the molten metal, or the diagonal breaks in steel beams that photographs have shown.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Apr 25 2008, 08:47 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 25 2008, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

Building 7 had the CIA super-secret documents from Bay of Pigs and stuff. It collapsed purely due to ground shock and debris, which some people find hard to believe.

Let's at least be accurate here. There is NO proof of your claim.

Before quoting one of my posts, please read it to the end.

Thank you.

Sorry, JT,

I read it all - but this read to me as if you were making a claim of fact that ground shock, etc., brought down WTC 7.

I believe the final report in now due in July of this year.