Coincidents and Probabilities

Originally posted by jthomas
So you just made a claim about the NIST report. Now all you have to do is support your claim and demonstrate that the conclusions are invalid.

Do you know what proving a negative is?

You see why the burden of proof is on your shoulders, I would hope.

So when an agency produces a report, they don't have to prove anything, the people reading it just have to prove them wrong. Interesting.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
So you just made a claim about the NIST report. Now all you have to do is support your claim and demonstrate that the conclusions are invalid.

Do you know what proving a negative is?

Sure do. Tell us how YOUR claim that, "Because they didn't prove anything, they just tried to support a hypothesis with computer models whose parameters they kept manipulating and even admitted as much." is an example of "proving a negative."

You see why the burden of proof is on your shoulders, I would hope.

So when an agency produces a report, they don't have to prove anything, the people reading it just have to prove them wrong. Interesting.

The data, evidence, and methodology are available to everyone. You are welcome to demonstrate what is invalid and if the conclusions are invalid and why. Nobody is going to do it for you. What do you think you would have to do to get a new investigation?

I am not sure why you are unwilling to support your own claims.

Originally posted by jthomas
Sure do. Tell us how YOUR claim that, "Because they didn't prove anything, they just tried to support a hypothesis with computer models whose parameters they kept manipulating and even admitted as much." is an example of "proving a negative."

You asking me to prove that they proved nothing would be proving a negative.

Do you know what the solution to this error is?

The data, evidence, and methodology are available to everyone.

NIST never disclosed their calculations, simulation parameters, or even the structural documentation for the buildings. You'll ask me to prove that negative too I guess instead of doing the reasonable thing and posting those items to debunk me.






So much for "The data, evidence, and methodology are available to everyone."

[edit on 6-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
Sure do. Tell us how YOUR claim that, "Because they didn't prove anything, they just tried to support a hypothesis with computer models whose parameters they kept manipulating and even admitted as much." is an example of "proving a negative."

You asking me to prove that they proved nothing would be proving a negative.

No, not at all. You are unclear about the term.

I am asking you to provide positive evidence for your claim that they they proved "nothing." If they didn't demonstrate how and why the towers collapsed, then you would know why and could tell us.

So just tell us.

Originally posted by jthomas
No, not at all. You are unclear about the term.

I am asking you to provide positive evidence for your claim that they they proved "nothing."

Right, and the word "nothing" is what turns it into proving a negative, because to prove it I would have to post everything from the reports, and go over every single page, to show they never did.

I asked you if you knew what the solution was, but you don't even understand the problem. Anyway, the solution, the real way to "debunk" someone if they are erroneously claiming evidence doesn't exist, is to show them the evidence they claim does not exist. The closest you have come to this is uttering alphabet-soup agencies' names and ending it there, and you refuse to discuss the reports.

I wonder why?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
No, not at all. You are unclear about the term.

I am asking you to provide positive evidence for your claim that they they proved "nothing."

Right, and the word "nothing" is what turns it into proving a negative, because to prove it I would have to post everything from the reports, and go over every single page, to show they never did.

False. You have committed the fallacy of equivocation by giving the word "nothing" two different meanings.

reply to post by jthomas


I am asking to see what NIST proved. You tell me, instead, to prove that they didn't prove anything. That's the most blatant form of asking me to prove a negative.

But even if it wasn't, telling me to "prove they never proved anything" when I simply ask what they have proven, is transparent as hell as far as cop-outs go and I hope you realize that.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am asking to see what NIST proved.

No, you claimed they proved "nothing."

Would you like to retract your claim?

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you claimed they proved "nothing."

Would you like to retract your claim?

No, I would like to thank you for demonstrating it, by, as a "debunker," being unable to refute it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you claimed they proved "nothing."

Would you like to retract your claim?

No, I would like to thank you for demonstrating it, by, as a "debunker," being unable to refute it.

So I am supposed to debunk a claim you cannot demonstrate is valid.

How do you think you will get a new investigation on that logic?

Originally posted by jthomas
So I am supposed to debunk a claim you cannot demonstrate is valid.

How do you think you will get a new investigation on that logic?

Because we will only put up with people that use your kind of "logic" for so long before heads start rolling to get to the bottom of these things.

But thank you again for proving that NIST proved nothing, by being completely unable to support your own claim and show a single thing that they proved anywhere in their report.

All you post is smoke and mirrors, jthomas, and you KNOW it. You never prove anything you post, you just try to shift the burden onto others, no matter WHO is making claims.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
So I am supposed to debunk a claim you cannot demonstrate is valid.

How do you think you will get a new investigation on that logic?

Because we will only put up with people that use your kind of "logic" for so long before heads start rolling to get to the bottom of these things.

In other words, evidence doesn't matter, you'll just use force.

But thank you again for proving that NIST proved nothing, by being completely unable to support your own claim and show a single thing that they proved anywhere in their report.

You forget it is your obligation to demonstrate NIST's evidence, methodology, and conclusions are invalid. No one but you has to support your claims.




[edit on 7-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
In other words, evidence doesn't matter, you'll just use force.

Let me put it this way. I can tell when someone is yanking my chain intentionally. Like.... right now.

You forget it is your obligation to demonstrate NIST's evidence, methodology, and conclusions are invalid

You have already demonstrated this for me, by being unable to support your own claim that they "showed" that the collapses were possible.



You didn't answer me as to whether you even live in the US, jthomas. You don't seem to be familiar with the laws and customs here in America with various statements you have made. Not to mention your trying to shift the burden of proof would never stand up in a court here, and you would be forced to prove every single one of your own assertions.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
In other words, evidence doesn't matter, you'll just use force.

You forget it is your obligation to demonstrate NIST's evidence, methodology, and conclusions are invalid

You have already demonstrated this for me, by being unable to support your own claim that they "showed" that the collapses were possible.

It's not my claim. Just because you are unwilling to accept the evidence, facts, methodologies, and conclusions of the NIST investigations, does not mean you get to shift the burden of proof by claiming, without evidence, that NIST didn't show how the towers collapsed and someone else has to "prove" they did.









[edit on 7-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
It's not my claim.

So you are not claiming that NIST showed how all the collapses were possible?

Originally posted by jthomas
you are unwilling to accept the evidence, facts, methodologies, and conclusions of the NIST investigations, does not mean you get to shift the burden of proof by claiming, without evidence, that NIST didn't show how the towers collapsed and someone else has to "prove" they did.

jthomas: I bet your unable to list what you think bsbray is unwilling to accept.

bsbray: I don't understand why your humoring this guy? Hes hasn't a lick of substance to bring to the argument, and insists on showing you your tail so that you'll chase it endlessly.

He quite obviously attended the same high school statistics class as ArcAngel.. and the OS believers say truthers are the illogical ones..

BTW...
-----> 3.5kk < 195kk

Originally posted by MacATK18
bsbray: I don't understand why your humoring this guy [jthomas]? Hes hasn't a lick of substance to bring to the argument, and insists on showing you your tail so that you'll chase it endlessly.

I know his shtick. The moderators turn a blind eye to it. I'm just not going to let someone run rampant spreading blatant disinformation unchallenged. That's why I respond.

Well... A year has passed since this hit the board. Looking around, I wonder what the present crop of "OS is for real" have to say...

reply to post by Amaterasu


Sure, why not...

■Military “war game” being enacted with the same scenario as 9/11 on 9/11

Um, no, there were some exercises going on, but none where the same scenario as 9/11. No one was practicing what to do if planes hit the WTC.

■Condi Rice stating that it never occurred to the government that planes might be used as weapons – despite the military war games with the same scenario

Bad choice of words by Condi. She would have been better off saying what was closer to reality. That no one seriously considered that someone would fly airliners into buildings. War games...I refer you to the first answer.

■Rescue work called off when the gold was found

Lie. Not sure where you got that gem, but there are a couple of books by members of NYPD and FDNY who were involved with the rescue/recovery of the gold that will illuminate the reality for you.

■Biggest crime scene in history cleaned up before forensics and investigation are done

Again, not true. Investigators had ample opportunity to go through the wreckage. And I would argue that it was not a crime scene but a battlefield.

■FBI knowing where to find all CCTV cameras in the Pentagon area

Not that difficult to drive to every office building/retail/hotel in the area. Oh, wait, thats what they did.

■Planes disintegrating upon impact

None of the planes disintegrated. Disintegration would involve the planes becoming dust. None of the four jets that day did that, they left plenty of wreckage behind.

■The Pentagon hit – via a very difficult maneuver – in the one area mostly cleared of personnel

The turn you are referring to, happened OUTSIDE of the DC area and was not exceptionally difficult. It WAS a maneuver not normally seen by an airliner with a pilot that is concerned with the well being of his passengers. The hijackers were on a suicide mission, they did not give a rip.

And what you fail to realize about the area where Flight 77 impacted the building, is that it was the side of the building that was the EASIEST to approach and therefore gave the best chance of succeeding.

■Barges were ready to ship debris to China

Umm, there are ALWAYS barges available for hire. And, until investigators cleared it, nothing was shipped.

■Most surveiled building in the world (Pentagon) produces only a few frames of inconclusive images

Really? Where is your proof of it being the most heavily surveiled building in the world? Because it is nowhere NEAR that. There are quite a few other government buildings with more security than the Pentagon.

■The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed days before the incident

Google Sirius and David Lim (sp?). The dogs that were removed, were EXTRA dogs not normally assigned to the WTC.

■The complete powdering of the concrete

Lie. Too many clean up crew accounts about chunks of concrete.

■Steel beams cut in transportable lengths

After it was cut by salvage crews you mean.

■By-stander witnesses interviewed that day were mainly in the media

Not true, however I would point out that on that day, the media became part of the story because a lot of them showed up to report on the FIRST airliner...so when the second one hit...and then the buildings collapsed...YES, they become both reporters and witnesses. Not that it has anything to do with anything really.

■Bush family member closely associated with the security firm at the Towers

Nope. At one time he had been on the board of directors, but had stepped down in June of 2000.

■Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

In the era of "Got Ya" politics, I do not blame them one bit.

he avoidance of any investigation giving way over a year later to a very limited glance-over

Since when do millions of man hours become a "very limited glance over"? Especially when it was so painfully obvious as to what happened and how it happened?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Sure, why not...

■Military “war game” being enacted with the same scenario as 9/11 on 9/11

Um, no, there were some exercises going on, but none where the same scenario as 9/11. No one was practicing what to do if planes hit the WTC.

Just planes hijacked. Ok. Slip of probability there - still highly improbable. You don't get this one.

■Condi Rice stating that it never occurred to the government that planes might be used as weapons – despite the military war games with the same scenario

Bad choice of words by Condi. She would have been better off saying what was closer to reality. That no one seriously considered that someone would fly airliners into buildings. War games...I refer you to the first answer.

Geez. Did you watch that when she said it? No way was that a mere "bad choice of words." I won't give this to you either.

■Rescue work called off when the gold was found

Lie. Not sure where you got that gem, but there are a couple of books by members of NYPD and FDNY who were involved with the rescue/recovery of the gold that will illuminate the reality for you.

Fair enough. I will give you this. I had heard otherwise, but I'm not going to mess with trying to trace info from over a year ago.

■Biggest crime scene in history cleaned up before forensics and investigation are done

Again, not true. Investigators had ample opportunity to go through the wreckage. And I would argue that it was not a crime scene but a battlefield.

Is your memory failing you? They gave the forensics team a hand-picked load to work with. There may have been "forensics" done on what was left after the site was cleaned up, but the initial forensics was NOT done on site, with the site intact. It was a crime scene. No one declared war on us. Fail for getting this.

■FBI knowing where to find all CCTV cameras in the Pentagon area

Not that difficult to drive to every office building/retail/hotel in the area. Oh, wait, thats what they did.

Uh huh. In the three hours they took to round up the footage, they hit everywhere in the area. No, they had to have known already exactly where those cameras were, and the only reason they would have that info is if it mattered - and it only would matter if there was a plan in place to do damage to the Pentagon. Fail.

■Planes disintegrating upon impact

None of the planes disintegrated. Disintegration would involve the planes becoming dust. None of the four jets that day did that, they left plenty of wreckage behind.

Let's not pick nits. Nowhere near the whole planes were recovered in Washington and PA. Not going to give this to you either.

■The Pentagon hit – via a very difficult maneuver – in the one area mostly cleared of personnel

The turn you are referring to, happened OUTSIDE of the DC area and was not exceptionally difficult. It WAS a maneuver not normally seen by an airliner with a pilot that is concerned with the well being of his passengers. The hijackers were on a suicide mission, they did not give a rip.

Wow. You're the first person I have met to say the turn was not difficult. The very first one. So I'm inclined to keep this one, but I'll let you have it.

And what you fail to realize about the area where Flight 77 impacted the building, is that it was the side of the building that was the EASIEST to approach and therefore gave the best chance of succeeding.

Ok.

■Barges were ready to ship debris to China

Umm, there are ALWAYS barges available for hire. And, until investigators cleared it, nothing was shipped.

I'll give this to you, too.

■Most surveiled building in the world (Pentagon) produces only a few frames of inconclusive images

Really? Where is your proof of it being the most heavily surveiled building in the world? Because it is nowhere NEAR that. There are quite a few other government buildings with more security than the Pentagon.

Fair enough. Not interested in hunting down the data. You get this one.

■The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed days before the incident

Google Sirius and David Lim (sp?). The dogs that were removed, were EXTRA dogs not normally assigned to the WTC.

Well, that was not the story early on, but I'll let you have this, too.

■The complete powdering of the concrete

Lie. Too many clean up crew accounts about chunks of concrete.

Alright, "complete" may have been the wrong word. The vast majority of concrete was powdered. Still highly improbable. I keep this one.

■Steel beams cut in transportable lengths

After it was cut by salvage crews you mean.

I'm keeping this one until you show me credible reports that the beams needed cutting and were cut.

■By-stander witnesses interviewed that day were mainly in the media

Not true, however I would point out that on that day, the media became part of the story because a lot of them showed up to report on the FIRST airliner...so when the second one hit...and then the buildings collapsed...YES, they become both reporters and witnesses. Not that it has anything to do with anything really.

I'm talking about "random" interviews here... And the guy who seemed to plant the "pancake" theory. Which has been shown would have left the central columns standing and therefore has been debunked. No point for you.

■Bush family member closely associated with the security firm at the Towers

Nope. At one time he had been on the board of directors, but had stepped down in June of 2000.

Having worked for the company IS a close association, regardless of when he "stepped down." No point.

■Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

In the era of "Got Ya" politics, I do not blame them one bit.

No point here, either. Not in public? Ok. Not UNDER OATH??? No way.

[T]he avoidance of any investigation giving way over a year later to a very limited glance-over

Since when do millions of man hours become a "very limited glance over"? Especially when it was so painfully obvious as to what happened and how it happened?

NIST failed to disclose the basis of their findings, was a stacked deck, and things that did not support the OS were not investigated. Much testimony was refused. But tell you what... I'll give this to you for the heck of it.

So what do we have left? I'll bold the ones you failed to address at all:

* Military “war game” being enacted with the same scenario as 9/11 on 9/11

* Condi Rice stating that it never occurred to the government that planes might be used as weapons – despite the military war games with the same scenario

* Biggest crime scene in history cleaned up before forensics and investigation are done

* FBI knowing where to find all CCTV cameras in the Pentagon area

* Planes disintegrating upon impact

* Cheney insisting orders (to do nothing) still stood as incoming craft approached the Pentagon

* Buildings “collapsed” exactly like controlled demolition (virtually freefall speeds)

* Building 7 came down with no plane hit

* Many heard series of explosions before all three buildings came down

* First time in history fire brought down a steel-frame high rise – brings down three in one day

* The chunky molten metal behavior filmed on one Tower that looks just like a thermite/steel reaction

* The complete powdering of the concrete

* Steel beams cut in transportable lengths

* Explosions experienced in basement area before initial plane impact

* Untimely death of many witnesses and activists

* By-stander witnesses interviewed that day were mainly in the media

* Bush family member closely associated with the security firm at the Towers

* Chertoff relative writes a major debunking piece

* Refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath and publicly

Even with the points I gave you, there is still enough here to give the OS a probability of 1:1,000,000,000,000,000ish likelihood. Inside job? 1:1.

And the points you made that I gave you don't DETRACT from an inside job, just are removed from probability calculation.