I take it you're not a lawyer. What you've presented so far would not get you in to a courtroom to hold a trial. You have doggedly refused to present evidence. "Oh yeah, explain this" "Oh yeah, explain that" is not evidence. But is the common form of conspiracy theory "argument." You wouldn't get laughed out of court. You'd get laughed out of the lobby.
For presenting facts, eyewitness testimony and concrete evidence? Whatever you say.
Not all facts are "evidence." You actually have not provided any evidence. You've made claims about what the facts, eyewitness testimony, and concert evidence is, but you haven't supplied any evidence to support your assertions. None of your statements in this thread qualify as admissible evidence. When asked for actual evidence, you just gish gallop to a new topic. You certainly could file a lawsuit -- anyone who can afford the filing fee can do that. And, you could possibly get past a motion to dismiss, because that requires the judge to assume the truth of the facts you assert in the complaint. But you'd never get to a trial, because you don't have the evidence. Like I said, laughed out of the lobby.
Take just one of your issues. Can you quote me the relevant statement or testimony of the eyewitness who claims to have seen molten steel from Towers 1 or 2 in the basement of those structures? If so, can you quote it complete with context?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
You started this conversation referring to your 7 years of research and a documentary. Later, you defined it as a rough draft no longer available, but surely you have a script? Or something written based on your research? Please post what you have, because your explanations so far are derivative and contentless.
Well, so far we have:
1) A lie about having read the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A).
2) A lie about having a documentary.
And not answered:
3) Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report?
4) Which unconstitutional legislation and new government departments in the last 21 years have restricted your freedom of speech? Note: The Patriot Act was literally not unconstitutional.
5) Which parts of those statutes contain new restrictions on freedom of speech?
6) What education, training and or experience gives you the expertise to understand and evaluate scientific evidence, investigate and evaluate the entire set of available facts, evaluate the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and determined whether the consensus explanation for what happened to the buildings violates the laws of physics?
7) How much effort have you spent understanding and considering the rebuttals to evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it?
8) Describe, as accurately as you can without reference to any materials, what the consensus view is and the relevant evidence that the consensus view relies on and the conclusions it draws from that evidence? (Can you do it in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?)
9) Why wouldn't we expect this from a 100 ton projectile, traveling at 460mph, filled with tens of thousands of liters of combustible liquid? <- The answer provided was a dodge.
10) Is this the paper you're referring to?
11) How much weight was each floor rated to carry?
12) If I provide the basic floor load for the WTCs, would that move the needle ref the towers collapsing?
13) Can you explain how 'unburnable' 3/4 kerosene traveled 1000 feet and then turned into molten steel?
I’m starting to feel like we’re not having a good-faith exchange with BND.
- Doc
Wow I didn't realize BND had danced around so much. I might add a question or two about the insupportable conclusions from BYU Prof. Jones 2005 paper-specifically, the red and grey dust, sent to him by a civilian living in Manhattan, that he stated was thermite and still highly explosive.
Also, kind of silly I know, but it would be interesting to hear how he thinks a private plan to avoid asbestos abatement got tangled up with a public cover up of pretty much every financial fraud from the 90s, all accomplished on 9/11/01. That combo was in his starting statement, I believe.
Personally, Doc, I don't think bad faith applies. The brain says that there is a pattern and the pattern requires someone to have intended to cause the harm. But what's the pattern? Is it patterns of actual evidence? No. It's patterns of perceived anomalies. We once had a poster here who proudly declared something like: "The facts aren't important. All that matters is the anomalies." When the brain gets into this mode of thinking, it doesn't care about what the totality of the evidence shows. It focuses on a pattern of facts that it thinks can't be explained (anomalies) and then "explains" them by creating an intelligent agent that caused the relevant events. I think the brain sincerely thinks it is being rational and acting in good faith when it supplies meaning to the perceived anomalies and ignores all the other facts. That's why the form of argument we're hearing is "explain this" "explain that." Once the brain engages in this style of thinking, it is extremely hard to persuade it to adopt what we consider to be a rational evaluation of the facts -- what conclusions should we draw from the totality of the evidence.
I think it's hard for a couple of reasons. First, there are conspiracies. But how do we prove cases involving conspiracies. We don't do it by demanding explanations of facts we claim are impossible. We do it just the way Congress and law enforcement are proving the existence of a conspiracy to steal the election: finding direct evidence of an agreement by two or more people that involves breaking the law, and finding direct evidence that someone in the conspiracy took a substantial step toward carrying out the agreement. If I went into court on a conspiracy case and made an opening argument consisting of "How do the defendants explain this" and "how do the defendants explain that," I'd be lucky if the only consequence was being laughed out of court. It could very well cost me at least a suspension of my license.
The second reason is that not being able to explain every detail involved in a complex set of events to a high standard of proof should be 100% expected. It's no secret that the most unreliable testimony is eyewitness testimony. There have been about a zillion experiments that demonstrate that. Yet, the brain, for some reason, places very high credibility on eyewitness testimony. So, if an eyewitness draws a wrong conclusion from their observations or remember something wrong or misses an important detail, the result is likely to be some detail that can't be explained to a high level of certainty. But that's just the easiest example. Experts make mistakes or are misled by cognitive biases. And we can never be 100% certain that we actually have all the relevant evidence. Was something simply overlooked? Did the event itself result in critical evidence being destroyed? But the brain wants to find an explanation for every single detail to a high level of confidence, even when that desire is 100% unreasonable.
Plus, there is some kind of emotional reward that comes along with being a contrarian, especially if that involves secret knowledge. I don't understand the chemistry, but I'd bet good money that the explanation is chemistry.
I expect that there are people who make conspiracy theory style arguments in bad faith. But I don't think that applies to most of them. I think it's an understable consequence of how our brains work, including the whole panoply of cognitive biases. Maybe its like, when I was a Mormon, I don't think I could have talked myself out of believing in Mormonism. And I don't think I could talk myself into believing in Mormonism today. Something happened. I can recite the events, but I'm not sure I can explain what caused my thinking about Mormonism to change. But my beliefs were sincere at the time I held them, even though they completely changed at one point.
Reasonable minds and all that.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
When you start acting in good faith discussion, no problem. Speaking of delusional conspiracy theories, here’s Candice explaining to is dull cows that radio waves couldn’t be broadcast from the moon in 1969:
@RealCandaceO
The biggest thing for me is the fuel tank size, plus the live broadcast with audio from the moon.
In 1969.
We'd love to, but the thread is filled with unanswered questions. Here's one:
Take just one of your issues. Can you quote me the relevant statement or testimony of the eyewitness who claims to have seen molten steel from Towers 1 or 2 in the basement of those structures? If so, can you quote it complete with context?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
