Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[kookbreaker]

Wildcat...listen...recording/editing audio is my business.....

So now in addition to being smarter than every structural engineer on the planet you are also an expert in the audio field as well when it became convenient.

Ri-ight.

[Ramooone]

im sure audio recording is your business, which means that you probably do it in a controlled environment such as a studio and you probably use way better mics than a ****** on camera mic that will pick up every freakin sound. you can make those same sounds by touching the tripod or the camera while its recording. i do video and audio editing and i do ALOT if not all of it in the field and if you dont have a good mic, wind sock or sound mixer with you recording the levels its hard to know what you're going to get. chances are this guy just ran down there and setup the camera on the tripod and shot.

It's def. wind noise, i can reproduce the same sounds if you'd like me to prove it to you, although i don't really feel like having to go this far to explain how things work, i will go through with it if you'll drop your stupid argument.

[CptColumbo]

I know all about wind noise on microphones. I've done a lot of outdoor recording, and still do occasionally, recording taper-friendly bands is a hobby of mine! When I was first starting out in this hobby I had several recordings ruined by exactly that noise. I know it was windy when I made them, I was certainly not aware of explosions going off at the time. And it's funny how the "explosion noises" disappeared once I invested in high-quality wind screens...
I have also done outdoor recording, while working as a videographer for a local news station. I originally wanted to make a career in television journalism, and got a technical degree in Television Production. I agree, that depending on the equipment, especially the microphone, wind could make a popping noise on the audio track (without a hiss). It would also depend on where they were and how they moved with the camera. I've also been to New York City and been to the Battery, it's very windy.

[thesyntaxera]

im sure audio recording is your business, which means that you probably do it in a controlled environment such as a studio and you probably use way better mics than a ****** on camera mic that will pick up every freakin sound. you can make those same sounds by touching the tripod or the camera while its recording. i do video and audio editing and i do ALOT if not all of it in the field and if you dont have a good mic, wind sock or sound mixer with you recording the levels its hard to know what you're going to get. chances are this guy just ran down there and setup the camera on the tripod and shot.

It's def. wind noise, i can reproduce the same sounds if you'd like me to prove it to you, although i don't really feel like having to go this far to explain how things work, i will go through with it if you'll drop your stupid argument.

Indeed it is my business. I do record in a studio, as well as on location. I have ran audio for outdoor shows. I have recorded audio for several independant films. The first 2 years I was in school I worked as an engineer for a local live television broadcast. In short I am just as qualified as you are attempting to establish yourself as.

He did just run down there with a camera...I assume that it is the in camera microphone that does the recording, which should have picked up any wind hiss, not just several dull echoing thuds...

Wind is a high frequency sound. These thuds register in the bass frequency quite clearly, and disappear in the upper register. This is why I am assuming most of you are unable to hear it fully. Little pc speakers aren't going to reveal much.

As far as reproducing these sounds exactly...I openly challenge you to do so, and to prove that this is wind noise. Which you won't be able to do.

Maybe you should watch the video, and observe the audio and video analysis that it contains as well.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This video contains both wind hiss, and thumps, thus showing both arguments in question: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3730511762281741764&q=windy

[cloudshipsrule]

How much fricional heat is generated from 110 stories of building collapsing? Enough to add heat to components that were already heated by burning jet fuel?

There is a theory out there that the aluminum from the plane ignited, which would burn quite a bit hotter than the actual fire from the fuel.

Here's an interesting, old link I found:

/pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ (add http:/)

The 'Collapse' article and letter section make for some good reading!

[richardm]

There is a theory out there that the aluminum from the plane ignited, which would burn quite a bit hotter than the actual fire from the fuel.
Trouble is that Aluminium (http://www.aec.org/exbasics/aluminum.html) does not burn (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823913.700.html), except under very specific conditions (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823943.600.html) that seem highly unlikely to have been found at the site. However it does melt at relatively low temperatures (660 degrees centigrade), which can mean that it appears to disappear.

[cloudshipsrule]

These guys would argue with you on that point!

burnaluminum.com

:)


I was being facitious with this post, by the way!

[kookbreaker]

Indeed it is my business. I do record in a studio, as well as on location. I have ran audio for outdoor shows. I have recorded audio for several independant films. The first 2 years I was in school I worked as an engineer for a local live television broadcast. In short I am just as qualified as you are attempting to establish yourself as.

He did just run down there with a camera...I assume that it is the in camera microphone that does the recording, which should have picked up any wind hiss, not just several dull echoing thuds...

Wind is a high frequency sound. These thuds register in the bass frequency quite clearly, and disappear in the upper register. This is why I am assuming most of you are unable to hear it fully. Little pc speakers aren't going to reveal much.

As far as reproducing these sounds exactly...I openly challenge you to do so, and to prove that this is wind noise. Which you won't be able to do.

Maybe you should watch the video, and observe the audio and video analysis that it contains as well.

Here's a better idea: Why don't you find any other recording of the days events where the sounds you claim are explosives can be heard distinctly. Otherwise, I'd say stuff your challenges.

[CurtC]

However it does melt at relatively low temperatures (660 degrees centigrade), which can mean that it appears to disappear.According to Dr Frank Greening (http://911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.html) says that the aircraft are typically made from 2000 series aluminum alloys with lower melting points, for example the common alloy 2024 melts at 548C.

On the other hand, the aircraft were only about 135,000 kg of aluminum, but the exterior of the towers were clad in aluminum sheets that were around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum.

[Gravy]

Not sure how I missed this thread before. Funny, a couple of days ago someone emailed me with the link to "9/11 Eyewitness" and told me to listen for the "huge explosion" 10 seconds before the south tower collapses. My reply was,

1) How is it that you can clearly hear this "huge explosion" 3 miles away, but it is not recorded by audio, video or seismic devices that were right next to where the "explosion" happened?

2) What sort of controlled demolition would involve a "huge explosion" 10 seconds before collapse?

I did not receive a reply.

[NobbyNobbs]

Wildcat...listen...recording/editing audio is my business...your preaching to the choir...and your wrong...there is no way wind can just appear and make a loud thud in rhythmic sequences that sounds like an echoing explosion...there is a huge difference....

Why do you keep persuing this innane line of logic as if it makes any sense? Instead you are making unreasonable excuses based on your uneducated experiences with audio recording....



I apologize if this has been covered, since I haven't yet made it all the way through this thread, but I just had to jump in here.

I don't know the first thing about audio recording, but I do know quite a bit about the scientific method. The above claim is falsifiable. All it takes is for one person to post one video...showing anything at all...in which wind makes explosive-like noises. Does anyone out there have such a thing?

[thesyntaxera]

I apologize if this has been covered, since I haven't yet made it all the way through this thread, but I just had to jump in here.

I don't know the first thing about audio recording, but I do know quite a bit about the scientific method. The above claim is falsifiable. All it takes is for one person to post one video...showing anything at all...in which wind makes explosive-like noises. Does anyone out there have such a thing?

Speaking of threads that don't die...

Has anyone replicated explosive wind noise yet?

[thesyntaxera]

Not sure how I missed this thread before. Funny, a couple of days ago someone emailed me with the link to "9/11 Eyewitness" and told me to listen for the "huge explosion" 10 seconds before the south tower collapses. My reply was,

1) How is it that you can clearly hear this "huge explosion" 3 miles away, but it is not recorded by audio, video or seismic devices that were right next to where the "explosion" happened?

2) What sort of controlled demolition would involve a "huge explosion" 10 seconds before collapse?

I did not receive a reply.

I suppose you didn't bother to watch it then did you? Or were you just intimidated by the "child prodigy"?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Speaking of threads that don't die...

Has anyone replicated explosive wind noise yet?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3866205761355444816&q=wind+noise&hl=en

[thesyntaxera]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3866205761355444816&q=wind+noise&hl=en

I hate to tell you this and then have you go back an watch the other video...but that doesn't sound anything like the audio "booms" in the eyewitness clips.

they are distinctly different if one were to side by side compare the two.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since you appear to be unfamiliar with demolition, I will provide an example:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1833998#post1833998

[Big Les]

Speaking of threads that don't die...

Has anyone replicated explosive wind noise yet?

I have, just now. Most embarrassing.

[delphi_ote]

Speaking of threads that don't die...

Has anyone replicated explosive wind noise yet?
You're back. How special. I guess this means you're not getting enough attention spray painting profanity on the side of your highschool.

I have a better question. Do you have any proof yet? All you have so far is popping sounds on a microphone. If your hypothesis were correct, there should be abundant evidence.

[thesyntaxera]

You're back. How special. I guess this means you're not getting enough attention spray painting profanity on the side of your highschool.

I have a better question. Do you have any proof yet? All you have so far is popping sounds on a microphone. If your hypothesis were correct, there should be abundant evidence.


Sheesh...

Listen. If there was enough evidence to disprove conspiracy in the first place, which you seem to think there is, then I would have no problem buying an official version. However, there is not. Didn't the FBI just come out and say that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks?
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

My only position has been that a fairly poor investigation was conducted offering meager explanations to truly astonishing events, and that in light of this crappy excuse for an inquiry there has been a flurry of speculation as to what actually happened. This only occurs in situations where the evidence is inadequate to begin with....so your assertion that all that we need to know is known is ridiculous in my view...we know nothing of any substance.

What we do have on the other hand is a load of circumstantial evidence that points to various links between the major parties involved and a loose motive to go to war for future energy resources and regional influence using this event as the catalyst for all of the events that followed....do you really think in all of this it is logically unreasonable to think that some type of "conspiracy" took place?

All conspiracy really means is people working together for a common goal. As Noam Chomsky points out, if we were to believe in the idea of conspiracy then there would be conspiracy every where. It's a matter of subjective opinion.

Take the fabulously crazy David Icke...if you were to remove all the illuminati bull out of his "pyramidal power structures" you would have a fairly accurate depiction of the way things are laid out from the top down. The same applies to Alex Jones...both of these guys take the same information and look at it a completely different way..perhaps out of paranoia or delusions of grandeur...no one can prove them wrong comepletely, and so they remain correct in the eyes of the people who listen to them and most of all to themselves.

Just because 1,000 Jref forum members have all concluded that 911 wasn't a conspiracy in anyway shape or form in a dozen different threads doesn't mean your conclusions are valid or true anymore than a "CT'ers". You are all using the same information to champion a favorite theory while failing to realize that the reason you are having to make "educated" assumptions if because there is a disturbing lack of evidence one way or the other.

As far as I'm concerned the only difference between the fantatical anti-conspiracy camp and the fanatical pro-conspiracy camp is your postion...your both egregiously insane.


and no, thats not wind noise..this was demonstrated in the supplied video... As well the video someone else provided to demonstrate that it was wind noise only furthers my contention that it was not. Why not try watching it yourself.

[delphi_ote]

It's a matter of subjective opinion.
Then why argue about it? Why are you typing into your keyboard? Why did you come back hereto post months after this thread had died? Why do you keep breathing, for that matter? After all, it's all a matter of subjective opinion whether your body requires oxygen or not.

That's a pretty trite philosophy you've got there. Grab your dictionary and look up "solipsism" and "truth relativism." If those are the positions you're going to pretend to take, arguing with your is obviously pointless. You're going to pretend like nothing matters at all, but every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you're proving your pretend philosophy wrong.

You obviously don't believe what you're typing up there. You're just a hypocrite trying to come off as "rising above" the argument. You claim it doesn't matter one way or the other, but you're still arguing about the "explosion" on the microphone. You clearly believe one side of the argument is true and the other is false, so much so that you return after months and months to bring it back up again.

[Gravy]

What we do have on the other hand is a load of circumstantial evidence that points to various links between the major parties involved and a loose motive to go to war for future energy resources and regional influence using this event as the catalyst for all of the events that followed....do you really think in all of this it is logically unreasonable to think that some type of "conspiracy" took place?

Not at all. There were at least 19 Islamic terrorists involved, plus their funders, advisors, etc. That's a pretty good conspiracy and they did a great job of keeping the attacks a secret.

As for elements of the US government being involved, please supply your evidence. Name one person you have hard evidence on. Remember, even bin Laden gets the benefit of hard, as opposed to circumstantial, evidence.

If you were accused of a serious crime that you did not commit, would you want your standards of evidence to be admissible against you at trial?

I thought not.

[thesyntaxera]

Then why argue about it? Why are you typing into your keyboard? Why did you come back hereto post months after this thread had died? Why do you keep breathing, for that matter? After all, it's all a matter of subjective opinion whether your body requires oxygen or not.

That's a pretty trite philosophy you've got there. Grab your dictionary and look up "solipsism" and "truth relativism." If those are the positions you're going to pretend to take, arguing with your is obviously pointless. You're going to pretend like nothing matters at all, but every time you put your fingers to your keyboard, you're proving your pretend philosophy wrong.

You obviously don't believe what you're typing up there. You're just a hypocrite trying to come off as "rising above" the argument. You claim it doesn't matter one way or the other, but you're still arguing about the "explosion" on the microphone. You clearly believe one side of the argument is true and the other is false, so much so that you return after months and months to bring it back up again.

Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

Trite philosophy or not, thats the way the world is for the most part at least when it comes to how people percieve things. Absolute "truths" are for born again christians and...you apparently?

Feel free to keep evangelizing!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

Trite philosophy or not, thats the way the world is for the most part at least when it comes to how people percieve things. Absolute "truths" are for born again christians and...you apparently?

Feel free to keep evangelizing!

You appear to not be familiar with how science operates, allow me to assist
Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*

Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.

Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

[delphi_ote]

Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

Trite philosophy or not, thats the way the world is for the most part at least when it comes to how people percieve things. Absolute "truths" are for born again christians and...you apparently?

Feel free to keep evangelizing!
You don't think gravity is a truth? What about the speed of light in a vacuum? The Doppler effect? The conservation of energy? Entropy? DNA? Mendelian inheritance? The Pythagorean Theorem? Newton's Third Law? The Leidenfrost effect?

Our species has spent a lot of time and effort unraveling these mysteries. If you choose to ignore them, fine. But if I steal your wallet, I don't want to hear you complain about it. It's existence is just a matter of opinion, right?

I repeat. You don't really believe what you're typing. If you did, you wouldn't bother typing it. The reality of your keyboard, mouse, monitor, and internet connection are all a matter of unverifiable opinion. Go ahead and respond to this. Give us all more evidence that you don't actually believe your own purported crap philosophy.

[Belz...]

Sheesh...

Listen. If there was enough evidence to disprove conspiracy in the first place, which you seem to think there is, then I would have no problem buying an official version. However, there is not. Didn't the FBI just come out and say that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks?

HUH! Guess that completely demolishes the official version of the .... wait a minute! No! It DOESN'T.

My only position has been that a fairly poor investigation was conducted offering meager explanations to truly astonishing events,

I find nothing astonishing about airliners rammed at full speed into steel-framed buildings, causing said buildings to collapse. Perhaps you're easily impressed.

and that in light of this crappy excuse for an inquiry there has been a flurry of speculation as to what actually happened.

Only from less-educated people.

This only occurs in situations where the evidence is inadequate to begin with....

Only to less-educated people.

What we do have on the other hand is a load of circumstantial evidence that points to various links between the major parties involved and a loose motive to go to war for future energy resources and regional influence using this event as the catalyst for all of the events that followed....do you really think in all of this it is logically unreasonable to think that some type of "conspiracy" took place?

Yes. Circumstancial evidence and motive aren't as strong as physical evidence, which we have plenty of.

Just because 1,000 Jref forum members have all concluded that 911 wasn't a conspiracy in anyway shape or form in a dozen different threads doesn't mean your conclusions are valid or true anymore than a "CT'ers".

The first true statement I've read from you in a long time.

You are all using the same information to champion a favorite theory while failing to realize that the reason you are having to make "educated" assumptions if because there is a disturbing lack of evidence one way or the other.

Disturbing lack of evidence ? Litterally tens of thousands of pieces of evidence, recordings, data, etc. And you call that a LACK of evidence ?

and no, thats not wind noise...

Uh-huh. If that's so, why didn't anybody actually hear that, then ?

[Belz...]

Your right delphi, obviously I don't believe what I am writing. Your skepticism pays off again. Or, I could believe everything I am writing..I guess its a matter of opinion like I was saying.

The fact that you believe what you write or not is NOT a matter of opinion. It's a matter of FACT.

[thesyntaxera]

You don't think gravity is a truth? What about the speed of light in a vacuum? The Doppler effect? The conservation of energy? Entropy? DNA? Mendelian inheritance? The Pythagorean Theorem? Newton's Third Law? The Leidenfrost effect?

Our species has spent a lot of time and effort unraveling these mysteries. If you choose to ignore them, fine. But if I steal your wallet, I don't want to hear you complain about it. It's existence is just a matter of opinion, right?

I repeat. You don't really believe what you're typing. If you did, you wouldn't bother typing it. The reality of your keyboard, mouse, monitor, and internet connection are all a matter of unverifiable opinion. Go ahead and respond to this. Give us all more evidence that you don't actually believe your own purported crap philosophy.



Well...I certainly didn't imply anything that you are listing above. That much is certain. What I was saying is that your opinion on this matter is based on your limited perspective...ie your perception.

I wasn't trying to get into the whole "brain in a vat" problem, as interesting as that is. What I am trying to address is the apparent infallability of the skeptical dogma that your are preaching...as if it isn't just another point of view.

In this case, the evidence is too loose, and the verification too thin to fully convert a "Ct'er" to your side of the argument. Even if your remove all claims about the planes and buildings and highjackers, you still have a fairly unsubtantiated conspiracy theory left over in the form of the official story.
There is still the whole matter of foreknowledge and a failure to act, as well as the environmental impact that was suppressed until recently.

Some people might think that a foreknowledge and what could or couldn't be an intentional failure to act might be enough to call it conspiracy....but that is neither here nor there.

So what is the aim in debunking this, or any other opinion that doesn't fall in line with the Jref forum member approved version of reality?

Don't you think there is a bit a facism involved when you try to convert a mass of people over to your way of thinking even if your ARE more correct than the person you seek to convert? It's not like human idea's are in danger of being overtaken by the deranged concepts that you are waging jihad against...

I repeat, I do believe what I am typing, unless you can provide some empirical data to suggest otherwise, and thus convert my pov of my pov...

[thesyntaxera]

You appear to not be familiar with how science operates, allow me to assist http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

Maybe not. However, science is conducted by people with personal points of view and their limited perceptions. Like you already know, people can look at the same data and draw completely different conclusions.

[chipmunk stew]

Maybe not. However, science is conducted by people with personal points of view and their limited perceptions. Like you already know, people can look at the same data and draw completely different conclusions.
Science is not a post-modern exercise. The philosophy you're espousing flies in the face of hundreds of years of contributions made by this enterprise that have added vastly more to the base of human knowledge than any other method of pursuit.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Maybe not. However, science is conducted by people with personal points of view and their limited perceptions. Like you already know, people can look at the same data and draw completely different conclusions.

I get the feeling you, at most, glanced at my link.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

[delphi_ote]

Well...I certainly didn't imply anything that you are listing above. That much is certain. What I was saying is that your opinion on this matter is based on your limited perspective...ie your perception.
All of those things I listed were discovered by humans with limited perception and their own point of view. Do you believe they're correct? If so, why?
Don't you think there is a bit a facism involved when you try to convert a mass of people over to your way of thinking even if your ARE more correct than the person you seek to convert?
But isn't that what you're doing now? It's amazing how your philosophies always break down as soon as we examine your very own behavior. That suggests to me that you don't think very much or very well.
I repeat, I do believe what I am typing, unless you can provide some empirical data to suggest otherwise, and thus convert my pov of my pov...
I already have. If you actually believe everything is just a matter of perception and that it is fascist to try to change someone's point of view, you wouldn't be posting here trying to convince me that your view is correct. Your own posts are empirical data of your hypocracy.

[thesyntaxera]

Science is not a post-modern exercise. The philosophy you're espousing flies in the face of hundreds of years of contributions made by this enterprise that have added vastly more to the base of human knowledge than any other method of pursuit.

So scientists aren't people with personal points of view who are limited by their perception? Post Modernism has little to do with any of this...as I said I am trying to steer clear of all that murk...regardless of your views on that vein of philosophy humans are still limited to their senses and previous data.

A simplified way of saying this...Science is the data and the process used to collect it...what we make of it is up to our brains to interpret, which ultimately falls on our perception, preconceived notions, and previous experiences...etc...

[thesyntaxera]

I get the feeling you, at most, glanced at my link.

yeah, I get that feeling a lot too...don't feel too bad. As I said in the previous post, science isn't an entity, it's a way of looking at things.

[thesyntaxera]

All of those things I listed were discovered by humans with limited perception and their own point of view. Do you believe they're correct? If so, why?

They are good idea's with data to back them up...how does that equal an absolute belief?

But isn't that what you're doing now? It's amazing how your philosophies always break down as soon as we examine your very own behavior. That suggests to me that you don't think very much or very well.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...nothing could be more clear. I have challenged the arguments and methods that you are using to debunk this particular conspiracy claim...and as I have stated, this case is not unlike a lot of cases where pov is based on who is looking at the data.

I already have. If you actually believe everything is just a matter of perception and that it is fascist to try to change someone's point of view, you wouldn't be posting here trying to convince me that your view is correct. Your own posts are empirical data of your hypocracy.

Like I said before, if I were trying to convince you of something I would be claiming something else as the truth. All I am trying to get you to do is admit that there are certain fallacies in pure skepticism when it comes to things like this...and especially with the sort found in these forums. It's like a bunch of dejected teenagers banding together to give themselves self worth by aggrandizing how clear their view of reality is.

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1199

this thread may help illustrate what I mean.

[delphi_ote]

They are good idea's with data to back them up...how does that equal an absolute belief?
Do you believe they are true or do you not believe they are true?
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...nothing could be more clear. I have challenged the arguments and methods that you are using to debunk this particular conspiracy claim...and as I have stated, this case is not unlike a lot of cases where pov is based on who is looking at the data.
Nothing could be more clear? Everything you typed there is trying to convince me of something.
Like I said before, if I were trying to convince you of something I would be claiming something else as the truth. All I am trying to get you to do is admit that there are certain fallacies in pure skepticism when it comes to things like this...and especially with the sort found in these forums. It's like a bunch of dejected teenagers banding together to give themselves self worth by aggrandizing how clear their view of reality is.
You are trying to convince me that you are not trying to convince me of something. Do you realize how silly that is in the context of this discussion?
Don't you think there is a bit a facism involved when you try to convert a mass of people over to your way of thinking even if your ARE more correct than the person you seek to convert?
I guess you're a bit of a facist.

[chipmunk stew]

So scientists aren't people with personal points of view who are limited by their perception? Post Modernism has little to do with any of this...as I said I am trying to steer clear of all that murk...regardless of your views on that vein of philosophy humans are still limited to their senses and previous data.

A simplified way of saying this...Science is the data and the process used to collect it...what we make of it is up to our brains to interpret, which ultimately falls on our perception, preconceived notions, and previous experiences...etc...
What you're missing is that science isn't just collecting data. It's a process to interpret the data, too. When done right, it limits the influence of our subjective biases. The process is designed such that investigations can be replicated by those who don't share the same biases. Because of this, science has a self-correcting attribute such that over time the knowledge built using this method tends ever closer towards a true representation of reality.

As a practical example, we can collect data about a set of correlated events, and our subjective biases may make us inclined to attribute a causal relationship between them. To remove this bias, we set up a double-blind experiment that tests for cause and effect. The results of the experiment hopefully shows us that a) the causal relationship exists or b) it does not. If we've documented our experiment properly, then it can be replicated, or flaws can be discovered in our methodology. If our methodology is good, our experiment is replicated independently, and the results are similar, we have good evidence that our results are sound. The more the experiment is replicated with similar results, the stronger our evidence becomes.

[thesyntaxera]

What you're missing is that science isn't just collecting data. It's a process to interpret the data, too. When done right, it limits the influence of our subjective biases. The process is designed such that investigations can be replicated by those who don't share the same biases. Because of this, science has a self-correcting attribute such that over time the knowledge built using this method tends ever closer towards a true representation of reality.

As a practical example, we can collect data about a set of correlated events, and our subjective biases may make us inclined to attribute a causal relationship between them. To remove this bias, we set up a double-blind experiment that tests for cause and effect. The results of the experiment hopefully shows us that a) the causal relationship exists or b) it does not. If we've documented our experiment properly, then it can be replicated, or flaws can be discovered in our methodology. If our methodology is good, our experiment is replicated independently, and the results are similar, we have good evidence that our results are sound. The more the experiment is replicated with similar results, the stronger our evidence becomes.


I agree completely with what you are saying. I am just failing to see how that was done in the case of the Official 9/11 investigation. Skeptics explaining this away is just the same as a CT'ist explaining it away. Both are using the same evidence with the same holes and filling those holes with whatever they chose.

This article more succintly describes what I am getting at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm

[thesyntaxera]

Do you believe they are true or do you not believe they are true?

Nothing could be more clear? Everything you typed there is trying to convince me of something.

You are trying to convince me that you are not trying to convince me of something. Do you realize how silly that is in the context of this discussion?

I guess you're a bit of a facist.

Apparently cleverness is not a requisite? I sort of figured that ninja aren't known for their ability to lighten up.

[chipmunk stew]

I agree completely with what you are saying. I am just failing to see how that was done in the case of the Official 9/11 investigation. Skeptics explaining this away is just the same as a CT'ist explaining it away. Both are using the same evidence with the same holes and filling those holes with whatever they chose.

This article more succintly describes what I am getting at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0427-29.htm
You don't seriously believe that the official investigations and the truth movement investigations approach the evidence with equivalent methods, do you? The author of this article doesn't.

Let's take the explosions heard at WTC:
The CT improperly concludes that this points to explosives and seeks further evidence to support this conclusion.
The professional investigator properly considers explosives as one of many possibilities, checks the evidence to see if there's a hint of what one should expect from explosives--explosive residue, recovered detonators, witness accounts of unusual activity, an unusually large purchase of explosives, video/images/eyewitness accounts consistent with intentional detonations, etc.--and if the corroborating evidence is not strong, he rejects the possibility in favor of more mundane possibilities.

There's simply no conclusive evidence proving what these explosions were, and there probably never will be. They will forever be a hole in the story, open to some degree of speculation. But explosives is probably the worst, most weakly supported possibility. Explosions are common in large fires and were not unexpected or surprising to people who deal with large fires.

If the author has looked further into the holes he lists since April, he hopefully has discovered that many of the issues raised have been addressed squarely and adequately (not "explained away") and that others turn out to be irrelevant since they don't undercut the OV in any meaningful way. (In the case of WTC7, the "smoking gun" of the CT's, there's not even a finalized OV to criticize yet!)

[Belz...]

So scientists aren't people with personal points of view who are limited by their perception?

Of course they are. But the number of different scientists on the same subject makes it less likely that a mistake will go unnoticed. It increased objectivity. That's the whole point of peer review.

[delphi_ote]

Apparently cleverness is not a requisite? I sort of figured that ninja aren't known for their ability to lighten up.
Oh, I'm being light hearted. These philosophies aren't something I take very seriously at all. Sorry if I gave you the impression I was upset.

[Oliver]

Wow, thank you for the insight. :)