Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: WTC 7 theories/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] This Dude is First-Class

Expand Messages
  • J Olson
    Less plausible than what? Shit happens ? People make mistakes ? Jeff
    Message 1 of 63 , Apr 1, 2013
      Less plausible than what?  "Shit happens"?  "People make mistakes"?


      On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:

      I find this less plausible as mentioned earlier. Even so, it'd be interesting to see if there's any other evidence that might back up this hypothesis.

      From: J Olson <jlolson53@...>
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2013 12:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] This Dude is First-Class

      Actually, the BBC came to believe that the building *had* collapsed.  As to the question of why conspirators would wish to introduce a belief the WTC buildings' collapse was quotidian and predictable, I addressed that earlier and in my recent post.


      On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Roderick Long <berserkrl@...> wrote:
      But why on earth would any inside conspirators want to feed the BBC info that the building was going to collapse?  What's the motive?


    • J Olson
      Argument from Flattery. I like it. ;) Actually, that s a NEW pattern for me, Dan (disciplining myself so that I avoid endless, repetitive debates). As
      Message 63 of 63 , Apr 7, 2013
        "Argument from Flattery."  I like it. ;)

        Actually, that's a NEW pattern for me, Dan (disciplining myself so that I avoid endless, repetitive debates).  As usual, you're misreading my psychology, and your knowledge of my discussion list history seems to extend back only a few years.  A longer look back would reveal that it's my nature to be like a pit bull with a bone when it comes to these kinds of debates (ask George!!), and my "reversion" to silence is about time-management - something I'm able to do now because I: 1) see the futility of repeating arguments which have been stated clearly when correspondents show little interest in understanding or ability to understand/engage those arguments; 2) am a bit more secure with myself and somewhat less emotionally reactive  

        In a way, this is a case of bad timing: in the old days you always disappeared from a hard debate with me; usually pleading time-troubles or lack of interest; now you're in the mood for drawn-out debates with constantly repeating motifs, and I'm not.  I once desired to debate you on this kind of subject (I told you about that - remember?) because I thought you were one of the few fair-minded types (who also possessed a mind!) that would make such a discussion interesting.  It's too bad, I guess, that you don't have the Jeff of the late-nineties and early-mid 2000s to argue endlessly with for our mutual argumentative satisfaction! :-)

        But now that I've got my wish, I half-wish it had never come true, because your reasoning on this subject is far from being up to par with your usual analysis.  Normally, you don't make a hash of analogies, and also appreciate subtle points.  If you did that, I'd be more interested and motivated to continue an in-depth discussion, but - to mix arguments from flattery with arguments from insult -  that just isn't happening here.  It just isn't interesting to me to explain really basic lines of reasoning - I never had much patience for that even in my Argumentive Days.  What would entice me to stay fully engaged in a debate - even now - is genuinely insightful analysis.

        I'm sure, judging from your comments in this vein, that you believe this about running away and sulking in the face of superior arguments (or something along those lines), but nothing could be further from the case (actually, if you were offering superior arguments, I'd be happily motivated to joust with you!!!).  It's not that you're disagreeing with me - some of my favorite debates have obviously been with people who disagree with me - it's the *way* you're disagreeing.  


        On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:

        I've dealt with why I don't agree with you on the "Monty Pythonesque Man's death" analogy before. As far I can recall, you've not bothered to respond to that. You've merely, in my reckoning, repeated the Monty Pythonesque Man's death analogy, as if that were that.

        It seems you're following a pattern: why people provide arguments you disagree with for long enough, you revert to silence or the threat thereof. You've done the same with UFOs and even with chemtrails. At least, let me say that this is how it looks to me.

        Also, your backhanded complimenting on being intelligent is similar to your former argument that libertarians should be more willing to accept your views on 9/11 (a shorthand I've despised, but caved into at this point). It's almost like an argument from intimidation, don't you think? Actually, it's more of an argument from flattery. It's along the lines of "No one who's intelligent, independent-minded, and interested in the truth would NOT believe X, therefore, since you're all these good things, you must believe X." 



        Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:58 PM
        Subject: Re: WTC 7 theories/was Re: [LeftLibertarian2] This Dude is First-Class

        Dan, your post neither engages my argument nor demonstrates a good understanding of it (at least not an understanding of the elements that are necessary to appreciate its power).  You seem to be glossing over the "power of subtle reasoning" in spades here, especially the logical nuances involved in the Monty Pythonesque Man's death.

        I could explain in depth the above, but I increasingly see little point to it.  You're more than intelligent enough to grasp the "logical nuances" if you chose to do so.  


        On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
        How does expert opinion matter for a mistaken news report -- with the mistake being that BBC reported a collapse that had yet to happen and then did happen? You'd have to presume that BBC would only make such a report based on expert opinion -- and more on experts who would share the opinion you believe they'd all have had -- and then misreported that. My belief is they got a report from someone on the scene, likely a first reponder, and either passed along a mistaken report or misreported a prediction or a guess or whatever.

        By the way, none of my explanation of the BBC report is an example of the logical fallacy you offer below. That someone might have made a prediction and that it was mistakenly reported as happening and then did happen only explains, to a degree, the erroneous report. It doesn't say anything about whether the prediction was warranted. Also, the view that all sorts of predictions are made and not reported is irrelevant here. Predictions made that day by people on the scene or by officials associated with them were far more likely to be heeded and reported and not as strongly vetted. (That the media reported many more planes in the air that day shows how loose the quality control was on reportage. And this is not even that unusual, as I've said before: breaking news is often full of errors and all too often speculation or guess is passed along as if it were factual reporting.)

        Regarding the example you use of a man reported as dead, I believe I've covered that. Not only are such mistakes of identification possible under stress or distraction, but WTC 7 was just not iconic enough for most people to even notice that that was it in the background. This is not like, as in my analogy, Michael Jackson walking by in the background -- someone who would be noticed. (To be sure, the audience might not think it was a live feed in the background anyhow, as when someone's death is reported and the background photo or video is of them when they were alive -- not, say, the body resting in a coffin or mangled and rotting, though with the zombie craze maybe that'll happen soon enough.)



        Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 11:18 AM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] This Dude is First-Class
        Anyway, R, this is speculation on my part.  I mean, it's possible that a whole bunch of mundanely motivated people who were ignorant of the history of steel-structure buildings and fires decided that WTC 7 was going to fall, and somehow that got transmuted into "fallen."  It's hard to imagine any experts predicting this, however, since they would presumably know the unprecedented nature of the event they were predicting, and would (presumably again) have practiced some caution in making such a prophesy.  

        In any case,  there is fairly strong evidence that the chain of communication originated from the New York City's Office of Emergency Management.  The evidence consists in part of a statement by then President of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Michael Currid: "Someone from the Office of Emergency Management told me that the building [WTC 7] was basically a lost cause and we should not risk losing anyone to save it." (As reported to Dean Murphy of the New York Times.) 

        It's also worth noting that according to the  9/11 Commission Report itself:"They also received advice from senior FDNY chiefs that while the building might eventually suffer a partial collapse on upper floors, such structural failure was not imminent. NO ONE ANTICIPATED THE POSSIBILITY OF A TOTAL COLLAPSE"

        So it seems that then-Mayor ("I Love the State") Guilliani got a warning (which he revealed in an interview with Peter Jennings) that became the impetus for all "imminent collapse" belief.  In another interview, Guilliani states that while he was told the building would collapse, he did not take that to mean that it would implode (demolition-style). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g1VXRXCJfU  I haven't been able to locate who Guilliani claimed warned him.  That's a pretty interesting question, I think.  However, fireman testimony strongly indicates to me that the expectation was that building was coming down in some form - which is why they cordoned off the area around it.

        To me the truly significant thing about this prediction is that it came true.  Sure, people, uninformed or otherwise, engage in all manner of wild and woolly speculations, but we generally don't pay them any heed.  Right now there are legions of speculations about imminent disasters of every imaginable form, but most of us won't take them seriously sans evidence *unless* what's being predicted seems to be coming true.  

        As I alluded to Dan earlier, there's something of a post hoc propter hoc fallacy going on here (or maybe it's just garden variety circular reasoning?), along the lines that because some people correctly predicted the WTC 7 collapse that their prediction, and the reasoning supporting it, was warranted.  Now I don't need to point out to you that because someone correctly predicts something that doesn't necessarily demonstrate their prediction was warranted, but then you're a professional philosopher.  That line of thought is pretty damn convincing to Joe Average, however.

        Imagine you're watching a broadcast where the announcer is standing there telling you that a man in the background, who has suffered some apparently minor flesh wounds and looks a bit gimpy has died of a massive heart attack.  (The man's frantic arm-waving and cries "But I'm feeling better!" are disregarded by the TV announcer.)   But after twenty minutes of standing there, the man keels over, and is pronounced dead of a heart attack.  When the TV network is asked "How did you know?" the network replies that there was a "lot of confusion" going on that day.    Which was essentially the BBC's initial reply (now it's been altered to say that they received the report from "Reuters").

        I think in the case of the Monty Pythonesque dude we'd all be fairly shocked that the man keeled over as was prophesied.  The man had no history of heart disease, and no one in his family had ever collapsed due to a heart attack (per analogy).  It was an unprecedented event.  So who told the newscaster he was going to die of the heart attack?  Surely we'd all want to know who that was and how they possibly could've known (or were they merely lucky?)?

        So why did the -in-the-know conspirators - granting they existed - reveal this in advance?  To me, it seems like a double-edged sword: on one hand, making an anomalous collapse seem eminently predictable and mundane would deflect suspicion away from them (from the idea that someone besides Islamo-Zombie Fascists were involved); on the other, it's a smoking gun implying that someone had inside knowledge about WTC 7's collapse.  At this point, most people - including yourself and Dan, presumably - remain convinced the collapse of WTC 7 was predictable and mundane, with a relative (though growing, I believe) vocal minority sees this admission of advance knowledge as part of a 9/11 smoking gun.  So it looks like the "conspirators" placed the right bet.

        (There's also the possibility that the conspirators acted on some form of conscience - not wanting to detonate the building with firemen inside.)


      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.