= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Zack_M_Davis comments on The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (178)
Kaj, are you serious? When you watch the WTC7 collapse and it's roof staying basically horizontal during the whole process can you imagine this to happen unless all columns are destroyed at exactly the same time? At least from my physical understanding of this world there is something very wrong with the official explanation.
But, I've taken some time to google up some videos for you:
Richard Gage Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth Alex Jones NIST Report Welding Engineer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2IVgrnb80I
Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
MIT engineer Jeff King: WTC was demolished on Airplane Day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRIdlb88tg
9/11 Blueprint for Truth presented by Architect Richard Gage, AIA(this is a 2 hours presentation): http://video.google.com.br/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#
Nine Scientists Find Active Nano-thermite in 9/11 WTC Dust -- April 6, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT5IOD17gN8
About the Jaynes reference, I'll have to find it again.
I see that the downvote squad has been active, oh well. ;)
You're probably thinking of Chapter 5 of Logic of Science. If I'm reading him correctly, Jaynes is arguing that while reports of ESP are evidence for ESP, they're even stronger evidence that the reports are somehow mistaken.
But the thing about ESP is, we already have strong theoretical reasons for thinking that it doesn't exist. Whereas the prior probability of a secret implosion of WTC7 is very low, and structural engineering is difficult enough that we can't expect naive physical intuition to be able to tell what really happened from a nine-second YouTube clip.
Before dismissing a study as unscientific, you should be able to point to specific sections of the report and explain why you think they're mistaken.
I don't have my copy of PT:LOS right here, but this doesn't sound right to me. I would think that your prior probability for the reports being mistaken is greater than your prior for ESP. The reports provide strong evidence for a mistake, and even stronger evidence for ESP, but not strong enough to make ESP look more probable than a mistake.