Re: Question about FAEs
From: Edward Green (spamspamspam3_at_netzero.com)
Date: 09/25/04
- Next message: Edward Green: "Re: Transverse speed in EM waves?"
- Previous message: David Rutherford: "Re: Do free particles have spin?"
- In reply to: Dan Bloomquist: "Question about FAEs"
- Next in thread: Rene Tschaggelar: "Re: Question about FAEs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Sep 2004 10:05:12 -0700
Dan Bloomquist <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message news:<415497FB.6030304@lakeweb.com>...
> I started out thinking it would be easy to debunk conspiracy theories
> about 9/11. But I seem to be having troubles.
First of all, I still find the images you linked to sufficiently
disturbing to be on a par with posting links to a rape scene which
happened to have been caught on security cameras. Even the major news
organizations back off.
Second of all, let's look at "conspiracy theories" in general. The
promulgators are in touch with the Cartesian insight that all we have
informing us of events in the world is our own immediate sensory
input. No matter what we think, it could always be a product of a
conspiracy of the world to make us think that. Always.
Always.
The only tool we ever have is a subjective Bayesian attribution of
probabilities to competing models.
Ever.
Your government conspiriatician always reminds me of a comment C.S.
Lewis made in one of his Christian-leaning children's books: he said
that <in the words of an elderly magician, suggesting God> they
sometimes think of me as an omniscient character who knows their every
move, and sometimes as an old fool who could be taken in by tricks
that a child would see through.
Returning to our theme, if you want to analyze the details of the
airplane impacts at the Pentagon and the WTC just as a purely academic
exercise, that's your business. But I find it distrubing you continue
to preface your analyses by the refrain "I started out thinking it
would be easy to debunk conspiracy theories about 9/11. But I seem to
be having troubles".
What alternative Bayesian construction are you suggesting here? Can
you even say yourself? That this wasn't a plane? That it was
preloaded with explosives? That the explosives were planted in the
building and the impact was faked? Give it ten years, and we will be
considering that 'I thought it would be easy to debunk the idea that
there never was a building complex called "the World Trade Center",
but now I'm not so sure...'. We can probably find some documents from
the Port Authority suggesting that the project had been cancelled --
maybe even ones prepared on '70's era typewriters.
To play your game for a minute though:
> Here is another one of my troubles. Everyone will remember the videos of
> the second plane hitting the trade towers. What some folks may not have
> seen was that the fuselage of the plane had gone all the way through the
> building:
<...>
> So there would likely be a shallow zone for an FAE in the building. But
> here is the confusing part. The fuselage has come out of the building by
> some 50 feet intact.
You don't see any fuselage coming out of the bulding intact. You see
a bolus of mater coming out of the building in the approximate shape
of the fuselage, before dispersing -- like a vignette from Vietnam,
where a fleeing Viet Cong hit by a particularly nasty species of wire
cutting anti-personnel grenade moves forward a few more feet,
seemingly still running, before disassembling into component parts.
> I can come up with no mechanism that would disperse
> fuel forward in the fuselage, much less perfectly. If what explodes the
> fuselage were part of the building explosion, there should be no delay
> of several frames between events. The fuselage disappears in a white hot
> explosion yet the main body of the explosion in the building doesn't
> even break windows on the other half of the building.
As for the "white hot explosion", in line with our scholarly
discussion of color perception, and comments already made in this
thread, you should be the first to question just what the appearance
of white on a video tells us, with the additional filter of the camera
and tape intervening even before our own perceptions. Why don't we
run a billion dollar study hurling fuel laden aluminum tubes through
steel framed structures in the desert, to work out the details? In
the great Bayesian Chain of Being, I'm more than willing to believe
that there was sufficient kinetic energy, dispersed fuel, shreaded
aluminium, magnesium, friction and sources of ignition, to explain any
image recorded on video tape.
We don't have to have consumed every gram of combutible material in a
perfect explosion after all to account for some local temperature
increases which may actually have reached white heat to the unaided
eye: do you think the laws of physics may have cooperated just enough
to produce and ignite some quantity of aluminum shavings following the
energetic machining an aluminium structure by a steel frame?
You waste your obvious intelligence dabbling in the precursors to
anti-Western propaganda.
- Next message: Edward Green: "Re: Transverse speed in EM waves?"
- Previous message: David Rutherford: "Re: Do free particles have spin?"
- In reply to: Dan Bloomquist: "Question about FAEs"
- Next in thread: Rene Tschaggelar: "Re: Question about FAEs"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
