rationalskepticism.org

PJG wrote:Econ - I think you are still not understanding but I am stunned if you do not and that I have to spell this out. However, I will do so but I thought that my meaning was clear right from the start of the old thread.

...I am not "denigrating" NIST because I am saying that maybe there is another explanation for their poor report. Of course there is only a "black and white" scenario - i.e. NIST must be incompetent or dishonest, IF the official story is correct. If the official story is NOT correct, then there are lots of OTHER possible explanations but I DON'T KNOW what they are/could be ....e.g. the scientists could have been "leaned on", the fact that they were not given access to physical evidence (and that evidence was destroyed) could have been deliberate, they may have been given a predetermined conclusion to work towards rather than giving themselves that "challenge" ... the list could go on and on and may include a hundred "explanations" - but none of THOSE can fit if those paying the piper are NOT calling the tune - i.e. don't have anything to hide. Do you understand this? I thought it was self-evident. I apologise if I should have stated what I thought was the obvious....

...well if that is not denigrating simply suggest another word for a persistent tirade of negative comments about the work of a group of professionals. Clearly your use of English language is different to mine.

...The idea that NIST or anyone else must provide a report that satisfies my own personal requirements is another completely irrelevant statement - of course they do not and I would be being unbelievably arrogant - and/or stupid - to state such a thing as an individual....

..well it aint irrelevant - it simply reflects the standards you keep insisting on. Which you espouse personally whether or not you choose to stand alone OR put yourself forward as a representative of some broader based group of like thinking persons as per your following statement...

...However, grass-roots movements have often started when someone asks a question and finds others are asking the same questions. Most disappear over time, but some develop and grow. You are satisfied with the official story - you feel that the evidence supplied to support their story is adequate. I do not - and some others do not either....

..and, for the umpteenth time, will you please stop "verballing" me as satisfied with the official story as a global claim. I grow tired of your repeated use of false generalisations. I have been explicit that I neither agree with nor disagree with the "official story" in globo. I have formed my own opinions on certain key facts where my opinions happen to agree with the official version. Those "own opinions" include, but are not limited to, my opinion that there was no demolition at WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. I have read little of the three out of four parts of the NIST reports, my focus having been on the one part of four which deals with mechanisms of collapse. So I do not appreciate your repeated false statements that I support or am satisfied with the "Official Story". Given your own demonstrably false claims to being agnostic on certain issues it is ridiculous that you falsely accuse me of being partisan on issues where I genuinely have made no claims and when my position is demonstrable agnostic.

...I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim....

...well and truly said. "We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim." Yes we do. I look at the total evidence and form an opinion based on that evidence, the logical relationship between the parts and the question under consideration. In contrast you take one element - look at recent pages of nano-thermxte and/or "microspheres" discussion - on the unexplained possibility of how such an item of dubious evidence, if true, could change key questions you are prepared to dismiss/avoid/evade the overwhelming mass of contrary evidence. Including my positive statements as to why either deliberate use or accidental use of nano-thermxte was not likely. So you are not prepared to drop an issue which suits your pre-set bias whereas I am. Well said therefore that "We have different standards regarding the evidence...." I am glad that we do.

....but you go further to "frame" your statement:

...I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know",...

...wow! Call that a sidestep? Totally ignoring that it is not the lack of evidence that underpins your stated views on recent discussions. It is the existence of evidence which you ignore/disregard/evade.

...Look, there really isn't any point continuing this....

Correct though your following reasons are not why I agree with you.

.... You are 100% certain that a plane hit the Pentagon, the three towers collapsed because of fires and damage and that the plane in Shanksville crashed and was not shot down....

Yes - with the expected provisos about the non-professional use of "100% certain". There is no reasonable doubt that all three of those matters are true.

...I do not see how you can possibly know this, let alone be 100% certain of most of it. That you accept it 100% - good for you.

...setting aside your loose terminology claims of 100% certainty I can "know" this because the evidence is conclusive to any person:

• who will look objectively at evidence;
• Who does not have a pre-set agenda to support; AND
• Is not prepared to ignore any evidence which does not support that pre-set agenda.

...We seem to agree that our standards of evidence are different....

...too true.

...I hope we can end this on a civil and respectful note and just say that we agree to disagree. OK?

...I don't think I have ever departed from the Forum Rule which, colloquially stated, says "Argue as hard as you want against the topic, avoid personal attacks." I have no problem entering discussion with you the person. But your approach to logic and consistency of position is a different matter.