Psychology and WTC 7...

[wildbilln864]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXPIfBkzhs&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/17338

[Realityhack]

1. I sent a nice email to the BBC. n/t

[wildbilln864]

2. oh? nt

[Realityhack]

3. copyright violation n/t

[Junkdrawer]

4. Troother Troother Troother...(cut his mike)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OshuYcL5sGg&feature=related

[Realityhack]

6. not quite. They state right on their website...

that if the BBC takes action they will just re-brand.
The BBC should not have to put up with something that looks like theirs that is not. They can have all the bandwidth in the world as far as I care.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Excellent post. n/t

[Realityhack]

7. What was excellent about ti?

The post itself was just a link. Not even one sentence about what was particularly interesting about the video in question.
And the video wasn't very good. Just a couple of well known experiments and some lame attempts to tie them into building 7.
No real substance at all.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Wow, You're right! 2 + 2 = 5. I see it now...n/t

[AZCat]

9. Hmmm... I think you have a problem.

The people proposing 2+2=5 are not the ones who wrote the NIST report on WTC 7. They are all quite competent at math.

[Junkdrawer]

I once worked for an assistant director at NIST who thought that fossils were God's...

way of testing our faith.

To be clear, I didn't work at NIST. This guy had businesses on the side.

[AZCat]

11. I've known a number of engineers who have shared that belief...

along with a number of stranger ones. I even know a very talented young engineer (who is probably smarter than me) who is skeptical about the so-called "official story" of September 11th.

However, none of this equates with claiming "2+2=5". While the NIST may have made (and probably did make) mistakes in the WTC 7 report (it's a draft) they most likely did not make any so obvious as your metaphor (I haven't finished it yet). Whatever mistakes they made are either typos or errors of an esoteric sort that will be debated by engineers (mostly because they might impact changes to the building codes).

[Realityhack]

13. Hey AZCat.

If you spot any of those esoteric issues would you mind posting about them? I would love to hear about them.

[AZCat]

14. Sure, although a good spot to check...

will be the public comments for the draft version of the WTC 7 report. The NIST will publish them and they should at least provide the beginnings of the debate. If there's anything else that I happen to see I'll let you know.

[Realityhack]

16. Question about the public comments...

Do you know how they will be organized (from past cases)? I don't want to wade through 500 pages of asinine truther BS to get to 3 good comments from people who know where their ass is.

[Realityhack]

18. Never mind I found the NIST info on it...

I should follow my own advice and do the fucking research before I ask stupid questions.

[AZCat]

21. Heh.

:)

[AZCat]

19. If they copy their setup for the NIST towers investigation...

it will look like this. All the respondents are listed with a link to a pdf of their comments. You may recognize some of the names.

[Realityhack]

22. Oh man...

I have been reading those for the last few min. and man are some of them funny. Some interesting stuff in there as well.

Clicking names with no affiliation seems to bring up the more humorous results.

[AZCat]

23. Some of them are worth reading.

Others are just amusing.

I expect a similar treatment of comments for the WTC 7 report, although I suspect there will be more comments this time around.

[Realityhack]

25. that is basically what I got

Some are interesting in an informative way. Some are just entertainment.

[Realityhack]

10. You failed to answer the question...

good job thinking for yourself :crazy:

I am WELL aware of the psychology on both sides of a debate like 9-11. While this video sites conformity and authority biases it leaves out the various psychological reasons that drive people to conspiracy theories.

The thing is it provides absolutely no insight into any of the events on 9-11.

So is it a good video for anyone who failed intro to psych or even basic junior high science? sure.
But it doesn't prove anything.

Using the video's analogy we see the actual events on 9-11 as a line. And we compare this to the lenght of other lines (the NIST report, CD, Nukes, etc.). The important question is which fits? Of course the video does not address that. Instead it displays repeatedly what is explained best by the NIST report.

So what is so great about it? What did you learn?

Personally I learned exactly 0. Nothing.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Look. Check the archives. I once argued the position that Bush & Co...

expected a simple hijacking and got 9/11.

Then, about 3 or 4 years ago, someone asked me, without condescension, to look at WTC7 and see if I could square that with no inside help.

I could not. I then decided I needed to study the history of the US and British Empires much more closely.

I don't change my opinions lightly. But sometimes I do.

[Realityhack]

15. I would like to discuss some of that but first...

my point stands. I see no content in the OP and no real substance to the video. Therefore I find it hard to understand WTF you were talking about when you said it was an excellent post.

On to more interesting things.

Then, about 3 or 4 years ago, someone asked me, without condescension, to look at WTC7 and see if I could square that with no inside help.

I could not. I then decided I needed to study the history of the US and British Empires much more closely.

I have a few questions here.

1. What made you conclude that WTC7 must have been an inside job in the first place?
2. Have you read the NIST report or at least the FAQ and skimmed the report?
3. Do you think having a better engineering perspective on WTC7 could impact your position?

[Junkdrawer]

17. If you find it hard to see "What the Fuck I'm talking about"...

our conversation is done.

Good bye.

[Realityhack]

20. go ahead then...

Show what was excellent about the post.

[Realityhack]

29. So are you going to tell us what was so great about the post or not? n/t

[jberryhill]

24. A question for you, Bill...

Notice that if the subject's responses are private, conformity drops.

How many people in this forum post using their real name?

I'm aware of one.

There is no reason for anonymous cowards on an internet message board to feel group pressure to conform, now is there?

[Realityhack]

26. Actually I don't know if that applies.

The subjects responses were private from the other participants. But I don't think (IIRC) the subjects knew any of the other participants. So a pseudonym might only partially reduce the pressure.

I think not being face to face might make a larger difference as people say things online they would not face to face. In addition the availability of 'cohorts' is virtually infinite online.

[jschurchin]

27. Good post John.

Just curious as to whom that one person who uses his real name would be?

p.s. js stands for John Steven.

Peace.

[Realityhack]

28. I think the part regarding 'cohorts' is a much stronger point n/t

[jschurchin]

30. Wow, did your parents

really name you Reality. Or are you just another one of the abundence of pussy's on this board who are afraid to post their given names.

[Realityhack]

31. ???

I think you just broke at least one rule but I am more interested in knowing what you think my name has to do with anything?
I prefer to keep my real name out of some things I do because I don't want anyone I work for being tarnished by my dumb ass.

My first name is Matt

[Realityhack]

32. Tell me something...

in the Asch conformity experiments... did the participants know each others names?

[jschurchin]

33. To be honest Matt

I do not know. However, i'm in the 25 percentile.

[Realityhack]

37. I am certainly not claiming...

that you are experiencing a high level of conformity bias.

I do however question the quality of your independent thinking given that you resorted to insults rather than addressing the point I was making.

Honestly I don't think I have anything else to talk to you about.

[jberryhill]

35. I see your point....

Real names certainly addresses the "troll! shill!" stuff.

In any event, the analogy to the conformity experiment is not a good one, since it's not as if we are in a closed room, and there is no shortage of various opinions here in the DUngeon.

[Realityhack]

36. Thanks jberryhill

It's nice to see someone read for content and acknowledge a point made in a post.

[SDuderstadt]

34. If you have to insult someone....

wouldn't you want to do it right and refer to them as "pussies" rather than "pussy's" (which is actually the possesive of "pussy"). Why is that people think adding an "'s" makes something plural?

[wildbilln864]

38. kick. nt