It’s a fact that fires were burning on several floors of the WTC7. The official version states that those were cause by the fallen debris but AFAIK explosives were never actually excluded as a possibility.
Nor was the involvement of Mortimer Q. Snodgrass. I find it perfectly plausible that a crashed plane might cause a fire and that a fire might cause partial or total structural collapse of a skyscraper, and those two combined would explain all observations very simply—I see no need to investigate more complex hypotheticals.
I should have addressed this before: The point I’m trying to make on this subthread was about the prior probability of explosives. Sure, the official explanation has a degree of plausibility but from there can you rationally justify to assign such a vanishingly low probability to explosives that allows you to completely discount any eye witness testimony?
Sure, the official explanation has a degree of plausibility but from there can you rationally justify to assign such a vanishingly low probability to explosives that allows you to completely discount any eye witness testimony?
That’s not what I said. I said I agreed with FAWS, who said that the evidence was present, but too weak to substantially change the conclusion.
As for my prior (assuming you mean “prior relative to 9/11”, not “prior relative to roland’s comment”, which I was thinking of before): I expect less than one in a thousand occupied skyscrapers have explosives in them for any reason. I know of no reason to expect WTC 7 to have been substantially distinguished in this respect.
That’s not what I said. I said I agreed with FAWS, who said that the evidence was present, but too weak to substantially change the conclusion.
More precisely FAWS point was to assign an extremely low prior probability(1 in 100,000). Well, guess what, I can make ANY hypothesis very hard to prove if I make the PP so low, I think Eliezer needs to write a new post called “Unprivileging the hypothesis”.
I expect less than one in a thousand occupied skyscrapers have explosives in them for any reason. I know of no reason to expect WTC 7 to have been substantially distinguished in this respect.
No. Your prior has to be different: how many skyscrapers that were severely damaged by actions and in contexts consistent with the use of explosives had in fact explosives being used in them? If you take the PP regarding all occupied skyscrapers you are simply ignoring part of the evidence.
On 9⁄10, WTC 7 was an occupied skyscraper barely distinguished from any other by being near to a skyscraper which had previously been the subject of a terrorist bombing.
On 9/11, WTC 7 was struck by rubble from an adjacent skyscraper that collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, burned for several hours, then collapsed in turn.
None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
Sorry, we are discussing if the existence of the explosives is more likely(in contraposition to a skyscraper that has not been the subject of a terrorist attack) given the evidence, not the other way round.
A is explosives. B is 9/11. I already told you P(A) is small, I assume P(B) was small, and I just said that P(B|A) is small. What is small times small over small?
No. Your prior has to be different: how many skyscrapers that were severely damaged by actions and in contexts consistent with the use of explosives had in fact explosives being used in them?
What’s the probability that explosives just happen to have been successfully placed, but not yet detonated in the WTC in any specific hour? Let’s say an expected 1 hour every 10 years → 1/(10 * 365* 24) = 0.0000114
“You can get cheap credit for rationality by mocking wrong beliefs that everyone in your social circle already believes to be wrong. “(from the OP)
I find it perfectly plausible that a crashed plane might cause a fire and that a fire might cause partial or total structural collapse of a skyscraper, and those two combined would explain all observations very simply—I see no need to investigate more complex hypotheticals.
I’m talking about WTC 7, which wasn’t hit by any plane.
Nor was the involvement of Mortimer Q. Snodgrass. I find it perfectly plausible that a crashed plane might cause a fire and that a fire might cause partial or total structural collapse of a skyscraper, and those two combined would explain all observations very simply—I see no need to investigate more complex hypotheticals.
I should have addressed this before: The point I’m trying to make on this subthread was about the prior probability of explosives. Sure, the official explanation has a degree of plausibility but from there can you rationally justify to assign such a vanishingly low probability to explosives that allows you to completely discount any eye witness testimony?
That’s not what I said. I said I agreed with FAWS, who said that the evidence was present, but too weak to substantially change the conclusion.
As for my prior (assuming you mean “prior relative to 9/11”, not “prior relative to roland’s comment”, which I was thinking of before): I expect less than one in a thousand occupied skyscrapers have explosives in them for any reason. I know of no reason to expect WTC 7 to have been substantially distinguished in this respect.
More precisely FAWS point was to assign an extremely low prior probability(1 in 100,000). Well, guess what, I can make ANY hypothesis very hard to prove if I make the PP so low, I think Eliezer needs to write a new post called “Unprivileging the hypothesis”.
No. Your prior has to be different: how many skyscrapers that were severely damaged by actions and in contexts consistent with the use of explosives had in fact explosives being used in them? If you take the PP regarding all occupied skyscrapers you are simply ignoring part of the evidence.
On 9⁄10, WTC 7 was an occupied skyscraper barely distinguished from any other by being near to a skyscraper which had previously been the subject of a terrorist bombing.
On 9/11, WTC 7 was struck by rubble from an adjacent skyscraper that collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, burned for several hours, then collapsed in turn.
None of this is made substantially more likely by the addition of explosives to the story.
Sorry, we are discussing if the existence of the explosives is more likely(in contraposition to a skyscraper that has not been the subject of a terrorist attack) given the evidence, not the other way round.
Bayes’ Theorem:
A is explosives. B is 9/11. I already told you P(A) is small, I assume P(B) was small, and I just said that P(B|A) is small. What is small times small over small?
Sorry I really had to LOL over this and I don’t see any sense in exerting more effort trying to explain my point again.
You’re wiser than I, if that is your reaction—I’m about done, too.
What’s the probability that explosives just happen to have been successfully placed, but not yet detonated in the WTC in any specific hour? Let’s say an expected 1 hour every 10 years → 1/(10 * 365* 24) = 0.0000114
“You can get cheap credit for rationality by mocking wrong beliefs that everyone in your social circle already believes to be wrong. “(from the OP)
I’m talking about WTC 7, which wasn’t hit by any plane.
It was hit by debris from WTC 1.
Wait, what?