Sure, yeah. The problem in your post is that you're
begging the question. Specifically, here:
You can't just kind of drop that in there when that is the whole debate.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument here seems to be that there's nothing really wrong with my reasoning that fires causing tall buildings to collapse is improbable, but we already know the buildings collapsed from fire so the improbability doesn't matter. But obviously I'm not going to accept that we already know the buildings collapsed from fire... You can't just press the "I win" button like that lol.
Since you kindly asked me, let me hereby correct you that you
are indeed wrong in the way you read that and ignored the point made.
Forget about 9/11 ever having happened. I'm saying that even
before the actual collapses your faulty application of the logic of priors would strengthen the probability of
false beliefs in all sorts of phenomena, such as the improbability of white ravens or chihuahuas which we know to exist. So on account of your logic alone, it manages to cast
zero doubt on fires being capable of causing the collapse of tall buildings since by the same logic (i.e. 'it didn't happen before') the existence of black swans and white ravens are improbable and yet they demonstrably exist.
But thanks for being open to correction. While we're at it, let's try to apply Bayes and scientific principles properly. A scientist of any salt, when dealing with
complex multivariate phenomena (read: most phenomena), will never be content by
simple aggregate values such as the ratio of previous collapses of tall buildings by fire, or the colour ratios of previous ravens observed, in order to generate helpful probability distributions. Why? Because there are so many other variables that are relevant for the calculation. Therefore, he will break the aggregate value down by these relevant variables, such as type of fire, the length of fire, height of building, the structural vulnerabilities of the building, first responder presence, to name some but not all. They
all must factor in and be realistically weighted, and not just a few of these relevant variables at the expense of others, which is what some truthers indulge in to prove their own narrative. In the case of ravens he will factor in the prevalence of albinism in aviculture. The result is a more complex calculation.
And voila! When we control these relevant variables, we suddenly realize (a) there are
no priors to a tall building of the type of WTC 7 not collapsing under similar vulnerabilities and circumstances, or a raven with albinism not being white; and (b) the future probability of similar structures with similar vulnerabilities collapsing under similar conditions is high inasmuch as is the probability of a raven with albinism to be white.
Again, please address the above points for us to get forward. Preferably on
this thread.