Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative*?

Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?

  • Total voters
    153
Animal said:
In a nutshell......your personal incredulity rejection is meaningless.

Centuries worth of knowledge of material science, decades of knowledge of fire science all tossed because "you don't believe"

Is it any wonder that 13 years later, the troof movement is still stuck on a hamster wheel? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The difference between your stance and my stance is that I'm aware of test results that directly contradict the NIST version of events. You have access to the same information. In fact, it's in the NIST report on the collapses, which of course you read and understood.

This is not an ideological difference between us: You base your beliefs on some unknown, unspecified reason. I'm guessing your real reason is just an appeal to the authority of people you deem smarter than you. That's fine, but you can't argue from the perspective of ignorance.

Now, if I'm wrong and you have some kind of corroboration for the NIST theory, or some way to account for the destruction of both core structures, please share. But you don't. So proceed with your emotive chatter.
 
If we were talking about almost anything else, like a fraud investigation or an airline crash or migratory patterns of the yellow-bellied sparrow, there wouldn't be the level of opposition to reason and science that we see here with this emotionally charged event.

It seems that despite the fact that not a single "skeptic" can defend the official narrative with anything other than youtube videos, no one seems willing to say "hmm, no corroborative testing? Maybe there's a better explanation...". Strange. Clearly, many of you are violently shoving your heads into the sand in hopes that it will muffle the screams of "BAD SCIENCE!" rattling around in the back of your head.

It also seems that a consequence of digesting the NIST report makes one vulnerable to all kinds of misunderstandings about what theories are an how they work--things with which 5th graders don't seem to have a problem. This is in part because the NIST approach puts the theory first and foremost--before the evidence, not a result of explaining the evidence.

It is a "protectionist" stance. Not conducive to good conclusions. It's the same method that brought us Jesus Christ walking on water, the geocentric model of the universe, and young Earth creationism.

When it comes to science, the whole point of testing and the search for corroboration is to avoid all the primate politics that comes with motivated conclusions. I don't give a good goddamn about youtube videos. They only confirm whatever you already believe. That's why testing is so important.

And that's why the fact that there are no corroborative tests for NIST's version of events should shock anyone who thought the collapses had been explained already.

That's what shocked me when I read the report: there was not a single point of validation in the entire forensic investigation. This is never really acknowledged in the report by any of the authors, but nonetheless, no forensic support exists. Now, what should you do when people in positions of authority and knowledge hand you what is easily identifiable as an unsupported turd of a theory?

It makes one wonder what their motivations are. My guess is that the individual groups who worked on the various projects and estimations were motivated to provide good data. However, as is the case with any heirarchy, it is the people at the top who mold their workers' data to fit whatever their bosses tell them. Whatever the specific scenario, I don't blame the groups who produced the data. It is the people in charge who molded the report into the vacuous sales brochure it is.

But that's no excuse to allow the wild leaps of logic to pass as a "good" theory. It isn't. And no one has to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the report and look for the reasons for what they say. All the technical language in the world will not hide the fact that there are no corroborative tests for the NIST explanation. Period.
 
jay howard said:
Really? No one else sees this as the leap of faith it is?
Click to expand...
Here's the most basic concepts applied:
Steel fire temperature curve: http://www.steelconstruction.info/File:Steel_strength_in_fire.png
Eccentric Loading (with direct example of condition from WTC 2 collapse): http://www.continuummechanics.org/cm/eccentriccolumnbuckling.html
Structural Dynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

jay howard said:
Why is it ok for you or anyone else who claims to be a "skeptic" to cling to the official narrative....<snip>
Click to expand...
What I have posted thus far has nothing to do with the "official narrative". Engineering is not politics, and there's no "narrative" for basic engineering concepts. You either know them or you don't. Save 30 minutes next time and address the comments, thanks.

jay howard said:
"office fires caused steel to lose strength, and a miracle happens and the core structures evaporate."
Click to expand...
Some of the complexities leading to the collapses were outlined here and to a somewhat broader extent here when I responded to Jsander. It helps in your criticism to consider all factors, so if you have anything other than a lengthy essay about how your peers are sheeple, you can begin with that, thanks.

jay howard said:
I agree that there are factors for which we are not taking into account, but you're just begging the question here.
Click to expand...
No not so much. We know that the impact damage alone didn't suffice because there was no immediate collapse. If there was no impact, and just fire, there would have been an intact active and passive fire protection system to hinder their spread. The fire proofing gypsum wallboard, and SFRM would have provided a higher degree of protection and the building would have most likely remained standing.

jay howard said:
Again. I don't accept that heat from office fires and plane impacts caused the collapses. That's why I reject the official narrative to begin with. So it doesn't do much good to reiterate a narrative which I outright reject to support your argument.
Click to expand...
That's fine that you don't accept it, but your opinions aren't backed by anything to justify them. You spent about 80% of your post attacking me instead of addressing the specific crits.



jay howard said:
Look at what you're saying: "office fires caused 3 steel buildings to collapse. I don't need nor want a thorough explanation
Click to expand...
As I said, most of the basics can be covered without worrying about the NIST. Basic design understanding is that in each of the three buildings there was a culmination of failures that were either directly or inderctly resultant of the attacks; for example in WTC 1 and 2:

  1. The planes severed fire protection sprinklers and crippled their functions.
  2. The planes smashed through partitions, ceilings and columns that normally compartmentalize fires to prevent their spread or prevent the structural members from direct exposure to the heat.
  3. Fires were ignited with accelerants on 6 to 10 floors simultaneously starting acre-sized fires that would have overwhelmed any functional sprinkler system that might have been left.
  4. Columns were severed placing added, more eccentric strain on the remaining structure, and then both cases were subjected to dynamic loads far beyond anything they could be realistically expected to experience in their life cycles.


In WTC 7:
  1. Fires were exasperated by failed active fire protection systems from the collapse of the twins
  2. Fires were not even fought
  3. The building experienced a degree of damage that made the fires easier to spread.

Those are basic analytic considerations before even getting to NIST. You obviously think this is however "true believers" syndrome.


jay howard said:
Why is that the only explanation? You don't even have a single test confirming the official explanation, so it can't exactly rule out any other explanations. Just because you don't understand this does not change the reality.
Click to expand...
No evidence of CD, means that the most logical answer are the fires and associated impact damages.


The vague answer to your OP is still "YES" but you're clearly focused on the wrong questions, or rather, you believe one set of questions is most important when in reality your focus is on something where you're not substantially knowledgeable, nor inclined to take recommendations to research
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
How is your argument in this thread not simply an appeal to your own authority?
Click to expand...

I'm appealing to the fact that there isn't any forensic support nor corroborative testing for the NIST explanation of collapse. What reason(s) do you have for carrying water for NIST?
 
jay howard said:
The difference between your stance and my stance is that I'm aware of test results that directly contradict the NIST version of events. You have access to the same information. In fact, it's in the NIST report on the collapses, which of course you read and understood.

This is not an ideological difference between us: You base your beliefs on some unknown, unspecified reason. I'm guessing your real reason is just an appeal to the authority of people you deem smarter than you. That's fine, but you can't argue from the perspective of ignorance.

Now, if I'm wrong and you have some kind of corroboration for the NIST theory, or some way to account for the destruction of both core structures, please share. But you don't. So proceed with your emotive chatter.
Click to expand...

Wow, your tap dancing must be impressive to the uneducated.......however it doesn't fool anyone here.

Now try addressing the point.......centuries of knowledge of material science vs your personal incredulity. :rolleyes:
 
jay howard said:
What evidence do you have that supports the official narrative?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?

jay howard said:
How is not having a single corroborative test nor even a testable theory a "minor specific"?
Click to expand...
NIST's report does not matter in the least to the official narrative. It's all about building safety. Your premise is false, as you have been noted time and again, but even if it were true it would not matter because the NIST report is immaterial to the available evidence supporting the official narrative.
 
jay howard said:
If we were talking about almost anything else, like a fraud investigation or an airline crash or migratory patterns of the yellow-bellied sparrow, there wouldn't be the level of opposition to reason and science that we see here with this emotionally charged event.

It seems that despite the fact that not a single "skeptic" can defend the official narrative with anything other than youtube videos, no one seems willing to say "hmm, no corroborative testing? Maybe there's a better explanation...". Strange. Clearly, many of you are violently shoving your heads into the sand in hopes that it will muffle the screams of "BAD SCIENCE!" rattling around in the back of your head.

It also seems that a consequence of digesting the NIST report makes one vulnerable to all kinds of misunderstandings about what theories are an how they work--things with which 5th graders don't seem to have a problem. This is in part because the NIST approach puts the theory first and foremost--before the evidence, not a result of explaining the evidence.

It is a "protectionist" stance. Not conducive to good conclusions. It's the same method that brought us Jesus Christ walking on water, the geocentric model of the universe, and young Earth creationism.

When it comes to science, the whole point of testing and the search for corroboration is to avoid all the primate politics that comes with motivated conclusions. I don't give a good goddamn about youtube videos. They only confirm whatever you already believe. That's why testing is so important.

And that's why the fact that there are no corroborative tests for NIST's version of events should shock anyone who thought the collapses had been explained already.

That's what shocked me when I read the report: there was not a single point of validation in the entire forensic investigation. This is never really acknowledged in the report by any of the authors, but nonetheless, no forensic support exists. Now, what should you do when people in positions of authority and knowledge hand you what is easily identifiable as an unsupported turd of a theory?

It makes one wonder what their motivations are. My guess is that the individual groups who worked on the various projects and estimations were motivated to provide good data. However, as is the case with any heirarchy, it is the people at the top who mold their workers' data to fit whatever their bosses tell them. Whatever the specific scenario, I don't blame the groups who produced the data. It is the people in charge who molded the report into the vacuous sales brochure it is.

But that's no excuse to allow the wild leaps of logic to pass as a "good" theory. It isn't. And no one has to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the report and look for the reasons for what they say. All the technical language in the world will not hide the fact that there are no corroborative tests for the NIST explanation. Period.
Click to expand...

yummy!
Word salad. Looks interesting, says nothing.
 
jay howard said:
All we have are reasons. Do you have special knowledge about the construction of the towers by which they were not built to specs?

Are you opposed to building and testing an assembly at all? On principle?

If you're trying to say that any test we run will not be able to take into account all the variables on the day of the attacks, I agree. If you think that's a reason not to conduct any testing, then you are confused or just trying to run away from defending the NIST report.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

No I don't have any special knowledge concerning the construction of the towers.
That said, I have seen an lot of constructions up close (not high rises, mind you) where there have been corners cut during construction. The reason it all went well in those cases was because the design margins could cope with the departing of the specs during construction.
A nice, but extreme, example would be Ronan Point in the '60s.

What my point is, is that any simulation or laboratory setup according to specs, quite possibly would make this setup more harder than it in reality would be. And that is in addition of the unknown precise amount of damage suffered by the various buildings.

Was this the case in the various WTC buildings? I don't know. But seeing the various constructions I have seen which weren't quite built to specs, I see the odds as something non trivial.
 
jay howard said:
I'm appealing to the fact that there isn't any forensic support nor corroborative testing for the NIST explanation of collapse. What reason(s) do you have for carrying water for NIST?
Click to expand...

You mean other than 100 years of fire effects on steel structures science that is incorporated into computer programs which in turn have proven efficacy in previous forensic investigations?

You mean other than the fire Sim program correctly predicting the temperature that the steel samples from fire floors would be subject to?

You mean something other than the fact that this has been pointed out to you several times now?

Is that the ignorant appeal you are basing your premise on?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Calling your authoritative declaration a "fact" does not make it one. "Isn't any forensic support" according to whom?
Click to expand...


According to everyone who has ever looked for forensic evidence in support of the official story. Prove me wrong:

1. find a corroborative test for the NIST theory of collapse

2. show what their testable theory is

Either of these will do. You have neither.
 
jaydeehess said:
You mean other than 100 years of fire effects on steel structures science that is incorporated into computer programs which in turn have proven efficacy in previous forensic investigations?
Click to expand...

All this knowledge, all this high-technology, and you still cannot tell me what joint or joint complex broke first. Nor can you tell me how hot the fires got inside the buildings. Nor can you even say what testable proposition they're resting the entire collapse scenario on.

Graphs and charts and phase diagrams are all for naught if you don't even know how hot the fires got inside the towers.


jaydeehess said:
You mean other than the fire Sim program correctly predicting the temperature that the steel samples from fire floors would be subject to?
Click to expand...

Oh, a computer program got to "collapse initiation"? Neato! I guess if you're testing to see if your computer simulator can make a building collapse. Congrats! It works!

I'll bet I can make the atmosphere turn to hydrogen peroxide with a computer simulation. That's about as relevant.

If you have so much faith in the simulation, (and what else could you have, since NIST has never revealed their material parameter inputs), why not try to see if the Finite Element Analysis does the same thing in the lab as it did in the simulation? (Hint: it doesn't.)


Animal said:
Wow, your tap dancing must be impressive to the uneducated.......however it doesn't fool anyone here.

Now try addressing the point.......centuries of knowledge of material science vs your personal incredulity. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What question are you asking, specifically? All the knowledge in the world isn't much good unless you know what you're looking for. Do you know how hot the fires got and for how long? Do you know what joint(s) failed first? If you do, why can't we get some confirmation of this in a controlled test?
 
jay howard said:
You need a testable theory.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have not followed this debate closely, but browsing now and thenk I see you make this demand again and again. But...

...a testable theory of what? Since you have been called on this so often, I am sure you can by now state a clear answer to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom