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

[Sunstealer]

There is. It's Ryan Mackey's Inflationary Theory of Conspiracy Theories, and you heard it here first.

Dave

Yes I had heard of Ryan Mackey's theory, it had slipped my mind. Can't ever remember reading even though. The analogy with children seems to be a universal one too. Reminds me of Apocalypse: Now the bull **** piled up so fast in Vietnam, you needed wings to stay above it. Just switch Nam to trutherland.

 

[BasqueArch]

Truthers will continue to create new ways of being wrong. Aristotle explained why - there are many ways to be wrong but only one way to be right, which is why it is easy to miss the mark but hard to hit it.
The natural sciences are integrated – unified and complementary, as are the cross disciplines like biochemistry, biophysics. Whether it is DEW or nuclear bombs or glancing missiles or Kubrick’s Nostradamus-like prediction or thermite or silent explosives that propel multi-ton structures hundreds of feet, or pilotless planes, or vicsims, or shape shifting lizards, in addition to being wrong in evidence, their constructs are disconnected, they can’t explain, unify all the evidence.

The conventional story is integrated from beginning to the end, the conspiracist story is disjointed and contradictory both within itself and without. The intransigent True Believer is immune to reason because like color blindness or synesthesia, conspiracist paranoia is a neurological condition . They can’t help it, that’s the way they are.​

 

[JayUtah]

It doesnt matter anyway since the lack of evidence for CD rules out the need to worry about the ludicrously stupid logistics of rigging the explosives in the first place.

But paradoxically that drives the need for the endless revisions to be increasingly clever. As we develop the evidence, the conspiracy theories have to become more capricious and torturous in order to wend their way through a clarified landscape of evidence, and still arriving at some sort of conspiracy destination. This is why we lately have claims of exotic explosives and incendiaries along with commensurately more exotic and complicated control systems. If no one hears a boom, for example, then the explosives "must" be special secret silent materials that only the military and CIA have access to. "Ooooh!" say the conspiracy fans.

Conspiracy audiences see the many twists and turns of the evolving theories and mistake this detail for rigor. They led carefully by Power Point presentations, redacted documents, and pseudo-science to believe that the author has very cleverly and meticulously ferreted out a carefully-laid plan of epic proportions. The intricacy is intended specifically to blind the audience into forgetting that it's almost entirely speculation, and that it covers only very small areas of the evidence while ignoring wholesale tracts of land. Plausible stories have detail. If you invent detail -- especially clever, intriguing, James-Bondy sorts of detailed ways to avoid exculpation -- then you persuade people that it stands a higher chance of being true. If your audience thrives on plot elements of The Bourne Absurdity type, then that's what you should make up.

For those who aren't talented at weaving these extemporaneous thriller novels, there's always the fallback positions of, "Just asking questions," or "I don't know what happened, but it's clear the official story is a lie."

 

[Animal]

It doesnt matter anyway since the lack of evidence for CD rules out the need to worry about the ludicrously stupid logistics of rigging the explosives in the first place. Tony should focus on proving the explosives and thermite were actually present first. Only afterwards are methods of implementation relevant. There is ansolutely no need to accept a false premise for aegumentative purposes to show the build on theory as silly, hes been in this game for yeRs, its his burden... he either puts up or shuts up

You are supposed to play "whack a mole" hitting them on the head.......not knocking their feet out from under them.

 

[ozeco41]

It doesnt matter anyway since the lack of evidence for CD rules out the need to worry about the ludicrously stupid logistics of rigging the explosives in the first place. Tony should focus on proving the explosives and thermite were actually present first. Only afterwards are methods of implementation relevant. There is absolutely no need to accept a false premise for argumentative purposes to show the build on theory as silly, hes been in this game for years, its his burden... he either puts up or shuts up

You are heading in the right direction - certainly time for him to "put up or shutup" - but I suggest you need to take one further step.

The actual need is for Tony et al to prove CD - not simply prove the presence of explosives or incendiaries. So I would change your statment to be:

"Tony should focus on proving there actually was CD. Only afterwards are methods of implementation relevant."

There is no point arguing what was used if it didn't happen. And proving the presence of the material doesn't prove it was used.

No matter how many anomalous issues of materiel or method truthers claim and attempt* to prove they will still need to prove CD.

Even if there were 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte on Ground Zero it would not prove CD.

Hence one of my reasons for my often repeated comment that their logic is "arse about".



* And my reference to them "attempting to prove" is usually wrong - almost universally they reverse burden of proof to demand that we DISprove.

So the standard truther "argument" is in the form:

"This is an anomalous issue which I the truther do not understand. I cannot explain it in context. So it proves CD. So YOU must DISprove it."

And we go along with the reversal because without reversed burden of proof there would be little forum discussion.

 

[jaydeehess]

The only time someone tried to fly a jet by remote, it crashed when they tried it without a pilot onboard. The plan doesn't require "accurate enough", it requires pinpoint accuracy.

Both times actually. The latest had the remote pilot on another aircraft right behind and above the remotely piloted aircraft. Both times the aircraft being controlled was not the size of a 757/767, both times the aircraft was in landing mode , at landing speeds.

 

[ozeco41]

You are supposed to play "whack a mole" hitting them on the head.......not knocking their feet out from under them.

That is a good insight.

Actually knocking their feet out is rarely accepted by participants from either "side". We seem to like playing "Whack-a-Mole".

For example on the old issue of allegedly Missing Jolts.

Lots of folk have enjoyed looking for Jolts and either finding them or not.

The "knock the feet out" reality is that the scenario for creation of Jolts^TSz NEVER existed - so those Jolts^TSz cannot be Missing. And it is pointless looking for them.

But few people seem to appreciate pulling the rug OR the feet out. Probably because it spoils the fun.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For example on the old issue of allegedly Missing Jolts.

Lots of folk have enjoyed looking for Jolts and either finding them or not.

The "knock the feet out" reality is that the scenario for creation of Jolts^TSz NEVER existed - so those Jolts^TSz cannot be Missing. And it is pointless looking for them.

But few people seem to appreciate pulling the rug OR the feet out. Probably because it spoils the fun.

To be fair, one of the most enjoyable things with the Missing Jolt argument is that it's fractally wrong; whatever level of detail you view it in, it displays the same level of wrongness. It's a limiting case mistaken for a realistic model, visualised in one dimension instead of three, used to predict a physically unreasonable phenomenon by the authors' inability to understand basic engineering concepts, which is then claimed to be absent despite the fact that the data shows it, although this is irrelevant because the discretisation noise is greater than the effect wrongly predicted. I've spent six years trying to think of additional ways it could be wrong, and I'm damned if I can come up with any.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Is it just me or has this thread taken a turn toward the bizarre?

I'm afraid Tony et al, are going down the same path as PfT and CiT now, and fast approaching Judy Wood, as far as being bizarre, outlandish, and in developing pure fictional scenarios wrt 9/11.

 

[jaydeehess]

To be fair, one of the most enjoyable things with the Missing Jolt argument is that it's fractally wrong; whatever level of detail you view it in, it displays the same level of wrongness. It's a limiting case mistaken for a realistic model, visualised in one dimension instead of three, used to predict a physically unreasonable phenomenon by the authors' inability to understand basic engineering concepts, which is then claimed to be absent despite the fact that the data shows it, although this is irrelevant because the discretisation noise is greater than the effect wrongly predicted. I've spent six years trying to think of additional ways it could be wrong, and I'm damned if I can come up with any.

Dave

Oh , think the most enjoyable part of the missing jolt is a point made by ozeco. If the jolt is missing then its evidence AGAINST at least one method of explosive demolition.

 

[jaydeehess]

There is another interesting point to make about the North Tower collapse that points to this being what happened. That is that after the initiation at the 98th floor the next floors to disintegrate were the 99th, 100th, and 101st and this happened before they impacted the lower stories. The reason for this would be to ensure there would be enough momentum to go through the impact damage at the 93rd through 97th floors in case too many charges there had been disrupted.

Assuming you are even correct about the sequence.....

Really? So smashing through floors is a foolproof way of making sure that these 'disrupted' charges are not instead ejected out of the building?

 

[ozeco41]

To be fair, one of the most enjoyable things with the Missing Jolt argument is that it's fractally wrong; whatever level of detail you view it in, it displays the same level of wrongness. It's a limiting case mistaken for a realistic model, visualised in one dimension instead of three, used to predict a physically unreasonable phenomenon by the authors' inability to understand basic engineering concepts, which is then claimed to be absent despite the fact that the data shows it, although this is irrelevant because the discretisation noise is greater than the effect wrongly predicted. I've spent six years trying to think of additional ways it could be wrong, and I'm damned if I can come up with any.

Dave

A good summary of the key points Dave - I agree and would add:
It is fun; AND
The errors in MJ are potentially endless.

My preference in these "arguments" is to go for the jugular BUT I'm well aware that I am in the minority.

Oh , think the most enjoyable part of the missing jolt is a point made by ozeco. If the jolt is missing then its evidence AGAINST at least one method of explosive demolition.

I think you might be referring to my recycling of one of my earliest criticisms from the era when I was treating MJ seriously. It goes to two related issues and a conclusion:

Issue #1:
- Tony literally adopts Bazant's "drop through a gap" premise.
- The only way there would be a gap in the real scenario was if there had been CD removal of a bit of column.
- THEREFORE Tony is pre-empting his conclusion by using false starting premises.

Issue #2:
- Tony finds there is no Jolt
- erroneously concluding "CD" whilst
- forgetting that if his created gap had existed there would have been a jolt once the gap was traversed.

Conclusion: The lack of a jolt proves there was no gap. THEREFORE Tony's own argument inherently self rebuts.

Meanwhile the real issue was there all the time waiting to be seen by those who would see. It is the need to comprehend how the cascade failure mechanism progressed relatively gently on a column by column basis with each column buckling >> folding >> breaking as the Top Block chased it downwards.

THEREFORE:
- no Gaps either Bazantian OR Szambotian AND
- NO Jolts^TSz.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh , think the most enjoyable part of the missing jolt is a point made by ozeco. If the jolt is missing then its evidence AGAINST at least one method of explosive demolition.

Your thinking process is apparently as bizarre as Ozeco's. After the 98th floor columns let go in a natural collapse then the 99th floor columns should impact the 97th floor columns. Even if it was a two story collapse the columns above and below the collapse zone would meet in a natural collapse. The first several stories of the North Tower collapse had essentially no tilt so that doesn't evade the issue.

 

[NoahFence]

Your thinking process is apparently as bizarre as Ozeco's. After the 98th floor columns let go in a natural collapse then the 99th floor columns should impact the 97th floor columns. Even if it was a two story collapse the columns above and below the collapse zone would meet in a natural collapse. The first several stories of the North Tower collapse had essentially no tilt so that doesn't evade the issue.

Are you saying the entire top block should have fallen down the 10-12 feet (whatever a floor is), impacted the columns below and then stopped?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

There is. It's Ryan Mackey's Inflationary Theory of Conspiracy Theories, and you heard it here first.

Dave

Ryan Mackey was also guilty of the Irreducible Delusion he was trying to pin on those questioning what happened on 911.

First he had backed Zdenek Bazant's dynamic load theory and a jolt, then when confronted with the no deceleration being observed issue he moved to it the impossible "it all fell on the floors and there was no column impact" theory. He also had to excuse himself with Bazant saying it was an early paper.

I also proved him wrong on the factor of safety of the Twin Tower columns and the fact that the tilt was not 8 degrees until after the upper section had fallen nearly straight down for several stories. After I put him on the spot here he finally acknowledged that I had been right about those things in our Hardfire debate.

 

[jaydeehess]

let's fix the post for you.

Your thinking process is apparently as bizarre as it gets. After the 98th floor columns let go due to a gap being created by explosive demolitions, then the 99th floor columns should impact the 97th floor columns. Even if it was a two story collapse the columns above and below the collapse zone would meet as the upper portion falls. The first several stories of the North Tower collapse had essentially no tilt so that doesn't evade the issue.


Capiche?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

let's fix the post for you.

Your thinking process is apparently as bizarre as it gets. After the 98th floor columns let go due to a gap being created by explosive demolitions, then the 99th floor columns should impact the 97th floor columns. Even if it was a two story collapse the columns above and below the collapse zone would meet as the upper portion falls. The first several stories of the North Tower collapse had essentially no tilt so that doesn't evade the issue.


Capiche?

You don't need a gap to be created. That is where your thinking goes wrong. The upper and lower knees of the buckled columns will collide.

 

[NoahFence]

You don't need a gap to be created. That is where your thinking goes wrong. The upper and lower knees of the buckled columns will collide.

How much weight in that upper section?

 

[jaydeehess]

Ryan Mackey was also guilty of the Irreducible Delusion he was trying to pin on those questioning what happened on 911.

First he had backed Zdenek Bazant's dynamic load theory and a jolt, then when confronted with the no deceleration being observed issue he moved to it the impossible "it all fell on the floors and there was no column impact" theory. He also had to excuse himself with Bazant saying it was an early paper.

I also proved him wrong on the factor of safety of the Twin Tower columns and the fact that the tilt was no 8 degrees until after the upper section had fallen nearly straight down for several stories. After I put him on the spot here he finally admitted I was right on those two counts and that he had been wrong about them in our debate.

,, and others correctly pointed out that the Bazant model was a limiting case, a thought construct in which the greatest amount of lower section resistance to collapse could be imagined to be in effect, and yet the collapse would still continue. Those others point out that it was not what happened in reality in which the substantial vertical load carrying ability of the columns was bypassed and the collapse was primarily driven by floor destruction leading perimeter and core destruction.

 

[DGM]

You don't need a gap to be created. That is where your thinking goes wrong. The upper and lower knees of the buckled columns will collide.

Except some of your "knees" were disturbed by the reality of aircraft impact and fire. Reality is not you're friend on this. Condition in the initiation zone was not "as built". You can't deny this.