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

[caveman1917]

[OT] Funny that, yours was post #1988. What are the chances?

Probably higher than you think. See the birthday problem.

ETA: Correction, not actually a birthday problem.

 

[jay howard]

Hmmm, what other claims can we think of that have no video or mechanism support and are simply an unsupportable construct of a certain group of like-minded individuals?

It's refreshing when apologists for the official theory come to terms with the fact that it has absolutely no evidential backing. That's a good starting place from which to begin a discussion.

 

[JayUtah]

It's refreshing when apologists for the official theory come to terms with the fact that it has absolutely no evidential backing.

He didn't say anything of the kind. He was sarcastically alluding that Szamboti's theories for what happened don't even meet his own standard of proof. He wasn't endorsing Szamboti's standard.

And while we're on that subject, we're still waiting for you to give us a detailed description of a testing program that meets your standard of proof for forensic engineering testing. I don't endorse your standard, but if you propose it then I expect you to be able to meet it.

You can't do it.

Which is to say, the Truth movement seems to be universally based on ignorantly proposed double standards that in no way relate to what standards actually prevail in the relevant disciplines.

 

[NoahFence]

It's refreshing when apologists for the official theory come to terms with the fact that it has absolutely no evidential backing. That's a good starting place from which to begin a discussion.

So I see Jay's going straight to "no planes, no fires, actually nothing of any note happened on 9/11 at all."

 

[jay howard]

Are you aware that Major Tom has documented, and rather convincingly, that the core columns above floor 98 were bolted, rather than welded?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6094100#post6094100

This may be mechanism that you are looking for:

1- truss sag and increased load on the exterior columns are not able to cause inward bowing. NIST needs to add in another 6kip pull to make it happen.

2- The columns above 98 are bolted together. A few of the bolted connections fail, resulting in the core columns "hanging". Would a few "hanging" core columns should be able to provide another 6kip pull in?

How much truss sag does the NIST version of events need so that it only requires 6kip to get to "collapse initiation"?

 

[LSSBB]

So I see Jay's going straight to "no planes, no fires, actually nothing of any note happened on 9/11 at all."

Also no pilot notebooks, radar, video of the hijackers, or DNA. What a strange world of denial.

 

[DGM]

How much truss sag does the NIST version of events need so that it only requires 6kip to get to "collapse initiation"?

You forgot increased load.

To answer the question. The amount of sag doesn't change the amount of pull the truss is capable of exerting. In other words, your question has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

 

[jay howard]

He didn't say anything of the kind. He was sarcastically alluding that Szamboti's theories for what happened don't even meet his own standard of proof. He wasn't endorsing Szamboti's standard.

Incorrect. He's trying to say "your theory sucks as much as mine, so I'm right!"

This is what MarkF said:

"Hmmm, what other claims can we think of that have no video or mechanism support and are simply an unsupportable construct of a certain group of like-minded individuals?"

In response to Tony's claim:

"You obviously have no rebuttal to my point that there is no video or mechanism for the inward bowing of the exterior minutes before collapse and that it is nothing but an unsupportable construct in the NIST report."

MarkF is basically saying "I agree that the official theory has no video or known mechanism of action, but neither do any of your CD theories. And the official theory is believed by a lot of people, so suck an egg."

This lack of support for the official theory, however MarkF or you or anyone else tries to spin it, is NOT a good thing. It is not a desireable quality of a theory to have no support--regardless what the theory says.

If your principle of a good theory is that it must have solid, evidential support to be considered a serious contender explanation, that's respectable. I commend that. And that's the basic problem with the official theory: It has zero support from anything (forensic evidence, lab tests, eyewitness accounts, etc.). But MarkF is just saying "neither of our theories/approaches/explanations have much evidential support, but mine is backed by scientists at NIST. Haha! I win!"

And that's just a transparent appeal to authority--an authority who doesn't even try to defend itself from claims that it has no evidential support.

And while we're on that subject, we're still waiting for you to give us a detailed description of a testing program that meets your standard of proof for forensic engineering testing. I don't endorse your standard, but if you propose it then I expect you to be able to meet it.

You can't do it.

The tests UL did for the NIST investigation are good enough for me. Sorry you missed the entire conversation about that and how they demonstrate how heat from the office fires could not have caused the collapses.

Which is to say, the Truth movement seems to be universally based on ignorantly proposed double standards that in no way relate to what standards actually prevail in the relevant disciplines.

If I was textually incompetent, this is where I would insert an irony graphic.

 

[jay howard]

You forgot increased load.

To answer the question. The amount of sag doesn't change the amount of pull the truss is capable of exerting. In other words, your question has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

I'm just asking the question. Sounds like you're saying "it doesn't matter how much the trusses sagged or didn't." Is that correct?

 

[DGM]

I'm just asking the question. Sounds like you're saying "it doesn't matter how much the trusses sagged or didn't." Is that correct?

Yes. They were more of an indicator. The trusses could create the direction of bowing (in) but other forces (load redistribution and lack of bracing) would be the ultimate failing factor.

 

[JayUtah]

MarkF is basically saying "I agree that the official theory has no video or known mechanism of action..."

No.

And that's just a transparent appeal to authority...

Your argument simply appeals to your own authority. Only you don't have any. So it just begs the question. This is likely why all the other Truthers abandoned it years ago.

The tests UL did...

You don't understand the first thing about those tests, or testing in general. Every time someone tries to educate you, you dismiss it as irrelevant.

Before you bluster on, keep in mind that well over 99 percent of the relevant qualified professionals agree with my interpretation, not yours. You've said that means very little to you, but I guarantee it means quite a lot to the people trying to decide whether your argument has any merit.

 

[jay howard]

At last, a quantifiable claim. Pleas post your estimates of (a) the energy available, and (b) the energy required, so we can examine your reasoning. Two numbers will do fine. Since you've determined that one is greater than the other, you must have values for both, right?

Dave

You want me to make you warm cup of milk while I read NCSTAR 1-5B to you? It's all there in black, white and color.

The 1100C for 10-20 minutes is from the UL office workstation burn tests.

The "energy required"? You're asking ME? Why? I've been asking this same question since this discussion began in 2006. I've never gotten a good answer from anyone defending the official theory. Why would you expect me to give you the "energy requirements" for steel failure when the theory you've been defending supposedly answers that question?

We know, from the UL truss system burn tests, that the steel did not fail even when heated up to 800C for about an hour. (That's less than 10% of its room temperature strength, but you knew that, right?) If that wasn't enough energy to make the steel fail, I don't know what the upper limit is, but it's much higher than office fires can account for.

I don't think you're paying attention, Dave.

 

[JayUtah]

We know, from the UL truss system burn tests...

No, your argument simply tries to tell the world what you think should have been known from those tests. You beg the question of your ability to properly interpret those tests and put them in the context of NIST's overall rationale. This argument was tried ten years ago and ultimately abandoned because the lay suppositions upon which it was predicated were ultimately revealed for what they were. The suppositions haven't changed, and your unwillingness to introspect them does not somehow make your claim stronger than its predecessor.

 

[jay howard]

You mean to tell me all you have is a ridiculous theory that you cooked up with absolutely ZERO supporting evidence? And you have the gall to ***** about the animations I posted? ;jaw-dropp

Tisk-tisk tony. Bad form.

So is your principle that "theories with zero support are bunk."?

 

[carlitos]

jay howard - serious question. What are you hoping to accomplish with your postings here?

 

[JayUtah]

So is your principle that "theories with zero support are bunk."?

Your argument has devolved into rewriting everyone's posts to trump up an admission of some kind regarding "zero evidence" or "zero support."

No one is admitting the conventional narrative has "zero support," so give it up. Further, no one accepts your foisted definitions and standards. They haven't since you arrived, and you have side-stepped every attempt to show why your made-up rules don't apply in the real world, and why your layman's interpretations don't relate to professional practice.

 

[DGM]

I don't think you're paying attention

I don't think you understand the reports.

The NIST dismissed the FEMR "pancake theory" because they could not account for the amount of observed truss sag and justify it with the inward bowing.

The trusses had to be under another force outside of gravitational load. The UL tests confirmed this.

 

[beachnut]

It's refreshing when apologists for the official theory come to terms with the fact that it has absolutely no evidential backing. That's a good starting place from which to begin a discussion.

The sad part of 911 truth, they can't figure out there is no official theory, it is only offical facts. 911 truth, in the 14th year of pure BS based on massive ignorance, pushing the CD inside job theory.

Fire did it, 911 truth has no evidence for the silly CD fantasy. A theory 911 truth can't explain, or defend with evidence.

Why is there no evidence for CD, but 2,700 ton of TNT worth of heat energy from fires, just plain old office fire set with 630 ton of TNT in heat energy, burning jet fuel?

Gee, I have evidence, 911 truth has BS, and the idiotic claim of thermite.

13 years of solid failure, and no evidence.

Calling rational people apologists is all the evidence 911 truth can find to defend a theory they can't explain.

13 years, no legitimate reason to question what happened on 911 as the act of 19 terrorists. 13 years. Flight 93 Passengers figure out 911 in minutes, here you are trying to bash NIST, and you never read NIST.

Fire is evidence, what does 911 truth have for CD? For CD 911 truth has talk of BS based on ignorance. No evidence, just talk. Gage has 500k/yr, 911 truth followers have gullible minds.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The "energy required"? You're asking ME? Why? I've been asking this same question since this discussion began in 2006. I've never gotten a good answer from anyone defending the official theory. Why would you expect me to give you the "energy requirements" for steel failure when the theory you've been defending supposedly answers that question?

Because you made a positive claim that the amount of energy present was insufficient to cause collapse. Are you prepared to back that claim up, or are you simply making things up and hoping you'll get away with it? Here's a clue: unless you can post the two numbers I asked for, the answer can only be (b).

Dave

 

[Childlike Empress]

Because you made a positive claim that the amount of energy present was insufficient to cause collapse. Are you prepared to back that claim up, or are you simply making things up and hoping you'll get away with it? Here's a clue: unless you can post the two numbers I asked for, the answer can only be (b).

Dave

That's like a kid that puts a blanket over its head and shouts "now you can't see me". Is this really necessary, Dave?