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

[jay howard]

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.

In what way is my "lay interpretation" of the burn tests or any of NIST's data incorrect? Is it incorrect to say they built 2 scale versions of the trusses, and several versions of the office areas? No.

Is it incorrect to say the hottest the workstation burn tests got was about 1100C for about 10-20 min? No.

Is it incorrect to say that the official version of events does not have enough energy to cause "collpase initiation"? No.

That's the big takeaway here: there is an energy gap so large, the official version refuses to take a closer look at anything that reinforces that gap. And there's a lot of phenomena that imply a much more powerful energy source than office fires.

For all the physicists here and anyone else who understands that energy isn't free, take a look at the stucture of the official narrative versus the structure of competing explanations: For the official explanation, each high-temperature phenomenon is treated as an exception that, "because of the scale of the destruction, we must expect x amount of phenomena that doesn't have an explanation."

That's the explanation for the molten metal, the sustained, blazing temperatures at the site for weeks, the WPI steel, and a few others. For all the other anomalous evidence, the official theory is silent. We can take this as either a vote of insignificance or a lack of knowledge.

But that hasn't stopped the deluge of "lay" explanations for these phemon: "furnace conditions existed in the wreckage." "Chemicals mixed in the rubble which caused the eutectic on the steel." "Iron microspheres are the result of burned blood." "Iron ms are the result of electrical discharges." "Iron ms are the result of meteorites and welding debris." "Paint manufacturers used extremely flammable paint infused with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles." "All molten metal is aluminium." etc., etc.

None of these attempts to make the evidence go away have any substantiation behind them. No one has repeated a eutectic with elemental S in it from building debris, nor turned blood into iron microspheres, nor found any paint that has uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles, nor melted Al that showed emmisivity in daylight, nor backed up any of the other ad hoc explanations for the high temp phenomena.

If you say, "It looks like there was more energy in the building than the official explanation says there was," instead of being treated as an honest attempt to explain several bodies of evidence, the defenses go up on all sides as if this were some personal attack. It's not. Why can't we honestly talk about the high temp phenomena?

BTW, you're still misusing "begging the question."

 

[JayUtah]

In what way is my "lay interpretation" of the burn tests or any of NIST's data incorrect?

In the ways you've been told several times by me and others already. Do not simply repeat your claims and spin the hamster wheel again.

You are not an expert in forensic testing. All the people who are experts in forensic testing disagree with your belief. No amount of tap-dancing makes that go away.

BTW, you're still misusing "begging the question."

Do not attempt to teach logic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is it incorrect to say that the official version of events does not have enough energy to cause "collpase initiation"? No.

That's the big takeaway here: there is an energy gap so large, the official version refuses to take a closer look at anything that reinforces that gap. And there's a lot of phenomena that imply a much more powerful energy source than office fires.

Still waiting for you to back that up with actual numbers. Just fill in the blanks:

The energy required to initiate collapse is at least _____________ joules.
The energy available to initiate collapse is at most ______________ joules.

If you can't, then you don't even know which is bigger, let alone by how much. So why not just post your numbers so we can all have a look at them? I presume that you actually have some numbers, and you're not just making things up and hoping to get away with it.

For all the physicists here and anyone else who understands that energy isn't free, take a look at the stucture of the official narrative versus the structure of competing explanations: For the official explanation, each high-temperature phenomenon is treated as an exception that, "because of the scale of the destruction, we must expect x amount of phenomena that doesn't have an explanation."

That's the explanation for the molten metal, the sustained, blazing temperatures at the site for weeks, the WPI steel, and a few others.

Utter, utter rubbish. All these things are understood in terms of well known phenomena. The molten metal is normal in fires, once it's accepted that any identification of its composition is no more than speculation. Sustained underground fires are well known. And so on.

For all the other anomalous evidence, the official theory is silent. We can take this as either a vote of insignificance or a lack of knowledge.

"Anomalous" in this context usually means "made up by truthers."

If you say, "It looks like there was more energy in the building than the official explanation says there was," instead of being treated as an honest attempt to explain several bodies of evidence, the defenses go up on all sides as if this were some personal attack.

A couple of comments on that. Firstly, you're not saying "It looks like there was more energy [...]," (as if you could tell how much energy there was by looking, rather an absurd idea), you're saying "There was more energy [...]". So stop misrepresenting your own argument. And secondly, you're making a claim of fact and refusing to back it up with data. That won't go unchallenged.

It's not. Why can't we honestly talk about the high temp phenomena?

OK, how about you start by honestly posting your evidence for the claim that there wasn't enough energy available to initiate the collapse? That means numbers and sources for those numbers. If you know what you're talking about you should already know those numbers, so if you're honest it won't be difficult.

Dave

 

[Animal]

In what way is my "lay interpretation" of the burn tests or any of NIST's data incorrect? Is it incorrect to say they built 2 scale versions of the trusses, and several versions of the office areas? No.

Is it incorrect to say the hottest the workstation burn tests got was about 1100C for about 10-20 min? No.

Is it incorrect to say that the official version of events does not have enough energy to cause "collpase initiation"? No.

That's the big takeaway here: there is an energy gap so large, the official version refuses to take a closer look at anything that reinforces that gap. And there's a lot of phenomena that imply a much more powerful energy source than office fires.

For all the physicists here and anyone else who understands that energy isn't free, take a look at the stucture of the official narrative versus the structure of competing explanations: For the official explanation, each high-temperature phenomenon is treated as an exception that, "because of the scale of the destruction, we must expect x amount of phenomena that doesn't have an explanation."

That's the explanation for the molten metal, the sustained, blazing temperatures at the site for weeks, the WPI steel, and a few others. For all the other anomalous evidence, the official theory is silent. We can take this as either a vote of insignificance or a lack of knowledge.

But that hasn't stopped the deluge of "lay" explanations for these phemon: "furnace conditions existed in the wreckage." "Chemicals mixed in the rubble which caused the eutectic on the steel." "Iron microspheres are the result of burned blood." "Iron ms are the result of electrical discharges." "Iron ms are the result of meteorites and welding debris." "Paint manufacturers used extremely flammable paint infused with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles." "All molten metal is aluminium." etc., etc.

None of these attempts to make the evidence go away have any substantiation behind them. No one has repeated a eutectic with elemental S in it from building debris, nor turned blood into iron microspheres, nor found any paint that has uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles, nor melted Al that showed emmisivity in daylight, nor backed up any of the other ad hoc explanations for the high temp phenomena.

If you say, "It looks like there was more energy in the building than the official explanation says there was," instead of being treated as an honest attempt to explain several bodies of evidence, the defenses go up on all sides as if this were some personal attack. It's not. Why can't we honestly talk about the high temp phenomena?

BTW, you're still misusing "begging the question."

Wow.....more gish galloping on the hamster wheel.

BTW.....molten metal in fires is NOT an anomaly nor high temperatures in rubble piles......nor the rest of your made up BS and personal incredulity.

For fire. you need a heat source. oxygen, and a fuel source.....all of which were in plentiful supply in the rubble piles.......no one except the lunatic fringe troofer groups think that fires in the rubble were an issue.

 

[beachnut]

..."Paint manufacturers used extremely flammable paint infused with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles."

Called pigment. Lay what? ... knowledge and science debunked 911 truth long ago - 13 years ago

Paint can have 100nm Fe₂O₃.

Why can't 911 truth figure out paint?

http://yuefangchem.en.made-in-china...ent-96-Iron-Oxide-Red-Power-Model-IR-110.html

Do you need a ton of 100nm iron oxide for your paint?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

In the ways you've been told several times by me and others already. Do not simply repeat your claims and spin the hamster wheel again.

You are not an expert in forensic testing. All the people who are experts in forensic testing disagree with your belief. No amount of tap-dancing makes that go away.



Do not attempt to teach logic.

Ironically, it would seem you need some lessons in logic here, as all you are doing is appealing to authority in your attempt to dismiss Jay Howard's points.

Have these alleged forensic experts that you mention showed where all of the thermal energy could have come from, in the time frame involved, to cause the Twin Tower collapses? That is the question Jay is asking and you certainly haven't answered it.

 

[JayUtah]

Have these alleged forensic experts...

Ninety-nine point five percent of the relevant qualified professionals. Let's keep in mind just exactly what level of credibility Truthers have in the real world.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ninety-nine point five percent of the relevant qualified professionals. Let's keep in mind just exactly what level of credibility Truthers have in the real world.

I think the appropriate way to answer the questions involves objectivity. Can you be objective and stop meandering into subjective areas like who has what credibility? It doesn't address the points Jay has brought up about the seeming dearth of thermal energy required to heat the structure enough to cause it to collapse.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Jay H has brought up the same fatal flaw over and over again. He is blind the to effect that the tests he conflates with reality were based on standardized tests which did not by intent or otherwise replicate it. If he cannot grasp that, there is no discussion because the more one plays along with the false starting premise the farther reality you must diverge to make it work. His assumptions on the purpose of the tests, and the applicability of their results makes his argument a moot point essentially

 

[JayUtah]

I think the appropriate way to answer the questions involves objectivity.

Objectively we have the near unanimous voice of an entire licensed profession saying one thing, and you and J. Howard spinning a bad spy novel to the contrary, amid much bluster and ad hominem argumentation that is wholly out of place. You keep telling us you're making a "technical" argument. The reception of that argument by the body of trained, licensed professionals skilled and certified in that specific technical field is not irrelevant no matter how much you protest.

The flaws in Howard's argument have been brought to his attention innumerable times, and like you, he simply declares them irrelevant and presses onward. You are literally asking the world to believe that thousands upon thousands of professionals are either grossly in error or deliberately misinformative, while you alone are correct. The gravity of that request does not diminish simply because you wish it to. Nor does the fact that your arguments have zero traction in the profession.

The objective judgment is that you are mistaken -- not the thousands of practicing professionals.

It doesn't address the points Jay has brought up about the seeming dearth of thermal energy required to heat the structure enough to cause it to collapse.

Howard's error has been described to him at length.

 

[pgimeno]

Still waiting for you to back that up with actual numbers. Just fill in the blanks:

The energy required to initiate collapse is at least _____________ joules.
The energy available to initiate collapse is at most ______________ joules.

If you can't, then you don't even know which is bigger, let alone by how much. So why not just post your numbers so we can all have a look at them? I presume that you actually have some numbers, and you're not just making things up and hoping to get away with it.

Here's a little help.

A valid answer would be "I don't know how much energy is required, but for sure more than X joules, and I don't know the total amount available, but for sure less than Y joules" where X >= Y.

Of course, with sound justification for X and Y.

 

[beachnut]

I think the appropriate way to answer the questions involves objectivity. Can you be objective and stop meandering into subjective areas like who has what credibility? It doesn't address the points Jay has brought up about the seeming dearth of thermal energy required to heat the structure enough to cause it to collapse.

Jay can't do fire science, so he can't figure out the heat energy from the office fires.

From the office fires, there was more heat energy than 2,700 tons of the Jones fantasy thermite scenario.

Who did your inside job fantasy. Jay has no valid points.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The objective judgment is that you are mistaken -- not the thousands of practicing professionals.

The "thousands of practicing professionals" argument is as old as it is lame, given that most "professionals" never came across this argument. Gage said this about it (and you of course know that it is true):

Über zweitausend Architekten und Ingenieure haben sich ihren Forderungen angeschlossen. Das klingt eindrucksvoll, dennoch repräsentiert ihre Organisation nur eine kleine Minderheit aller Architekten und Ingenieure…

Es gibt abertausende Architekten und Ingenieure auf der Welt, die beispielsweise noch nie etwas vom Einsturz von WTC 7 gehört haben – sie können daher gar kein qualifiziertes Urteil darüber abgeben. Diejenigen, die wir mit unseren Vorträgen erreichen, schließen sich meist unseren Schlussfolgerungen an. Bei der Veranstaltung in der Urania waren fünfzehn Ingenieure und fünf Architekten anwesend. Keiner von ihnen verließ die Veranstaltung in dem Glauben, dass die offizielle Version stimmt, sondern alle stimmten unseren Forderungen zu. Wenn wir Kollegen mit den von uns zusammengetragenen Fakten konfrontieren, stimmen uns erfahrungsgemäß die meisten zu, nur wenige beschimpfen uns als „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ oder ähnliches.

 

[GlennB]

Why did you post that in German on an English-speaking forum? It seems quite rude behaviour. Care to translate?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why did you post that in German on an English-speaking forum? It seems quite rude behaviour. Care to translate?

Jesus, Glenn. Really? It's 2015.

 

[GlennB]

Jesus, Glenn. Really? It's 2015.

Indeed it is, so I can copy/paste into a machine translator. But so can you, and doing it your way means that every reader has to do it just to save you the effort. It's rude.

 

[Spanx]

Indeed it is, so I can copy/paste into a machine translator. But so can you, and doing it your way means that every reader has to do it just to save you the effort. It's rude.

It's nothing exciting, just Gage's way of getting people to donate more money so he can get the word out to the thousands of A&E's who haven't seen Wtc7 collapse.

Same old.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Indeed it is, so I can copy/paste into a machine translator. But so can you, and doing it your way means that every reader has to do it just to save you the effort. It's rude.

Every reader but those who can read it in the language it was written in, Glenn. Your complaint is laughable and shows how deeply reflective your approach of the topic is.

 

[Spanx]

Every reader but those who can read it in the language it was written in, Glenn. Your complaint is laughable and shows how deeply reflective your approach of the topic is.

Why did you post it in German ?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Why did you post it in German ?

Because it was published in German and like with the whole interview interested parties will have to find a way to understand it. Why do you ask?