• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Is there a legitimate reason to question the official narrative?

  • Total voters
    153
jay howard said:
"Paint manufacturers used extremely flammable paint infused with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles." "

nor found any paint that has uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles,"
Click to expand...
Paint has been produced with specific size particle distributions since before WWII. To produce high quality paint, with specific properties for specific jobs, including the production of colour ranges, requires the careful control of pigment particle size.

Iron oxide pigments have been synthetically produced since the 1920s. The Laux process was successful in producing iron oxide particles with specific size distributions in 1926, that's 89 years ago.

http://bayferrox.com/uploads/tx_lxsmatrix/Laux_brochure_english_compressed.pdf

There is nothing special about paint with specific sized particles because particle size produces defined characteristics. That's the whole point.

You have been told this but chose to ignore it. You will ignore this post as well because you wish to remain ignorant. There is no point in addressing the rest of your gish gallop because you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong and learn something.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
NIST is irrelevant, NIST can actually be wrong, and it does not prevent the collapses from being the natural occurace of a fire, weakening the steel.
Also there is deceleration in the collapses, shown by the way the structure absorbs the energy of the collapses.
Click to expand...
All true. Ironic part is, Tony is the only one here* that still needs the NIST and Bazant models.

* outside of other followers.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
How has this question I asked, now morphed into some apparent gotcha for Dave by you, Tony? Why do YOU only frame the question in terms of NIST?
Click to expand...

What's really stupid about Tony's whole line of questioning here is that NIST pointed out that their FEA model doesn't reproduce the degree of pull-in observed, explained the specific simplifications in the model which they had to make for the model to converge, described how these would result in an underestimate of the pull-in forces, and stated that they had then taken the actual observed pull-in as an input to the next stage of modelling.

Every model is a simplification; that's pretty much a truism. Simplifications have to be made to the point where the model will run at all, and some method has to be used to correct for the effects of those simplifications. In the case of the NIST model, this has all been done correctly and explained in detail. Tony simply chooses to deny the existence or validity of this explanation, as he does with anything that disagrees with his predetermined conclusion; and he thinks that anyone who doesn't share his delusions is obviously wrong, so he thinks he gets a Gotcha! just from the fact that someone disagrees with him. In effect, he's trying to Gotcha reality.

Dave
 
Childlike Empress said:
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):
Click to expand...

The argument that professionals "have never heard of WTC 7 therefore can't make a qualified judgement" is a nice safety net but fails after one points out that AE911's definition of building and fire case studies is premised on an incredible bastardization of the sciences he should be expected to be reasonably competent in. Gage cannot fall on the "ignorance factor" although that does not stop his group from trying.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
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):
Click to expand...

experience a "conspiracy nut" (lol, they are calling Richard Gage a nut) The best part of the translation is the nut stuff.


It is funny, the news paper knows Richard Gage is a liar and a fraud. Good job debunking Richard Gage for failed nut. WTC 7 collapse due to fire, and Gage can't figure it out after 13 years; it means Gage is an idiot, or Richard Gage is making 500,000 dollars from idiots who can't think for themselves.

The funny part, the critical mass to make it into prime time. lol, nuts who only idiots believe, Richard Gage and his band of failed experts. Richard Gage mocking the murder of thousands of his fellow citizens, cashing in on the act of 19 terrorists.

Is Richard Gage dumber than CIT, or what. 13 years of failure for 911 truth, 13 years of over a million dollars in donations by Richard Gage, the 911 truth travel club for one. Is Robert Balsamo upset Gage is making 500,000 dollars selling lies? Amazing, the idiots in 911 truth don't have to be paid to support lies and fantasy - they volunteer to be stupid and wear delusional "inside job" t-shirts. Ignorance, in the 13 years of celebration by 911 truth leaders cashing in on the fringe CT movement based on ignorance. A circle of woo.

Richard Gage is a legitimate reason to suspectknow 911 truth is fake.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
experience a "conspiracy nut" (lol, they are calling Richard Gage a nut) The best part of the translation is the nut stuff.


It is funny, the news paper knows Richard Gage is a liar and a fraud. Good job debunking Richard Gage for failed nut. WTC 7 collapse due to fire, and Gage can't figure it out after 13 years; it means Gage is an idiot, or Richard Gage is making 500,000 dollars from idiots who can't think for themselves.

The funny part, the critical mass to make it into prime time. lol, nuts who only idiots believe, Richard Gage and his band of failed experts. Richard Gage mocking the murder of thousands of his fellow citizens, cashing in on the act of 19 terrorists.

Is Richard Gage dumber than CIT, or what. 13 years of failure for 911 truth, 13 years of over a million dollars in donations by Richard Gage, the 911 truth travel club for one. Is Robert Balsamo upset Gage is making 500,000 dollars selling lies? Amazing, the idiots in 911 truth don't have to be paid to support lies and fantasy - they volunteer to be stupid and wear delusional "inside job" t-shirts. Ignorance, in the 13 years of celebration by 911 truth leaders cashing in on the fringe CT movement based on ignorance. A circle of woo.

Richard Gage is a legitimate reason to suspectknow 911 truth is fake.
Click to expand...

13 years of fraud not failure, no point in succeeding, if succeeding cuts the money flowing in,
And ends the free vacations.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The argument that professionals "have never heard of WTC 7 therefore can't make a qualified judgement" is a nice safety net but fails after one points out that AE911's definition of building and fire case studies is premised on an incredible bastardization of the sciences he should be expected to be reasonably competent in. Gage cannot fall on the "ignorance factor" although that does not stop his group from trying.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't get this. How does AE911's definition of building and fire case studies have anything to do with whether or not professionals have heard of WTC 7?
 
Georgio said:
Sorry, I don't get this. How does AE911's definition of building and fire case studies have anything to do with whether or not professionals have heard of WTC 7?
Click to expand...

Because the notion that "professionals have never heard of [some conspiracy claim]" is not proven. It's offered as a hypothetical excuse to explain why there is generally very little acceptance or discussion of the conspiracy claims in legitimate technical circles. It's invariably a begged question, and the faithful invariably do not question it, because a certain amount of the appeal of conspiracism is the belief in special knowledge or status -- "I know something even the qualified professionals don't know!"

But it's not the only hypothesis that explains why conspiracy claims generally go undiscussed in bona fide professional circles. The competing hypothesis is that the conspiracy claim is clearly based on pseudoscience, on its face, not upon any expression of the legitimate practice of the relevant sciences. Laymen don't see this, but the professionals do because that easy knowledge and judgment on those specific topics is what it means to be an expert in them.

Even worse, sometimes conspiracy claims are based on bald-faced lies or obvious misstatements of putative fact. Hence most professionals consider it not worth their time. This hypothesis can be, and often has been tested, because the comparison of conspiracy claims to the tenets of the science is a proposition-versus-proposition question that can be studied reliably by any interested party. The other hypothesis requires demographic study that is beyond most fact-checkers.

While we're on the subject, which one of the regular posters here spot-checked Gage's list by calling 15 of the AE911T signatories? As I recall, the ones whose contact information was actually correct and verifiable could not articulate any of AE911T's claims or activities. So if the argument is that the 99.5% of the rank-and-file professionals are not Truthers only because they haven't heard the claims, then Gage had better clean house among those who are Truthers but don't know anything about Gage's actual work.
 
JayUtah said:
While we're on the subject,
Click to expand...
But we're not on that subject (conspiracy theories in general). It was clarification of Grizzly Bear's meaning (so, from him) regarding professional knowledge of WTC7 and its relation to AE911's definition of building and fire case studies I wanted. I can't see what one has to do with the other.

Grizzly Bear said:
nvrmnd
Click to expand...
???
 
Georgio said:
But we're not on that subject (conspiracy theories in general).
Click to expand...

My addendum was not about conspiracy theories in general, but about the specific claim that professional disbelief in the 9/11 conspiracy theory equated to ignorance of it among professionals. That suggests that those who affirm a belief in Gage's claims, and whom Gage repeatedly cites as allies, should be able to elucidate those claims when asked. If they can't, it casts additional doubt on the alleged correlation between belief in a 9/11 conspiracy theory and knowledge of it.

As for the rest of my post, it applies to the 9/11 claims in particular as well as to conspiracism in general. Apply whatever scope you feel like addressing. But don't simply sidestep the points because you feel they were not at an appropriate scope. I answered your question. I drew the connection between the two propositions you asked about.
 
JayUtah said:
I drew the connection between the two propositions you asked about.
Click to expand...

I must have missed it, sorry - I've read your post twice.

Statement 1 with some options - 10% of professionals know about WTC7, 40% of professionals know about WTC7, 90% of professionals know about WTC7

Statement 2 with some options - AE911's definition of building and fire case studies is good/bad

What could statement 1 have to do with statement 2?
 
Georgio said:
Sorry, I don't get this. How does AE911's definition of building and fire case studies have anything to do with whether or not professionals have heard of WTC 7?
Click to expand...
Gage lies, and gullible people send him money. Why does anything AE911T have, say, or post have any bearing on reality? Richard Gage has no clue who did 911 according to Richard Gage - he is an idiot, or snakeoil salesman ripping off people at a rate of $500,000/year.

No rational engineers support Gage's lies - so far less than 0.1 percent, most likely close to 0.01 percent of all engineers have fallen for Gage's lies. There are more mentally ill engineers than there are engineers who have fallen for the fraud of Gage.

Gage has no evidence for CD, thus any engineers who support him are idiots for failing to see the lack of evidence. Gage has no legitimate support, and Richard Gage is stuck on the Internet begging for money for his group which produces lies dumbed down for failed engineers.
note, ... , hint... , "typing practice" is sarcasm, used when other posters play the waste of time card, or other off topic nonsense. :woo (understand, poster claims we are wasting time, [sarcasm/rationalize] at least we have typing practice[/sarcasm/etc]
Gage has no legitimate reasons to question 19 terrorists did 911; in fact it appears Richard Gage has no clue what happened on 911 as he spreads the fantasy of CD, thermite and high explosives. No evidence, no clue, take money, tour the world. Gage's goal...

Why can't anyone list Richard Gage's evidence for CD? there is none (simple facts debunk Richard Gage - did Richard Gage read NIST)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom