If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[Steve001]

These issues need to be addressed by experts. I am not an expert.

But why do you question the experts that have already filed investigations? This brings me right back to the question I ask you today:

Why is the "official" story not true? Somewhere in that question lays the root of your angst. I really would love to here what causes it.

But I feel you'll just ignore this question because it would be too revealing of yourself if you were to answer. I copied this from this article because I agree with this conclusion that this is what is going on in your mind.

I want to argue for something which is controversial, although I believe that it is also intuitive and commonsensical. My claim is this: Oliver believes what he does because that is the kind of thinker he is or, to put it more bluntly, because there is something wrong with how he thinks. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not, as the US legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues, that they have little relevant information. The key to what they end up believing is how they interpret and respond to the vast quantities of relevant information at their disposal. I want to suggest that this is fundamentally a question of the way they are. Oliver isn’t mad (or at least, he needn’t be). Nevertheless, his beliefs about 9/11 are the result of the peculiarities of his intellectual constitution – in a word, of his intellectual character. https://aeon.co/essays/the-intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists

 

[BasqueArch]

I guess you did not watch the video.
I guess you ignore all of the evidence that exists. You claim that no one has come up with anything. That is nonsense. The issue is that people like you ignore it.

Crap out.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by pgimeno
That doesn't suffice. Many people found that Newton's physics and Galileo's relativity were wrong, yet they weren't abandoned until Einstein provided a better replacement for both.

So, even if AE911T succeeded, which they haven't because they're focusing on the wrong premises (proving NIST wrong doesn't disprove that fire brought down the building, and they aren't even proving NIST wrong given their fire modelling), it's still a long way until providing a complete theory that can replace the current one and matches the overwhelming amount of evidence we have that supports the established narrative.

Which you would think would be the actual point of any investigation- otherwise, all you have is endless nitpicking, a CTist's wet dream of eternal JAQ-ing off. It's why people keep telling them they need some sort of alternative theory that comprehensively explains the whole day's events better; without one, they're in the ridiculous position of demanding an "investigation" that reaches a non-conclusion as a conclusion, "conspiracy" as a place-keeper for a explanation. JFK CTists have done this for 50+ years, and kept the industry going by keeping the question alive with no intention of ever actually answering it. It's the mystery they want, not any real investigation that might resolve it.

 

[tfk]

I am not an expert.

Funny how often that comes up ... whenever you wish to avoid giving an answer.

You really need not remind us.
Really.

I don't need to be an expert to tell who is credible or not.

Ahhh, and this statement is completely wrong.

For you, "credible" means "agrees with what [FF] believes".

"Credible to you" is 100% irrelevant.

What is absolutely, 100% relevant is "possesses demonstrated expertise in the specific question under examination".

You'll note that while you, personally, play the determinant role in "what is credible to you", you play precisely zero role in the second criteria (i.e., "demonstrated expertise ...").

Who, then, decides "who has demonstrated expertise in some specific field"??

Let's see if you can figure out any way to decide this.
I am not hopeful that you method will have any validity.

 

[FalseFlag]

The fact you're copping out shows you aren't serious at all. If you were serious then you wouldn't be leaving it up to other people.

I won't answer you because it's pointless.

 

[FalseFlag]

So who are the experts?
How would you know they are the right experts?

I will let the experts decide.

 

[FalseFlag]

This is never going to happen because there are no experts actually considering these questions.

2,514 experts disagree with you.

 

[FalseFlag]

What is absolutely, 100% relevant is "possesses demonstrated expertise in the specific question under examination".

Show me an expert on this forum who demonstrates their expertise.

 

[DGM]

2,514 experts disagree with you.

Would you like to place a wager?

 

[FalseFlag]

Would you like to place a wager?

No.
You won't pay when you lose.

 

[DGM]

No.
You won't pay when you lose.

We could put the money up front and have someone else hold it.

I'd have no problem with that.

 

[FalseFlag]

We could put the money up front and have someone else hold it.

I'd have no problem with that.

Pointless.
I also have no idea what you think we need to be betting on.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Show me an expert on this forum who demonstrates their expertise.

Me, I am an expert on why you're never going to get a new investigation, because 99% of truth movement claims are merely lies!

 

[DGM]

Pointless.
I also have no idea what you think we need to be betting on.

The fact your 2500 AE's will get another investigation. Something like the several thousand that believe in Bigfoot finding one.

 

[pgimeno]

https://aeon.co/essays/the-intellectual-character-of-conspiracy-theorists

Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting read.

 

[Steve001]

Thanks for the link. It was a very interesting read.

Happy to hear you read it. I'd be happier still if FF read it.

 

[FalseFlag]

Happy to hear you read it. I'd be happier still if FF read it.

Here's what you don't understand.

Let's look at WTC7 and nothing else. Forget everything else, just focus on WTC7.

1. Office fires burned uncontrolled for several hours. How they started is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that there were fires in WTC7. No, the entire building did not burn, but there were fires.

2. Regardless of when you start to measure the collapse initiation, and regardless of when you stop measuring it, freefall was observed for 2.25 seconds. NIST says this happened, and it has been independently verified.

3. NIST did not explain freefall. They only said the columns buckled. This is not an explanation. An explanation would be one that described why the columns buckled.

4. NIST released a computer model but they did not release the data they used for their model.

5. No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11.

Now. When you look at these facts, it becomes obvious that the investigation was not complete. It is NOT a conspiracy theory to look at the evidence, then look at the NIST report, and then come to the conclusion that we need a new investigation.

That is not a conspiracy theory. No one is alleging a conspiracy. We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

 

[waypastvne]

Here's what you don't understand.

Let's look at WTC7 and nothing else. Forget everything else, just focus on WTC7.

1. Office fires burned uncontrolled for several hours. How they started is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that there were fires in WTC7. No, the entire building did not burn, but there were fires.

2. Regardless of when you start to measure the collapse initiation, and regardless of when you stop measuring it, freefall was observed for 2.25 seconds. NIST says this happened, and it has been independently verified.

3. NIST did not explain freefall. They only said the columns buckled. This is not an explanation. An explanation would be one that described why the columns buckled.

4. NIST released a computer model but they did not release the data they used for their model.

5. No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11.

Now. When you look at these facts, it becomes obvious that the investigation was not complete. It is NOT a conspiracy theory to look at the evidence, then look at the NIST report, and then come to the conclusion that we need a new investigation.

That is not a conspiracy theory. No one is alleging a conspiracy. We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

So the only thing the New investigation needs to explain is the 2.25 seconds of free fall ?

 

[jaydeehess]

Here's what you don't understand.

Doubtful

Let's look at WTC7 and nothing else. Forget everything else, just focus on WTC7.

As if it happened in a vaccum, sure, got it!

1. Office fires burned uncontrolled for several hours. How they started is irrelevant. We know, for a fact, that there were fires in WTC7. No, the entire building did not burn, but there were fires.

Look, you got something right. Don't get cocky now.

2. Regardless of when you start to measure the collapse initiation, and regardless of when you stop measuring it, freefall was observed for 2.25 seconds. NIST says this happened, and it has been independently verified.

Not sure anyone has disputed that. Except to point out that it wasn't constant at g and was indeed over g for part of that, but do go on.

3. NIST did not explain freefall. They only said the columns buckled. This is not an explanation. An explanation would be one that described why the columns buckled.

There is no reason to model anything that far into a collapse, in the first place. However, earlier I asked you to post NIST's assigned task since you claimed they were supposed to explain every minute aspect of collapse. Since you ignored the request, ozeco posted it and lo and behold, you were what is commonly referred to as "wrong".

4. NIST released a computer model but they did not release the data they used for their model.

Yeah, about that, if only someone had produced an independent series of FEAs. Yeah, someone like Nordenson et al who did exactly that and concluded that WTC7 collapsed as a result of several factors , and was initiated by a failure precipitated by the fires and the heating effects on col79 and the girder between col79and 44.
How is it that was possible for them to produce an FEA? How was it not possible for AE911T to do so? I mean really, don't they have a large cadre of engineering and computer experts at their disposal, who, I would expect, could give them a cut rate on services rendered.

5. No steel-frame high rise collapsed before or since 9/11.

Untrue. Delft University springs to mind. (Remember when you took exception to the characterization if 110 storey building hitting WTC7? See the connection?)

Now. When you look at these facts, it becomes obvious that the investigation was not complete. It is NOT a conspiracy theory to look at the evidence, then look at the NIST report, and then come to the conclusion that we need a new investigation.

That is not a conspiracy theory. No one is alleging a conspiracy. We are demanding a new investigation because there has not been a thorough one to begin with.

Then come up with a compelling reason for one. Note that since WTC7's collapse occurred as part of a larger event including the individual aspects in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, that your scenario will necessarily have to include the whole shebang.
Until then it's nothing more than conspiracy theory and conjecture driven by a world view dominated by paranoia.

 

[jaydeehess]

So the only thing the New investigation needs to explain is the 2.25 seconds of free fall ?

Of course not. He only says that for this latest post.