That's not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning his claim of explosives into my theory. Which is tainting and preconception. I'm also questioning his constraint of possible references. Why doesn't he want to have any reference to NIST? Limit possible claims of people hearing noises? That sounds a bit like a cover up doesn't it? I want you to prove this, but you can't use that. Mhhh typical debunker strategy. When the evidence beings to go against their cause they just disregard it. And what better than a preemptive disregard.
You don't
have a theory. You have a misconception. You haven't stated how thermite was supposed to have worked to bring down the towers. You haven't stated how it was emplaced. Furthermore, you sure as heck haven't stated how the existing evidence - the recovered steel, the witness testimony, the observed behavior of the towers - is explained by thermite. Thermite is *not* a theory; if it truly were used, it's a
component, a
detail. It's nothing more. A "theory" is the result of an analysis of a set of facts and observations culminating in an explanation of what's being observed. You haven't even put forth any facts, nor cited any observations. With that, how are you supposed to prove your point?
-----
You need to understand something: Requesting a coherent theory isn't some argumentative tactic. Rather, it's a way to get you to provide a concrete basis for your arguments. It is a way to be disciplined about how you frame arguments and how you present details. It is also a way to critically discern what makes sense and what fails.
When we argue our points, we work from the concrete basis that has been established over time. We work from the observed initial facts, such as the videos, eyewitness testimony, news and amateur video, and radar data to establish that the jets impacted. We take in the reports of the fires and structural damage. We add to that the knowledge of how the buildings were constructed, and also all the knowledge built over the years about how structures react in fires, and how structure fires themselves behave. We take in observations, such as the number of floors that were on fire, the behavior of the exterior structure, etc. And we use all of that and all the other pieces of information and build a
theory, i.e. an explanation of how the known facts (jet impacts, damage to structure, structure fires, design of the buildings, etc.) when taken in conjunction with known, established engineering and physical principles of fire behavior, tall structure behavior, etc. explains what we saw when the towers collapsed.
That is the basic, superficial explanation of what a theory contains. It contains a set of facts, established principles, application of those principles to the facts and situation, and a culmnation of what all that adds up to. "Thermite" is most assuredly
not a theory, not by any standard, let alone a rigorous one.
If you aren't working from a solid base of knowledge, you're demonstrating that you
haven't studied the knowledge that exists regarding the collapse. That's why we're constantly on you to provide it: It's to give you the opportunity to show that you haven't merely gone to truther sites and memorized a canon of nits to pick. It's to show that you've truly
analyzed the event, the facts, and the principles and
concluded that there's something wrong with the explanation as it stands.
In short, pushing you for a concrete theory is giving you the opportunity to demonstrate that you've truly thought things through.
That's why you need to provide it. Without it, all you're doing is being a gadfly, fluttering about and around talking points without true comprehension of what they all mean as a whole. If you want to distinguish yourself from the rest of the truther pack, you'll work rise above that. But if you don't, if you stick with what you've been doing, all you'll demonstrate to those of us who've studied this is that you're unwilling to put the work in. And at that point, why should we take you seriously?
